This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project to make the world’s books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/
‘BS
234d Y¥ »M623 18a Yo v2
Mespr, Neew seh fagact Hilbilnn
Cea vl mM Un Maca “best eucex f Mey
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HAN D-BOOK
TO
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
inte ee
BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIAIRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY Rev. WILLIAM URWICK, M.A.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, 8T. MARY'S OOLLEGE, 8ST. ANDREWS.
WITH A PREFACE AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE AMERICAN EDITION BY A. C. KENDRICK, D.D.,
GREEK PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER,
NEW YORK: FUNK & WAGNALLS, Pustisngrs
10 anp 12 Dey STREET.
1884.
?
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, By FUNK & WAGNALLS, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.
PREFACE
TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
Tue Gospel of John stands pre-eminent among the Gospels, as does Paul’s Epistle to the Romans among the New Testament Epistles. It is, indeed, except in the identity of their fundamental principles, as unlike it as possible. It does not forge, link by link, a chain of impas- sioned argument, and construct a reasoned system of Christian doctrine, but, in simplest and half-fragmentary utterances, brings out those sub- lime truths in which the entire doctrinal system finds its centre and foundation. Its eagle flight springs directly to the skies, and it exhibits the sublime Being who is its subject, not springing amidst the changes of time and the weaknesses of humanity, but having His home in the bosom of the Father and the deeps of eternity. Beyond either of its fellows it opens to our vision the spiritual world, and portrays the king- dom of heaven, not in its more earthly guise and human manifestations, but in its origin in the counsels of eternal love, and in the heavenly truths which originate and underlie it. Its unique and marvellous opening condenses within its-compass a whole system of Theology, in the person of Him who to a world of sin and crror comes with grace and truth, and to a world of death and darkness, with life and light. And the entire work is in keeping with the Prologue. It is throughout, like the seamless robe of the crucified Lord, consistent and harmonious. There is in its plan and purpose no momentary wavering. All its topics are so selected and treated as to subserve the unfolding of the grand truths proclaimed in its introduction, to show us the very heavens opened, and the Son of God and the Son of Man, in the paradoxical harmony of this twofold nature, re-establishing the suspended intercourse between earth and heaven.
The unerring instinct of infidelity has discerned in this Gospel the real battle-ground of Christian Apologetics, and has felt that if the au- thenticity and authority of this production could be discredited the whole evangelical system sbares its discomfiture, and the battle of un- belief is virtually won. Hence it has labored, with equal zeal, learning,
1V PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
and acuteness, to find evidence of its later origin or mythical charac- ter, and establish the radical unlikeness of the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel to Him who is delineated by the Synoptists, and make out be- tween them irreconcilable contradictions.
And there seems at first view much to sustain these assumptions. The Jesus of our Gospel is indeed ushered to our view in a very differ- ent manner, and presents in His character some striking diversities of feature and coloring. Yet a deeper penetration and a longer survey dis- solve the apparent contradictions : the inconsistencies disappear; the difference of situations accounts for the difference in the subjects and mode of treatment, and the many-sided, or rather myriad-sided, character of the Lord, answering to the myriad lights in which its. varied relations present it, appears rounded into symmetry and completeness, not a single feature but harmonizing with, and at last appearing logically de- manded by, every other feature of the wondrous portraiture. The char- acter, as it rises under the handling of its different portrayers, appears in perfect harmony with itself, all that is unfolded in John being poten- tially and in germ contained in its sister Gospels, and all that is unfold- ed at length by the Synoptists being really presupposed in John as its logical consequence or condition, while the whole together forms a character drawn with the utmost freedom and independence, with fear- lessness of any slight and seemingly discrepant deviations, and exhibiting a personality and a life to which the annals of the world furnish no par- allel, which no human imagination could possibly have created, and whose existence on the historic canvas proves its reality and its divinity.
The instinct of the Church too, no Jess keen than that of infidelity, has settled the question of the substantial accordance of this Gospel with its fellows. Had they been really contradictory, either this or the others would have been long ago discredited. They would not have been suffered for all these centuries to repose side by side in loving fellowship, the Gos- pel of the beloved disciple crowning and completing the others, and putting on their work its grand climax: they constituting, as it were, the body, this ‘‘the heart of Christ ;’’ they conducting us about Mount Zion, this leading us into its inner temple ; cach contributing its separate share to the marvellous individuality ; but finally the fourth, latest in time, unique in character, simple with the simplicity of a child, but sublime with seraphic sublimity, breathing the spirit of the disciple who had Jain upon his Master’s bosom, and sharing the very fulness of those spiritual influences which it so fully promises as the gift of the glorified Messiah.
In Meyer our Gospel finds a fitting commentator. The great merits of Meyer asa Biblical expositor are too universally known to need dwelling upon here, and for the work of expounding this Gos-
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vv
pel he has some very special qualifications. To his wide learning, his philological exactness, his exegetical tact and acuteness, his indepen- dence and candour, he adds a hearty and loving sympathy with his author that is among the surest aids to a right understanding of him. With a hearty interest in Biblical truth generally, an interest which evidently grew by what it fed on, Meyer has an especial Jove for the Gospel of John. He has a thorough conviction of its authenticity and its com- plete apostolic authority, such a sympathy both with the Beloved Disciple and his Master, as it would seem could only have grown out of deep communion with that Master’s person and discourses. The mirac- ulous works and the theanthropic nature of the Lord he fully recognizes, and constantly discerns, under different forms of conception, the essen- tial agreement of the Johannean and Pauline Christology.
To the historical statements of our Gospel, Meyer awards his fullest confidence. Indeed, it may be questioned whether he is not unduly partial towards our Gospel, and willing sometimes to yield to itan honour - which places the others at comparative disadvantage. Believing as does the present writer firmly in the substantia] inspiration and historical re- liableness of all the Gospel records, it is not pleasant to see any of them, even confessedly the most spiritual, unduly exalted over its fellows, and awarded, at their expense, the palm of historical credibility. Meyer partakes the loose notions of inspiration so prevalent in Germany, and carrying out his views allows himself to draw distinctions between the Gospels which are not justified by the evidence. To those who have carefully weighed all the evidence, and surveyed the phenomena in their totality, it would seem that even independently of the question of inspi- ration, ali the Gospels have proved their,claim to credibility as faithful records of the life of Jesus, and that we both have a right, and are Jogi- cally bound, in judging them, to proceed upon the assumption that their confessedly fragmentary notices are equally faithful ; are in themselves fairly reconcilable, and that where we cannot unite them intoa harmoni- ous whole, the fault must be in our lack of information rather than in the truthfulness of records. The Gospels are all clearly in a sense fragmentary. None of them pretends to give a complete account of the Lord’s ministry ; each of them manifestly passes over large sections both of the time and field of His labours ; and none attempts to show where and why the deficiencies occur. In these cases it is both our duty and our privilege, on the one hand, to read each record by itself, and get its fall legitimate individual impression, and on the other to bring them into close and constant comparison, fill out as far as we can their respec- tive vacancies, and take for granted that where we cannot, the reason does not lie in any real lack of harmony. The ‘‘harmonistic presup-
vil PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
positions,’’ which Meyer occasionally mentions not very respectfully, seem to me, while they of course are to be applied always cautiously and with judgment, to be vet among the indispensable qualifications of acom- plete interpreter of the Gospels. It must be both his pleasure and his duty to blend the fourfold narrative into the harmony which the totality of the evidence shows must belong to it.
In aiding to bring this Commentary of Mever in a new form before the American public, the editor will state briefly what he has, at the request of the publishers, attempted. First, he has transferred to the bottom of the page most of ite numerous references to the classics and other illustrative works, so as, without lessening its scholarly value, to present a more continuous and readable text. Secondly, he has appended to the several chapters a few notes, partly such as might counteract for the general reader the unfortunate influence of Meyer’s free notions of in- spiration, and his too great readiness to find discrepancies between John and his fellow-Evangelists. He could, however, by no means call special attention to all such cases, and in those which he has noticed he-has in no instance denied a discrepancy where in his opinion the evidence did not warrant the denial. On various other points also the editor has added notes, generally, though not exclusively, where he dissented from Meyer’s views. The limits of some twenty to twenty-five pages to which he was restricted necessarily precluded, even were there no other hindrances, his commenting upon very many of the almost numberless topics of in- terest comprised in this Gospel. The points of discussion have been partly such as he was specially interested in, und partly selected some- what at random, while many on which tbe editor would have been glad to remark have been necessarily passed in silence. He cannot but hope that, such as they are, they will not be wholly void of interest and profit to the students of this Gospel.
Most readers of John are doubtless aware that this along with some other volumes of Meyer has been recently edited in Germany, with great freedom and ability, by Dr. Bernhard Weiss. As the publishers pro- posed to reprint Meyer without alteration, only occasional use could be made of Weiss’s Jabours, The editor has, however, had by him Weiss’s work, and considering his great ability and eminence as a Biblical critic and theologian, deemed it proper, as often as convenient, to give Weiss’s view, sometimes of assent, more frequently of dissent from those of his author. On occasional points in which Weiss agrees with Meyer, the editor has ventured to differ from them both. In all cases he would differ from such eminent men with modesty, but in most he has the comfort of reflecting that other equally eminent names can be cited in support of his opinions. In his own notes he has not cited
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION. Vil
many names or authorities, Such authorities are now very generally ac- cessible, and the editor would not encumber his pages with unnecessary citations. In his extended note on the time of the Last Supper—on which he entertains very decided convictions—while he has read various recent discussions, he acknowledges special indebtedness to the articles on this subject of Dr. Edward Robinson in his N. T. Harmony and the Bib. Sacra, vol. ii. 1845. He is glad to learn that Dr. Ezra Abbot, whose recent lamented death has deprived our American Biblical schol- arship of one of its brightest ornaments, takes the same view with that eminent scholar of this alleged disagreement in the Gospels. It is also pleasant to reflect that one of the latest efforts of Dr. Abbot’s dis- tinguished pen was directed to setting forth the external evidences of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, on which subject his researches shed some important light. He had it in his purpose, I believe, to de- vote another essay to the internal branch of the inquiry.
The translation here given is not quite an exact reprint of the English original. That work, though done with conscientious fidelity, has been subjected to considerable revision, both for the removal of occasional crrots and for greater smoothness and sometimes perspicuity of style. Still, the editor is but partially responsible either for the defects or the excellences of the translation. Meyer’s numerous references he believes ‘to be given with great accuracy. The references to Winer’s N. T. Grammar have been made to conform in this edition to Thayer's trans- lation. Those made to Buttmann’s N. T. Grammar conform in the English work to the American edition.
The Topical Index at the end of the volume has been prepared by the Rev. G. F. Behringer, of Brooklyn, N. Y., who has kindly exercised a general supervision of the work while passing through the press,
In conclusion, while expressing his hope and prayer that this Commen- tary in its new form may snbserve the interests of Biblical truth, and aid to the deeper study of this thrice-precious portion of the Sacred Word, the editor takes the liberty to borrow from Rev. Dr. Schaff’s Introduc- tion to his edition of Lange’s Commentary on this Gospel the following beautiful Latin characterization of its human author, by Adam of St. Victor, with its English translation by Dr. Washburn :
Volat avis sine meta,
Quo nec vates nec propheta Evolavit altius ;
Tam implenda, quam impleta,
Nunquam vidit tot secreta Purus homo purius.
Vili PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION.
Bird of God! with boundless flight, Soaring far beyond the height Of the bard or prophet old ; Truth fulfilled and truth to be, Never purer mystery . Did a purer tongue unfold.
A. C. Kenpricx. RocuEstrr, May, 1884.
PREFACE.
Tax: Gospel of John, on which I now for the fifth time present the result of my labours, still at the present day continues to be the subject —recently, indeed, brought once more into the very foreground—of so much doubt and dissension, and to some extent, of such passionate party controversy, as to increase the grave sense of responsibility, which already attaches to the task of an unprejudiced and thorough exposition of 80 sublime a production. The strung tendency now prevalent towards ex- plaining on natural grounds the history of our Lord, ever calling forth new efforts, and pressing into its service all the aids of modern erudition, with an analytic power as acute as it is bold in its free-thinking, meets with an impassable barrier in this Gospel, if it really proceeds from that disciple whom the Lord loved, and consequently is the only one that is entirely and fully apostolic. For it is now an admitted fact, and a sig- nificant proof of the advances which have been gradually achieved by exegesis, that the pervading supranaturalism—clearly stamped on it in all the simplicity of truth—cannot be set aside by any artifices of expo- sition. This, however, does not prevent the work of a criticism, which obeys the conviction that it is able, and for the sake of the right knowledge of the Gospel history ought, to establish the non-apostolic origin of the fourth Gospel. Accordingly, in pursuance of the programme which was traced for it fifty years ago by Bretschneider, and of the ampler investi- gations subsequently added by the criticism of Baur, unwearied efforts have been made with augmented and more penetrating powers, and to some extent also with a cordial appreciation of the lofty ideas which the Gospel presents, to carry out this project to completion. Such critical labour submits itself to be tried by the judgment of scholars, and has its scientific warrant. Nay, should it succeed in demonstrating that the declaration of the Gospel’s apostolic birth, as written by all the Christian centuries, is erroneous, we would have to do honour to the truth, which in this case also, though painful at first, could not fail to approve itself that which maketh free. There is, however, adequate reason to enter- tain very grave doubts of the attainment of this result, and to refuse assent to the prognostication of universal victory, which has been too
x : PREFACE,
hastily associated with these efforts of criticism. Whoever is acquainted with the most recent investigations, will, indeed, gladly leave to them- selves the clumsy attempts to establish a parallelism between the Gospel of John and ancient fabrications concocted with a special aim, which carry their own impress on their face; but he will still be unable to avoid the immediate and general duty of considering whether those modern investigators who deny that it is the work of the apostle have at least discovered a time in which— putting aside in the meanwhile all the substantive elements of their proof—the origin of the writing would be historically conceivable. For it is a remarkable circumstance in itself, that of the two most recent controversialists, who have treated the sub- ject with the greatest scientific independence, the one assumes the latest, the other the earliest possible, date. If now, with the first, I place its composition not sooner than from 150 to 160, I see myself driven to the bold assertion of Volkmar, who makes the evangelist sit at the feet of Justin—a piece of daring which lands me in a historical absurdity. If I rightly shrink from so preposterous a view, and prefer to follow the thoughtful Keim in his more judicious estimate of the ecclesiastical tes- timonies and the relations of the time, then I obtain the very beginning of the second century as the period in which the work sprang up on the fruitful soil of the church of Asia Minor, as a plant Jobannine indeed in spirit, but post-Johannine in origin. But from this position also I feel myself at once irresistibly driven. For I am now brought into such im- mediate contact with the days in which the aged apostolic pillar was still amongst the living, and see myself transported ‘so entirely into the living presence of his numerous Asiatic disciples and admirers, that it cannot but appear to me an absolutely insoluble enigma how precisely then and there a non-Johannine work—one, moreover, so great and so divergent from the older Gospels—could have been issued and have passed into circulation under the name of the highly honoured apostle. Those dis- ciples and admirers, amongst whom he, as the high priest, had worn the névadov, could not but know whether he had written a Gospel, and if so, of what kind ; and with the sure tact of sympathy and of knowledge, based upon experience, they could not but have rejected what was not a genuine legacy from their apostle. Keim, indeed, ventures upon the bold attempt of calling altogether in question the fact that John had his sphere of labour in Asia Minor; but is not this denial, in face of the traditions of the church, in fact an impossibility? It is, and must re- main so, as long as the truth of historical facts is determined by the cri- terion of historical testimony. Turning, then, from Volkmar to Keim, I see before my eyes the fate indicated by the old proverb: tov xarvor getyovra ele 70 Tip exnimTElv.
PREFACE. xi
The necessary references have been made in the Introduction to the sub- stantive grounds on which in recent years the assaults have been renewed against the authenticity of the Gospel, and there also the most recent apologetic literature upon the subject. has been noticed. After all that las been said for and against up to the present time, I can have no hes- itation in once more expressing my delight in the testimony of Luther —dquoted now and again with an ironical smile—that ‘‘ John’s Gospel ts the only tender, right, chief Gospel, and is to be far preferred before the other three, and to be more highly esteemed.’’' In order to make the confession one’s own, it is not necessary to be either a servile follower of Luther or a special adherent of the immortal Schleiermacher. I am neither the one nor the other, and in particular I do not share the indi- vidual, peculiar motive, as such, which underlies the judgment of the former.
Since the publication of the fourth edition of my Commentary (1862), many expository works upon John and his system of doctrine, and among these several of marked importance, have seen the light, alone with many other writings and disquisitions,” which serve, directly or in- directly, the purpose of exposition. I may venture to hope that the consideration which | have bestowed throughout upon these literary ac- cessions, in which the one aim is followed with very varying gifts and powers, has not been without profit for the further development of my
180 Luther, in that section of his Preface to the New Testament containing the superscription, ‘‘ Which are the right and noblest books of the New Testa- ment?” This section, however, is wanting in the editions of the New Testa- ment subsequent to 1539, as also in the edition of the whole Bible of 1534.
* The essay of Riggenbach, ‘‘ Johannes der Apostel und der Presbyter,"’ in the Jahrb. f. D. Theologie, 1868, p. 319 ff., came too late for me to be able to notice it. It will never be possible, I believe, to establish the identity of the apostle with the presbyter, and I entertain no doubt that Eusebius quite correctly un- derstood the fragment of Papias in reference to this point.—To my regret, I was unable, also, to take into consideration Wittichen’s work, Ueber den geschicht- lichen Charakter des Evang. Joh. The same remark applies to the third edi- tion of Ebrard’s Kritik der evangel Geschichte, which appeared in 1868, and in which I regret to observe a renewed display of the old vehemence of passion. Renan’s Life of Jesus, even as it has now appeared in its thirteenth edition, I have, as formerly, left out of consideration.—The first part of Holtzmann’s dissertation upon ‘‘The Literary Relation of John to the Synoptics’’ (Hilgen- feld's Zeitschrift, 1869, p. 62 ff.) has just been published, and the conclusion is still to follow. Of course, before the latter appears, no well-founded judgment can be passed upon this essay of this acute thevlogian ; but I have doubts whether it will ever be successfully shown that in the case of the fourth Gospel there is any dependence of a literary kind upon the Synoptics, especially upon the Gospel of Luke.
xii PREFACE.
work, probably more by way of antagonism (especially towards Heng- stenberg and Godet) than of agreement of opinion. In our like consci- entious efforts after truth we learn from each other, even when our ways diverge.
The statement of the readings of Tischendorf’s text I was obliged to borrow from the second edition of his Synopsis, for the reasons already mentioned in the preface to the fifth edition of my Commentary on Mark and Luke. The latest part of his edttio octava, now in course of appearance, was published last September, and extends only to John vi. 23, while the printing of my book had already advanced far beyond that point. I may add that the deviations in the text of this editio octava from that of the Synopsis in reference to the various readings noticed in my critical annotations down to vi. 23, are not numerous, and scarcely any of them are of importance exegetically. Of such a nature are those, in particular, in which this highly meritorious critic had in his Synopsis too hastily abandoned the Recepta,’ and has now returned to it. I would fain think that this may also be the case in future with many other of the readings which he has now adopted, where apparently the Cod. Sinait. has possessed for him too great a power of attraction.”
In conclusion, I have to ask for this renewed labour of mine the good- will of my readers,—I mean such a disposition and tone in judging of it as shall not prejudice the rights of critical truth, but shall yet with kind consideration weigh the difficulties which are connected with the solution of the task, either in itself, or amidst the rugged antagonisms of a time so vexed with controversy asthe present. So long as God shall preserve to me in my old age the necessary measure of strength, 1 shall continue my quiet co-operation, however small it may be, in the service of biblical exegesis. This science has in fact, amid the dark tempests of our theological and ecclesiastical crisis, in face of all agitations and extravagances to the right and left, the clear and lofty vocation gradually,
1]. 18, where the Synopsis has povoyevis Oedc, the editio oclava has restored 6 povoyervac vidc: iii. 13, where 6 dv év re otpavy was deleted in the Syn- opsis, these words have again been received into the text.
* K.g. with the reading Oavudfere in v. 20; in the same way with ¢edyez, which is found only in §& of all the Codd. In the great predominance of testi- monies against it, I regard the former as the error of an ancient copyist, while the latter appears to me as a marginal gloss, quite inappropriate to the strain of tender feeling in which John speaks of Jesus, which perhaps originated in a similar manner, as Chrysostom, while reading in the text aveyadpyoerv, Bays by way of explanation, 6 d2 Xpicrdc devyer. Had gevyes been the original read- ing, and had it been desired to replace it by a more becoming expression, then probably efévevcev from v. 13, or dv7AGev in vi. 3, to which passage wdAv in ver. 15 points back, would have most naturally suggested themselves.
PREFACE. Xili
by means of its results,;—which can be reached with certainty only through a purely historical method, and can be settled by no human con- fession of faith,—to make such contributions to the tumult of strife as must determine the course of a sound development, and finally form the standard of its settlement and the regulative basis of peace. And what writing of the New Testament can in such a relation stand higher, or be destined to produce a more effective union of spirits, than the wondrous Gospel of John, with its fulness of grace, truth, peace, light, and life ? Our Lutheran Church, which was born with a declaration of war and had its confession completed amid controversy from without and within, has raised itself far too little to the serene height and tranquil perfection of this Gospel.
DR. MEYER. Hanover, lst December, 1868.
LIST OF COMMENTARIES
UPON
THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
[It has not been deemed necessary to include in the following list more than a selection from the works of those who have published commentaries upon St. John’s Gospel. For full details upon the literature of the controversy regard- ing the authenticity and genuineness, the reader is referred, in addition to Meyer's own Introduction, vol.i., to the very copious account appended by Mr. Gregory to his translation of Luthardt’s work on the authorship of the Gospel, recently published by the Messrs. Clark. ]
Axsor (Ezra) : Authorship of the Fourth Gospel : External Evidences.
Boston, 1880. Axrorp (Henry) : Greek Testament with critically revised text and Commentary. 4 vols. London, 4th ed. 1859, Aaricota (Francis) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. §Coloniae, 1599. Axgstus (Alexander) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Basileae, 1553. AmyraLpvus (Moses) : Paraphrase sur l’évangile selon Saint Jean. Salmuri, 1651.
Aquinas (Thomas) : Aurea Catena in Lucae et Ioannis Evangelia. Venetiao, 1775. English translation, Oxford, 1841-45.
AReEttvus (Benedictus) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. — Lausannae, 1578. Astiz (S. J.) : Explication de l’évangile selon Saint Jean, avec une traduction
nouvelle. Genéve, 1864. Avavstmne : Tractatus 124 in Ioannem. Ed. 1690, iii. p. 2. 290-826. English translation, 2 vols, (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). 1873-74.
BaEcMLEIN (W.) : Commentar tiber das Evangelium Johannis. Stuttgart, 1863. BauMGAkRTEN (Crusius): Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften.
2 vols. Jena, 184445. BaUMGARTEN (S. J.): Auslepung des Evangelii Johannis, cum Jo, Salomonis Semleri praefatione. Halae, 1762.
Beza (Theodore) : Commentarius in Novam Testamentum. Geneva, 1556 ; ed. quinta, 1665. Brenoex (J. A.): Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Latest ed., London, 1862. English
translation, 5 vols. and 3 vols. (T. & T. Clark). 1874.
Busprne (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Evangelien, etc. Erklirung des vangelium nach Johannes. Minster, 1869.
Brown (Rev. David, D.D.) : Commentary on St. John (in his Commentary upon the Four Gospels). Glasgow, 1863.
Bucer (Martin) : Enarrationes in Ioannem. Argentorati, 1528. Buuuincrr (Henry): Commentariorum in Evangelium Ioannis libri Septem. Tiguri, 1543.
Cazyrx (John): Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Ioannem. (Genevae, 1553, 1655 ; ed. Tholuck, 1833. Translated into English by Rev. W. Pringle. 1847,
Xvi LIST OF COMMENTARIES.
Curyrsostom : Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, translated with Notes and Indices. Library of the Fathers. Oxford, 1848-52 Cuytrazus (Dav.): Scholia in Evangelium Ioannis.
Francofurti ad Moenum, 1588.
Coox (F. 0.) : Holy Bible, with Explanatory and Critical Commentary by Clergy
of the Anglican Church. 9 vols. The Gospel of John, with Introduc-
tion and Notes, by B. F. Westcott. Am. ed., New York, 1880. CruorcEr (Caspar) : Enarratio in Evangelium Ioannis.
Witembergae, 1540. Argentorati, 1546.
Crrimuvs (Alexandrinus) : Commentarii in Sancti Ioannis Evangelium. English
translation by Dr. Pusey. Oxford, 1875.
Danarvs era, : Commentarius in Ioannis Evangelium. Genevae, 1585. Dz Wetre (W. M. L.) : Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testa- ment. Kurze Erklirung des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannes. Fiimfte Ausgabe von B. Briickner, Leipzig, 1863. DuNWELL (Rev. F. H.) : Commentary on the authorized English version of the Gospel according to St. John. London, 1872.
Exsrakp (J. H. A.): Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypothese iiber seine Entsehung. Zurich, 1845. Exzicorr (C. J.) : New Testament Commentary for English Readers. Gospel according to John by H. W. Watkins. 3 vols. New York. EvrHymios Z1iaaBENvus : Commentarius in IV. Evangelia, graece et latine, ed. Matthaei. 4 vols. Berolini, 1845.
Ewap (H.): Die Johanneischen Schriften tibersetzt und erklart. 2 vols. Gottingen, 1862.
Ferus (J.) : In sacro sanctum Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem piae et eruditae juxta Catholicam doctrinam enarraliones. Numerous edi-
tions. Moguntiae, 1536. Romae, 1517.
Forp (J.) : The Gospel of John, illustrated from ancient and modern authors. London, 1852.
Frommann (K.): Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinem Verhaltnisse zur ge- sammten biblisch-christlichen Lehre dargestellt. Leipzig, 1839.
Govet (F.) : Commentaire sur 1’évangile de Saint Jean. 2 vols. Paris, 1863. [New ed. preparing. ] Grotivus (H.): Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 9 vols. Gréningen, 1826-34.
Hernstus (Dan.): Aristarchus Sacer, sive ad Nonni in Joannem Metaphrasin exercitationes : accedit Nonni et sancti Evangelistae contextus.
Lugduni Batavorum, 1627.
Hemminervs (Nicol.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Basileae, 1591. HENGSTENBERG (E. W.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannes. 2 vols.
English translation (T. & T. Clark). 1865. Hevsner (H. L.): Praktische Erklarung des Neuen Testaments. 2 vols. Evangelien des Lucas und Johannes 2d ed. Potsdam, 1860. HILGENFELD (A.): Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehr- begriff. Halle, 1849, Honnivus (Aegidius) : Commentarius in Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem, Francofurti, 1585, 1591, 1595.
HurcHinson (G.) : Exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to John. London, 1657.
JANSONUS (Jac.) : Commentarius in Joannis Evangelium. Louanii, 1630.
Kurz (H.) : Commentar tiber das Evangelium nach Johannes, Mainz, 1829,
Krorutar (L) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Viennae, 1862. Kdsrim (C. R.): Lehrbegriffe des Evangelium und der Briefe Johannis.
Berlin, 1843.
Kurnogt (Ch. G.): Commentarius in Novi Testamenti libros Historicos. 4 vols.
Leipzig, 1825-43.
LIST OF COMMENTARIES. xvii
Lamps (F. A.): Commentarius analytico.exegeticus, tam litteralis, quam realis Evangelii secundum Joannem. III ‘Tomi. Amstelodami, 1724, 1726. Basileae, 1725, 1726, 1727. Lanae (T. G.): Das Evangelium Johannis ibersetzt und erklart. Weimar, 1797. Lance (J. P.): Theolg: Homiletisch: Bibel Werk. Das Evangelium nach Johannis, 1860. English translation, greatly enlarged. Ed. Philip Schaff, London and Edinburgh, 1872-75. Lapipg (Cornel. 4): Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram. 10 vols. (last ed.) Lugduni, 1865. Lassus (Gbr.) : Commentaire Philosophique sur l’évangile St. Jean. Paris, 1838. Licks (G. Ch. F.): Commentar iiber die Schriften Johannis. 4 vols. Bonn, 1840-56. Lurgarpt (Ch. E.): Das Johanneische Evangelium nach seinen Eigenthiim- lichkeiten goschildert und erklirt. 2 vols. Nurnberg, 1852-53. New ed. Part Ist, 1875. (English translation preparing.) Luraarpt (C. E.): St. John the author of the Fourth Gospel. Translated by C. R. Gregory. Edinburgh, 1875.
Marer (Adal.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Jobannis. 2 vols. Carlsruhe and Freiburg, 1843. Marponatus : Commentarii in IV. Evangelia curavit Sauser. Latest ed. Mainz, 1840. Marrnaezr (J.): Auslegung des Evangelium Johannis zur Reform der Auslegung desselben. Gothingen, 1837. Metancuruon (Phil.): Enarrationes in Evangelium Joannis. Wittenbergae, 1523. Morus (S. F. N.): Recitationes in Evangelium Joannis. ed. G. J. Dindorf. Leipzig, 1796. Montes (J.) : Symbolae ad interpretandum Evangelium Johannis ex marmori-
bus et nummis maxime graecis. Kopenhagen, 1826. Mouscoivs (Wolf G.): Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis in tres Heptadas digesti. Basileae, 1552, 1564, 1580, 1618.
Myzivus (G.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis absolutissimus. Francofurti, 1624.
Nonnus : Metaphrasis Evangelii Johannis. red. Passow. Leipzig, 1834.
Oxrco.amPanrovs (I.): Annotationes in Evangelium Johannis. Basileae, 1532. OrsHavusEN (H.): Biblischer Commentar iiber d. Neue Testament fortgesetzt von Ebrard und Wiesinger. Evangelium des Johannes. 1862. English translation (T. & T. Clark). 1855. Oricen : Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis, . ed. 1759, vol. iv. 1-460.
Parrrios (F. H.): In Joannem Commentarius. Romae, 1863. Pauuvus (H. E. G.) : Philologisch-Kritischer und Historischer Commentar tiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1812. Pzxarcos (Christ.): Commentarius in Joannem per quaesita et responsa, ex antiquitate orthodoxa magnam partem erutus. Francofarti, 1559.
Ro..iock (Rob.) : Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Genevae, 1599, 1608. RosznmMULier (J, G.): Scholia in Novum Testamentum. 65 vols. Leipzig, 1815-31.
Sarcertus (Erasm.): In Johannis Evangelium Scholia justa ad perpetuae tex- tus cohaerentiae filam. Basileae, 1540. Scuarr (Philip) : Popular Commentary on the New Testament. 4 vols. The Gospel of John, by W. Milligan and W. F. Moulton. New York, 188). Scmarp (Sebast.): Resolutio brevis cum paraphrasi verborum Evangelii Joannis Apostoli. Argentorati, 1685, 1699.
XVili LIST OF COMMENTARIES.
ScuHurTen (J. H.): Het Evangelie naar Johannes. Leyden, 1865, Supplement 1866. French translation by Albert Reville in Revue de Théologie. Strasburg, 1864, 1866. German trans- _ lation by H. Lang, Berlin, 1867. ScuwEizEr (Alb.): Das Evangelium Johannis kritisch untersucht. Leipzig, 1841. SEMLER (J. Sal.) : Paraphrasis Evangelii Joannis, cum notis et Cantabrigiensis Codicis Latino textu. Halae, 1771.
Tarnovivs (Paul.): In Sancti Johannis Evangelium Commentarius. Rostochii, 1629. THEODORE (of Mopsuestia) : In novam Testamentum Commentaria. Ed. Fritzsche. Turici, 1847, THOLUCE (A.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. _ _ Ith ed. 1857, English translation (T. & T. Clark), 1860. Trrrmann (K. Ch.): Meletemata Sacra, sive Commentarius critico-exegeticus- dogmaticus in Evangelium Johannis. Leipzig, 1816. (English translation in Biblical Cabinet, T. & T. Clark.) ToxieTus (Franc.) : Commentarii et Annotationes in Evangelium Joannis., Romae, 1588, 1590 ; Lugduni, 1589, 1614 ; Venetii, 1587.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
INTRODUCTION. SEC. I.—BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF JOHN.
sae HE parents of John were Zebedee, a fisherman on the Sca of MW, Galilee, probably not of the poorer class (Mark i. 20 ; Luke v. 10), and Salome (Mark xv. 40; comp. Matt. xxvii. 56). To his father the evangelists ascribe no special religious character or personal participation in the events of the Gospel history ; but his mother was one of the women who followed Jesus even up to His crucifixion (comp. on xix. 25). To her piety, therefore, it is justly attribu- table that John’s deeply receptive spirit was early fostered and trained to surrender itself to the sacredly cherished, and at that time vividly excited expectation of the Messiah, with its moral claims, so far as such a result might be produced by a training which was certainly not of a learned char- acter. (Actsiv. 13.) If, too, as we may infer from xix. 25, Salome was a sister of the mother of Jesus, his near relationship to Jesus would enable us better to understand the close fellowship of spirit between them, though the evangelists are silent a3 to any carly intimacy between the families ; and in any case, higher inward sympathy was the essential source out of which that fellowship of spirit unfolded itself. The entrance of the Baptist on his public ministry—to whom John had attached himself, and’ whose pro- phetical character and labours he has described most clearly and fully—was the occasion of his becoming one of the followers of Jesus, of whom he and Andrew were the first disciples (i. 35 f.). Among these, again, he and Peter, and his own brother James the elder, brought by himself to Jesus (see on i. 42), formed the select company of the Lord’s morc intimate friends ; he himself being the most trusted of all,’ the one whom Jesus pre- eminently loved, and to whose filial care He on the cross entrusted Mary (xix. 26). Hence the ardent, impetuous disposition, which led the Lord Himself to give to him and his brother the name Boanerges, and which he
On account of his devoted love to the trum dicamus maxime ¢:Aséyxpicroy, Jo- person of the Lord, on which Grotius fine:y hannem maxime ¢:Aocncovy,... quod remarks : “Quod olim Alexandrum deami- et Dominus respiciens, {lll quidem ecclesiam cis suis dixisse memorant, allum esse ¢cAa- praecipuo quodam modo, huic autem ma- Adfar8pov, allum @uoBacrAda, putem ad duos trem commendavit.”
Domini Jesu apostolos posse aptarl, ut Pe-
2 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ‘exhibited on more than one occasion (Mark iii. 17, ix. 88 ff. ; Luke ix. 49 f., 54),—-connected even though it was with an ambition which his mother had fostered by her sensuous Messianic notions (Matt. xx. 20 ff. ; Mark x. 35 ff.),—is by no means of such a character as to be incapable of gradually subjecting itself to the mind of Jesus, and becoming serviceable to his highest aims. After the ascension he abode, save perhaps when engaged on some minor apostolical journey (such as that to Samaria, Acts viii. 14), at Jerusalem, where Paul met with him as one of the three pillars of the Christian church (Gal. ii. 1 ff.). How long he remained in this city cannot, amid the uncertainty of tradition, be determined ; and, indeed, it is not even certain whether he had already left the city when Paul was last there. He is indced not mentioned in Acts xxi. 18, but neither is he in Acts xv., though we know from Gal. ii. 1 ff. that he nevertheless was present ; and therefore, as on the occasion of Gal. i. 19, so on that of Acts xxi., he may have been temporarily absent. In after years he took up his abode at Ephesus,’ probably only after the destruction of Jerusalem ; not by any means, however, before Paul had laboured in Ephesus (Rom. xv. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 16; Gal. ii. 7 f.), although it cannot be maintained with certainty that he could not have been there when Paul wrote his letter to the Ephesians : for, in the enigmatic silence of this epistle as to all personal references, such a conclusion from the non-mention of his name is doubtful. The distinguished official authority with which he was invested at Ephesus, the spiritual elevation and sanctity ascribed to him, cannot be better indicated than by the fact that Polycrates (Euseb. ili. 31, v. 24) not only reckons him among the yveydda ovoryeia (great fundamental elements of the church ; comp. Gal. ii. 9), but also calls him lepeic rd wéradov? medopnxie. Of his subsequent fortunes we have only untrustworthy and sometimes man- ifestly false traditions, amongst the latter of which is one based on Rev. i. 9,* but unknown even to Hegesippus (ap. Euseh. iii. 20), of his banishment
1Jren. Haer. iil. 8.4; Euseb. fil. 1. 23. It igs no argument against this, that Ignat. ad Ephes. 12 mentions Paul, but not John; for Paul {s mentioned there as the founder of the church at Ephesus, and as martyr, —neither of which holds good of John. Besides, this silence is far outweighed by the testimonies of Pulycarp in Irenaeus, Polycrates in Euseb., Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, ete. To ac- count for these, as Keim in particular now attempts to do (Geach. J. I. p. 161 ff.), by supposing some confusion of John the Preabyler with the Apostle John, is in my opinion futile, simply because the silence of Papias as to the apostle’s residence in Asia proves nothing (he does not mention the residence of any of the Lord's apostles and disciples, to whom he makes refer- ence), and because it seems scarcely con- celvable that Irenaeus should have so mis- interpreted what Polycarp said to him in
his youth regarding his intimacy with John, as to suppose he spoke of the Apostle, when in fact he only spoke of the Presbyter of that name. It is pure caprice to assume that Eusebius ‘lacked the courage” to correct Jrenaeus. Why so? See, onthe other hand, Steitz in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1868, p. 502 ff.
2 The plate of gold worn by the high priest on his forehead. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 398 f., ed.8; Knobel on Ex. xxviil. 36. The phrase used by Polycrates is not to be taken as signifying relationship toa priestly family (xviii. 15; Luke i. 86), but as symbolic of high apiritual position in the church, just as it is also used of James the Lord's brother in Epiphanius, Haer. xxix. 4. Com- pare now also Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. p. 401 f.
* See especially Disterdieck on the Rere- lation, Introduction, p. 92 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 3 to Patmos under Domitian (first mentioned by Irenseus and Clem. Alex.), —an event said to have been preceded by others of a marvellous kind, such as his drinking poison at Rome without injury (see especially the Acta Johannis in Tischendorf’s Acta Apocr. p. 266 ff.), and his being thrown into boiling oil, from which, however, he came out ‘‘nihil passus” (Tertullian), nay, even ‘‘ purior et vegetior” (Jerome). The legend is also untrustworthy of his encounter with Cerinthus in a bath, the falling in of which he is said to have foreseen and avoided in time (Iren. Haer. iii. 3. 28 ; Euseb. iii. 28, iv. 14) ; it is only indirectly traceable to Polycarp, and betrays a purpose of glorifying the apostle at the expense of the heretic, however unfounded may be the assumption that it is only what we should expect from the author of the Apocalypse (Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 371). The great age to which John attained, which is variously stated,—according to Ireneus, Eusebius, and others, about a hundred years, reaching downto Trajan’s time,—gave some countenance to the saying (xxi. 23) that he should not see death ; and this again Ied to the report that his death, which at last took place at Ephesus, was only a slumber, his breath still moving the earth on his grave (Augustine). In harmony, however, with a true idea of his character, though historically uncertain, and first vouched for by Jerome on Gal. vi. 10,’ is the statement that, in the weakness of old age, he used merely to say in the Christian assemblies, Filioli, diligite alterutrum. For love was the most potent clement of his nature, which was sustained by the truest, deep- est, and most affectionate communion in heart and life with Christ. In this communion John, nurtured on the heart of Jesus, discloses, as no other evangelist, the Lord’s innermost life, in a contemplative but yet practical manner, with o profound idealizing mysticism, though far removed from all mere fiction and visionary enthusiasm ; like a bright mirror, faithfully re- flecting the most delicate features of the full glory of the Incarnate One (i. 14; 1 John i. 1) ; tender and humble, without sentimentalism, and with all the resolute earnestness of apostolical energy. In the centre of the church life of Asia he shone with the splendour of a spiritual high- priesthdod, the representative of all true Christian Gnosis, and per- sonally a very wapOévog (‘‘ virgo mente et corpore,”’ Augustine) in all moral purity. From the starting-point of an apostle of the Jews, on which he stands in contrast (Gal. ii. 9) with the apostle of the Gentiles, he rose to the purest universalism, such as we meet with only in Paul, but with a clear, calm elevation above strife and conflict ; as the last of the apostles, going beyond not only Judaism, but even Paul himself, and interpreting most completely out of his own lengthened, pure, and rich experience, the life and the light made manifest in Christ. He it is who most fully
1 Earlier attested (Clemens, Quts. div. salv. 42) is the equally characteristic legend (Cle- ment calls it pidov ov pidor, AAG Syra Adyor) of a young man, formerly converted by the apostie’s labours, who lapsed and became aleader of robbers, by whose band John, after his return from Patmos, voluntarily allowed himself to be taken prisoner in
order to bring their captain back to Christ, which he succeeded in doing by the mere power of his presence. The robber chief, as Clement says, was baptized a second time by his tears of penitence. Comp. Herder’s legend ‘der gerettele Jiingling™ in his Werke 2. schdn. Lit. vi. p. 31, od. 1827.
4. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
connects Christianity with the person of Christ,—a legacy to the church for all time, of peace, union, and ever advancing moral perfection ; among the apostles the true gnostic, in opposition to all false Gnosticism of the age ; the prophet among the evangelists, although not the seer of the Apocalypse. ‘‘The personality of John,” says Thiersch,’ ‘‘ has left far deeper traces of itself in the church than that of any other of Christ’s disciples. Paul laboured more than they all, but John stamped his image most dceply upon her ;” the former in the mighty strugglé for the victory, which overcometh the world ; the latter in the sublime and, for the whole future of the gospel, decisive celebration of the victory which has overcome it.
SEC. IL—GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPEL.
With regard to the erternal testimonies, we remark the following :—
1. Chap. xxi. could only serve as a testimony, if it proceeded altogether from another hand, or if the obviously spurious conclusion should be made to include ver. 24. See, however, on chap. xxi.—2 Pet. i. 14 also, and the Gospel of Mark, cannot be adduced as testimonies ; since the former pas- sage cannot be shown to refer to John xxi. 18 f., while the second Gospel was certainly written much earlier than the fourth.
2. In the apostolical Fathers? we meet with no express quotation from, or sure trace of any use of, the Gospel. Barnabas 5, 6, 12 (comp. John iii. 14), and other echocs of John in this confused anti-Judaizing epistle, to which too great importance is attached by Keim, as well as Herm. Past. Simil. 9, 12 (comp. John x. 7, 9, xiv. 6), Ignat. ad Philad. (comp. John iii. 8) 9 (comp. John x. 9), ad Trall. 8 (comp. John vi. 51), ad Magnes. 8 (comp. John x. 80, xii. 49, xiv. 11), ad Rom. 7 (John vi. 32 ff., vii. 38 f.), are so adequately explained by tradition, and the common types of view and terminology of the apostolical age, that it is very unsafe to attribute them to some definite written source. Nor does what is said in Ignat. ad Rom. 7, and ad Trail. 8, of Christ's flesh and blood, furnish any valid ex- ception to this view, since the origin of the mystical conception of the odpé of Christ is not necessarily due to its dissemination through this Gospel, al- though it does not occur in the Synoptics.* Hence the question as to the
1 Die Kirchetm apostol, Zeitalt. p. 273.
2 It is true that Barnabas, 4, quotes, with the formula sicué scrintum est (which is con- firmed, against Credner, by the Greek text of the Codex Sinaiticus), a passage from Matthew (xx. 16, xxif. 14; not 2 Easdr. vill. 3, as Volkmar maintains). To find, however, in this alone canonical confirmation of the Jourth Gospel (Tischendorf) is too rash a conclusion, since the close joint relation of the four, as composing one fourfold Gospel, cannot be proved so early as the apostolical Fathers; nor do even Justin's citations exhibit any such corpus evangel-
icum. Besides, that very remarkable o¢ yéyperras makes it probable that the pas- sage in Matthew may have erroneously appeared to the writer of the epistle as taken from the Old Testament.—Again, it is incorrect to say (with Volkmar) that the citation in Barnabas 5 of Ps. xxii. 21 tells against our Gospel, since that citation has no bearing on the spear-thrust spoken of in xix. 84, but simply refers to death on the cross as such, in contrast with death by the szcord.
3 In opposition to Rothe, Anfange d@. Chr. Kirch, p. 715 ff. ; Huther, in lgen’s Zeitschr.
INTRODUCTION. 5
genuineness of the several epistles of Ignatius, and their texts, may here be altogether left, out of consideration. Just as little from the testimony of Irenaeus ad Florin. (ap. Eus. v. 20) to Polycarp, that in all which the latter has spoken of Christ he has spoken ciugwva raic¢ ypagaic, may we infer any use of our Gospel on Polycarp’s part, considering the generality of this ex- pression, which, moreover, merely sets forth Irenaeus’ opinion, and does not necessarily mean New Testament writings. When, again, Irenaeus’ quotes an interpretation given by the ‘‘presbyteri apostolorum discipuli” of the saying in John xiv. 2 (‘In my Father's house,” etc.), it must remain doubtful whcther these presdbyteri knew that saying from our Gospel or from apostolical tradition, since Irenaeus quotes their opinion simply with the general words : xai dia rovro eipyxtvas Tov Kiptor.
3. Of indirect but decided importance, on the other hand,—assuming, that is, what in spite of the doubts still raised by Scholten must be regard- ed as certain, that the Gospel and First Epistle of John are from one author, —is the use which, according to Euseb. iii. 39, Papias? made of the First Epistle. That in the fragment of Papias no mention is made of our Gospel, should not be still continually urged (Baur, Zeller, Hilgenf., Volkmar, Scholten) as a proof, either that he did not know it, or at least did not acknowledge its authority (see below, No. 8). Decisive stress may also be laid on Polycarp, ad Phil. 7 (rag yap b¢ av pi dpodoyg 'Incovv Xprordv év capxi éAnAvOévar avtizptorés éorc), a8 @ quotation from 1 John iv. 3; Polycarp's chapter containing it being unquestionably genuine, and free from the in- terpolations occurring elsewhere in the Epistle. It is true that it may be said, ‘‘ What can such gencral sentences, which may have circulated anony- mously, prove ?”* but it may be answered that that characteristic type of this fundamental article of the Christian system, which in the above form is quite peculiar to the First Epistle of John, points to the evangelist in the case of no one more naturally than of Polycarp, who was for so many years his disciple.‘ It is nothing less than an unhistorical inversion of the rela- tions between them, when some (Bretschncidcr, and again Volkmar) repre- sent John’s Epistle as dependent on Polycarp’s, while Scholten tries to make out a difference in the application and sense of the respective passages.
4, It is true that Justin Martyr, in his citations from the azopynyovel-ynare tiv anooréAwy (‘'& xareita evayyéda,” Apol. I. 66), which also served as church lessons,* has not used erelusively our canonical Gospels (the older
1841, iv. p. 1 ff. ; Ebrard, Evang. Joh. p. 102 ; Kritik d. erang. Gesch. ed. 2, p. 840 ff.; Tischend. Ewald Jahrb. V. p. 188, eto.
1 Hor. v. 86. 1 f.
$A disciple of the Preabyter Jobn. From the fragments of Papias in Eusebius, it is abundantly clear that he mentions two dif- Serent disciples of the Lord called Johu,— John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, who was not one of the twelve, but simply a disciple, like Aristion. The attempt to make the Presbyter, in the quotation from Papias, no other than the Apostle, leads
only to useless controversy. See especially Overbeck in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitechr. 1867, p. 85 ff.; Steltz in the Stud. u. Krié. 1868, p. 63 ff., in opposition to Zahn in the Strd. u. Krit. 1866, pp. 649 ff.
* Baur, Xanon. Evangel. p. 850.
‘Comp. Ewald, Johann. Schriften, II. p. 895. * For the course of the discussions upon Justin's quotations, and the literature of the subject, see Volkmar, Ved. Justin d. M. u. 8. Verh. 2. uns. Kvangelien, 1858; Hilgen- feld, Zvangelien, 1855; Volkmar, Urspr. d.
6 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
view, and still substantially held by Bindemann’ and Semisch ;? also by Luthardt, Tischendorf, and Riggenbach); but neither has he used merely an ‘‘uncanonical” Gospel (Schwegler), or chiefly such a one (Credner, Volk- mar, Hilgenfeld), as was ‘‘a special recension of that Gospel to the Hebrews which assumed so many forms” (Credner, Gesch. d. Kanon, p. 9). For he used alike our canonical Gospels, and in addition other evangelic writings now lost, which—rightly or wrongly—he must have looked upon as procced- ing from the apostles, or from disciples of theirs (comp. Tryph. 103 : év yap Toig arouvnuovelpaay, & Onut bd TOY aGroaoTtéAwy abrov kal ToY éxelvotgo mapaxodovdnodvrwyv avvretad ya; in which his devia- tions from our canonical Gospels hardly agree more than once or twice with the Clementines. His Apologies certainly belong (see Apol. i. 46) to somewhere about the middle of the second century.* His citations, even when they can be referred to our canonical Gospels, are generally free, so that it is often doubtful: where he got them.‘ From Matthew and Luke only five are verbally exact. He has also borrowed from John,‘ and indeed so evidently, that those who would deny this are in consistency obliged, with Volkmar, to represent John as making use of Justin, which is an absurdity.
Evang. 1966, p. 92 ff. See also In particular, Luthardt, Justin d. M. u. d. Joh. Evang., in the Erlanger Zeitechr. f. Protest. u. K. 1356, xxxi. parts 4-6, xxxil. parts 1and2; Ewald, Jahrb, VI. 59 ff.; Riggenbach, Zeugn. J. d. Ev. Joh. p. 139 ff.
1 Stud. u. Krit. 1842, p. 855 ff.
2 D. apost. Denkw. Justins, 1848.
* The controversy as to the date of the first Apology (Semisch, a.p. 188-189; Voik- mar, about 147; Keim, 155-160) need not here be discussed, since in any case our Gospel is in the same position as the Syn- optics, so far as Justin's use and estimate of it are concerned.
4 See Credner, Beitr, I. p. 151 ff.; Frank, in the Wiirtemb. Stud. XVIII. p. 61 ff.; Hilgenf. rit. Untersuch. db. die Evang. Juatina, etc., 1850: Volkmar weber Justin.
5 He has made most use of Matthew, and then of the Pauline Luke, but also of Mark. That he has taken very little comparatively from John, seems to be due ‘to the same reason as his silence in respect of Paul, which is not tantamount to an exclusion of the apostle of the Gentiles ; for he is rich in Pauline ideas, and there can be no mis- take as to his knowledge of Paul's epistles (Semisch, p. 128 ff.). It is probably to be explained by prudential consideration for the antagonism of the Jewish Christians to Paul’s (and John's) anti-Judaism. In the obvious possibility of this circumstance, it is too rash to conclude that this Gospel had not yet won the high authority which ft could not have failed to have, had it reaily
been a work of the apostle (Weisse, d. Evan- gelienfr. p. 129); or even, that “had Justin known the fourth Gospel, he would have made, not only repeated and ready, but even preferential use of it. To assume, therefore, the use of only one passage from it on Justin's part, is really to concede the point” (Volkmar, 1. Justin, p.50f.; Zeller, p. 650). The Clementine Homilies (see here- after under 5) furnish an analogous phe- nomenon, in that they certainly knew and used our Gospel, while yet borrowing very little from it. The synoptic evangelic liter- ature was the older and more widely dif- fused ; it had already become familiar to the most diverse Christian circles (comp. Luke {. 1), when John’s Gospel, which was so very dissimilar and peculiar, and if not esoteric (Weizsécker), certainly antichiliaatic (Keim), made its appearance. How con- celvable that the latter, though the work of an apostle, should only very gradually have obtained general recognition and equal authority with the Synoptics among the Jewish Christians! how conceivable, therefore, also, that a man like Justin, though no Judaizer, should have hesitated to quote from it in the same degree as he did from the Synoptics, and the other writings connected with the Synoptic cycle of narratives! The assumption that he had no occasion to refer frequently and express- ly to John (Luthardt, op. cit. p. 898) is in- admissible. He might often enough, where he has other quotations, have quoted quite as appropriately from John.
INTRODUCTION. 7
See Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 137 ff. Itis true that some have found in too many passages references to this Gospel, or quotations from it ;' still we may assume it as certain, that as, in general, Justin’s whole style of thought and expression implies the existence of John’s writings,? so, in the same way, must the mass of those passages in particular be estimated. which, in spite of all variations arising from his Alexandrine recasting of the dogma, cor- respond with John’s doctrine of the Logos.* For Justin was conscious that his doctrine, especially that of the Logos, which was the central point in his Christology, had an apostolic basis,‘ just as the ancient church in gen- eral, either expressly or as a matter of course, traced the origin of its doc- trine of the Logos to John. It is therefore unhistorical, in the special case of Justin, merely to point to an acquaintance with Philo, and to the Logos- speculations and Gnostic ideas of the age generally (against Zeller, Baur, Hilgenf., Scholten, and many others), orto satisfy oneself possibly with the assumption that Paul furnished him with the premisses for his doctrine (Grimm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 687 ff.), or even to make the fourth evan- gelist a pupil of Justin(Volkmar). It seems, moreover, certain that Aol. i. 61, xai yap Xprordg eivev' Gv py avayevynOyre, ov py etcbAOnre ei¢ rHy BactaAeiav Trav ovpavarv. "Ore d2 xal adivaroy eig tag phtpac Trav Texovody Tove draft yevvaptvore Eu Pivar, gavepdv raciv tort, is derived from John iii. 8-5. See especially Semisch, p. 189 ff.; Luthardt, 7.c. XXXII. p. 03 ff.; Riggenb. p. 166 ff. It is true, some have assigned this quotation through the medi- um of Matt. xviii. 8, to the Gospel to the Hebrews, or some other uncanon- ical evangelic writing (Credner, Schwegler, Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volk; mar, Scholten), or have treated it as a more original form of the mere oral tradition (see Baur, against Luthardt, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 282). But in the face of Justin’s free mode of citation, to which we must at-
18ee against this, Zeller, Thev!. Jahrb. 1848, p. 600 ff.
2 Comp. Ewald. Jahrb. V. p. 186 f.
3 See Duncker, @. Logoslehre Justine d. M., Gottingen 1848, and Luthardt as above, xxxil. pp. 60 ff., 75 ff.; Welzsicker in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1862, p. 708 ff. ; Tischen- dorf, wann wurden uns. Ev. verf. p. 81 ff., ed. 4; Weizsicker, d. Theol. d. M. Just., \n the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1867, p.78 ff. Great weight fs due to Justin's doctrine of the incarnation of the Logos (Apol. i. 82, 66; ¢. Tryph. 100), which is foreign to the system of Philo, etc., and is specially Johannean.
4 Hence his frequent reference to the Grouynuovevpara trav anzogréAwy, On one occasivun jed to ‘do £0 casually, be- cause he is speaking directly of Peter, he refers definitely to the arournuovevpara rod Ilérpov (c. Tryph. 106: perwvouacdvar abroy Ilérpoy éva tev awoeréAwv nal yeypddda dv TOCS EWOMMHMOVEVLATLY AVTOV, K,T.As Here Credner (Betér. I. p. 182; Geach. d. Kanon, p. 17) quite correctly referred avrod to Hérpor (Liicke conjectures that avrov ts
spurious, or that rv dmrogrdvwy is to be in- serted, so that avrov would refer to Jesus), but he understood these arouy. to be the apocryphal Gospel of Peter, —the more groundiessly, that the substance of Justin's quotation is from Mark fil. 17. Justin understood by aroury. rod Mérpouv the Goape of Mark. So also Luthardt, op. cit. xxxi. p. $16 ff.; Welss, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1861, p. 677; Riggenb. and others; comp. Volk- mar, Urepr. ad. Evang. p. 154. According to Tertullian, ¢. Marc. iv. 5, ‘‘Marcus quod edidit evangelium, /¢/ri adfirmatur, cujus interpres Marcus.” Comp. Irenaeus also, ill. 10. 6, Ml. 1.1. According to this, com- pared with what Papias says of Mark, Justin might have expressed himself ex- actly ashe has done. With respect to the controversy on the subject, sce Hilgenfeld, Krit. Unters. p. 23 ff., and Luthardt, ic. ; comp. on Mark, Introduction. Notice also how unfavourable the passage seems to the notion that Justin's Memorials are a compllation (Ewald and others).
8 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
tribute the avayevy. instead of yevv. dvw6 e v,—dvofer being taken, according tothe common ancient view, in the sense of denuo (comp. also Clem. Recogn. vi. 9),—this is most arbitrary, especially when Justin himself gives promi- nence to the impossibility of a second natural birth. Moreover, in the second half of the quotation (ov yi cic£A0. cic r. BaotA. Tov otp.), some rem- iniscence of Matt. xviii. 3 might easily occur ; just as, in fact, several very ancient witnesses (among the Codices, y*) read in John lc. Baoeiay trav ovpavar, but the Pseudo-Clemens (Homil. xi. 26) by quoting the second half exactly in this way, and in the first half adding after avayevy. the words idart Covre cic dvoua mwarpo¢, viov, dyiov mvetpatoc, exhibits a free combination of Matt. xxviii. 19 and xviii. 3. Other passages of Justin, which some have regarded as allusions to or quotations from John, may just as fitly be de- rived from evangelic tradition to be found clsewhere, and from Christian views generally ; and this must even be conceded of such passages as ¢. Tryph. 88 (John i. 20 ff.), de res. 9 (John v. 27), Apol. I. 6 (John iv. 24), Apol. I. 22 and ec. Tryph. 69 (John ix. 1), c. Tryph. 17 (John i. 4). How- ever, it is most natural, when once we have been obliged to assume in Justin's case the knowledge and use of our Gospel. to attribute to it other expressions also which exhibit Johannean peculiarities, and not to stop at Apol. I. 61 merely (against Frank). On the other hand, the remarkable re- semblance of the quotation from Zech. xii. 10 in John xix. 87 and Apol. I. 52, leaves it doubtful whether Justin derived it from John’s Gospel (Semisch, Luthardt, Tisch., Riggenb.), or from one of the variations of the LXX. already existing at that time (Grimm, l.c. p. 692 f.), or again, as is most probable, from the original Hebrew, as is the case in Rev. i. 7. It is true that the Epistle to Diognetus, which, though not composed by Justin, was certainly contemporary with and probably even prior to him, implies the existence of John’s Gospel in certain passages of the concluding portion, which very distinctly re-echo John’s Logos-doctrine (see especially Zeller, ‘Lec. p. 618, and Credner, Gesch. d. neut. Kanon, p. 58 ff.); but this conclu- sion (chapp. 11, 12) is a later appendix, probably belonging to the third century at the earliest. Other references to our Gospel in the Epistle are uncertain.
5. To the testimonies of the second century within the church, the Claris of Melito of Sardis certainly does not belong (in Pitra, Spicileg. Solesmense, Paris 1852), since this pretended «xAcic, in which the passages John xv. 5. vi. 54, xii. 24, are quoted as contained ‘‘in Erangelio,” is a much later compila- tion ;' but they include the Epistle of the Churches at Vienne and Lyons (Eus. v. 1), where John xvi. 2 is quoted as a saying of the Lord’s, and the Spirit is designated as the Paraclete : Tatian, Justin's disciple, ad@ Graec. 13, where John i. 5 is cited as rd eipguévov ; chap. 19, where we have indications of an acquaintance with John’s prologue (comp. chap. 5) ; and chap. 4, rvebya 6 6ed¢, compared with John iv. 24 ; also the Diatessaron of this Tatian,* which
1 See Steitz, Stud. vu. Krit, 1857, p. 584 ff. from his diocese as dangerous, it was 2 Acoording to Theodoret (Haeret. fab. nothing else than a brief summary by way {. 20), who from his account must have of extract of our four Gospels, tn which known it accurately, and who removed it the genealogies, and all that referred to
=
INTRODUCTION. 9
is based on the canon of the four Gospels, certainly including that of John : Athenagoras, Leg. pro Christ. 10, which is based upon a knowledge of John’s prologue and of xvii. 21-22: Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, in a Frag- ment in the Paschal Chronicle, ed. Dindorf, p. 14 (6 rv dyiav mAevpay éxxevty- Oeic 6 éxyéac éx THE TAsvpac atrow Ta dito mwaAw xabdapota ddwp nai aipa’ Adyov x. svevpa, comp. John xix. 84), where Baur, of course, takes refuge in a tradi- tion older than our Gospel ; also in another Fragment in the same work Bev aovpgavac té véuy 1) vénoig avtav nal oraccalecv doxei Kar’ avrove Ta evayyéna), where, if we rightly interpret it,’ John’s Gospel is meant to be included
Christ as a descendant of the seed of David, were left out. This account must (see also Semisch, Tatiani Diatess., Vratisl. 1856) pre- vail against modern views of an opposite kind; it agrees also with what is said by Euseb. iv. 20, who, however, did not himself exactly know the peculiar way in which Tatian had combined the four. The statement of Epiphunius, Heer. xlvi. 1, **Many called it «a@° “ESpaious,’’ is, on the other hand, simply an historical remark, which decides nothing as to the fact itself. According to the Jacobite bishup of the thirteenth century, Dionysius Bar-Salibt in Assemannl ( Bidl. Orient. 1. p. 57f., il. p. 158), the Diatessaron of Tatian, who therefore must have laid chief stress on John, began with the words, Jn the beginning was the Word ; he also reports that Ephraem Syrus wrote & commentary on the Diatessaron. Credner (Beitr. I. p. 446 ff. ; Gesch. ad. neut. Kanon, p. 19 ff.), whom Scholten follows, combats these statements by showing that the Syrians had confounded Tatlan and Ammonius and their writings with one another. But Bar-Salibi certainly keeps them strictly apart. Further, the orthodox Ephraem could write a commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron the more fitly, if it was a grouping together of the canonical Gospels. Lastly, the statement that it began with John f. 1 agrees thoroughly with Theodoret’s account of the rejection of the genealogies and the descent from David, whereas the work of Ammonius cannot have begun with John |. 1, ince, according to Eusebius (see Wetstein, Proleg. p. 68), its basis was the Gospel of Matthew, by the side of which Ammontus placed the parallel sections of the other evangelists in the form of a synopsis. The testimony of Bar- Salibi above quoted ought not to have been surrendered by Liicke, de Wette, and various others, on the ground of Credner's opposition. What Credner quotes in his Gesch. d. neut. Kanon, p. 2, from Ebed- desu (in Mali Script. vet. nora collect. x. p. 191), rests merely on a confusion of Ta
tian with Ammontus on the part of the Syr- fans; which confusion, however, is not to be charged upon Dionysius Bar-Salibi. Further, there is the less ground for ex- cluding the fourth Guspel from the Diates- saron, seeing that Tatian has made use of it in his Oratio ad Graecos.
1The correct explanation is the usual one, adopted by Wieseler, Ebrard, Weitzel, Schneider, Luthardt, Bleek, Weizsiicker, Riggenbach, and many others, also by Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Scholten: “and the Gospels, according to them (in consequence of their asserting that Jesus, according to Matthew, died on the 15th Nisan), appear to be at variance’ (namely, with one an- other). This ground of refutation rests on the assumption (which, however, is really erroncous) that there could be no dis- agreement among the Gospels as to the day when Jesus died, while there would be such a disagreement if it were correct that, according to Matthew, Jesus died on the 15th Nisan. Now it is true that Mat- thew really has this statement; only Apol- linaris does not admit it, but assumes that both the Synoptics and John record the 14th Nisan as the day of Christ's death, so that on this point harmony reigns among the Gospels, as in fact, generally, the real disagreement among them had not come to be consciously ob- served. Comp. Clem. Al. in the Chron. Pasch,: tavty tev hpepwv rp axpiBeiq . . . Kat Ta avayyéAta curved. According to Schwegler (Montanism, p. 194 f.), Baur, Zeller, the sense must be: ‘‘ According to their view, the Gospels are in conflict with the Law.’ This, however, is incorrect, be- cause, after having given prominence to the frreconcilability with the Law, a net point is introduced with cracid¢gecv, bear- ing on the necessary harmony of the (Goe- pels. Moreover, there is no need whatever, in the case of cracidgev, of some such ad- dition as éy éavros or the like, since 7a evayyéAca representa a collective totality supposed to be well known. Comp. Xen,
10 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
among the evayyéaa : Polycrates of Ephesus, in Euseb. v. 24, where, with a reference to John xiii. 23 f., xxi. 20, he designates the Apostle John as 4 én? Td or70o¢ Tov Kupiov avarecav. The Clementine Homilies’ contain in xix. 22 an undeniable quotation from John ix. 2, 3 ;* as also, in iii. 52, a citation occurs from John x. 9, 27,* and after these undoubted quotations,.there is no longer any reason to question a reference also in xi. 26 (compare above, under 4) to John iii. 8. On the other hand, no great stress must be laid on the citations in the Recognitiones, since this work is to be placed (in opposi- tion to Hilgenfeld, Merx, Volkmar) somewhat later, though still in the second century, and now only exists in the obviously free Latin translation of Rufinus.‘ The first Father who quotes our Gospel by name is Theophilus, ad Autolyc. ii. 31 (ii. 22) : "OOev diddoxovor ude ai aGytat ypadai Kai mavrec ol mvev- patogépa, EF Ov 'lwdvune Abyet’ Ev apxyg Hv 6 Adyog, x.r.A. Be- sides this, according to Jerome (Ep. 151, ad Aglas.), he composed a work comparing the four Gospels together, which, like Tatian’s Diatessaron, im- plies the recognition of John by the church. Of importance also here is the testimony of Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1 (@recra "Iwdvene 6 pabyrig rod Kupiov, 6 Kai Ext To oriGoc avTov avatecuy, Kai avtoc é&éduwxe TO evayybAov, év 'Edtow tH¢ ’Aciag dta- rpiBwv), comp. ili. 11. 1, 7, 8, 9, v. 10. 8, and especially ap. Eus. v 8 ; partly because in his youth Polycarp was his teacher, and partly because he was an opponent of Gnosticism, which, however, could easily find, and did actually find, nutriment in this very Gospel. Hence the assumption is all the more natural, that the Gospel so emphatically acknowledged and frequently quoted by Irenaeus had Polycarp’s communications in its favour, either directly, in that Polycarp made Irenaeus acquainted with John’s Gospel, or at any rate indirectly, in that he found confirmed by that Gospel what had been dcliver- ed to him by Polycarp as coming from the apostle’s own mouth respecting the words and works of Jesus, and which had remained vividly impressed on his recollection.°—Finally, here belong, because we may take it for granted they are not later than the second century, the Canon of Muratori,° and the
Cyrop. vill. 8. 2, éwei udvroe Kiipos eredevrncer, above, XXXI. p. 368 ff. This also tells
evOUs wey avrov of wacdes éoragiagoy. Often so in Greek; comp. also Hilgenfeld, Pascha- streit, p. 258.
1 Ed. Dressel, Gdtting. 1858.
2 See Uhlhorn in the Gdlt. gel. Anz. 1858, p. 1810; Volkmar, ein neu entdeckt. Zeugn. tiber ad. Joh. Evang., in the theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 446 ff. In spite of this clear testimony, however, Volkmar places the date of John’s Gospel and of the Homilies so near each other (150-160 a.p.), that the former must have been used by the author of the Homilies directly after its origination ‘as an interesting but wnapostotic Novum” (Urspr. d. Evang. p. 68). This use mani- festly implies dissemination and admitted apostolic authority such as Matthew and Luke, and a Gospel of Peter, possibly used by him, must have possessed In the opin- ion of the author. Comp. Luthardt as
against Baur, who, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1837, p. 240, strangely enough thinks to weaken this testimony as a ‘‘casual and external’’ use of the Gospel ; while Scholten (die dife- sten Zeug. p. 60 ff.), in a precarious and arti- ficial fashion, raises doubts as to the use itself.
3 See, against Zeller and Hilgenf., espe- clally Uhlhorn, @. Homu. u. Recogn. des Clem. p. 223.
4 Recogn. vi. 9, comp. John ffi. 8-5 ; Lecogn. il. 48, comp. John v. 28; Recogn. Vv. 12, comp. John viil. 84.
8 Kpist. ad Florin. in Kus. v. 20.
* Credner erroneously maintains in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 207, and Geach, d. neut. Kanon, p. 158 f., that the Canon Murat. distinguishes John the Evangelist as a simple discipulus Christi from the Apostle. See, on the other hand, Ewald, Jahrd. IX.
INTRODUCTION. 11
Canon of the Syrian church in the Peshito, and in the Fragments of the Curetonian text. The Itala also, if its origin really falls within the second century,’ may be quoted among the testimonies of this century.
6. Among the heretics of the second century, besides the Tatian already referred to, we must name Marcion as a witness for our Gospel. He rejected, according to Tertullian (c. Marc. iv. 3), Matthew and John, and, according to the same writer, de carne Christi 3, John,—a fact which im- plies their apostolic authority, and that Marcion knew them to be apostolic,’ although Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Scholten, following Zeller and Schweg- ler, assume the contrary. But he rejected the non-Pauline Gospels, not on critical grounds, but as a one-sided adherent of Paul, and, as such, in Tertullian’s judgment (‘‘rideéur’) chose Luke's Gospel, in order to shape it anew for the purpose of restoring the pure Gospel of Christ, and in such a way, in fact, that he now “ evangelio scilicet suo nullum adscribit aucto- rem,” Tertull. ¢. Marc. iv. 2, by which he deprived Luke of his canonical position (‘‘ Lucam videtur elegisse, quem caederet”). To question Tertullian’s credibility in the above passages,® though he too frequently judged with the hostility of a partisan those whom he opposed, is yct without sufficient warrant, since he states particularly (c. Marc. iv. 3) how Marcion came to reject the other canonical Gospels ; striving, namely, on the ground of the Epistle to the Galatians (chap. ii.), to subvert the position of those Gospels —‘‘ quae propria et sub apostolorum nomine eduntur vel etiam apostolicorum, ut scilicet fidem, quam illis adimit, suo conferat.” Comp. Weizsiicker, p. 230 ff. (who, however, misunderstands videtur in the above passage), and Riggenb. p. 130 ff. Marcion, therefore, must in consistency have renounced the gain to Gnosticism with which John could have furnished him. The opposite course would have been inconsistent with his Paulinism. Again, that Tertullian understood, by the ‘‘ Gospels peculiarly and specially apos- tolical,” those of Matthew and John (against Zeller, who, with Volkmar, understands the apocryphal Gospels of the Jewish Christians), is clear from c. Marc. iv. 2: ‘‘ Nobis fidem ex apostolis Johannes ct Matthaeus insinuant, ex apostolicis Lucas et Marcus.” Further, the Valentinians used our Gos- pel fully and in many ways, in support of their fine-spun fancies (Iren. Zaer. lili. 11. %. Heracleon, who is not to be brought down in time into a con- temporary of Origen,‘ wrote a commentary on it (see the Fragments of Origen in Grabe, Spicil. Patr. ii. p. 85 ff.). Ptolemaeus (in Epiphan. Haer. xxxili. 3 ff.) cites John i. 3 as an apostolical utterance, and according to Irenaeus, i. 8. 5, expressly described John’s prologue as proceeding from the apostle ; and Theodotus also (according to the extracts from his writ- ings appended to the works of Clem. Alex.) often quotes the Gospel of
p. 96; Welss in the Stud. u. Arit. 18638, p. 507.
1 Lachmann, N. 7. Praéf. p. x. f.
7 Which certainly can be least of all doubted in the case of John's Gospel, of which Asia was the native country. The rejection of John as one of the twelve apos-
tles is easily enough explained by Marcion’s anti-Judaizing temper.
3 Zeller, Baur, Volkmar.
4 Origen himself (in Joann. fi. c. 8) alleges that Heracleon was esteemed a trusty dis- ciple (yvwpiuos) of Valentinus.
12 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
John. Whether Valentinus himself used it, is a question on which also, apart from other less evident proofs, we are not without very distinct testi- mony since the publication of the Philosophumena Origenis, which were probably composed by Hippolytus ; for in the Philos. vi. 35, among the proof-texts used by Valentinus, John x. 8 is cited : so that the subterfuge, “¢ The author likes to transfer the doctrines of the disciple to the Master” (Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, comp. Scholten), can be of no avail here, where we have an instance to the contrary lying clearly before us.’ When, therefore, Tertullian says, Praescr. Haer. 38, ‘‘Valentinus integro instrumento uti tidetur,”” we may find this videtur in respect of John’s Gospel simply con- firmed by the Philosophumena.*— That, again, also Basilides, who is not, however, to be looked upon as a disciple of the Apostle Matthias (Hofstede de Groot), used our Gospel, —a point which Baur even, with unsatisfactory opposition on the part of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and others, concedes,—and that he has employed as proof-texts in particular John i. 9, ii. 4, is likewise proved by the Phil. Orig. vii. 22, 27, with which many of the author’s errors in other things are quite unconnccted.—The Gospel also was in use among the Naassenes (Philos. Or. v. 6 ff.) and Peratae (v. 12 ff.), who belong to the close of the second century.—It is true that Montanism had not its original root in the Gospel of John, but in the doctrine of the Parousia ; still, in its entire relation to the church and its doctrine (see especially Ritschl, Altkathol. Kirche, p. 477 ff.), and particularly in its ideas of prophecy, its asceticism, and its eschatology, it had no occasion to reject our Gospel, though some have erroneously found some evidence to this effect in Irenaeus,* though at the same time dependence on this Gospel
1 See Jacobi in the Deutsch. Zeitschrist, 1851, No. 23 f., 1853, No. 24 f.; Ewald, Jahrod. V. p. 200 f.
When Baur and Zeller, on the other hand, lay stress on the fact that among the texts adduced by the Valentinians in proof of their doctrine of the Aeons, none occur from John, and hence concluule that the Valentinisn system which Irenaeus there describes does not imply the existence of our Gospel at that time, it is still adverse to their view that Irenaeus immediately, i. 8. 5, adduces quotations from John out of Ptolemaeus, and in ili. 11. 7 testifies to the most ample use of our Gospel (‘‘ pleniasime utentes’’) on the part of the Valentinians. So, also, the fact that Lrenaeus, i. 20. 2, cites among the proof-texts of the Marcosians none from John, cannot serve to prove that the * Valentinian system originally stood in no connection with the fourth Gospel." Zeller, 1845, p. 635. Assuredly the whole theosophy of Valentinus was intertwined with, and grew upon, the ground and soil of John’s distinctive theology. “ Valentinus
. nonad materiam scripturas (as Marcion), sea materiam ad scripturas excogitavit, et
tamen plus abstulit et plusadjecit, auferens proprietates singuloruam quoque verborum et adjiciens dispositiones non comparen- tlum rerum.” Tertullian, de praescr. haer. 38. The Valentinian Gnosis, with its Aeons, Syzygies, and so on, stands related to John’s prologue as a product of art and fancy to what is simple and creative. Attempts to weaken the testimonies of the Philosoph. Orig. as to a use of John’s Gospel on the part of Valentinus and Basilides, have been very unsuccessfully made: Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1858, p. 144 ff. ; Volkmar, ibidemn, 1854, p. 125 f.; Baur, &&. p. 269 f. : Hilgenf. in his Zeitschrijt, 1862, p. 452 ff.: Scholten, d. @t. Zeug. p. 67 ff.; and Volk- mar, Urepr. une. Evang. p. 70 ff. See further, Bleek, Beitr. I. p. 214 ff. ; Schneider, p. 27 ff. ; Luthardt, é.c. p. 100 ff.; Tisch. é.c. p. 45 ff. ; Riggenbach, p. 118 ff.
° This is in answer to Bretschneider, Prod- ab. p. 210 ff. The passage in Irenaeus, iii. 2. 9, reads thus: “ Alii vero, ut donum Spiritus frustrentur, quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non ad- mittunt, quae est secundum Johannis evan-
INTRODUCTION. 13
cannot in its case be proved. There was a rejection of the Gospel on the part of the Alogi, consequently on that of the opponents of Montanism (Epiph. Haer. \i. 8 f.), in the interests, indeed, of dogmatic Antimontanism, though they also adduced harmonistic reasons ; but by this very rejection they fur- nish an indirect testimony to the recognition in their day of our Gospel as an apostolic work, both in the church and among the Montanists. They ascribed it to Cerinthus, who was yet a contemporary of John,—a proof how ancient they thought it, in spite of their rejection of it.
7. Celsus, whom we must certainly not assign, with Volkmar, to so late a date as the third century, has been cited as a witness of the second century standing outside the church,—all the more important, indeed, because her enemy,—and, from the Fragments of his work as cited in Origen, we may certainly infer that he was to some extent acquainted with the evangelic tradition and the evangelic writings, for he even alludes to the designation of the Logos and other peculiar points which are found in John, especially ce. Cels. ii. 836, comp. John xx. 27; ¢. Cels. i. 67, comp. John ii. 18. He assures us that he drew his objections chiefly from the writings of the Chris- tians (¢. Cels. ii. 74). But it is highly probable that the Gospel of John was also among them, since he (c. Cels. 11. 13) expressly distinguishes the writings of the disciples of Jesus from other works treating of Him, which he proposes to pass over.—A weighty testimony from the oldest apocryphal literature might be furnished by the Acta Pilati, which are quoted even by Justin and Tertullian (see Tischendorf, Kerang. apocr. Prolegg. p. liv. ff.), if their original form were satisfactorily determined, which, however, can- not be successfully done. Just as little do other apocryphal Gospels fur- nish anything which we may lay hold of as certain. The labour expended by Tischendorf therefore leads to no results.
8. By the end of the second century, and from the beginning of the third, tradition in the church testifies so clearly and uniformly in favour of the Gospel, that we need cite no additional vouchers.’ Euseb. iii. 25 places it among the Homologumena.
gelium, in qua Paracletum se missurom Dominus promisit ; sed simul et evangelilum et propheticam repellunt Spiritum, infelices vere, qui pseudoprophetae quidem esse volunt, prophetiae vero gratiam ab ecclesia repellunt.”” He is here speaking of the op- ponents of Montanism, who for a polemical purpose did not acknowledge the character- istic Johannean nature of this Gospel, reo- ognizable by the promise of the Paraclete ; by which course Irenaeus thinks they reject equally both the Gospel (of John) and the prophetical Spirit also (who, in fact, was to be sent precisely as the Paraciete),—“ truly unhappy men, who indeed ascribe it (the Gospel) to a false prophet, while they are repelling the grace of prophecy from the church.”’— The passage is not to be re- garded, with Neander, as a Montanist Inter-
polation ; nor must we admit in the last words the conjecture “‘ pseudoprophetas"’ (so Merkel, Aufkidrung a. Streitigk. der Aloger, p. 18; also Gieseler, Kirchengesch. 1.1. p. 200, and Tischendorf), or pseudoprophetae esse nolunt (so Liicke), or pseudoprophetas esse nolunt (so Ritschl). Rather is pseudopro- phetae to be taken as genitive: that ‘it is the work of a false prophet.” Accordingly the ‘“‘ pseudoprophetae esse volunt’’ answers to the preceding “erangelium ... repellunt,” while the “ propheliae vero gratiam” answers to the “‘propheticum repellunt Spiritum.” Hence also we must decline Volkmar’s con- jecture, that in Greck pevdas spopyras stood instead of Pevdorpodiyras.
‘Clem. Al., Tertull., Hippolyt., Orig., Dionys. Al., etc.
14 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
From this examination of witnesses, it is clear’ that our Gospel was not merely in use in the church, and recognized by her as apostolical, from about 170 a.p. (Hilgenfeld, a.p, 150), and composed somewhere about 150 a.p. (Hilgenfeld, 120-140), but that the continuity of the attestations to it, and their growing extent in connection with the literature of the church, are as evident as we ever can and do require for the external confirmation of any New Testament writing. The continuity in particular goes back from Irc- naeus through Polycarp, and from Papias, so far as he is credited with the use of John's first Epistle, although not directly (Iren., Hieron.), yet indirect- ly (Euseb., Dionys.),—that is, through the Presbyter John,—to the Apostle himself. That the Fragment of Papias in Euseb. iii. 89 does not mention John’s Gospel, cannot be of any consequence, since it does not quote any written sources at all from which the author drew his accounts, but rather describes his procedure as that of an inquirer after sayings of the apostles and other of the Lord’s disciples (such as Aristion and John the Presbyter), and expressly enunciates the principle : ot yép ra éx trav BiBAlwv rooovrdy ye Ogedeiv tre2duBavov, dcov Ta mapa Caan duvyg Kal pevoronc. Papias here throws together the then existing evangelic writings (ray B:32iwv), of which there was a multitude (Luke i. 1), all without distinction, not probably some merely apocryphal ones (Tischendorf ; Riggenbach, p. 115); and as he in- cluded among them the Gospel of Matthew and that of Mark, both of which he specially mentions subsequently, so he also may have intended to include the Gospel of John among rév 8:fAiav, since he manifestly does not indicate that he has any conception of canonical Gospels as such (comp. Credner, Beitr. I. p. 25), and has no occasion to note the distinction. When, further on, Eusebius quotes two statements of Papias on the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, this does not indicate that our Gospel did not exist in his day (Baur), or was at any rate not recognized by him (Hilgen., Credner, and Volkmar) ; but these two statements are simply made prominent, because they contain something specially noteworthy as to the origin® of those Gospels, just as Eusebius refers to it as specially worthy of remark that Papias makes use of proofs from two epistolary writings? (1 John and 1 Peter), and has a
1Comp. the acknowledgment of Keim, Gesch. J. 1. p. 187: “It is used in the extant literature as early as the Synoptics.” In opposition both to the usual determination of the date, which fixes on the last quarter of the first century, and to the criticism of Baur, Hilgenfeld, and Volkmar, Keim (pp. 146, 155) assigns the origin of the Gospel to Trajan's time, between a.p. 100 and 117. The difficulty here is, that, according to Keim, the Epistle of Barnabas necessarily implies the use of our Gospel in its time. This epistle, however, he places in Hadrian’s day, about 120a.p. In this case, the inter- val during which the Gospel had to become known and recognized is much too narrow ; and besides, the date assigned to Barna- bas is by no mean\ so certain as Keim is
disposed to infer from chap. 4 and 16. Hil- genfeld places it under Nerva; Ewald and Welzsiicker even in the time of Vespasian. The question is, in any case, still uncertain. 2 When, in this statement, Papias inti- mates in regard to Mark ; ore yap nxovce tov xupiov ovre napyxoAovdncey aire, We May Ob- serve here a contrast to other evangelists who had heard the Lord and followed Him ; which was not the case with Mark, whose credibility depended rather on Peter. Such other evangelists were Matthew and John.
3 Why Eusebius makes this prominent, we cannot tell, since we do not know on what occasions Paplas used these eplsto- lary testimonies. We can hardly connect this prominent reference with the question of the genuineness of the epistles, to which
INTRODUCTION. 15
narrative which occurs in the Gospel to the Hebrews.’ Further, in opposi- tion to the weighty testimony of Justin Martyr, it is incorrectly urged that, if he had known of John as evangelist, he would not have referred to him as the author of the Apocalypse, with the bare words (c. Tryph. 81), avfp ric, bvoua "Iwdvyns, elg Tov atooréAwy Tov Xpiorov. Justin had, in fact, no occasion at all, in the context of this passage, to describe John as evangelist, and all the less that to him it was self-evident that in ¢eic ray drooréawy were in- cluded the authors of the azopvypaveimata tiv axooTéAur.
A historical argument specially adduced by some against our Gospel is derived from the history of the Easter Controrersy. Sec, on the onc side, Bretschneider, Prob. 109 f.; Schwegler, Montanism, p. 191 f.; Baur, p. 343 ff., and in the Zheol. Jahrb. 1844, p. 638 ff., 1847, p. 89 ff., 1848, p. 264 ff. On the opposite side, Weitzel, d. christl. Passafcier der drei ersten Jahrb., Pforzheim 1848, and in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 806 ;—in answer to which, again, Hilgenfeld, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 209 ff., and in his Galaterbrief, p. 78 f.; Baur, d. Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrb. p. 141 ff. ; Scholten, d. Evang. nach Joh. krit. hist. Untersuch. p. 885 ff.; and d. altest. Zeugnisse, p. 139 ff. See further, for the genuincness of John : Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 208 ff.; Schneider, p. 43 ff.; Bleek, Beitr. p. 156 ff., and Hinl. p. 187 ff.; Steitz, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1856, p. 721 f£., 1857, p. 741 ff, 1859, p. 717 ff., and in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theologie, 1861, p. 102 ff. ;— against whom, Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 242 ff., and in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1858, p. 298 ; Hilgenf. Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 523 ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1858, p. 151 ff., 1862, p. 285 ff., 1867, p. 187 ff. On the whole course of the investigations, Hilgef., d. Paschastreit d. alt. Kirche, 1860, p. 29 ff.; Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. 1863, p. 220 ff. Comp. also the apologetic discussion by Riggenbach, d. Zeugnisse f. d. Ho. Joh. p. 50 ff. The reasons derived from the Easter controversy against the genuineness of the Gospel are obviated, not by forcing the fourth Gospel into agreement with the Synoptics in their statements as to the day on which Jesus died (see on xviii. 28), which is not possible, but by a correct apprehension of the point of view from which the Catholic Quartodecimani in Asia Minor, who appealed for their observance of their festival on the 14th Nisan to apostolic custom,
the subsequent mention of the Gospel to the Hebrews would not be at all appropriate. Probably Eusebius mentions the reference to the two epistles only as an exceplional procedure on the part of Papias, who else- where dispenses with the citation of written testimonies. Comp. the passage previously adduced from the Fragment.—Scholten (a. dltest. Zeugn. p. 17) very arbitrarily, and without any reason, doubts whether Papias held the epistle to be a work of the apostle.
1 Besides, it is not to bo overlooked that Papias may somewhere dse in his book have mentioned the fourth Gospel, which he does not name in the Fragment in Eusebius. We do not know, since the book is lost. See also Steitz, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 498.
It is true, a Latin Codex of the ninth cen- tury, in the Vatican, expressly testifies to such a mention (see Aberle in the Zid. Quartalschr. 1864, p.1 ff.; Tisch. as above, p. 118 f.; Zahn, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 539 ff.); but less importance ts to be at- tached to it, since the testimony fs connect- ed with the statement that Papias pué together what was dictated by the apostle,— a late and worthless legend (occurring also in Corder. Caten. Prooem.), which might easily enough have originated from Ire- naeus’ speaking of Papias as ‘Iwavvov axoveryns. Soe, moreover, Hilgenf. in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 75 ff.; Overbeck, ibidem, 1867, p. 63 ff.
16 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and especially to the example of John (Polycarp in Eusebius v. 24; and Polycrates, iidem), regarded the observance of this particular day of the month. The opponents of the Gospel, it is true, say, If the custom of those in Asia Minor to celebrate the Lord’s last supper on the 14th Nisan, con- temporaneously with the Jewish passover, mainly originated with and pro- ceeded from the Apostle John, then this apostle could not have written the fourth Gospel, because that custom agrees exactly with the Synoptic account of the last supper and the day of Jesus’ death, while the fourth Gospel states the exact opposite,—namely, that Jesus kept His last supper, and therefore no true passover, on the 18th Nisan, and was crucified on the 14th Nisan. But the men of Asia Minor celebrated the 14th Nisan,—and that, too, by terminating the fast kept upon this day in remembrance of Christ's passion, down to the hour of His death, and by a joyous celebration of the Lord’s supper immediately after, in gratitude for the accomplishment of His work of redemption, —not because Jesue ate the passorer on that day, but because IIe died on that day, and by His death became the real and true Paschal Lamb of whom the Mosaic paschal lamb was the tyne (1 Cor. v. 7; John xix. 36); comp. also Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, p. 269. Accordingly, they might justly maintain (see Polycrates in Euseb. /.c.) that their festival on the 14th Nisan was xara 7d evayyéAcoy (for any disagreement in the Gospels in reference to the day of Jesus’ death was not yet perceived, and the passover meal of Jesus in the Synoptics was looked upon as an anticipa- tion), and xara rdv xavéva THO wiotewc,—this latter, namely, because Jesus, by the observance of the passover on another day, would’ not have appeared as the antitype of the slaughtered paschal lamb. Also raca dyia ypad# might be rightly quoted in proof by Polycrates, since in no part of the Old Testament does any other day occur us that on which the paschal lamb was slaughtered, except the 14th Nisan, and Jesus was in fact the true Paschal Lamb. It is self-evident that John’s example, which the Catholics of Asia Minor urged in favour of their ‘‘Quartodecima,” perfectly agrees with the account of the fourth Gospel, and that the xara 7d evayyédiov of Polycrates, though by it no single Gospel, but the written evangelic his- tory collectively, is meant, does not exclude, but includes John’s Gospel, since its existence and recognition at that time is perfectly clear from other proofs. True, there was alsoaparty of Quartodecimans in Asia Minor ' who formed their judgments from a Judaistic (Ebionite) standpoint, whose cele- bration of the 14th Nisan did not rest on the assumption that Jesus, as the
1 Characteristically referred to thus by Apullinaris in the Chron. Pasch. p. 14: €vcoe Toivuy o« i’ ayvoiay diAoveixovas wepi TOVTwY, ovyyvocroy mpayna memovOcres’ ayvoia yap ov KaTnyopiay avatexerat, dAAd didaxfs mpogseirat, Comp. Hippolyt. iZid. p. 18: opm per ody, dre didovecxiag 7d éepyoy, «.7.A. With the mild description of these people in Apollinaris agrees also Philos. Orig. viil. 18, where they are simply distinguished as erepoi reves, and indeed as ¢@iAdvecxos rhy duo and idw- ra. Thy yvwow, While it is said of them that
in other points they agree with the doctrine of the apostles. Against Baur and Hilgen- feld, by whom the distinction between Catholic and Judaic Quartodecimani is alleged to be pure fancy, see Steitz, 1856, p. 782 ff., 1857, p. 764; also in Herzog’s Encyclop. xi. p. 156 ff. Even the eno: of Apollinaris and the érepoi reves of Hippolytus should bave precluded them from thinking of the Asiatic church. On the other hand, Hilgenfeld, in his Paschastreit, pp. 256, 28, 404, is evasive.
INTRODUCTION. 17
true Paschal Lamb, died on this day, but on the legal injunction that the passover was to be eaten on this day, and on the assumption that Jesus Him- self ate it on the very same day, and did not suffer till the 15th Nisan.’ These’* men stirred up the so-called Laodicean controversy, and had as opponents, first Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and afterwards Irenaeus, Hip- polytus, Clement, and others (Eus. iv. 26. 8). They were attacked partly by their own weapon —the law— according to which Christ could not have been put to death, that is, slain as the true Paschal Lamb, on the first day of the feast ; partly by an appeal to the Gospels, in respect of which it was assumed that they agree in reporting the 14th Nisan as the day of Jesus’ death (Apol- linaris, in the Chron. Pasch. p. 14 : aovppdvuc te véuw 4 véqote avréy ai oraotd- Cerv dowel kar’ avrovg Ta evayyéAra. See above, under 5, the note on this passage). Moreover, it was urged by some who appealed to Matthew (Apol- linaris, 2,c., dezyovvrac Mar@aiov otrw Aéyerv), that according to the words of Jesus, ovxérs payoua: 7d réaxva (comp. Luke xxii. 16), He did not eat of the legal passover, but died as the perfect Paschal Lamb on this day, and in- deed before the time of eating the meal appointed by the law. See Hippoly- tus, in the Chron. Pasch. p. 18: 6 wddat mpoeirisv, bre ovxére Gdyouat Td zdoxa, eixdrug TO uev deirvov édeirvyoey mpd Tov maéoxa, Td 62 maoxa ovK Egayev, GAA’ Exabev, ovd2 yap xaspoc qv ti¢ Bpdoewc avtod (7.€. ‘' because the legal period for eat- ing the passover had not even come,”’—it only came several hours after the death of Jesus); and just before : remAdvyra: pA yevdonur, St w@ Kapp Exacyev 6 Xpic- té6¢, ovx égaye 70 Kava vépov TACHA, OVTOS yap Hv TO W4oxa TO mpoKexnpvyuvoy Kai Td reherobuevoyv Ta Opiouévg juépa (on the 14th Nisan). That, however, Justin Martyr himself regarded the first day of the fekst as the day on which Jesus died (so Baur and Hilgenfeld), is an erroneous assumption. For when he says (c. Tryth. 111, p. 338), xai dre év Huépe rov médoya ouveadBere abrdy Kal duoiwe éy rp xdoya éoravpooare, yéyparra:, he plainly means by év juépe tov rdcoya, and by év r@ mdoya, the day on which the paschal lamb was eaten—the 14th Nisan ; since he shows immediately before that Christ was the true Paschal Lamb, and immediately after continues : d¢ d2 rude év Aiyirry fowoe 7d aipa TOU TACHA, OUVTWC Kai TOvG TLioTEtoavTacg piceTae Ex Oavdrov Td alua Tov Xpecrov. Comp. chap. 40, p. 259. He might therefore have regarded Christ not as dying on the 15th Nisan, but simply on the 14th, as this is expressed in the second fragment of Apollinaris,* without our needing to understand “ é quépg Ty Tou maoxa” of the 15th Nisan.‘ Thus it is also said in the Chron.
2 Comp. Steitz, 1836, p. 776 ff.
2 Whose observance is not to be regarded as a mere Jewish simultaneous celebration of the passover, which John assented to, asa custom which he found in existence in Ephesus (Bleek, De Wette, following Liicke). See, on the other hand, Hilgen- feld, Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. p. 224 ff. The difference rests on a fundamental opposi- tion. Comp. Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, pp. 123 f., 269 f.
%To the same effect is p. 14: } «8° rd ddAndivdy tov xvpiov wdcxa, } Ovoia }) peydAn,
6 dvri rod duvod mais Seod, 6 &ydeis, 6 Sicas Tov icxupoy, xai d xpidels xpirns CworvTwy ai vexpoy, Kai 6 wapasodeis eis xeipas duaprwAwy, iva orav- purty, d vpwdels dri xeparwy povoxépwros, ai do THY ayiay wAeupay exxevrndeis . . . Kal 6 Tapeis év nudpg tH Tov wacxa, émredévros TE pvyuare Tov Aidov.
* Recently Steitz also (in Herzog's Ency- Mop. xi. 1859, p. 151), who formerly agreed with Baur, has admitted that Justin, agree- ing with the other Fathers of the second and third centuries, did not In the above passage, ¢. 77. p. 888, mean the 15th, but
18 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Pasch. p. 12: tv airg 62 rg Tov wmdoyxa jueipg, Hrot TH Ud’ Tov mpdrov unvoc, Tapaoxerie obone éorabpwoay Tov Kiptoy oi 'lovdaiol, Kal rére Td raayxa Epayov. Comp. p. 415 : év guépa 62 rapacKkevy aravpuwhjyvar tov Kipsov diddoxovaww Ta Oeérvevora Adya, Ev TH TOV maaoxa éopry. On this fourteenth day the passover was celebrated according to the practice prevailing in Asia Minor, because on that day the true Paschal Lamb, Christ, was slain. Thus had Philip, John, Polycarp, and other peydda oro:xeia, whom Polycrates mentions, already acted, and so John’s example in this particular agrees with his own Gospel.
If some have also argued ’ against the early existence of our Gospel, from the antiquity and fixedness of the tradition which limited the ministry of Jesus to a single year (see Homil. Clem. xvii. 19), it is decisive against this that this tradition occurs in many writers who recognized the Gospel as the genuine work of John ;*? whence it is clear that it does not imply the non- existence of the Gospel, but seemed just as reconcilable with John as with the Synoptics. It may have originated from the Synoptic history (see on Luke iv. 19) ; but the counter statement of John, although it actually existed, did not disturb it. It is the same also with the antiquity and fixedness of the tradition of the 14th Nisan as the day of Jesus’ death, which nevertheless does not imply non-acquaintance with the synoptic Gospels. — If, further, the reasons which are alleged for a Johannean origin of the Apocalypse are likewise urged, especially by the Tibingen critics, as evidence against a similar origin for the Gospel, yet a reverse procedure is equally justifiable ; and, apart from the utter futility of those reasons in other respects, the testimonies for the Apocalypse (which was excluded even from the Peshito), do not attain to any such general recognition as those for this Gospel. The attribution by the unanimous judgment (and that too, erro- neous) of the church, of this work to the Apostle, would, granting its origin in the first half of the second century, be, as it were, the magical result of a few decenniums; and would be historically the more enigmatical, in propor- tion as in contents and character it diverged from the other Gospels on the one hand, and from the much earlier and apostolically accredited Apocalypse on the other. For we have in this book no spiritualized Apocalypse, but simply an independent Gospel, marked by profound spiritual perfection, whose linguistic and other characteristics, and whose doctrinal contents, spirit, and aim, are, on the whole, so specifically different from those of the Apocalypse, in spite of various Christological points of connection, as to point to a totally different author (against Hengst., Godct, Riggenb., and others). The Gnostic tendency of the time, in which some have sought for the solution of that incomprehensible enigma, does not solve it, since the
the 14th Nisan. Comp. Lev. xxiii. 5,6; Num. xxviil. 16 f.; Ezek. xlv. 21. The 15th Nisan js called postridie paschaiis, Num. xxxiil. 8, Josh. vy. 11. Hilgenfeld’s objection (d. Paa- chastr. d. alten Kirche, p. 206), that tho er- vest mentioned by Justin as taking place likewise on the #pé¢pa tov wacxa does not suit the 14th Nisan, is altogether futile.
Justin correctly includes the arrest in the day of crucifixion, as, c. Tryphk. 99, the ag- ony in Gethsemane is already put by him TH WHEpG, Prep EmedAAe cravpoic- Oat.
1 See Hilgenfeld, Baur, Volkmar.
* Clem. AL, Orig., Ptolemaeus; and see generally Semisch, Denkw. Justin's, p. 190 f.
INTRODUCTION. 19
strong reaction in the church against Gnosticism would rather have con- - demned a Gospel furnishing the Gnostics with so much apparent support, - and with materials so liable to be misused, than left to opponents so rich a mine, to be worked out for their designs, if its apostolic origin had not been known and acknowledged.
SEC. II.—GENUINENESS CONTINUED.
As an internal testimony to its apostolic origin, we have, above all, the whole grand ideal peculiarity of the book, wherein the mvevuarixdv etayyéduov (Clem. Al.) is delineated with so much character and spirit, with such simplicity, vividness, depth, and truth, that a later fabricator or composer— who, moreover, could have occupied no other standing-point than that of his own time—becomes an impossibility, when we compare with it any pro- duction of Christian authorship of the second century. The Gospel of John, especially through the unity and completeness of its Christological idea, is no artificial antithesis (Keim, (esch. J. p. 129), but the completion of the previous evangelic literature, to which the Pauline Christology appears as the historical middle term. But such a creation, which constitutes such a completion, without imitating the older Gospels, is not the work of some later forger, but of an immediate eye-witness and recipient.’ In it there beats the heart of Christ,—as the book itself has been justly named (Ernesti). But, say some (Litzel., Baur and his school), it is precisely this tender, fervent, harmonious, spiritual character of the Gospel, which is as little in keeping with those traits of the Apostle John himself exhibited jn the other Gospels? as the testimony borne to his anti-Pauline Judaism (Gal. ii.) is to the ideal universalism which pervades his Gospel (see especially iv. 24, x. 16, xii. 20). Yet the Judaizing partisanship which is said to be chargeable
1In order to make the unique peculiar- ities of the Gospel agree with a non-apos- tolic author, neither the Epistle to the Hebrews nor the Apostle Paul ought to be brought into comparison. Both of them belong to the apustolic age, and the latter was called in an extraordinary manner by Christ, as a true apostle, and furnished with a revelation. To suppose that the au- thor of this Goepel also received a revela- tion in @ similar way, and yet to make him compose his Gospel no carlier than the sec- ond centary, is unhistorical ; and to attrib- ute to any one deemed worthy of sucha revelation the design of passing off his work as Jobn's, is unpsychological, and morally opposed to the spirit of truth which per- vades and underlies it. The originating creative energy of the Spirit had no longer, in the second century, its season ordained by God, as is clearly shown by the entire literature of that later period, not except-
ing even the most distinguished (such as the Epistle to Diognetus). And the assump- tion of the apostolic guise would have been, in the case of that creative energy, as un- worthy as unnecessary. The pseudony- mous post-apostolic literature of the early church may be sufficiently accounted for by the custom—excusable, considering the de- fective conception at that time of literary property—of assuming the name of any one according to whose ideas one intended to write (see Késtlin in the Theol. Jahrb. 1881, p. 149 ff.); but the deliberate purpose on which this custom was founded, would, in the case especially of a book so sublime, and in an Intellectual point of view, so thoroughly independent as our Gospel, have been ullerly incongruouse—a paradox of the Holy Ghost.
* Mark fil. 17; Luke ix, 49, 54; Mark Ix. 88, x. 85.
20 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
on John, is simply imported into Gal. ii., and cannot without utter arbitra- riness be inferred from the conflicts with Judaism in Paul's subsequent epistles. And as to the destination of an apostle of the Jews, a position which John certainly, in common with Peter and James, still held at the time of the Apostolical Council, might it not afterwards (though even Keim discovers in this assumption a mockery of history and psychology) expand gradually into that universalism which appears in the Gospel? Might not, in particular, the fuller insight into Paul’s work which John attained (Gal. ii.), and the bond of fellowship which he formed with that apostle (Gal. ii.), as well as his entrance subsequently into the sphere of Paul’s labours in Asia Minor, have contributed powerfully to that expansion and transformation which went beyond that of Paul himself ; for the perfecting of which, down to the time when our Gospel’ was composed, so long a period of church history and of personal experience had been vouchsafed ? Morcover, like Paul, he still retained his Israelitish theocratic consciousness as an inalien- able inheritance (iv. 22 ; his use of the Old Test.). With regard to the traits of character indicated in the Synoptics, is not the holy fervour of spirit which everywhere pervades his Gospel, and still marks his First Epistle, to be conceived as the glorified transfiguration of his former fiery zeal? And as to this transfiguration itself,? who may define the limits in the sphere of what is morally possible to man, beyond which, in a life and labours so long continued, the development of the new birth could not extend under influ- ences so mighty as the apostles experienced through the Spirit’s training in the school of the holiest calling ? What purification and growth did Peter, for example, experience between his smiting with the sword and denial, and his martyrdom ! Both his labours and his Epistle bear witness on this point. Similarly must we judge of the objection, that the higher, nay, philo- sophical (or rather Christian speculative) Hellenistic culture of the evangelist, especially his doctrine of the Logos, cannot be made to suit® the Galilean fisherman John,‘ for whom the fathomless hardihood of modern criticism has substituted some highly cultured Gentile Christian,” who, wishing to lead heathen readers (xix. 85, xx. 831) to Christian faith, exhibited the
remarkable phenomenon ‘of historical evangelic authorship turning away ea
. gense.
1The well-known words of Polycrates, Tb reradoy redopnxws, ought not to have been used as a proof that, in his later ministry in Asia, John was still the representative of Judaism, for they describe high-priestly dignity (see sec. 1) in a Christian, spiritual Again, the words which John is said to have uttered, according to Irenaeus, ili. 8, when he encountered Cerinthus at the bath: dvywpey un xai rd Badaveioy cup- wéon evdov avros Kypivdov, rov Tis adndeias €x9pov, are alleged to be Inappropriate to our evangelist. Why so? The very desig- nation of Cerinthus as ris adndeias éxdpov in the legend points to the evangelist, with whom aAjdera was one of the great funda- mental conceptions, whereas the author of
the Apocalypse never once uses the word. The allegation that the latter, again, in Rev. xx{. 14, compared with Il. 4, testifies to the anti-Panline sentiments of the Twelve, and hence of the Apostle John also, is simply foisted into the passage by a criticism on the look-out for it.
2 Keim (p. 160) says, inappositely, of Mark and Luke: “Since they clearly Imply the death of the apostles (of all’), they have not even allowed a possidtlify of further de- velopments." Neither Mark nor Luke un- dertook to write in their Gospels a history of the aposties, but of Jesus.
2 Bretschneider, Baur, and others.
4 Comp. also Acts iv. 18.
® So also Schenkel.
INTRODUCTION. 21
from the existing Christian communities, for whom there were already Gospels enough in existence, to appeal to the educated conscience of the heathen world.” ? Even the fact that John was, according to xviii. 15, an acquaintance of the high priest, is said to be unsuited to the circumstances of the Galilean fisherman,*—a statement wholly without adequate ground.
It is true the author does not give his name, just as the other historical works of the N. T. do not designate their authors. But he shows himself to have been an cye-witness in the plainest possible way, both at i. 14 (comp. John i. 1, iv. 14) and at xix. 85 (comp. xxi. 24); while the vivid- ness and directness of so many descriptions and individual details, in which no other Gospel equals ours, as well as its necessarily conscious variation from the synoptic representation as a whole and in particular points of great importance, can only confirm the truth of that personal testimony, which is not to be set aside either by interpreting écacdueba, i. 14, of the Christian consciousness in general, or by the pretext that éxeivoc in xix. 85 distin- guishes the evangelist from such as were eye-witnesses.* See the exegetical remarks on those passages. And asa proof that the eye-witness was, in fact, no other than John, the significant concealment of the name John is rightly urged against Bretschneider, Baur, and others. Though allowed to be one of the most intimate friends of Jesus, and though the Gospel describes so many of his peculiar and delicate traits of character, this disciple is never referred to by name, but only in a certain masked, sometimes very delicate and thoughtful way, so that the nameless author betrays himself at once as the individual who modestly suppresses his name in i. 85 ff. The true feeling of the church, too, has always perceived this ; while it was reserved only for a criticism which handles delicate points so roughly,‘ to lend to the circumstance this explanation : ‘‘ The author speaks of his identity with the apostle, as one, simply, to whom the point was of no consequence : his Gospel is to be regarded as Johannean, without bearing the apostle’s name on its front ; at least the author will himself not mention the name in order to make it his own, but the reader is merely to be led to make this combina tion, so as to place the Apostle John’s name in the closest and most direct connection with a Gospel written in his spirit” (Baur, p. 879). In fact, a fraud so deliberately planned, and, in spite of its attempting no imitation of the Apocalypse, so unexampled in its success, a striving after apparent self-renunciation so crafty, that the lofty, true, transparent, and holy spirit of which the whole bears the impress, would stand in the most marked contra- diction to it! Moreover, the instances of other non-apostolic works which were intended to go forth as apostolic, and therefore do not at all conceal the lofty names of their pretended authors, would be opposed to it. Onthe
1 Hilgenfeld, d. Evangelien, p. 349. designated himself the disciple beloved by 2 See Scholten, p. 879. Christ, there would be in this an offensive * Kdstlin, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and several and impudent self-exaltation: comp. also others. Keim, Gesch. J. 1. p. 157 f. See for the op-
* See, besides the Tiibingen critics and posite and correct view, Ewald, Johann. Scholten, also Weisse, d. Evangelien/r.p. 61, Schrif. 1. p. 48 ff. according to whom, if John could have
22 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
other hand, the universal recognition which this nameless author as the Apostle John obtained in the church is the more striking, since a later pro- - duction of this kind, which had been anticipated by so well-known a work of a totally different character, passing for Johannean,—that is, the Apoca- lypse,—in contrast to the latter recognized as apostolic, while not once mentioning the name of that disciple, would be an Listorical phenomenon hardly conceivable. At least it is far more intelligible that the Apocalypse, bearing John’s name on its very face, and solemnly repeating it to the end more than once, should, in an uncritical age, make good its claim to be an apostolic work, though not permanently.’ [See Note I. p. 39.] Further, the circumstance that in our Gospel John the Baptist is always mentioned simply as 'Iwdvyyc, never as 6 Barriorfc, is not so weighty (in opposition to Credner, Bleek, Ebrard) as to prove that the writer was the apostle, who, as its author, has fuund no occasion to point out the other John distinctly by that appellation : for the name 6 Sarriorf#¢ was by no means designed to mark any such distinction. But we may doubtless be of opinion that a writer who had simply to appropriate the evangelic materials in the Gospels already existing, and develop them in a peculiar way, would hardly have failed to employ the surname of the Baptist so commonly and formally used in the Gospels. But it is conceivable that our apostle, having been a personal disciple of the Baptist, and having a lively recollection of his former close relation to him, mentions him by his bare name, as he had been wont to do when he was his disciple, and not with the designation 46 Barrorhe, which had come down to him through the medium of history.
In the extended discourses of Jesus, in the chronological arrangement of the historical materials, in the prominence given to the Lord’s ettra- Gal- ilean ministry, in the significant and peculiar narratwes omitted by the Syn- optics (among which the most noteworthy is that of the raising of Lazarus), in the important variations from the Synoptics in parallel narratives (the chief ° of which are in the history of the last supper, and in the date of the day when Jesus died), in the noticeable omissions of evangelic matter (the most remarkable being the silence as to the institution of the supper, and the agony in Gethsemane) which our Gospel exhibits, we recognize just so many indications of an independence, which renders the general recognition of its apostolic authorship in the church only explicable on the ground of the in- dubitable certainty of the fact. It was this certainty, and the high general reputation of the beloved disciple, which far outweighed all variations from the form and contents of the older Gospels, nay, even subordinated the credit and independence of the Synoptics (as in the history of the last supper, which in them was placed on the 18th Nisan). All these points of differ- ence have therefore been wrongly urged against the apostolic authorship : they make the external attestation all the stronger, far too strong to be traceable to the aims and fictions of a writer of the second century.* With regard especially to the discourses and conversations of Jesus (which, accord-
1 Comp. Ewald, Jahrb. v. p. 182 f.; Disterd. *Comp. Bleek, Belfr. p. 66 ff.; Brickner on the Apocalypee, Introduction. on de Wette, p. xxviii. f.
INTRODUCTION. 23
ing to Baur’s school, are wanting in appropriateness of exposition and nat- uralness of circumstances, are connected with unhistorical facts, and in- tended to form an explication of the Logos-Idea), they certainly imply’ a free reproduction and combination on the part of an intelligent writer, who draws out what is historically given beyond its first concrete and immediate form, by further developing and explaining it. Often the originality is cer- tainly not that of purely objective history, but savours of John’s spirit (com- pare the First Epistle of John), which was most closely related with that of Jesus. This Johannean method was such that, in its undoubted right to reproduce and to clothe in a new dress, which it exercised many decenniums after, it could not carry the mingling of the objective and subjective, una- voidable as it was to the author's idiosyncrasy, so far as to merge what con- stituted its original essence in the mere view of the individual. Thus the Adyoc, especially in the distinct form which it assumes in the prologue, does not reappear in the discourses* of Jesus, however frequently the Adyoc of God or of Christ, as the verbum vocale (not essentiale*), occurs in them. All the less, therefore, in these discourses can the form be externally separated from the matter to such an exent as to treat the one as the subjective, the other as the objective‘—a view which is inconceivable, especially when we consider the intellectual Johannean unity of mould, unless the substance of the matter is to be assigned to the sphere of the subjective along with the form. The Jesus of John, indeed, appears in His discourses as in gencral more sublime, more solemn, frequently more hard to understand, nay, more cnigmatical, more mysterious, and, upon the whole, more ideal, than the Jesus of the Synoptics, especially as the latter is seen in His pithy proverbs and parables. Still, we must bear in mind that the manifestation of Jesus as the divine human life was intrinsically too rich, grand, and manifold, not to be reprce- sented variously, according to the varying individualitics by which its rays were caught, and according to the more or less ideal points of view from which those rays were reflected,—variously, amid all that resemblance of
1 Jt cannot be shown that he records the experiences of the later apostolic age, and makes Jesus speak accordingly (see Welz- sicker, p. 285f.). The passages adduced in proof (xvii. 20, xx. 29, xiv. 22, xvii. 0, xvii. 3, lil. 13, vi. 57, 62 f., iv. 80-88) are fully ex- plained exegetically without the assump- tion of any such vorepor rparor.
2 Although the essential conception of the Logos, as regards its substance, is everywhere with John a prominent feature in the con- sciousness of Jesus, and is re-echoed throughout the Gospel. (Comp. iff. 11, 18, 31, vi. 33 ff., vi. 62, vil. 20, viil. 12, 28, 58, xvi. 28, xvii. 5, 24, and other places.) To deny that John exhibits Jesus as having this super- human self-consciousness, is exeretically baseless, and would imply that (in his pro- logue) the evangelist had, from the public life of the Lord, and from His words and works, formed an abstract idea as to His
nature, which was not sustained, but rather refuted, by his own representation of the history,—a thing inconceivable. This, in general, against Weizsicker in d@. Jahrd._(f. Deutsche Theologte, 1857, p. 154 ff., 1862, p. 684 ff.: Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 244. See my com- ments on the particular passages (also against Beyschlag).—The idea of the Logos, moreover, is related to that of the ga, not as something accidental, but in such a way that the Logos is conceived as the original and personally conscious substratum of the latter. Thus was it giren to the author by the history itself, and by his profoundly vivid realization of that history through communion with Him in whom the ¢u7 dwells, The Logos is the same fundamental conception (only in a more definite specu- lative form) as the vids rov Oeov.
>Comp. Welzsick. Hvangel. Geach, p. Wi.
4 Reuss in the Strassb. Denkschr. p. 87 ff.
24 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
essential character, and peculiar fundamental type, in which it allowed it- self to be recognized by manifold receptivities, and under dissimilar circum- stances. It was on the soul of this very apostle that the image of that wonderful life, with which his inspired recollections were connected, was, without a single discordant feature, most perfectly delineated, and in all the deep fulness of its nature : it dizes in him ; and his own thinking and feel- ing, with its profound contemplativeness, is so thoroughly intertwined with and transfigured by this life and the ideal it contains, that each individual recollection and representation becomes the more easily blended by him into harmony with the whole. His very language must needs ever retain that inalienable stamp which he once involunturily received from the heart and living word of Christ, and appropriated and preserved in all its depth and transparency in the profoundly spiritual laboratory of his own long regener- ate life.’ Some have assigned to the Gospel the honour rather of a well-de- vised work of art, than of a truly carnest and real history.?. It is both, in the inseparable unity and truth of the art of the Holy Ghost.—TIf, again, some have urged that the author of the fourth Gospel appears as one stand- ing apart from any personal participation in the history he was writing, and from Judaism, still we should bear in mind, that if John wrote his Gospel at a later time, and among a community moulded by Hellenistic culture, after the liberation of his Christian nature from the Judaism by which it had long been penctrated, and when he had long been familiar with the purest spiritual Christianity and its universalism, as well as raised through the medium of speculation to a higher standpoint in his view of the Gospel history, he certainly did stand much further apart than the earlicr evangelists, not indeed from his history strictly speaking, but from its former surround- ings and from Judaism. This, however, does not warrant the substitution in his place of a non-Jewish author, who out of elements but slightly histor- ical and correlative myths wove a semblance of history. On the contrary, many peculiar traits marked by the greatest vividness and originality, re- vealing a personal participation in the history,‘ rise up in proof, to bridge over the gulf between the remoteness of the author and the proximity of a former eye-witness, in whose view the history throughout is not developed from the doctrine, but the doctrine from the history. Hence, also, he it is who, while he rose much higher above Judaism than Paul, yet, like Mat- thew in his Gospel, though with more individuality and independence,
1 Comp. Ewald, Jahrd. III. p. 163, X. p. 90 ’ f., and his Johann. Schriften, I. p. 82 ff. ; also Brfickner on de Wette, p. 25 ff.
2 Keim, Gesch, J.1. p. 128.
3 Compare the frequent ot ‘Iov8aio:, v. 16, vil. 1, 19, 25, viil. (7, x. 84, etc. See Fischer in the 7d. Zeitschr. 1840, II. p. 96 ff. ; Baur, Veut. Theol. p. 390 f.:; Scholten and others. On the other side, Bleek, p. 246 ff.; Lut- hardt, I. p. 148 ff. Compare notes on 1. 19, vill. 17; also Ewald, Johann. Schriften, I. p. 10 f.
4 See {. 35 ff., v. 10 ff., vil. 1ff.; chap. ix. 11, 12, xfil. 22 ff., xvill. 15 ff., xix. 4ff., xxi.
® Compare Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1859, p. 690 ff. See the opposite view in Keim, p. 127. Scholten comes even to the melancholy conclusion: “ The contents of the fourth Gospel cannot be of use as his- torical authority in any single point.’ The author threw into the form of an historical drama what was subjective truth to him aelf, unconcerned as to its historical accu- racy.
INTRODUCTION. 2d
took pains to exhibit the connection between the events of the Gospel his- tory and Old Testament prophecy. In this way, as well as by the explana- tions of Jewish facts, views, appellations, and so on, which are interspersed, he shows himself to belong to the ancient people of God, as far as his spir- itual renewal was, and necessarily must have been, compatible with this connection.’ Lastly, the historical contradictions with the Synoptics are either only apparent (for instance, a ministration on several occasions at Je- rusalem is implied, Matt. xxiii. 37, Luke xiii. 84), or such as cannot fairly lead to the conclusion of a non-apostolic authorship, since we do not pos- sess Matthew in its original form, and therefore are not prevented by the counterweight of equally apostolic evidence from assigning to John a pre- ponderating authority, which especially must be done in regard to such very striking variations as the date of the day on which Jesus died, and the account of the last supper. Besides, if what was erroneous and unhistorical might, after the lapse of so long a time, have affected even the memory of an apostle, yet matters of this sort, wherever found in particular passages of our Gospel, are rather chargeable on commentators than on the author, especially in the exceptions taken to the names of such places as Bethany, i. 28, and Sychar, iv. 5. On the whole, the work is a phenomenon so sub- lime and unique among productions of the Christian spirit,* that if it were the creation of an unknown author of the second century, it would be be- yond the range of all that is historically conccivable. In its contents and tone, as well as in its style, which is unlike that of the earlier Gospels, it is so entirely without any internal connection with the development and lit- erary conditions of that age, that had the church, instead of «itnessing to its apostolic origin, raised a doubt on that point, historical criticism would see assigned to it the inevitable task of proving and vindicating such an origin from the book itself. In this case, to violate the authority of the church in faror of the Gospel, would necessarily have a more happily and permanently successful result than can follow from opposing the Gospel. After having stood the critical tests originated by Bretschneider and Baur, this Gospel will continue to shine with its own calm inner superiority and undisturbed transparency, issuing forth victorious from never-ceasing con- flicts ; the last star, as it were, of evangelic history and teaching, yet beam- ing with the purest and highest light, which could never have arisen amid the scorching heat of Gnosticism, or have emerged from the fermentation of some catholicizing process, but which rose rather on the horizon of the
1 Comp. Weizsiicker, Zvang. Gesch. p. 268.
2 Gfrérer, of course, makes it a product of dotage and fancy. Origen, on the other hand, calls it roy evayyeAioy awapxjv, and says of It, ob roy vour ovdeis Sivarar AaBeiy uy évawecwn éxi rd oTHVos ‘Incov, and, THALKoVTOY 8 yerdadar Set roy éodpevoy GAAov ‘lwavvny, Gore oiovei Toy "ludvyny 8x dyvat Svra "Incovv - 4x0 ‘Ingotd. Hence, also, we can understand the constant recurrence, so as to make them regulate the presentation of the his-
tory, both of the ideas lying at the basis of Christ’s whole work, and of the funda- mental views which John, beyond any other evangelist, had dertved from the his- tory itself, in which he had borne a part on the breast of Jesus. Thus, with him, the grand simple theme of his book is through all its variations in harmonious and neces- sary concord, a living monotone of the one spirit, not a “leaden” one. (Keim, Gegch. J. p. 117.)
26 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
apostolic age, from the spirit of the disciple most intimate with his Lord, and which is destined never again to set,’—the guide to a true catholicity, differing wholly from the ecclesiastical development of the second century, * and still remaining as the unattained goal of the future.
Nor can the attempt be successful to treat only a certain nucleus of our Gos- pel as genuinely apostolical, and to assign the rest to disciples of John or other laterhands. The reasons for this procedure are inadequate, while it isitself so destitute of all historical evii..nce and warrant, and runs so entirely into caprice and diversity of subjective judgment, and hence also presents such a variety of results in the several attempts which have been made, that it would .be in any case critically more becoming to leave still unsolved the difficulties in the matter and connection of particular passages, than to get rid of them by striking them out according to an arbitrary standard. This remark applies not merely to some of the older attempts of this kind by Eckermann, Vogel, Ammon,’ and Paulus, but also to Rettig’s opinion (Ephemer. exeg. I. p. 83 ff.) : ‘‘Compositum esse et digestum a seriori Chris- tiano, Johannis auditore forsitan gnosticae dedito philosophiae, qui, quum in ecclesiac Ephesinae scriniis ecclesiasticis vel alio loco privato plura Jesu vitae capita per Johannem descripta reperisset, vel a Johanne ipso accepis- set, iis compositis et ordinatis suam de 2é6yy philosophiam praefixit ;’—and even to the more thorough attempts made by Weisse,‘* and Alex. Schweizer. * According to Weisse (compare, however, his partial retraction in his Philos. Dogmat. 1855, I. p. 158), John, for the purpose of setting forth his own idea of Christ and the doctrinal system in discourses of Jcsus, selected such discourses, adding those of the Baptist and the prologue. After his death, one of his adherents and disciples (xix. 35), by further adding what he had learnt from the apostle’s own mouth, and from the evangelic tradition, but without any knowledge of the Synoptics, worked up these ‘‘ Johannean Studies” into a Gospel history, the plan of which was, of course, very im- perfect ; so that the apostie’s communications consequently form only the groundwork of the Gospel, though among them must be reckoned all the strictly didactic and contemplative portions, in determining which the First Epistle of John serves as a test. According to Schweizer (comp. also Schenkel, previously in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 753 ff., who resolves the apostolical portion into two sects of discourses), such sections are to be ex- cluded from the apostle's original work, as ‘‘are quite disconnected and abrupt, interwoven with no discourses, are altogether without any impor-
11f the apostle, in composing his work, employed an amanuensis, which is not fm- probable, judging from similar cases in the New Testament Epp. (see especially Ewald, Jahrb. X. p. 87 ff.), though it is not proved by xix. 35, still the writer must be regarded only as simply drawing up what the apostle dictated,—_a conclusion arising out of the peculiar character, tenderness, and profun- dity of the book, and its entire resemblance to the First Epistle of John.
2Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth. 1807, p. 713.
3 Progr. quo docetur, Jobannem evang. auctorem ab editore huj. libri fuisse diver- sum, 1811.
4 Both in his Zrang. Gesch. I. p. 96 ff., IT. p. 184 ff., 486 ff., 620 ff.; as also in his Lvan- gelienfrage, 1856, p. 111 ff.
8d. Ev. Joh. nach 8. innern Werthe kritisch - untersucht, 1841.
INTRODUCTION. 27
tant word of Jesus, permeated by an essentially different cstimate and idea, of miracle, without vividness of narration, and moreover are divergent in style, and agree, besides, in recounting Galilean incidents.” These excluded sections, along with which especially fall to the ground the turning of the water into wine at Cana, the healing of the nobleman’s son, the miraculous feeding (ii. 1 ff., iv. 44 ff., vi. 1 ff.), are said to have originated with the author of chap. xxi., who also, according to Scholten, must have acded acycle of interpolated remarks, such as ii. 21 f., vii. 89, xii. 88, xviii. 32. All such attempts at critical dismemberment, especially in the case of a work so thoroughly of one mould, must undoubtedly fail. Even Weiz- siicker’s view,’ that our Gospel was derived from the apostle’s own commu- nications, though not composed by his own hands, but by those of his trusted disciples in Ephesus, is based on insufficient grounds, which are set aside by an unprejudiced cxegesis.?, This hypothesis is all the more doubtful, if the Gospel (with the exception of chap. xxi.) be allowed to have been com- posed while the apostle was still living ; it is not supported by the testi- mony of Clem. Alex. and the Canon of Muratori,* and in fact antiquity furnishes no evidence in its favour.
Literature :—(1) Against the Genuineness: Evanson, Dissonance of the Four — — Evangelists, Ipswich 1792. (Vogel), d. Evangelist Joh. u. s. Ausleger vor d. jiingsten Gericht, I. Lpz. 1801, IT. 1804. Horst, in Henke’s Mus. I.1, pp. 20 ff., 47 ff.,1803. Cludius, Urunsichten des Christenth., Altona 1808, p. 40 ff. Ballenstedt, Philo. u. Joh., Gdtt. 1812. The most important among the older works: Bret- schneider, Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joh. apost. indole et origine, Lpz. 1820, who makes the Gospel originate in the first half of the second century, in the interest of Christ’s divinity. Latcr opponents: Rettig, Ephem. exeq. I. p. 62 ff. Strauss, Leben Jesu, despite a half retractation in the third edition (1838), the more decidedly against in the fourth (1840). Weisse, Evang. Gesch. 1838, and d. Evangelienfrage, 1856. Litzelberger, die kirchliche Tradition tb. d. Apos- tel Joh. 1840. B. Bauer, Arit. d. evang. Gesch. d. Joh. 1840, and Kritike d. Evan- gelien, 1. 1850, Schwegler, Montanism, 1841, and nuchapost. Zeitalter, 1846. Baur,‘
3 Untersuch. wb. d. evang. Geach. 1864, p. 206 ff.
3 See also Ewald, Jahrb. XII. p. 212 ff.
2 Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. vi. 14, says John composed the spiritual Gospel wporpardyra urd TwY yuywpipwry mreu- ware Geohopnddvra. How different is this statement from the above view! Just as much at variance with It is the similar tes- timony of Muratori's Fragment, which lays special stress upon the composition by the apostle himself, and indeed supports it by 1 Jobn i. 1-4. Moreover, see on xvili. 15, xix. 3B, xxi. 28 f.
4 According to Baur's school, the Gospel, the existence of which is only concelvable at the time of the church's transition into Catholicism, originated about the middle of the second century (according to Volkmar,
only towards 150-160; according to Hilgen- feld, as soon as 120-140, contemporaneously with the second Jewish war, or soon after). The author, who, it is said, appropriated to himself the authority of the Apostle John, the author of the Apocalypse, transfig- ured in a higher unity into the Christian Gnosis the interests of Jewish and Pauline Christianity. while going beyond both, so that the historical materials taken from the Synopfics, and wrought up according to the ideas of the prologue, form merely the basis of the dogmatic portions, and are the re- flex of the idea. To bring the new form of the Christian consciousness to a genuine apostolic expression, the author, whose Gospel stands upon the boundary line of Gnosticism, and “now and then goes be- yond the limits,’’ made an ingenious and
98 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Krii. Untersuchungen i. d. kanonischen Evang., Titb. 1847, p. 79 ff. (previously in the Theol. Jahrb. 1844). Zeller, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1845, p. 579 ff., and 1847, p. 136 ff. Baur, ibidem, 1848, p. 264 ff., 1854, p. 196 ff., 1857, p. 209 ff. ; and in his Christenth. d. dret ersten Jahrb. p. 131 ff. ; also in his controversial work, An Herrn Dr. Karl Hage, Tiib. 1855 ; and in his treatise, ‘‘ die Tibinger Schule,” 1859. Hilgenfeld, d. Evang. u. die Briefe Joh. nach ihrem Lehrbegr. dargestellt, Halle 1849, and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1849, p. 209 ff.; also in his works, die Evungelien nach ihrer Entstehung u. s. w., Lpz. 1854, p. 227 ff.; and in his controversial treatise, das Ur- christenth, ind. Hauptwendepunicten seines Entwickelungsganges, Jena 1855 ; also in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 498 ff., and in the Zeifschr. f. wissenschaft Theol. 1859, p. 281 ff., 383 ff.; similarly in the Kanon u. Krit. d. N. T. 1863, p. 218 ff., and in his Zeitschr. 1863, 1 and 2, 1867, p. 180 ff. Kdstlin, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 183 ff. Tobler, die Evangelienfrage, Ziirich 1858 (anonymously), and in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 169 ff Schenkel! in his Charakterbild Jesu, chap. 2. Volkmar, most recently in his work against Tischendorf, ‘d. Ursprung uns. Evangel.’’ 1866. Scholten, d. dltest. Zeug. betr. d. Schriften d. N. T., translated from the Dutch by Manchot, 1867 (compare his Evang. accord-
ing to John, translated by Lang).
artistic use of the relative points of connec- tion with the Apocalypse, in order to spirit- ualize the Apocalypse into a Gospel. The relation of the Gospel to the parties of the time (whose exciting questions it touches), especially to'Gnosticism, Montanism, Ebion- ism, the Easter controversy, is indeed very variously defined by Baur's school, yet al- ways in such a way that the historical character of the contents is givenup. In exchange for this loss, the consolation is offered us, that ‘‘ the Christianity thus fash- joned into a perfect theory was simply a development of that which, according to its most primitive and credible representation, the religious consciousness of Jesus con- tained in creative fulness,’—Hilgenfeld (d. Evangelien, p. 319), who even makes John’s theology stand in the same relation to the religious consciousness of Jesus, “‘as, ac- cording to the promise in John xvi. 12, the work of the Paraclete, as the Spirit leading the church into all truth, was to stand to the teachings of its Founder.” The most extravagant judgment is that of Volkmar: the Evangelist “ starts from the Gospel of the dualistic anti-Judaical Gnosis of Marcton, and overcomes tt by the help of Justin's doc- trine of the Logos with its montem.”’—Tobler, though attributing the first Epistle to the apostle, makes the author of our Gospel to be Apollos, whom he also regards as the au- thor of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and of First and Second John. See against this error, which makes the Gospel to have been intended for the Corinthians, Hilgenf. in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 411 ff. Moreover, what Tobler has subsequently
Keim, Geschichte Jesu, 1867, I. p. 103 ff. (2)
advanced in the Zeiischr. f. wiss. Theol. 1860, p. 169 ff., cannot support his hypothe- sis.
1 According to this modern notion of Schenkel, our Gospel originated about 110- 120 a.p., under the influence of the Chris- tian doctrine of wisdom prevailing in Asia Minor. The author, he says, certainly did not write a work of fiction or fancy, but separated a cycle of evangelic traditions from their historical framework, and forced them up into the region of eternal thought, etc. Thus, Jesus was such as the author depicts Him, not always in reality, but in truth. At this result Kelm also substan- tially arrives: he attributes the Gospel to a Jewish Christian of liberal opinions and friendly to the Gentiles, probably one of the Diaspora in Asia Minor about the be- ginning of the second century, who pub- lished it under the name of the Apostle John. He wrote with the just conviction that the apostles and John would have so written, had they been living in his time, and did not aim at establishing an external history, but at exhibiting the spirit which sits enthron- ed in every history of the life of Jesus. According to Scholten, the Gospel was written about 150 a.p., bya philosophically enlightened Gentile Christian, assuming the guise of an ideal apostle, setting aside what was untrue in the various tendencies of the day (Gnosticism, Antinomianism, Montanism, Quartodecimanism, but recog- nizing the correlated truths, and express- ing them in appropriate forms, though it was recognized as apostolic only towards the close of the second century.
INTRODUCTION, . 29
For the Genuineness, and especially against Bretschneider (comp. the latter's later confession in his Dogmat. ed. 3, I. p. 268: ‘The design which my Probabilia had—namely, to raise a fresh and further investigation into the authenticity of John’s writings—has been attained, and the doubts raised may perhaps be now regarded as removed”): Stein, Authentia ev. Joh. conira Bretschn. dubia vindicat., Brandenb. 1822. Calmberg, Diss. de antiquiss. patrum pro ev. Joh. au- theniia testim., Hamb. 1822. Hemsen, die Authent. der Schriften des Ev. Joh., Schleswig 1823. Usteri, Comment. crit., in qua ev. Joh. genuinum esse ex compara- tis quatuor evangelior. narrationib. de coena ullima e passione J. Ch., ostenditur, Turici 1823. Crome, Probabilia haud probabilia, or Widerlegung der von Dr. Bretschneider gegen die Aechtheit des Ev. u. d. Briefe Joh. erhobenen Zweifel, Lpz. 1824. Rettberg, an Joh. in exhibenda Jesu natura reliquis canonicis scriplis vere repugnet, Gdtt. 1826. Hauff, die Authent. u. der hohe Werth des Ev. Joh., Niirn- berg 1831.—Against Weisse ; Frommann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 853 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1859, p. 397 ff.—Against Schweizer : Luthardt, i. p. 6 ff.—Against Baur and his school: Merz, in the Wiirtemb. Stud. 1844, ii. Ebrard, d. Ev. Joh. u. die neueste Hypothese tb. s. Entstehung, Ziirich 1845 ; and in his Kritik d. evang. Gesch. ed. 2, 1850, p. 874 ff. Hanuff, in the Stud. u.. Krit. 1846, p. 550 ff. Bleek, Beitrage z. Ev. Krit. 1846, p. 92 f£,, u, Kinl. p. 177 ff. Weitzel, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1848, p. 806 ff., 1849, p. 578 ; also de Wette, Einl., whose final judgment, however (§ 110 g.), only declares against the view which would deny to the apostle any share in the composition of the Gospel. See, besides, Niermeyer, Verhandeling over de echtheid d. Johan- neischen Schriften, s’ Gravenhage 1852. Mayer (Catholic), Aechtheit d. Ev. nach Joh., Schaffh. 1854. Schneider, Aechth. des Joh. Ev. nach den dusseren Zeugen, Berl. 1854. Kahnis, Dogmat. I. p .416 ff. Ritschl, Altkath. K. p. 48. Tisch- endorf, wann wurden uns. Ev. verfasst? 1865; 4th enlarged edition, 1866. Riggenbach, d. Zeug. f. d. Ev. Joh. neu unters. 1866. Dr. Pressensé, Jes. Chris- tus, son Temps, etc., 1866. Oosterzee, d. Johannes-evang., vier Vortrage, 1867 [Eng. trans.}; also Hofstede de Groot (against also the previously mentioned work of Scholten), Basilides als erster Zeuge fir Alter und Auctorit. neutest. Schr. German edition, 1868. Jonker, het evang. v. Joh.,1867. Compare generally, besides the Commentaries, Ewald, Jahrb. IIT. p. 146 ff., V. p, 178 ff., X. p. 83 ff,, XII. p. 212 ff. Grimm, inthe Hall, Encykl, ii, 22, p. 5 ff.
SEC. IV.—DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL.
John himself, xx. 31, tells us very distinctly the purpose of the Gospel which he wrote for the Christians of his own day. It was nothing else than to impart the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, by describing the his- tory of His appearance and of His work ; and through faith in this, to com- municate the Messianic life which was revealed in Jesus when on earth. While it has this general purpose in common with the other Gospels, it has as its special and definite task to exhibit in Jesus the Messiah, as in the highest sense the Son of God, that is, the Incarnate Divine Logos; and hence John places the section on the Logos at the very beginning as his distinctive pro- gramme, therewith furnishing the kcy for the understanding of the whole. In the existing name and conception of the Logos, he recognizes a perfectly
4
30 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
befitting expression for his own sublime view of Christ, the humanly mani- fested divine source of life ; and accordingly, he has delineated the human manifestation and the historical life of the divine in Christ with creative spirit and vividness, in order that the eternal and highest power of life, which had thus entered bodily into the world, might be appropriated by faith. Even the Gospel of Matthew (and of Luke) grasps the idea of the Son of God metaphysically, and explains it by the divine generation. John, however, apprehends and explains it by raising it into the premundane and eternal relation of the Son to the Father, who sent the Son; just as Paul also earnestly teaches this pre-existence, though he does not conceive of it under the form of the Logos, and therefore has nothing about a beginning of divine Sonship by a divine generation in time. John therefore occupies a far higher standing-point than Matthew ; but, like the other evangelists, he develops his proof historically, not sacrificing historic reality and tradi- tion to idealism (against Baur and his school), but partly selecting from the materials furnished by the extant tradition and already presented in the older evangelic writings, partly leaving these, and carefully selecting solely from the rich stores of his own memory and experience. In this way, it is quite obvious how important the discourses of Jesus, especially upon His divine Messianic dignity in opposition to the unbelief of the Jews, were as elements of John’s plan; and further, how necessary it was that the testi- monies of the Baptist, the prophetical predictions, and the select miraculous proofs,—the latter forming at the same time the bases of the more impor- tant discourses,—should co-operate towards his purpose. The general sim- ilarity of his aim with that of the current Galilean tradition on the one hand, and on the other hand its special distinctiveness, which is due to his own more sublime and spiritual intuition and his purpose to delineate Jesus as the Incarnate Logos, the possessor and imparter of divine and eternal life, as well as his independence in both these respects, as a most intimate eye and ear witness, of all the previous labours of others, and his original peculiar arrangement and reproduction of the doctrines of Jesus as from a centre, determining every detail and binding them into one,—this, and the primary destination of the work for readers who must have been acquainted with Graeco-Judaic speculations, gave the book the charactcristic form which it possesses. The intellectual unity, which thus runs through it, is the reflcc- tion of the author’s peculiar view of the whole, which was not formed @ priori, but as the result of experience,’ the fruit of a long life in Christ, and of a fulness and depth of recollection such as he only, among the living, could possess. Written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by that dis- ciple who had long advanccd beyond Jewish Christianity, and in the centre of Asiatic culture was still labouring amidst the highest esteem, as probably the only aged apostle remaining, this Gospel could not have an eye to Pal- estinian readers,* as had been formerly the case with Matthew’s Collection of Logia, and the Gospel which originated from it. It was very naturally
11.14; comp. Hanuff, in the Stud. u. Krit. tions which presuppose the readers to be 1846, p. 574 ff. non- Palestinian, 1. 38, 41 f., lv. 25, v. 2, ad. 2? Hence the interpretations and explana-
INTRODUCTION. 31
destined, first of all, for those Christian circles among which the apostlé lived and laboured, consequently for readers belonging to churches origi- - nally founded by Paul, and who had grown up out of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements, and had been carried on by John himself to that higher unity for which Paul could work only amidst continual conflict with yet unconquered Judaism. The Gospel of John, therefore, is not a Pauline one, but one more transfigured and spiritual, rising with more absolute clevation above Judaism than Paul, more tender and thoughtful than his, and also more original, but agreeing as tu its main ideas with the doctrine dialecti- cally wrought out by Paul, though exhibiting these ideas in a tranquil height above the strife of opposing principles, and in harmony with the full perfection of fundamental Christian doctrine ; and thus communicating for all time the essence, light, and life of the eminently catholic tendency and destination of Christianity. It represents the true and pure Christian Gnosis, though by this we are not to suppose any polemical purpose against the heretical Gnostics, as even Irenaeus in his day (iii. 11. 1) indicates the errorsof Cerin- thus and of the Nicolaitans as those controverted by John, to which Epipha- nius’ and Jerome? added also those of the Hbionites, while modern writers also have thought that it controverted more or less directly and definitely the Gnostic doctrine, especially of Cerinthus.* It is decisive against the assumption of any such polemical purpose, that, in general, John nowhere in his Gospel allows any direct reference to the perverted tendencics of his day tu appear ; while to search for indirect and hidden allusions of the kind, as if they were intentional, would be as arbitrary as it would be repugnant to the decided character of the apostolic standpoint which he took when in conscious opposition to heresies. [See Note II. p. 40.] In his First Epistle the apostle controverts the vagaries of Gnosticism, and it is improbable that these came in his way only after he had already written his Gospel (as Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 157, assumes) ; but the task of meeting this opposition, to which the apostle set himself in his Epistle, cannot have been the task of his Gospel, which in its whole character keeps far above such controversies. At any rate, we see from his Epistle how John would have carried on a controversy, had he wished to do so in his Gospel. The development of Gnosticism, as it was in itself a movement which could not have failed to appear, lay brooding then, and for some time previously, in the whole atmosphere of that age and placc ; it appears in John pure, and in sententious simplicity and clearness, but ran off, in the heresies of the partly contemporancous and partly later formed Gnosticism, into all its varied aberrations, amid which it seemed even to derive support by what it drew from John. That it has been possible to explain many passages as opposed to the Gnostics, as little justifies the assumption of a sct purpose of this kind, as the interpretation favourable to Gnosticism, which is possible in other passages, would justify the inference of an trenical purpose (Licke) in respect of this heresy, since any express and precise indication of such tenden-
2 Haer. li. 12, ixjx. 28. lis, Storr, Hug, Kleacker, Schneckenburger,
3 De vir. tlusir. Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others. 8 Erasmus, Melanchthon, Grotius, Michae-
32 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
cies does not appear. Similarly must we judge the assumption of a polemi- cal purpose against the Docetae,' for which some have adduced i. 14, xix. 34. xx. 20, 27; or an opposition to Hbionism and Judaism ;* or to the plots of Jews who had been restored after the destruction of Jerusalem.’ At the same time, it seems quite arbitrary, nay, injurious to John’s historical fidel- ity and truth, to set down his omissions of evangelic circumstances to the account of a polemical purpose ; as, for example, Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 60 ff., who regards the omission of the agony as based on an anti-Gnostic, and the silertce as to the transfiguration on the mount on an anti-Docetic interest. A controversial reference to the disciples of John‘ is not supported by such passages as i. 6-8, 15, 19-41, iii. 22 ff., v. 33-36, x. 40 f., since the unique sublimity of Jesus, even when contrasted with John who was sent by God, must have been vindicated by the apostle in the necessary course of his history and of his work ; but in these passages no such special purpose can be proved, and we must assume that, with any such tendency, expressions like that in Matt. xi. 11 would not have been overlooked. Besides, those dis- ciples of John who rejected Christ, * and the Zabaeans or Mendeans,* who became known in the seventeenth century, were of later origin, while those who appear in Acts xviil. 25, xix. 1 ff., were simply not yet accurately acquainted with Christ, and therefore as regards them we should have to think only ofa tendency to gain these over ;’ but we cannot assume even this, considering the utter want of any more precise reference to them in our Gospel. Moreover, in gencral, as to the development of heresy, so far as it was conspicuous in that age, and especially in Asia (comp. the Epistles to the Galatians and Colossians), we must assume as an internal necessity that John, in opposition to its errors, especially those of a Gnostic and Judaizing character (according to Hengstenberg, to the inundation of Gentile errors into the church), must have been conscious that his Gospel ought to set forth the original truth, unobscured by those errors. We must therefore admit indeed in general, that the influence of the existing forms of opposi- tion to the truth, for which he had to testify, practically contributed to determine the shape of his treatise, but only to the extent that, while abid- ing solely by his thesis, he provided therein, by its very simplicity, the weightiest counterpoise against errors,* without stooping to combat them, or even undertaking the defence of the Gospel against them,° his task being elevated far abore the then existing conflicts of opinion.” This must be &
1 Semler, Bertholdt, Eckermann; Nie- meyer, de Docelis, Hal. 1823; Schnecken- burger, Schott, Ebrard.
2 Jerome, Grotius; Lange, die Judenchris- ten, Ebioniten und Nikolaiten d. apost. Zeit. Lpz. 1828; Ebrard, and many others.
* Aberlo in the Tid. Quartalschr. 1864, p. 1 ff.
‘ Grotius, Schlichting, Wolzogen; Over- beck, ter d. Ev. Joh. 1784; Michael., Storr, Liitzelberger, and others, also Ewald.
8 Recogn. Clem. 1. 64, 60.
* Gieseler, Kirchengesch. I. 1, p. 76, Eng.
trans. vol. I. p. 58.
7 Herder, vom Sohne Gottes, p. 24; also de Wette.
§ Comp. Reuss, Denkschr. p. 27.
® Seyffarth, Specialicharakterist. p. 89 f.; Schott, Jsag. § 40; de Wette, Hengstenberg, and many others.
10 Kven Baur, p. 878, acknowledges that * John's Gospel stands amid all the opposi- tions of the age, without anywhere exhibit- ing the definite colour of a temporary or local opposition.” But this is really only con- ceivable if the Gospel belongs to the apos-
INTRODUCTION. 33
maintained, lest on the one hand we degrade the Gospel, in the face of its whole character, into a controversial treatise, or on the other hand withdraw it, as a product of mere speculation, from its necessary and concrete relations to the historical development of the church of that age.
Seeing that our Gospel serves in manifold ways not only to confirm, but moreover, on a large scale (as especially by relating the extra-Galilean jour- neys, acts, discourses) as well as in particulars, to complete the synoptic accounts, nay, even sometimes (as in determining the day of the crucifixion) in important places to correct them, it has been assumed very often, from Jerome (comp. already Euseb. iii. 24) downwards, and with various modifi- cations even at the present day (Ebrard, Ewald, Weizsiicker, Godet, and many others), that this relation to the Synoptics was the designed object of the work. Such a view, however, cannot be supported ; for there is not the slightest hint in the Gospel itself of any such purpose ; and further, there would thus be attributed to it an historico-critical character totally at vari- ance with its real nature and its design, as expressly stated, xx. 80, 31, and which even as a collateral purpose would be quite foreign to the high spir- itual tone, sublime unity, and unbroken compactness of the book. More- over, in the repetition of synoptical passages which John gives, there are not always any material additions or corrections leading us to suppose a confirmatory design, in view of the non-repetition of a great many other and more important synoptical narrations. Again, where John diverges from parallel synoptical accounts, in the absence of contradictory references (in ‘iii, 24 only does there occur a passing note of time of this kind), his inde- pendence of the Galilean tradition fully suffices to explain the divergence. Finally, in very much that John has not borrowed from the synoptical his- tory, and against the truth of which no well-founded doubt can be urged, to suppose in such passages any intentional though silent purpose on his part to correct, would be equivalent to his rejection of the statements. In short, had the design in question exercised any determining influence upon the apostle in the planning and composition of his work, he would have ac- complished his task in a very strange, thoroughly imperfect, and illogical manner. We may, on the contrary, take it for granted that he was well acquainted with the Galilean tradition,’ and that the written accounts drawn from the cycle of that tradition, numbers of which were already in circula- tion, and which were especially represented in our Synoptics, were likewise sufficiently known to him ; for he presupposes as known the historical exist- ence of this tradition in all its essential parts." But it is precisely his per-
tolic age, and fits author stands upon an apostolic elevation ; it is inconceivable if it
Ewald to be the “oldest Gospe),” ‘the collection of discourses,” and ‘the origi-
originated in the second century, when those oppositions were developing, and had already developed into open and deep- seated divisions, and where the conditions necessary for the production of such a For- mula Concordiae were utterly wanting In the bosom of the time.
1 According to Ewald, John only compar- ed and made use of what is assumed by
nal Mark.”’ But a limitation to these three books, considering the number already ex- isting (Luke i. 1), is iu itself fmprobable, and is all the less demonstrable, that the first and third treatises named by Ewald have themselves only a very problematical exist- ence.
*See Weizsicker in the Jahrb. fur Deutsche Theot. 1859, p. 601 ff. He goes, how-
34 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fect independence of this tradition and its records—keeping in view his aim to bring fully out the higher Messianic proof, and the abundant material from which his own recollection could so fully draw—which enables us to understand the partial coincidence, and still greater divergence, between him and the Synoptics, and his entire relation to them generally, which is not determined by any special design on his part ; so that the confirmation, correction, and enlargement of their narratives often appear as a result of which he is conscious, but never as the object which he had sought to ac- complish in his treatise. As to any design, so understood, of correcting the Synoptics, the silence of John upon many portions of the cycle of synoptic narrative is undoubtedly very significant, in so far as the historical truth of these in their traditional form would have been of special value for the apostle’s purpose. This holds true particularly of the account of the temp- tation, the transfiguration, and the ascension as actual occurrences, as well as of the cure of demoniacs as such. As criticism, however, is here pledg- ed to special caution, so the opposite conclusion—viz. that facts which would have been of great importance even for the synoptical Messianic proof, but which are recorded only in John, cannot be regarded as origi- nally historical in the form in which he gives them—is everywhere inadmis- sible, especially where he speaks as an eye-witness, in which capacity he must be ranked above Matthew : for Matthew did indeed compose the col- lection of discourses which is worked up into the Gospel that bears his name, but not the Gospel itself as it lies before us in its gradually settled canonical form. If, while taking all into account, the complete, unbiassed independence of John in relation to the Synoptics, above whom he stands distinguished by his exact determination of the succession of time, must be preserved intact ; we must at the same time bear in mind that, as the last evangelist and apostle, he had to satisfy the higher needs of Christian knowledge, called forth by the development of the church in this later stage, and thus had boldly to go beyond the range of the whole previous Gospel literature.’ This higher need had reference to that deeper and uni- form insight into the peculiar cternal essence of Christianity and its Found- er, which John, as no other of his contemporaries, by his richly stored experience was fitted and called to impart. He had thus, indeed, as a mat- ter of fact, supplemented and partly corrected the carlier evangelists, though not to such an extent as to warrant the supposition that this was his delib- erate object. For, by giving to the entire written history its fullest comple- tion, he took rank far above all who had worked before him ; not doctrinally making an advance from zior¢ to yraore (Liicke), but, in common with the Synoptics, pursuing the same goal of ior (xx. 31), yet bringing the subject-matter of this common faith to a higher, more uniform, and univer- sal stage of the original yvdor¢¢ of its essence than was possible in the carlier Gospel histories, composed under diverse relations, which had now passed
ever, too far, when (Zeang. Gesch. p. 270) he even more concrete history than the Gos- calls the fourthGospel,withoutenlargement pels whose range Is limited to Galilee.
from other sources, “a misty picture with- 1 Comp. Keim, Gesch. Jesu, p. 106 f.
out reality.” Taken al in ail, it contains
INTRODUCTION. 3d
away, and with different and (measured by the standard of John’s fellowship with Jesus) very inferior resources.
John prosecutes his design, which is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah in the sense of the incarnate Logos, by first of all stating this leading idea in the prologue, and then exhibiting in well-selected * historical facts its his- torical realization in Jesus. This idea, which belongs to the very highest Christological view of the world, guided his choice and treatment of facts, and brought out more clearly the opposition—which the author had con- stantly in view—with unbelieving and hostile Judaism ; but so far from detracting from the historical character of the Gospel, it appears rather only to be derived from the actual experience of the history, and is in turn con- firmed thereby. To defend the Gospel against the suspicion of being ao free compilation from synoptical materials in subservience to some main idea, is, on the one hand, as unnecessary for him who recognizes it as of necessity apostolic, and as a phenomenon explicable only upon this suppo- sition ; as, on the other hand, in the face of the man who can transfer to the second century, and ascribe to so late a period so great a creative power of Christian thought, such defence, under the altered conditions of the problem, has been proved by experience to be impossible.
SEC. V.— SOURCES, TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING.
The main source is John himself (1 John i. 1 f.), his own inalienable recollection, his experience, his life of fellowship with Christ, continued, increased, and preserved in its freshness by the Spirit of truth, together with the constant impulse to preach and otherwise orally communicate that sub- lime view of the nature and life of Jesus, which determined the essential contents of his work, as a whole and in details. Accordingly, the credibil- ity of the work asserts itself as being relatively the highest of all, so that it ought to have the deciding voice in case of discrepancies in all essential portions, where the author speaks as an eye and ear witness. This also ap- plies to the discourses of Jesus, in so far as their truthfulness is to be recog- nized, not indeed to all their details and form,—for they were freely repro- duced and resuscitated by his after recollection, and under the influence of a definite and determining point of view, after the Lord’s thoughts and ex-
1In connection with this, the selection
fallen out after chap. v. (Ewald), finds no mide of the miracies of Jesus is specially
support in the connection of chap. v. and
noteworthy. Only one of each kind Is chosen, viz. one of transformation, {!. 1 ff. ; one fever cure, iv. 47 ff.; one cure of lame- ness, v. 1 ff.; one feeding, vi. 4 ff.; one walking on the sea, vi. 16 ff.; one opening the eyes of the blind, ix. 1 ff. ; one raising from the dead, xi. 1 ff. The number seven {is hardly accidental, nor yet the exclusion of any instance of the casting out of de- mons, That a paragraph contalning an ac- count of an instance of casting out has
vi. or elsewhere, and has left no trace ap- prectable by criticism in evidence of its ex- istence; while that completed number seven, to which an eighth miracle would thus be added, is against it. This number seven is evidently based upon 8+-3-+ 1,—Vviz. three miracles of nature, three of healing, and one of raising the dead. An eighth miracle was only added in the appendix, chap. xxi., after the book was fluisheq,
360 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
pressions had by a lengthened process of elaboration been blended with his own, which thus underwent a transfiguration,—but as to the subject-matter and its characteristic clothing and thoughtful changes and variations, in all their simplicity and dignity. Their truthfulness is, I say, all the more to be recognized, the more inwardly and vividly the apostle in particular stood in harmony with his Lord’s mind and heart. So familiar was he with the character and nature of Christ's discourses, and so imbued with His spirit, that even the reflections of his own which he intertwines, as well as his Epistle, nay, even the discourses of the Baptist, bear one and the same stamp ; a fact, however, which only places the essential originality of the Johannean discourses so much the more above suspicion.'
In those portions in which we have no vouchers for personal testimony, the omission is sufficiently supplied, by the author’s connection with Christ and his fellow-apostles (as well as with Mary), and by the investigations which we may assume he made, because of his profound interest in the sub- ject ; and by the living, harmonious, and comprehensive view of Christ's life and work with which he was inspired, and which of itself must have led to the exclusion of any strange and interpolated features.
The supposition that in his own behoof he made use of notes taken by him- self (so Bertholdt, Wegscheider, Schott, and others), does not, indeed, con- tradict the requirements of a living apostolic call, but must be subordinated so as to be compatible with the unity of spirit and mould of the whole work ; a unity which is the gradually ripened and perfected fruit of a long life of recollection, blending all particulars in one true and bright collective picture, under the guidance of the Divine Spirit as promised by Christ Himself (xiv. 26).
The synoptical tradition was known to John, and his Gospel presupposes it. He was also certainly acquainted with the evangelic writings which embodied it—those at least that were already widely spread and held in esteem ; but all this was not his sowrce properly so called : his book itself is proof enough that, in writing it, he was independent of this, and stood abore all the then existing written and traditional authoritics. He has preserved this independence even in the face of Matthew’s collection of discourses and Mark’s Gospel, both of which doubtless he had read, and which may have suggested to him, unintentionally and unsought for on his part, many ex- pressions in his own independent narrative, but which can in no way imter- fere with its apostolic originality." We cannot determine whether he like- wise knew the somewhat more recent Gospel of Luke (Keim and others) ;
1 Ewald, Jahrb. III. p. 168 f.: ‘* As, under the Old Covenant, it is precisely the earliest prophets who are the strictest and purest interpreters of Him who, though never vis- ible in bodily form, yet moves, lives, and speaks in them as if He were: so at the very close of the New Testament a similar phenomenon reappears, when the Logos comes on the scene in bright and clear manifestation. The Spirit of the historical
Christ was concentrated in His former fa- miliar disciple in the most compact strength and transparent clearness, and now streams forth from him over this later world, which had never yet so understood Him. The mouth of John is for this world the mouth of the glorified Christ, and the full histor- ical resuscitation of that Logos who will not reappear till the end of all things.” * Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Christi, p. 127 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 37
for the points of contact between the two are conceivable upon the suppo- sition of their writing independently side by side, especially as Luke had a rich range of sources, which are to us for the most part unknown. That John likewise knew the Gospel of the Hebrews is not made probable by the saying which he recordsconcerning ‘‘the birth from above.” The combina- tion, on that account, of this saying with the corresponding quotation made by Justin and the Clementines (see above, sec. ii.) rests upon the very pre- carious premiss that both of these cite from the Gospel of the Hebrews.
As to the question whence John derived his representation of the divine element in Christ as the Logos, see on chap. i. 1.
As to the PLACE where the gospel, which was certainly written in Greek, not in Aramaic (against Salmasius, Bolten, and partly Bertholdt), was com-— posed, the earliest tradition’ distinctly names Lphesus ; and the original document is said to have been preserved there to a late period, and to have been the object of believing veneration (Chron. Pasch. p. xi. 411, ed. Dind.). By this decision as to the place we must abide, because the Gospel itself bears upon its very face proofs of its author’s remoteness from Palestine, and from the circle of Jewish life, along with references to cultured Greek readers ; and because the life of the apostle himself, as attested by the history of the church, speaks decidedly for Ephesus. The tradition that he wrote at Patmos (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Theophylact, and many others, also Hug) is a later one, and owes its origin to the statement that the Apocalypse was written on that island. With this, the tradition which tries to reconcile the two, by supposing that John dictated his Gospel in Pat- mos and published it at Ephesus (Pseudo-Athanasius, Dorotheus), loses all its value.—The assumption that a long time elapsed before it gained any wide circulation, and that it remained within the circle of the apostle’s friends in Ephesus, at whose request a very ancient tradition (Canon Mu- ratori, Clement of Alexandria, in Euseb. vi. 14) makes him to have written it, is not indeed sanctioned by the silence of Papias concerning it (Credner), but receives confirmation by the fact that the appendix, chap. xxi., is found in all the oldest testimonies,—leading us to conclude that its publication in more distant circles, and dissemination through multiplication of copies, did not take place till after this addition.
As to the TIME of its composition, the earliest testimonies (Irenaeus, Clement of Alex., Origen) go to prove that John wrote subsequently to the Synoptics, and (Irenaeus) not till after the deaths of Peter and Paul. A later and more precise determination of the time,* in the advanced old
1 Already In Iren. iff. 1, Clement of Alex., Origen, Eusebius, etc.
2Epiphanius, Haer. li. 12. Atd vorepoy avaycaes TH Gytoy mvevua Tov ‘Iwavyny mapai- Tovmevoy evayyeAicagda &° evAdBetay Kai ta- weivodpogvvny, exe Ty yupaddg avrov HAtcia, pera ery éverixovra THs éavToU Gwis, meTa THY avrou awd ris Tldrpou éwavosoy thy ei KAav- Sov yevoudryy Kaicapos, cai pera ixava érn rov Starpipar avrdy ard rizs
"Agias avaynadgerat éxdéodat rd evayyéAcov. These last words are not corrupt, nor is awd ths "Acias to be joined with avaycdgera: as if it meant ad Asiae epir- copis (Liicke); but we must render them, ‘“‘and many years after he had lived away from Asia, he was obliged,” etc.,—thus taking the words in their essential sense, *““many years after his extra-Asiatic so- journ,’’ many years after his return from
38 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
age of the apostle, is connected with the desire to ascribe to the Gospel an anti-heretical design, and therefore loses its critical weight. The follow- ing points may perhaps be regarded as certain, resulting as they do from a comparison of this tradition with historical circumstances and with the Gos- pel itself. As John certainly did not settle in Ephesus until after St. Paul’s removal from his Asiatic sphere of labour, nor indced, doubtless, until after the destruction of Jerusalem, where until then John resided: as, further, the estrangement from Palestinian conditions, so evident in the Gospel, implies an already prolonged residence away from Palestine ; as the elaborate view of the Logos is a post-Pauline phase of the apprehension and exposition of Christ’s higher nature, and suggests a longer familiarity. with philosophical influences ; as the entire character and nature of the book, its clearness and depth, its calmness and completeness, most probably indicate the ma- tured culture and clarifying influence of riper years, without, however, in the least degree suggesting to us the weakness of old age,—we must put the composition not before the destruction of Jerusalem (Lampe, Wegschei- der), but a considerable time after ; for if that catastrophe had been still fresh in the recolicction of the writer, in the depths of its first impression, it could hardly, on psychological grounds, have escaped express mention in the book. No such express reference to it occurs ; but if, notwithstand- ing, Jerusalem and its environs are to be regarded, and that rightly, as in ruins, and in the distant backyround of the apostle’s view, the 7» in xi. 18, Xviil. 1, xix. 41, reads more naturally than if accounted for from the mere context of historical narration, while on the other hand the éor: in v. 2 may retain its full appropriateness. If a year is to be definitely named, a.p. 80° may be suggested as neither too far preceding or following it.*
Note.—As to Puan, the Gospel divides itself into the following sections :— After the prologue, i. 1-18, which at once sets before the reader the lofty point of view of the most sacred history, the revelation of the glory of the only-be- gotten Son of the Father (which constitutes the theme of the Gospel, i. 14) begins, first through John the Baptist, and its manifestation onwards to the
Patmos. Thegenitive rot Scarpipar avrdy aro Tr. ’Agias, denotes the dwelling away, etc., asthe point of departure from which the ixavd er begin to run. See Kihner, II. pp. 164, 514. Comp. Bernhardy, p. 138.
1 There therefore lies between the Apoc- alypse and the Gospel a space of from ten to twelve years. Considering the maturity of mind which the apostle, who was already aged in the year 70, must have attained, this space was too short to effect such a change of view and of language as we must sup: pose if the apocalyptist was also the evan- gelist. This also against Tholuck, p. 11.
2 It is evident from the distinctive and in- ternal characteristics of the Gospel, and es- pecially from the form of its ideas, that it was written after the downfall of the Jew- ish state and the labours of St. Paul; but
we cannot go so far as to find reflected in it precisely the beginning of the second century (i.e. a time only 20 or 80 years later), nor to argue therefrom the non-apostolic origin of the Gospel (and of the Epistle). The interval is too short, and our knowledge of church movements, especially of Gnosti- cism, so far as they might be said to belong, at least in their stages of impulse and de- velopment, to the beginning only of the new century, and not to the two or three preced- ing decades of years, Is not sufficiently special and precise. This tells, at the same time, against Keim, Gesch. .J. I. p. 147 ff. How can it be said, on any reliable grounds, that the Gospel discloses the state of the church about the year 100, but not the state of the church about the year 80?
INTRODUCTION. 39
first miracle, and as yet without any opposition of unbelief, down to ii. 11. Then (2) this self-revelation passes on to publicity, and progresses in action and teaching amid the contrast of belief and unbelief, on to another and greater miracle, ii. 12~iv. 54. Further, (3) new miracles of the Lord’s in Judea and Galilee, with the discourses occasioned thereby, heighten that contrast, caus- ing among the Jews a desire to persecute and even kill Him, and among His disciples many to fall away, v.-vi. 71. After this, (4) unbelief shows itself even among the brothers of Jesus ; the self-revelation of the Only-begotten of the Father advances in words and deeds to the greatest miracle of all, that of the raising of the dead, by which, however, while many believe upon Him, the hostility of unbelief is urged on to the decisive determination to put Him to death, vii.-ix. 57. There ensues, (5)in and upon the carrying out of this de- termination, the highest self-revelation of Christ's divine glory, which finally gains its completed victory in the resurrection, xii.-xx. Chap. xxi. is an appen- dix. Many other attempts have been made to exhibit the plan of the book ; on which see Luthardt, I. p. 255 ff., who (comp. also his treatise, De composit. ev. Joh., Norimb. 1852 ; before this Késtlin, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 194 ff., and afterwards Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 115 f.) endeavours on his part to carry out a threefold division of the whole and of the several parts ; and in Godet, Comment. I. p. 111. The arrangement which approaches most nearly to the above is that of Ewald, Jahrb. TI. p. 168, comp. VIII. 109, and Johann. Schr. L p. 18 ff. In every mode of division, the opposition of the world’s ever-increasing unbelief and hatred to the revelation of the divine glory in Christ, and to faith in Him, must ever be held fast, as the thread which runs systematically through the whole. Comp. Godet,! as before.
Notes spy AmMERIcAN Eprror. I. The Apocalypse. Page 22.
This is of conrse no place for controverting at length Meyer’s very positive view of the non-Johannean authorship of the Apocalypse. I may adduce two or three suggestions, remarking that his view is rejected by many of the ablest scholurs, who maintain the identity in authorship of the two works. As to out- ward evidence, the thread of direct testimony in the early church is nearly un- broken, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment ; and indirect testimony is by no means wanting. The difference in the style is explicable from the difference in the subject matter and in the two classes of composition. The account of a succession of vivid symbolical scenes, drawing in all the agencies of nature, and shifting rapidly between earth and heaven, in the midst of which the author stands, could scarce- ly fail to differ widely in style from the narration of a series of quiet historical
1Who (p. 121) gives what he calls the ** photographie deThistotre’ as follows: ‘' La fol nalt, f.-iv. ; incrédullté domine, v.-xif. ; la foi atteint sa perfection relative, xill.- xvii.; l‘incrédulité se consomme, xviil., xix.; la fol triomphe, xx. (xxi.)"’ Such special abstract designations of place give too varied play to tho subjectivities, still
more so the subdivision of the several main parts, as by Ewald especially, and Kelm, with different degrees of skill; but the latter considers that his threefuld divi- sion and subdivision of the two halves (i.-xif., xlil.-xx.) ‘‘ has its root in the adsoalute grounad of the divine mystery of the number threc,”—a lusus ingenti.
40 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,
events long past by. As to grammatical construction, the very excitement of the grand dramatic scene would naturally lead, in one not a native to the lan- guage, to the merging of grammatical niceties in forcible, if inaccurate, diction. The book itself furnishes abundant evidence that, as to style, the writer ‘‘knew’’ better than he ‘builded ;” that his errors are not errors of ignorance of the usages which he sometimes so daringly violates (as witness the azo 6 dy, xal 6 7, kai o Epxouevoc), On grounds of intrinsic fitness, too, it would seem eminently natural that the beloved disciple who had witnessed personally one prefigured coming of his Master in His kingdom, and been half promised that he should wait to behold yet another coming of the Lord, should be selected to give to the church this magnificent outline of the pivotal epochs of its history and reveal- ing of its final glory. While much in the book is mysterious and as yet unrav- elled, enough has yielded itself to the labors of devout exegesis to assure us that the whole is one of the richest products of inspiration, worthy alike of its author, its medium, and its destination. The ‘‘Conquering Hero” of the Apocalypse (xix. 11-16), the ‘‘ WORD of God’’ is that ‘‘ Word” of the opening of the Gospel, who ‘‘ was in the beginning with God.’’
Weiss, Meyer’s German editor, also dissents from his conclusions regarding the relation of the Gospel to the Apocalypse. He holds that, especially through Justin Martyr and Papias, the attestations to the apostolic origin of the Apoc- alypse are earlier and more direct in the church than to that of the Gospel. He thinks the absence of the Apocalypse from the Peshito may be due rather to other reasons (as dislike of its chiliasm) than doubts of its apostolic origin. He holds that the fundamental diversity of the two writings in tendency and contents allows but a limited comparison between them ; that they are sepa- rated by an interval of twenty years, in which the author was removed from Palestine to Asia Minor, from the sphere of Jewish to that of Gentile Chris- tianity, with the intervening shock of the destruction of Jerusalem, with its many and far-reaching changes ; and that finally, in spite of all differences, there exist such remarkable coincidences in essential and fundamental thoughts, as well as in individual forms of doctrine, imuges, expressions, and linguistic pecu- liarities, as, while not proving identity of authorship, allow the apostolical au- thorship of each to be discussed and maintained without prejudice to the claims of the other.
I. Anli-Gnostic purpose in the Gospel. Page 31.
‘‘ Meyer declares himself against any anti-Gnostic polemical purpose in the Gospel, since it nowhere discloses any direct design to combat perverted sec- tarian developments, and to look for indirect and concealed references, as intended, were alike arbitrary and opposed to the decided character of the apostolic position in its known hostility to heresies. But when he concedes that the Apostle in his first Epistle assails Gnostic perversions, and that these have not first come within his sphere of action after the composition of his Gospel (as Ewald, Jahrb. iii. p. 157, assumes),it is exceedingly probable that his purpose, by his historical portraiture to establish and confirm the true knowledge of Christ’s deepest nature, is partly conditioned by the threatening aspect in this direction of the germinating Gnosis. For that the antagonism to this Gnosis should not come out in the same way in the Gospel as in the Epistle, lies in the very character of the Gospel narrative, if it would not blend fictitious elements with its narratives and discourses.’’—Weiss,
CHAP. I. 41
Edayyéhioy xara Iwavryny.
B. w. have merely xara "Iudvy. Others : 1d xarad "Iwdvy. (Gyov) evayy.
Others : éx rov x. Iwdvyv. Others: evayy. éx tov ward ’Iudvy, See on Mat- thew.
CHAPTER I.
Ver. 4. {07 jv] D. &. Codd. in Origen and Augustine, It. (Germ. Foss. ex- cepted), Sahidic, Syr.» Clem. Valentt. in Ir. Hilary, Ambrose, Vigil. : (w7 éorcv. So Lachm. and Tisch. Generalization in connection with the words: 64 yéy, év ait, Swi) #v, and perhaps in comparison with 1 John v. 11. — Ver. 16. cai éx] B. C.* D. L. X. &. 33. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Ver. Verc. Corb. Or. and many Fathers and Schol. : ére ex. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. ; dr: is to be preferred on account of the preponderating evidence in its favour, and because ver. 16 was very early (Heracl. and Origen) regarded as a continuation of the Bap- tist’s discourse, and the directly continuous «ai naturally suggested itself, and was inserted instead of the less simple arc. — Ver. 18. vidc] B. C.* L. ®. 33. Copt. Syr. Aeth. and many Fathers: Geé¢. Dogmatic gloss in imita- tion of ver. 1 whereby not only vidc, but the article before poroy. (which Tisch. deletes), was also (in the Codd. named) suppressed. The omission of vidc (Origen, Opp. IV. 102 ; Ambrose, ep. 10) is not sufficiently supported, and might easily have been occasioned by ver. 14. — Ver. 19. After azéoresAav, B. C.* Min. Chrys. and Verss. have mpd¢ atrév. So Lachm., an addition which other Codd. and Verss. insert after Aevirac. — Ver. 20. ovnw eipi eyo] A.B. C.* L. X. A, 8. 33. Verss. and Fathers have: eyo otk eis. So Lachm., Tisch. Rightly, on account of the preponderating evidence. Comp. iii. 28, where ove eiut éyo is attested by decisive evidence. — Ver. 22. The o¢ »y after elwov (Lachm. Tisch. read elzvav) is deleted by Lachm., following B. C. Syr. ‘,—testimonies which are all the ldéss adequate, considering how easily the otv, which is not in itself necessary, might have been overlooked after the final syllable of elxov.! — Ver, 24. The article before dmecradu. is wanting in A.* B. C.* L. ¥.* Origen (once), Nonn. Perhaps a mere omission on the part of the transcriber, if decr. joav were taken together; but perhaps intentional, for some (Origen and Nonn.) have here supposed a second deputation. The omission is therefore doubly suspicious, though Tisch. also now omits the art. — Ver. 25. Instead of the repeated ot re, we must, with Lachm., Tisch., following A. B. C. L. X.®. Min. Origen, read ovdé. — Ver. 26. dé after ufcoc must, with Tisch., on weighty testimony (B.C. L. &. etc.), be deleted, having been added as a connecting
1 Matthael, ed. min. ad x. 39, well says: transposuerunt. Accedunt interpretes, qui **in nullo libro scribae ita vexarunt partic- cum demum locum aliquein tractant, illas alas xai, 34, oy, wdAcwy ... quam in hoc _particulae in principio modo addunt, modo evangelio. Modo temere inoulcarunt,mo- omittunt." do permutarunt, modo omiserunt, modo
42 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
particle. — Ver. 27. Against the words avréc¢ éorey (for which G. Min. Chrys. read otrdé¢ éorev) and 6¢ EutwpooGév mov yéyover the testimonies are so ancient, important, and unanimous, that they must be rejected together. Lachm. has bracketed them, Tisch. deletes them. airéc éoriv is an unneces- sary aid to the construction, and 6é¢ éuzp. pov yéyovev (though defended by Ewald) is a completion borrowed from vv. 15, 30. — Ver. 28. By@avig] Elz: ByGuBap¢ (adopted of late by Hengstenberg), against conclusive testimony, but following Syr.** and Origen (Opp. I. 130), who himself avows that oyeddv év dat Toic dvTtypagore is found BySavia, yet upon geographical grounds decides in favour of Byfafapg,— a consideration by which criticism cannot be bound. See the exegetical notes. — Ver. 29. After GAére: Elz. has 6 "Iwavy., against the best testimonies. Beginning of a church lesson. — Ver. 32. &¢] Elz. : dcei, against the oldest and most numerous Codd. See Matt. iii. 16 ; Luke iii. 22. — Ver. 37. j#xovoe. avrod] Tisch., following B. &., puts atrod after adr. ; C.* L. X. T.” have it after dvo. The Verss. also have this variation of position, which must, however, be regarded as the removal of the avrov, made more or less mechanically, in imitation of ver. 35. — Ver. 40. idere] B. C.* L. T.? Min. Syr. utr. Origen, Tisch.: dyeo%e. Correctly ; the words which immedi- ately follow and ver. 47 (comp. xi. 34) make it much more likely that the tran- scriber would write idere for dpeo%e than vice versa. After dpa Elz. has dé, against which are the weightiest witnesses, and which has been interpolated as a connecting link. — Ver. 43. ’Iwvd] Lachm. : ‘lwavov, after B.; the same variation in xxi. 15-17. We must, with Tisch., after B.* L. &. 33, read 'Iwdv- vov. Comp. Nonnus: vid¢ "Iwévvao, The Textus Receptus has arisen from Matt. xvi. 17.-—- Ver. 44. After 70éAncev Elz. has 6 'Inaovc, which the best authorities place after air. Beginning of a church lesson. — Ver. 52.amrdpri] wanting in B. L. &. Copt. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. It. and some Fathers, also in Origen. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Omitted, because it seemed inappropriate to the following words, which were taken to refer to actual angelic appearances.
Ver. 1. "Ev apxg] John makes the beginning of his Gospel parallel with - that of Genesis ;! but he rises above the historical conception of MW813, which (Gen. i. 1) includes the beginning of time itself, to the absolute con- ception of anteriority to time: the creation is something subsequent, ver. 8. Prov, viii. 23, év apy} mpd tov tiv yp rotjoat, is parallel ; likewise, mpd Tob Tov Kécuov eivat, John xvii. 5; wpd xataPorge xéopov, Eph. i. 4. Comp. Nezach Israel, f. 48, 1: Messias erat WWN °3DD (ante Tohu). The same idea we find already in the book of Enoch, xlviii. 3 f., 6 f., lxii. 7,—a book which (against Hingenfeld and others) dates back into the second century B.c. (Dilm., Ewald, and others). The notion, in itself negative, of ante- riority to time (dypovo¢g 7, akiznroc, tv appitw Adyog apxyp, Nonnus), is in a popular way affirmaticely designated by the év apy as ‘‘primecal ;” the more exact dogmatic definition of the apyq as ‘' eternity’? is a correct devel- opment of John’s meaning, but not strictly what he himself says. Comp. 1 John i. 1; Rev. iii. 14. The Valentinian notion, that apy7 was a divine
1 See Hoelemann, de evangelii Joh. introttu 2 Theodor. Mopsuest., Euthym. Zig.; introitus Geneseos augustiore efigie, Leipsic | comp. Theophylact. 1855, p. 26 ff.
CHAP. I, 1. 43
Hypostasis distinct from the Father and the Aédyoc (Iren. Hacer. i. 8. 5), and the Patristic view, that it was the divine cogia (Origen) or the everlasting Father (Cyril. Al.), rest upon speculations altogether unjustified by ccr- rect exegesis.’— ww] was, eristed. John writes historically, looking back from the later time of the incarnation of the Adyoc (ver. 14). But he does not say, ‘‘In the beginning the Adyo¢ came into existence,” for he does not conceive the generation (comp. povoyevfc) according to the Arian view of creation, but according to that of Paul, Col. 1. 15.—6 Aédéyorc} 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 under- stand 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 any sort of a substitution, such as (1) that 6 Adyoc is the same as 6 Acyduevoc, ‘‘ the promised one;”? (2) that it stands for 6 Aéyur, ‘‘ the speaker” (Storr, Eckerm., Justi, and others). Not less incorrect (8) is Hofmann’s interpretation (Schrift- beveis, I. 1, p. 109 f.) : *‘6 Adyoc is the word of God, the Gospel, the person- al subject of which however, namely Christ, is here meant :” against which view it is decisive, first, that neither in Rev. xix. 18, nor elsewhere in the N. T., is Christ called 6 Adyoc merely as the subject-matter of the word ; sec- ondly, that in John. 6 Adyos, without some additional definition, never once occurs as the designation of the Gospel, though it is often so used by Mark (ii. 2, iv. 14, al.), Luke (i. 2 ; Acts xi. 19, a/.), and Paul (Gal. vi. 6 ; 1 Thess. i. 6) ; thirdly, that in the context, ncither here (see especially ver. 14) nor in 1 John i. 1 (see especially 6 éwpdxayev. . . nal al yeipes yudv epnAddnoav) does it seem allowable to depart in 6 Adyo¢ from the immediate designation of the personal subject,’ while this immediate designation, 7.¢. 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 : ‘‘ 6 Adyo¢ is the word of God, which in Christ, Heb. i. 1, has gone forth into the world, and the substance of which was His own person.” The investigation of the Logos idea can lead to a true result only when pursued by the path of history. But here, above all, history points us to the O. T.,° and most dircctly to Gen. i., where the act of creation is effected by God speaking. The reality contained in this representation, anthropomorphic as to its form, of the rev- elation of Himself made in creation by God, who is in His own nature hid- den, became the root of the Logos idea. The Word as creative, and em-
1 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 év apx7 sig- nifies in initio evangelii.
* Valla, Beza, Ernesti, Tittm., ete.
2 See, with reference to 1 John {. 1 (in op- position to Beyschlag’s impersonal inter- pretation), besides Diisterdieck and Huther,
Johansson, dé aeterna Christi pracexist. sec. ev. Joh., Lundae 1866, p. 29 f.
*See, on the other hand, Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 206 ff.: Lechler, apost. uw. nachapost. Zeit. p. 215; Gess, v. d. Person Chr. p. 116; Kabnis, Dogmat. I. p. 406.
6 See Rodhricht in the Stud. u. Arif. 1868, Pp. 209 ff.
44) THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
bodying generally the divine will, is personijied in Hebrew poetry (Ps. XXXili. 6, cvii. 20, cxlvii. 15 ; Isa. lv. 10, 11) ; and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Ps. xxxiv. 4 ; Isa. xl. 8 ; Ps. cxix. 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 Adyoc as a further step in the knowl- edge of the relations in the divine essence ; but this advance took place gradually, and only after the captivity, so that probably the oriental doc- trine of emanations, and subsequently the Pythagoreanized Platonism, were not without influence upon what was already given in germ in Gen.i. An- other 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 (NIIN), of which the creative word was an expression, and which in the book of Job (xxvili. 12 ff.) and Proverbs (viii., ix.), in Eccles. i. 1-10, xxiv. 8, and Baruch iii. 37-iv. 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 closcly as it ceases to maintain the elevation and boldness of the ancient poesy. The actual transition of the cogia into the Hypostasis occurs in the book of Wisdom vii. 7-xi., where wisdom (manifestly under the influence of the idea of the Pla- tonic soul of the world, perhaps also of the Stoic conception of an all-per- vading world-spirit) appears as a being of light proceeding essentially from God,—the true image of God, co-occupant of the divine throne,—a rea] 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 povoyevéc’ also is named, vii. 22. The divine Adyo¢ also appears again in the book of Wisdom, ix. 1, comp. ver. 2, but only in the O. T. sense of a poetically personified declaration of God’s will, either in blessing (xvi. 12, comp. Ps. cvii. 20) or in punishing (xviii. 15).2 While, then, in the Apocrypha the Logos repre- sentation retires before the development of the idea of wisdom,* it makes itself the more distinctly prominent in the Chaldee Paraphrasts, especially Onkelos.* The Targums, the peculiarities of which rest on older traditions, exhibit the Word of God, 82") or ¥1137, as the divinely revealing Hypos- tasis, identical with the 1).3Y which was to be revealed in the Messiah. Comp. Schoettg. Hor. II. p. 5; Bertholdt, Christol. p. 121. Thus there
runs through entire Judaism under various forms of conception (comp. es-
1 Comp. vii. 25, where it is said of wisdom, ardéppota THs TOU wayToxparopos Sof ns eiAtxpivys. Movoyevés should not have been rendered single (Bauerm., Liicke, Bruch, after the early writers), which it neither is nor is re- quired to be by the merely formal contrast to roAuyepds. This idea single, as answering to the following roAvpepés, would have been expressed by sovomepés (Luc. Calumn. 6). Also Grimm (exeget. Handbd. p. 152) has now
rightly abandoned this interpretation.
2 See especially Grimm, én loc. ; Bruch, Weisheitalehre d. Hebr. p. 847 ff. Comp. also Eccles, xliti. 46.
3 Wisdom as appearing in Christ is men- tioned in N. T. also, in Luke xi. 49, comp. Matt. xi. 19.
* See Gfrérer, Geach. d. Urchristenth. I. 1, p. 801 ff. ; Winer, De Onkel. p. 44f.; Anger, De Onkel, TI. 1846.
~
CHAP. I., l. 45
pecially the 77 gen in the O. T. from Gen. xvi., Ex. xxiii. downwards, frequently named, especially in Hosea, Zechariah, and Malachi, as the rep- resentative of the self-revealing God), the idea that God never reveals Himself directly, but mediately, that is, does not reveal His hidden invisi- ble essence, but only a manifestation of Himself (comp. especially Ex. Xxxiii. 12-28) : and this idea, modified however by Greek, and particularly Platonic and Stoic speculation, became a main feature in the Judaeo-Alex- andrine philosophy, as set forth in Pu1xo, an older contemporary of Jesus.’ According to the intellectual development, so rich in its results, which Philo gave to the transmitted Jewish doctrine of Wisdom, the Logos is the com- prehension 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 (Adyo¢ omepparixéc). AS immanent in God, containing within it- self the archetypal world, which is conceived as the real world-ideal (vorro¢ xécpuoc), itis, while not yet outwardly existing, like the immanent reason in men, the Adyog @vdid@eroc ; but when in creating the world it has issued forth from God, it answers to the Adyog ~pogopexdée, as with man the word when spoken is the manifestation of thought. Now the Adyoc x po- gopcxéc 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 the cog:a and the Divine Spirit itself. Hence it is the image of the Godhead, the eldest and first-begotten (mpecSiraroc, xpwrdéyovoc) Son of God, the possessor of the entire divine fulness, the Mediator between God and the world, the Abyo¢ Toueic, Snusovpyéc, apxreperc, lxérng, wpeaBeuvrgc, the apydyyedoc, the debrepog Sedc, the substratum of all Theophanies, also the Messiah, though ideally apprehended only asa Theophany, not as a concrete incarnate personality ,; for an incarnation of the Logos is foreign to Philo’s system.* 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, how- ever, no real ground for inferring, with some (Keferst., Zeller), from this variation in his representation, that Philo’s opinion wavered between person- ality and impersonality ; rather, as regards the question of subsistence in its bearing upon Philo’s Logos,* we must attribute to him no separation be- tween the subsistence of God and the Logos, as if there came forth a Person
1 See especially Gfrorer, I. 248 ff.; Dihne, J.T. 212. Comp. also Langen, d. Judenth. 2.
Jildtesch-Alex. Relighonsphil, I. 114 ff. ; Gross- mann, Quaestion. Philon., Lpz. 1829 ; Scheffer, Quaest. Phil. Mard. 1889, 1881; Keferstein, Fhilo's Lehre von dem gdttl. Mittelwesen, Lpz. 1646; Ritter, Gesch. d. Philos. IV. 418 ff.: Zeller, Phtlos. d. Griechen, III. 2; Lutterb. neut. Lehrbegr. I. 418 ff. ; Miller in Herzog's Encykl. X1. 484; Ewald, apost. Zeit. 257; Delitzsch in d. Luther. Zeitschr. 1868, ii. 219; Riehm, Hebr. Brief, p. 249; Keim, Gesch.
Zell. Christi, 1867; Rodhricht as formerly quoted.
2 See Ewald, p. 264 ff. ; Dorner, Zntwickel- ungagesch. I. 50.
2See especially Dorner, Eniwickelunge- geach. I. 21; Niedner, de subsistentia re duig Asyy apud Philon. tributa,in the Zeltech. f. histor. Theol. 1849, p. 887 ff.; and Hédle- mann, dé evang. Joh. imrottu, etc., p. 80 ff.
46 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
distinct from God, whenever the Logos is described as a Person; but, ‘ea duo, in quibus cernitur roi dvro¢ Kat Cavrog Seov essentia s. deitas plenum esse
er 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 rod Seod et roi Aéyou hujus ipsius dei” (Niedner). Accordingly, Philo’s conception of the Logos resolves it- self 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 en- tering into humanity in a human form—solely to the Alexandrine philosophy, is an assertion utterly arbitrary, especially considering the difference be- tween 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 particu- lar.’ The form which John gave to his doctrine is understood much more naturally and historically thus, without by any means excluding the influ- ence of the Alexandrine Gnosis upon the apostle ;—that while the ancient popular wisdom of the Word of God, which (as shown above) carries us back to Gen. i. 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 develop- ment 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 specula- tions, so similar in their origin and theme, to have due influence upon him, and used * them in an independent manner to assist his exposition of the na- ture 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 i’). Whether he first adopted these speculations while dwelling in Asia Minor, need not be determined, although it is in it- self very conceivable that the longer he lived in Asia, the more deeply did he penetrate into the Alexandrine theologoumenon which prevailed there, without requiring for this any intermediate agency of Apollos (Tobler). The doctrine is not, however, on account of this connection with specula- tions lying outside of Christianity, by any means to be traced back to a
1Jt tells also against it, that in John the name Adyos is undoubtedly derived from the divine speaking (Word); in Philo, on the other hand, from the divine thinking (#eason). See Hoelemann as before, p. 48 ff.
2 Comp. Delitzsch, f.¢.. 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, Welss, J. Késtlin, Hengstenberg), they at the same time sever, though in the interests of apostolic dignity,
its historical credibility from its connection with the circumstances of tho time, as well as the necessary presumption of its Intelll- gibility 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 specula- tions of his day, and was masver of them, modifying, correcting, and utilizing them according to his own ideas. This is ulso in answer to Luthardt, p. 200, and Roéhbricht B.C.
CHAP. I., 1. 49
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 this 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, from their different idiosyncrasies and the different conditions of their after develop- ment. That main truth in it is to be referred absolutely to Christ Himself, whose communications to His disciples, and direct influence upon them (i. 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-exist- ent 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 decidedly all dual- istic and docetic elements, and in general treating the form once chosen with apostolic independence. That idea of God’s essential self-revelation, which took its rise from Gen. i., which lived and grew under various forms and names among the Hebrews and later Jews, but was moulded in a pecul- iar 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, ac- cording to John,' by 6 Adyoc, which is throughout viewed by him (as is clear from the entire Prologue down to ver. 18)? under the conception of a yer- sonal * subsistence, we must understand nothing else than the self-revelation of the divine essence, before all time immanent in God (comp. Paul, Col. i. 15 ff.), but for the accomplishment of the act of creation proceeding hypostatically JSrom Him, and ever after operating also in the spiritual world as a creating, quickening, and illuminating personal principle, equal to God Himself in na- ture and glory (comp. Paul, Phil. ii. 6) ; which divine self-rerelation 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.‘ The Synoptics contain the fragments
1In the Apocalypse also, chap. xix. 138, Christ is called the Adyos, but (not soin the Gospel) o Aéyos rou deov. The writer of the Apocalypse speaks of the whole Person of the God-man ina different way from the evangelist,—in fact. as in his state of ex- altation. (See Disterdieck, 2. Apok. Zin. p. 7% 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.
Comp. Worner, d. Verhilin. d. Geistes sum Sohne Gottes, 1862, p. %; also Baur, neutest. Theol. 32; Godet, f.c.
* That is, the subsistence as a conscious intelligent Ego, endued with volition. Against the denial of this personal trans- cendency in John (de Wette, Beyschlag, and others), see in particular Késtlin, LeAr- begr. 90; Briickn. 7 f.; Liebner, Christod. 155 f.: Weiss, Lehrbegr. 242 f. When Dorner (Geach, d. prot. Theol. 875 ff.) claims for the Son, indeed, a special divine mode of exist- ence as His eternal characteristic, but at the same time denies Him any direct par- ticipation in the absolute divine personality, his limitation is exegetically opposed to the view of John and of the Apostle Paul.
*Comp. Weizsiicker, #. d. evang. Geech.
48 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
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 7 isthe copula; but cai 6 Adyos, as the repetition of the great subject, hasa solemn emphasis. —7pd¢ rdv 3edv] not simply equivalent to rapa rq Seq, xvii. 5, but expressing, as in 1 John i. 2, the eristence 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, Mark vi. 3, ix. 19; Matt. xiii. 56, xxvi. 55; 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 7; Gal. i. 18, iv. 18; and in the texts cited in Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 202.' Upon the thing itself, comp. concerning Wis- dom, Prov. viii. 30, Wisd. ix. 4. The meral essence of this essential fellow- ship is love (xvii. 24; Col. i. 18), with which, at the same time, any merely modalistic conception is excluded. —xai dedc gv bd Adyoc] and the Logos was God. This ded ¢ can only be the predicate, not the subject (as Réhricht takes it), which would contradict the preceding 7 mr pé¢ rdv Sedv, because the conception of the Aéyog would be only a periphrasis for God. The predicate is placed before the subject emphatically (comp. iv. 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 added element —the naturally and logically emphasized member of the new clause, on account of its relation to rpdc rov Sedv.2 The omission of the article was necessary, because 6 Sede after the preceding mpi¢ rév Sedy would have assigned to the Logos identity of Person (as, in fact, Beyschlag, p. 162, construcs Sede with- out theart.). But so long as the question of God’s self-mediation objective- ly remains out of consideration, 6 ded¢ would have been out of place here, after rpéc rov dedv had laid down the distinction of Person ; whereas Ved¢ without the article makes the unity of essence and nature to follow the dis- tinction of Person.* As, therefore, by Seé¢ without the article, John neither indicates, on the one hand, identity of Person with the Father ; nor yet, on the other, any lower nature than that of God Himself : so his doctrine of the Logos is definitely distinguished from that of Philo, which predicates ede without the article of the Logos as subordinate in nature, nay, as he him- self says, év xaraypfoe (I. 655, ed. Mang.) ; see Hoelemann, I. 1, p. 34. Morcover, the name 6 detrepog eds, Which Philo gives to the Logos, must, according to II. 625 (Euseb. praep. ev. vii. 13), expressly designate an inter- mediate nature between God and man, after whose image God created man. This subordinationism, according to which the Logos is indeed pevépede reg
pp. 241 ff., 207; also his Adj. tiber d. Joh. Logoslehre, in d. Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, pp. 619 ff., 701 f.
1 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 dich), and the like. Comp. forthe Greek, Kriiger, § 68. 89. 4.—As against all impersonal conceptions of the Logos, observe it is never said év re dey, Rohricht (p. 312), however, arrives at the meaning ¢» re dey, and by unwarrantably
comparing the very different usage of rpés, takes exception to our explanation of wpds Tov deoy,
2 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.
3>“The last clause, the Word was God, is against Arius; the other, the Word was with God, against Sabellius."—LutrHeEr. See also Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, 1. 88 ff.
CHAP: I., 2, 3. 49
Beod store, but rod pév BAdrruv, avdpdrov 62 xpelrrav (1. 683), is not that of the N. T., which rather assumes (comp. Phil. ii. 6, Col. i. 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. Oeé¢, therefore, is not to be explained from Philo, nor converted into a general qualitative idea —‘‘ divine,” ‘* God-like” (B. Crusius),—which deprives the expression of the precision demanded for it by the strict monotheism of the N. T. (in John, see in particular xvii. 3), through the conception of the divine essence of the personal Logos. Comp. Schmid, bil. Theol. II. 370. On Sam. Crell’s con- jecture (Artemonii initium ev. Joh. ex. antiquitate eccl. restitut. 1726) that Seo is an idle antitrinitarian invention, see Bengel, Appar. crit. p. 214 ff.
Ver. 2 again emphatically combines the first and second clauses of ver. 1, in order to connect with them the work of creation, which was wrought by the Adyoc.2 In this way, however, the subject also of the third clause of ver. 1 is included in and expressed by ot ro¢g. On this 04 ro¢—to which mdrra standing at the beginning of ver. 3 significantly corresponds—lies the em- phasis in the continued discourse. In ver. 2 is given the necessary premiss to ver. 3; for if it was this same Logos, and no other than He, who Himse’f was God, who lived in the beginning in fellowship with God, and conse- quently when creation began, the whole creation, nothing excepted, must have come into existence through Him. Thus it is assumed, as a self-evident middle term, that God created the world not immediately, but, according to Gen. i., through the medium of the Word.
Ver. 3. Idvra] ‘‘grande verbum, quo mundus, i.e. universitas rerum factarum denotatur, ver. 10,” Bengel. Comp. Gen. i.; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2. Quite opposed to the context is the Socinian view : ‘‘ the moral creation is meant.” Comp. rather Philo, de Cherub. I. 162, where the Adyo¢ appears as the épyavov de ot (comp. 1 Cor. vill. 6) xareoxevdody (6 xéopuoc). The further speculations of Philo concerning the relation of the Adyo¢ to the creation, which however are not to be imputed to John, see in Hoelemann, l.c. p. 86 ff. John might have written ra rdvra (with the article), as in 1 Cor. viii. 6 and Col. i. 16, but was not obliged to doso. Comp. Col. i. 17, John iii. 35. For his thought is ‘‘ al” (unlimited), whereas ra révra would express ‘the whole of what actually exists.” —xai ywpl¢ atrov, «.r.A.] anem- phatic parallelismus antitheticus, often occurring in the classics. This nega- tive reference does not exclude (so Liicke, Olshausen, de Wette, Frommann, Maier, Baeumlein) the doctrine of a iA7 having an extra-temporal existence (Philo, Z.c.), because éyévero and yéyovev describe that which exists only since the creation, as having come into existence, and therefore i27 would not be included in the conception. John neither holds nor opposes the idea of the iy ; the antithesis has no polemical design—not even of an anti-gnostic kind—to point out that the Logos is raised above the series of Aeons (Tholuck) ; for though the world of spirits is certainly included in the zdyra and the ovdd
1 Who accordingly now worked as Adyos__oner, ad Antiph. p. 157; in the N. T. through- mpodopurss. out, and especially in John (ver. 20, x. 28; 1 2 Dissen. ad. Dem. de Cor. p. 28; Maetz- John il 4, 27, ai.).
50 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
év, it is not specially designated (comp. Col. i. 16). How the Valentinians had already referred it to the Aeons, sec in Iren. Haer.i. 8. 5 ; Hilgen- feld, d. Ev. u. d. Briefe Joh. p. 32 ff. —otdé Ev] ne unum quidem, i.e. pror- sus nihil, more emphatic than oidéy.'—& yéyovev] Perfect : which has come into being, and now is. Comp. éxriora:, Col. i. 16. This belongs to the emphatic /fulness of the statement (Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. xxxvii.), and connects itself with what precedes. The very ancient connection of it with what follows,? by putting the comma after either yéy. or airé (so already the Valentinians),* is to be rejected, although it would harmonize with John’s mode of linking the members of his discourse, whereby ‘‘ex proximo membro sumitur gradus sequentis” (Erasmus) ; but in fine would still be Johannean only if the comma were placed after yéy. (so also Lachm.). The ground of rejection lies not in the ambiguity of {07, which cannot surprise us in John, but in this, that the perfect yéyovev, as implying con- tinuance, would have logically required éori instead of 7 after (uf; to gv not yéyovey, but éyévero, would have been appropriate, so that the sense would have been: ‘‘ what came into existence had in Him its ground or source of life.”
Ver. 4. An advance to the nature of the Logos‘ as life, and thereby as light. —év avr@ Cur vr] in Him was life, He was r7y7 Cue (Philo). Life was that which existed in Him, of which He was full. This must be taken in the most comprehensive sense, nothing that is life being excluded, physi- cal, moral, eternal life (so already Chrysostom),—all life was contained in the Logos, as in its principle and source. No limitation of the conception, especially as (wf is without the article (comp. v. 26), has any warrant from the context ; hence it is not to be understood either merely of physical life, so far as it is the sustaining powecr,° or of spiritual and eternal life,—of the Johannean (wi) aidvoc,* where Hengstenberg drags in the negative-notion that the creature was excluded from life until Christ was manifested in the ficsh, and that down to the time of His incarnation He had only been virtu- ally life and light. —xai 7 €w? «.7.4.] and the life, of which the Logos was
1Comp. 1 Cor. vi. 5; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Sympos. p.214D ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i.6.2. Asto tho thing itself, comp. Philo, II. p. 225: &' oF guumras oO Kdopos édynpmtoup- yeiro,
2C. D. L. Verss., Clem. Al, Origen, and other Greeks, Heracleon, Ptolemaeus, Philos. Orig. v. 8, Latin Fathers, also Au- gustine, Wetst., Lachm., Weisse.
3** Hhatecer originated in Him (self) is life.’ The latter is said to be the Zoé, which with the Logos formed one Syzygy. Hilgenfeld regards this view as correct, in connection with the assumption of the later Gnostic origin of the Gospel. But the construction is false as regards the zords, because neither éor{ nor eyévero stands in the passage ; and false also as regards the thoughi, because, according to vv. 1-3, a
principle of life cannot have first originated in the Logos, but must have existed from the very beginning. Also Bunsen (Hypal. II. 291, 357) erroneously preferred the punctua- tion of the Alexandrines and Gnostics.
4 The Logos must necessarily be taken as in vv. 1-8, but not from ver. 4 onwards in Hofmann‘s sense, as no longer aperson but a thing, viz. the Gospel, as Réhricht (p. 815) maintains, as if the verbum vocale were now a designation of Christ, who is the bearer of it. No such change of meaning is indi- cated in the text, and it only brings confu- sion into the clear advance of the thought.
6 B. Crusius, comp. Chrysostom, Euthy- mius Zigabenus, Calvin.
¢ Origen, Maldonatus, Lampe, Kuinoel, Kdstlin, Hengstenberg, Weiss.
CHAP. I., 5. 51
the possessor, was the light of men. The exposition thus passes over from the universal to the relation of the Logos to mankind ; for, being Himself the universal source of life to the world made by Him, He could as such least of all remain inactive with respect to men, but must show Himself as operating upon them conformably to their rational and moral nature, espe- cially as the light, according to the necessary connection of life and light in opposition to death and darkness. (Comp. viii. 12 ; Ps. xxxvi. 10 ; Eph. v. 14; Lukei. 78, 79). The light is truth pure and divine, theoretical and moral (both combined by an inner necessity, and not simply the former, as Weiss maintains), the reception and appropriation of which enlightens the man (vid¢ gwrdéc, xii. 86), whose non-appropriation and non-reception into the consciousness determines the condition of darkness. The Life was the Light of men, because in its working upon them it was the necessary deter- mining power of their illumination. Comp. such expressions as those in xi. 25, xiv. 6, xvii. 8. Nothing as yct is said of the working of the Logos after His incarnation (xiv. 6), but (observe the 7v) that the divine truth in that primeval time came to man from the Logos as the source of life ; the life in Him was for mankind the actively communicating principle of the divine GA#Gera, in the possession of which they lived in that fair morning of crea- tion, before through sin darkness had brokenin upon them. This reference to the time when man, created after God’s image, remained in a state of innocency, is necessarily required by the 7v, which, like the preceding 7, must refer to the creation-period indicated in ver. 8. But we are thus at the same time debarred from understanding, as here belonging to the en- lightening action of the Logos, God’s revelations to the Hebrews and later Jews (comp. Isa. ii. 5), by the prophets, etc. (Ewald), or even the elements of moral and religious truth found in heathendom (Adyo¢ omepyarixée). In that fresh, untroubled primeval age, when the Logos as the source of life was the Light of men, the contrast of light and darkness did not yet exist ; but this tragic contrast, as John’s readers knew, originated with the fall, and had continued ever after. There follows, therefore, after a fond recall- ing of that fair bygone time (ver. 4), the sad and mournful declaration of the later and still enduring relation (ver. 5), where the light still shines indeed, but in darkness,—a darkness which has not received it. But if that closely to be observed reference of 4» to the time of the creation, and this view of the progress of the thought be correct, it cannot embrace also the continuous (ver. 17) creative activity of the Logos, through which a con- sciousness and recognition of the highest truth have been developed among men (de Wette) ; and just as little may we find in 7d ¢é¢ r. avp. what belongs to the Logos in His essence only, in which case the reading éori would (against Brfickner) be more appropriate ; comp. gurile:, ver. 9. As in év atré Cun tr, 80 also by qv rd pie Tr. avOp. must be expressed what the Logos was in His historical activity, and not merely what He was tirtually (Hengstenberg). Comp. Godet, who, however, without any hint from the text, or any his- torical appropriateness whatever, finds in ‘‘ 7ife and light” a reminiscence of the trees of life and of knowledge in Paradise.
Ver. 5. Relation of the light to the darkness, —xat rd $6¢] and the light
52 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
shineth ;' not ‘‘and thus, as the light, the Logos shinecth” (Liicke). The discourse steadily progresses link by link, so that the preceding predicate becomes the subject. — ¢aivec] Present, i.e. uninterruptedly jrom the begin- ning until now ; it embraces, therefore, the illuminating activity of the Adyor Goapxoc" and évoapxog. As it is arbitrary to supply the idea of ‘‘ still present” (Weiss), so also is its limitation to the revelations through the prophets of the O. T., which would make ¢aive: merely the descriptive praesens historicum (de Wette). For the assumption of this in connection with pure preterites there is no warrant ; comp. rather guwrife, ver. 9. According to Ewald,' ¢aiver represents as present the time in which the Light, which since the cre- ation had enlightened men only from afar, has come suddenly into the world which without itis darkness, and is shining from the midst of this darkness. An antithetic relation is thus assumed (‘‘ only from afar,—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 ¢gaive:, but rests with tragic force on the emphatically placed év 19 cxorig. It is the continuation of the discourse, ver. 7 ff., which first leads specially to the action of the Incarnate One (this also against Hengst.). — The oxoria ig the ne- gation and opposite of the ga, the state of things in which man possesses not the divine aAffeca, but has become the prey of folly, falsehood, and sin, as a godless ruling power, with all its misery. Here the abstract term ‘‘ dark- ness,” as the element in which the light shines, denotes not the individual sub- ject of darkness (Eph. v. 8), but, as the context requires, the totality pre- viously described by rév avOpéruv, thus mankind in general, in so far as in and for themselves they since the fall have been destitute of divine truth, and become corrupt in understanding and will. Melanchthon well says, ‘genus humanum oppressum peccato vocat tenebras.” Frommann is altogether mistaken in holding that oxoria differs in the two clauses, and means (1) hu- manity 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 originate with the fall ;” see on viii. 44. —od caréAapPev] apprehended it not, took not possession of it ; it was not appropriated by the darkness, so that the latter might become light, instead of remaining aloof and alien to it. Comp. Phil. iii. 12, 18, 1 Cor. ix. 24, and especially Rom. ix. 30 ; also expressions like xaradayf. scodiav, Ecclus. xv. 1, 7. The explanation comprehended, i.e. &yve, ver. 10,* is on one
1 daiver, fucet, not to be confounded with gatvera:, which means apparet. Seeon Phil. ii. 15. Godet’s criticism of the distinction is erroneous.
2 Godet thinks that the faw written in the Asart, the light of conscience, is meant (Rom. {i. 14,) which the Logos makes use of; and that this His relation to all mankind is es- sential and permanent. But this would be utterly inadequate to the fulness of mean- ing expressed by ¢es, especially in its an-
tithesis to cxoria. The dws shines as divine light defore Christ (by revelation and proph- ecy), and after Him. It is supernatural, heavenly. Comp. 1 John fi. 8. There is no mention here of the Aéyos orepparixds.
3 Jahrb. V. 194 (see his Johann. Schr. L
121).
4 Eph. ill. 18; Acts x. 34, iv. 18; Plato, Phaedr., p. 20D; Phil. p. 16D; Polyb. vil. 4. 6.
CHAP. I., 6, 7. 53
side arbitrarily narrowing, on another anticipatory, since for the oxoria, which is conceived asa realm, it substitutes the subjects. Erroneously Origen, Chrys- ostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Bos, Schulthess, Hoelemann, p- 60, and Lange interpret : ‘‘ The darkness did not hem it in, repress it ; it was invincible before it.” Linguistically this is allowable,’ but it nowhere . so occurs in the N. T., and is here opposed to the parallels, vv. 10, 11. — Observe that od xaréAafev, which presupposes no Gnostic absolutism, but freedom of moral self-determination (comp. vv. 11, 12), reflects the phenom- - enon as a whole, and as it presented itself to John in history and experience ; hence the aorist. Comp. iii. 19:
Ver. 6. In the painful antithesis of ver. 5 which pervades the entire Gospel, was included the relation of the Logos to mankind, not only before, but after His incarnation (see on ¢aivec). This latter is now more minutely unfolded as far as ver. 11. To strengthen the antithesis John adduces first the testimony of the Baptist (vv. 6-8) to the Light, on the ground of which he then designates the Logos as the true light (ver. 9); and finally makes the antithesis, thus prefaced (vv. 10, 11), follow with all the more tragic effect. The mention of John’s testimony here in the Prologue is not therefore a mere confirmation of the reality of the appearance of the Logos (Briickner), which the statements of vv. 9, 10 did not require. Still less is it a pressing for- wards of the thought to the beginning of the Gospel] history (de Wette), or an intimation of the first step in the reconcilement of the contrasted light and darkness (Baur), or ‘‘an illustrious exception” (Ewald) to the preceding 7 oxoria, x.t.2. Introducing a new paragraph, and hence without a connecting particle, it forms a historical preparation, answering to the fact, for that non- recognition and rejection (vv. 10, 11), which, in spite of that testimony of the Baptist, the light shining in the darkness had experienced. Ver. 15 stands to ver. 7in the relation of a particular definite statement to the general testi- mony of which it is a part. —éy évero] not there was (77, iii. 1), but there ap- peared, denoting the historical manifestation. See on Mark i. 4; Lukei. 5 ; Phil. ii. 7. Hence not with Chrys.: éyévero aGmecradauévog avri tov aneotdéaAn; which Hengstenberg repeats. — Observe in what follows the noble simplicity of the narrative : we need not look out for any antithetical reference (éyévero—ivOpwroc—areor. 7. Ocov) to ver. 1 (B. Crusius, Luthardt, and older expositors). With areocradu. m. Qeod, comp. iil. 28; Mal. ili. 1, 23. Description of the true prophet ; comp. also Luke iii. 2, 3.
Ver. 7. Eic paprvuptar] to bear witness ; for John testified what had been prophetically made known to him by divine revelation respecting the Light which had come in human form. Comp. ver. 88. —tva wdvrec, x.7.A.] Purpose of the yaprupfon, final end of the 7AGev.—awicoreta.] te. in the light ; comp. vv. 8, 9, xii. 836. —d2’ airowv] by means of John, as he by his witness-bearing was the medium of producing faith : ‘‘and thus John is a servant and guide to the Light, which is Christ” (Luther) ; not by means of the light (Grotius, Lampe, Semler), for here it is not faith in God (1 Pet. i, 21) that is spoken of.
1 See Schwelghaiiser, Lex. Herod. Il. p. 18.
54 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 8. 4 is emphatic, and is therefore placed in the front : he was not the Light, but he was to bear witness of the Light ; and hence, in the second clause, zaptvp4%oyg emphatically takes the lead. The object of making this antithesis prominent is not controversy, or at least with any reference to the disciples of John (see the Introduction), but to point out' the true position of the Baptist in face of the historical fact, that when he first ap- peared, men took him for the Messiah Himself (comp. ver. 20 ; Luke iii. 15), so that his witness shall appear in its proper historical aspect. Comp. Cyril. —add’ iva, «.t.A.] Before iva we must from the preceding supply 974ev ; a rapid hastening on to the main thought ;* not taken imperatively (sent to bear witness) (de Wette), nor dependent upon # (Liicke, Lange, Godet) : not the latter, because eiva: iva (for ei¢ 76), even if it were linguistically possible, is here forbidden by the emphasis on the #v ; while to take #» in the sense of uderat, as again understood before iva (Godet), would be more forced and arbitrary than to supply 7/fev from ver. 7.
Ver. 9. For the correct apprehension of this verse, we must observe, (1) that 7v has the main emphasis, and stands therefore at the beginning : (2) that rd da¢ 7d G7. cannot be the predicate, but must be the subject, because in ver. 8 another was the subject ; consequently without a rovro, or some such word, there are no grounds for supposing a subject not expressed: (8) that épydu. ei¢ rdv xécuov* can only be connected with révra dr6pwrov, not with 7v ; because when John was bearing witness the Logos was already in the world (ver. 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 épyx. ei¢ t. kéon. 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 #v with épyéu ; rather would the prominence given to 7, and its wide separation from épydu., be without any reason. Hence the connection by the early church of épyéu. with r. avip. is by no means (with Hilgenfeld) to be regarded as obsolete, but is to be retained,— and explained thus : ‘‘ There was present the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.” [See Note II. p. 95.] This, with the following év T@ xéouy 7v Onward to éyévero, serves to prepare for and strengthen the portentous and melancholy antithesis, cai 6 xéop. aivtév ovx tyvw. The usual objection that épyéu. cig r. x., when referred to rdévra dv6p., 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 also Kaeuffer sides : ‘' HJe (or even that, namely rd gc) was the true Light which lighteth all
1 Not to bring more fully to light the greatness of Christ, through the subordina- tion to Him of the greatest men and prophets, as Hengstenb. asserts. In this case John ought to have been described ac- cording to his own greatness and rank, and not simply as in ver. 6.
2 Comp. ix. 3, xill. 18, xv. 25: 1 John fi. 19; Fritzsche, ad Matt. 840f.; Winer, p. 297
[E. T. p. 458].
3 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. So of late Paulus also, and Klee, Kaeuffer in the Sdchs. Stud. 1844, p, 116, Hoelemann, and Godet.
CHAP. I., 9. 55
men who come into this world” (Luther), against which wo have already re- marked under (1) and (2) above ; again, (2) the construction of épyéu. with ga¢ a8 AN accompanying definition : '‘‘ He was the true Light, which was at that time to come into the world ;"* also, (8) the connecting of 7 with ép yéuevor, either in a sense purely historical, ‘‘ He came” (Bleek, Kistlin, B. Crusius, Lange, Hengstenberg, with reference to Mal. iii. 1 ; and so already Bengel) ; or relatively, as de Wette, Liicke : ‘‘ when John had appeared to bear wit- ness of Him, ezen then came the true Light into the world ; ”® or.as future, of Him who was soon toappear : 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: ‘‘Jé was coming” (Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 51) ;‘ and after Ewald, who attaches it to vv. 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 it ;’ comp. Keim: ‘‘He was continually coming into the world.” As to details, we have further to remark : 7] aderat, as in vii. 39 and often ; its more minute definition follows in ver. 10: &v r@ Kéouw Hv. The Light twas already there (in Jesus) when John bore witness of Him, ver. 26. The reference of vv. 9-13 to the preincarnate agency of the Logos® entirely breaks down before vv. 11-13, as well as before the comparison of the Baptist with the Logos, which presupposes the personal manifestation of the latter (comp. also ver. 15) ; and therefore Baur erroneously denics any distinction in the Prologue between the preincarnate and the postincar- nate agency of the Logos.*— rd aAn7@ivdv [Because it was neither John nor any other, but the true, genuine, archetypal Light, corresponding to the idea—the idea of the light realized." Comp. iv. 23, 87, vi. 32, vii. 28, xv. 1. See, generally, Schott, Opuse. I. p. 7 ff.; Frommann, Lehr- begr. p. 130 ff. ; Kluge in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1866, p. 333 ff. ; also Hvelemann, l.c. p. 63, who, however, supposes an antithesis, which is without any support from the connection, to the cosmic light (Gen. 1.).—8 gwrifer mdvra &vOp.} a characteristic of the true light ;
180 probably Theod. Mopsu.; some in Augustine, de pece. rer. et rem. i. 2%; Cas- tallo, Vatablus, Grotius ; Schott, Opusc. I. p. 14; Maier.
2 The interpretation of Schoettgen, Sem- ler, Morus, Rosenmiiller, as if instead of épxyéu. wo had FAder, is quite erroneous. Lather’s explanation down to 1527 was better: “through His advent into this world.”
3 Comp. Hauffin the Stud. u. Xrit. 1846, p. 575.
* That is, during the time before His bap- tism ; the man Jesus (according to the Val- entinian Gnosis) did not become the organ of the Logos until! His baptism, and accord- ingly through that rite the Logos first came into the world. The birth of Jesus was only introductory to that coming. Briick-
ner, while rejecting this importation of Gnosticism, agrees in other respects with Hilgenfeld.—Philippi (der Kingang 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.”
* Tholuck, Olshausen, Baur, also Lange, Leben J. ILI. p. 1806 ff.
* Comp. Bleek in the Stud. u. Arit. 1888, p. 414 ff.
7 In the classics, see Plato, Pol. |. p. 847 D (re Gyre aAndivos), VI. p. 499 C; Xen. Anab. |. 9. 17; Oec. x.3; Dem. 118. 27, 1248. 22 ; Theo- crit. 16 (Aathol.); Pindar, Qi. ii. 201 ; Polyb. i. 6. 6, ef ad. Riick., Abendin. p. 266, errone- ously says, ‘“‘ the word eeddom occurs in the classics.”’ It is especially common in Plato, and among later writers In Polybius.
56 : THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
it illumines every one. This remains truc, even though, os a matter of fact, the illumination is not received by many (sce on Rom, ii. 4), so that every one does not really become what he could become, a child of light, ga¢ év xupiy, Eph. v. 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 rela- tion as it exists on the part of the Logos.’ Bengel well says: ‘‘ numerus singularis magnam hic vim habet.” Comp. Col. i. 15 ; Rom. iii. 4. —épy6- pevov cic tT. kécpuov] every man coming into the world ; rightly without the article ; comp. 2 John 7. The addition of the predicative clause gives emphatic prominence to the conception of rdévra. There is no need to com- pare it with the Rabbinic 0))y2 ®13 (see Lightfoot and Schoettgen). Comp. xvi. 21, and see on xviii. $7.
Ver. 10. What here follows is linked to the preceding by év 76 xécopo #v, following upon ei¢ r. xéoz. This is a fuller defining of the emphatic qv of ver. 9: ‘‘ It was in the world,” viz. in the person of Jesus, when John was bearing witness. There is no mention here of its continual presence in humanity (B. Crusius, Lange), nor of the ‘‘ lumiére innée” (Godet) of every man ; see on ver. 5. The triple repetition of xéopzos, which in its last occur- rence has the narrower sense of the world of mankind, gives prominence to the mournful antithesis ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 341 [E. T. p. 398]. — qv] not pluperfect (‘‘ It had been already always in the world, but was not rec- ognized by it’), as Herder, Tholuck, Olshausen, and Klee maintain, but like qv in ver. 9.—xai 6 xécpuoc du’? abrov éyév.] Further prepara- tion, by way of climax, for the antithesis, with reference to ver. 8. If the Light was in the world, and the world was made by it, all the more could and ought the world to have recognized it : it could, because it needed only not to close the inner eye against the Light, and to follow the impulse of its original necessary moral affinity with the creative Light ; it ought, be- cause the Light, shining within the world, and having even given existence to the world, could demand that recognition, the non-bestowal of which was ingratitude, originating in culpable delusion and moral obduracy. Comp. Rom. i. 19 ff. We need not attach to the «ai, which is simply con- junctive, either the signification although (Kuinoel, Schott), or the force of the relative (which was made by it, Bleek). —atrév] the Logos, identi- fied with the Light, and spoken of as its possessor, according to vv. 4 ff. ; av rod was still neuter, but the antithesis passes over into the masculine, because the object which was not recognized was this very personal mani- JSestation of the Logos.—With regard to the last «ai, observe : ‘‘ cum vi pronuntiandum est, ut saepe in sententiis oppositionem continentibus, ubi frustra fuere qui cairo. requirerent.”* Very often in John.
Ver. 11. More particular statement of the contrast. Observe the grad- ual advance to greater definiteness : qv, ver. 9; év TP Kéouy Fv, Ver. 10 ; ee
1 Luther: “Of what avail Is it thatthe also Delitzsch, Peychol. p. 348 [E. T. p. 410]. clear sun shines and lightens, if I shut my 2 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 29 B. Comp. eyes and will not see his light, or creep Hartung, Partikell. p. 147. away from it beneath the earth?’ Comp.
CHAP. I., 12. 57
ra ida yAhe, ver. 11.—et¢ ra Ideal to His own possession, [See Note lV. p. 95. ] is' to be explained of the Jewish people as specially belonging to the Messiah (Ecclus. xxiv. 7 ff.), as they are called in Ex. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, Ps. cxxxv, 4, Isa. xxxi. 9, Jehorah’s possession ; from Isracl salvation was to spread over all the world (iv. 22; Matt. vili. 12; Rom. i. 16). This interpreta- tion is required by the progress of the discourse, which by the use of 726e excludes any reference to the world,* as was proposed alongside of this by Chrysostom, Ammonius, Theophylact, Euth. Zig., and conjoined with it by Augustine and many others. ‘‘He was in the world,” and now follows His historical advent, ‘‘He came to His own possession.” Therefore the sympathy of God’s people, who were His own people, should have led them to reach out the hand to Him. —ol idcoc] the Jews. — rapé- Aafov] They received Him not, i.e. not as Him to whom they peculiarly be- longed.? Observe that the special guilt of Israel appears still greater (ob sapésaBov, they despised Him) than the general guilt of mankind (oix éyvw). Comp. the ctx feAgoare of Matt. xxiii. 37; Rom. x. 21. In the negative form of expression (vv. 10, 11) we trace a deeply elegiac and mournful strain.
Ver. 12. The mass of the Jews rejected Him, but still not al of them. Hence, in this fuller description of the relation of the manifested Logos to the world, the refreshing light is now (it is otherwise in-ver. 5) joyfully rec- ognized and placed over against the shadow. —é£4a8o0v] He came, they re- ceiced Him, did not reject Him.‘—The nominative dco: stands with emphasis independent of the construction that follows. See on Matt. vii. 24, x. 14, xiii. 12, xxiii. 16; Acts vii. 40.—éfovoiav] not dignity or pre-eminence (Erasmus, Beza, Flacius, Rosenmiiller, Semler, Kuinocel, Schott), nor pos- sibility (de Wette, Tholuck), nor capability (Hengstenberg, Brickner), which does not reach the force of the word,* but He gave them full power (comp. v. 27, xvii. 2). The rejection of the Logos when He came in person, excluded from the attainment of that sacred condition of fitness—received through Him—for entering into the relationship of children of God, and they only | who received Him in faith obtained through Him this warrant, this title (exerpor7 véuov, Plato, Defin. p. 415 B). It is, however, an arrangement in the gracious decree of God; neither a claim of right on man’s part, nor any internal ability (Liicke, who compares 1 John v. 20; also Lange),—-a mean- ing which is not in the word itself, nor in the connection, since the com- mencement of the filial relationship, which is the consummation of that highest theocratic éfovsia, is conceived as a being born, ver. 13, and therefore as passive (against B. Crusius).—réxva @eov] Christ alone is the Son of God, manifested as such from His birth, the povoyerfe. Believers, from their knowledge of God in Christ (xvii. 8), become children of God, by being born
1 With Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Keim. Bengel, Lampe, and many expositors, also * Comp. Matt. 1. 20, xxiv. 40,41; Herod. L Liicke, Tholuck, Bleek, Olshausen, de Wet- = 154, vil. 106; Plato, Soph. p. 218 B. te, B. Crusius, Maier, Frommann, K@stlin, 4 Comp. v. 48; Soph. Phil. 667, Swv re nal Hilgenfeld, Luthardt, Ewald, Hengsten- Aafwy diror. : berg, Godet, and most interpreters. * Comp. Godet: “il les a mis en position.” 2 Corn. & Lapide, Kuinoel, Schott, Reuss,
58 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
of God (comp. ili. 8; 1 John iii. 9), ¢.¢e. through the moral transformation and renewal of their entire spiritual nature by the Holy Ghost ; so that now the divine element of life rules in them, excludes all that is ungodly, and permanently determines the development of this moral fellowship of nature with God, onwards to its future glorious consummation (1 John iii. 2; John xvii. 24). See also 1 John iii. 9 and 1 Pet. i. 28. It isthus that John represents the idea of filial relationship to God, for which he always uses zvéxva from the point of view of a spiritual genesis ; 1 while Paul apprehends it from the legal side (as adoption, Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 5), regarding the spiritual renewal connected therewith (regencration), the xacvér7¢ Cuzco (Rom. vi. 4), ag a new creation (2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15), a moral resurrection (Rom. vi.), and the like ; while the Synoptics (comp. also Rom. viii. 23) make the viofecia appear as first commencing with the kingdom of the Mes- siah (see on Matt. v. 9, 45; Luke vi. 85), as conditioned, however, by the moral character. There is no difference as to the thing itself, only in the manner of apprehending its various sides and stages. —roi¢ mreoretovorr, K.T.A.] guippe qui credunt, is conceived as assigning the reason; for it is as believers that they have fulfilled the subjective condition of arriving at son- ship, not only negatively, since they are no longer under the wrath of God and the condemnation of the law (iil. 36, 16, 17, v. 45), but also positively, in- asmuch as they now possess a capacity and susceptibility for the operation of the Spirit (vii. 38, 39). John doesnot say moreicaciw, but rrotevovccr, for the faith, the entrance of which brought about the 22ov, is thenceforth their enduring habitus. —eic rd dvoua avrov] not essentially different from cic avrév, but characterizing it more fully ; for the entire subject-matter of faith lies in the name of the person on whom we believe ; the uttered name contains the whole confession of faith. Comp. ii. 28, ili. 18, 1 John iii. 23, v. 18. The name itself, moreover, is no other than that of the historically manifested Logos—Jesus Christ, as is self-evident to the consciousness of the reader. Comp. ver. 17; 1 John v. 1, ii. 22.
Ver. 13. 01] refers to réxva Seod (the masculine in the well-known constructio cara civeory, 2 John 1, Philem. 10, Gal. iv. 19),” not to roic micreiovorw, because the latter, according to ver. 12, are said to become God’s children, so that éyevv#ycav would not be appropriate. The conception ‘‘ children of God” is more precisely defined as denoting those who came into existence not after the manner of natural human generation, but who were begotten of God.
1 Hilgenfeld, ‘indeed, will have it that those spoken of are already regarded as originally réxva Geot (comp. iil. 6, vill. 44, xf. 52), and attempts to escape the dilemma into which yevéo6a brings him, by help of the interpretation: ‘“‘the power by which the man who is born of God realizes this, and actually becomes what he is in himeelf according to his nature ' Thus we should have here the Gnostic semen arcanum electo- rum et spiritualium, See Hilgenfeld, Evan- gelien, p. 28. The reproach of tautology which he also brings against the ordinary
explanation (in his Zeitschr. 1868, p. 110) Is quite futile. The great conception of the téxva. Geov, Which appears here for the first time, was in John’s eye important enough tobe accompanied by a more detailed elucidation. Generally, against the anthro- pological dualism discovered in John by Hilgenfeld (also by Scholten), see Welss, Lehrbegr. p. 128 ff.; also Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 080f.; and even Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 359 ff. 2 Comp. Eurip. Suppl. 12, Androm. 671.
CHAP. I., 13. 59
The negative statement exhibits them as those in whose coming into exist- ence human-generation (and consequently also Abrahamic descent) has no part whatever. This latter brings about no divine sonship, iii. 6.—ovix é&€& aipdrurv] not of blood, the blood being regarded as the seat and basis of the physical life (comp. on Acts xv. 20), which is transmitted by generation." The plural is not to be explained of the commingling of the two seres (‘‘ex sanguinibus enim homines nascuntur maris et feminae,”’ Augustine ; comp. Ewald), because what follows (avdpéc and the corresponding éx Yeoi) points simply to generation on the man’s side ; nor of the multiplicity of the children of God (B. Crusius), to which there is no reference in what follows ; quite as little does it refer to the continuos propagationum ordines from Adam, and afterwards from Abraham downwards (Hoelemann, p. 70), which must nec- essarily have been more distinctly indicated. Rather is the plural used in a sense not different from the singular, and founded only on this, that the material blood is represented as the sum-total of all its parts.*—The nega- tion of human origination is so important to John (comp. iii. 6), that he adds two further parallel definitions of it by ovdé—ovdé (which he arranges Co- ordinately); nor—nor, where capxé¢ designates the flesh as the substra- tum of the generative impulse, not ‘‘the woman” (Augustine, Theophylact, Rupertus, Zeger, Schott, Olshausen),—an interpretation which is most inappropriatcly supported by a reference to Gen. ii. 22, Eph. v. 28, 29, Jude 7, while it is excluded by the context (avdpéc, and what follows). The man’s generative will is meant, and this is more exactly, i.e. personally, defined by é« eA. avdpds, to which the contrasted é« Yeov is correlative ; and hence avfp must not be generalized and taken as equivalent to dvdpuro¢ (Liicke), which never occurs—even in in the Homeric zarip avdpav re Seay re only apparently—but here least of all, because the act of generation is the very thing spoken of. The following are mercly arbitrary glosses upon the points which are here only rhetorically accumulated to produce an ever. in- creasing distinctness of description ; e.g. Baumgarten Crusius: ‘‘ There is an advance here from the most sensual to the most noble” (nature, inclina- tion, will—in spite of the twice repeated BeAquaroc!); Lange (L. J. III. p. 558): ‘‘ There is a progress from natural generation to that which is caused by the will, and then to that consummated in theocratic faith ;» Hoelemann : “gaps, meant of both sexes, stands midway between the universalis humani generis propagatio (aizara) and the proprius singularis propagationis auctor (avfp).”. Even Delitzsch refines upon the words, finding in deAju. capxds the unholy side of generation, though John has only in view the antithesis be- tween the human and the divine viewed in and by themselves. —éx Seod
1 gos Tov owdpnaros VAhy Tov aiumaros €xorros, Eustath. ad Hom. Il. vi. 211. Comp. De- litzach, Pyschol. p. 246 [E. T. p. 290, and note]. Comp. Acts xvii. 26; Hom. Ji. vi. 211, xx. 241; Soph. Aj. 1284, 1.1114; Plato, Soph. p. 268 D; Liv. xxxviil. 28. Kypke and Loesner on the passage, Internp. ad. Virg. Aen. vi. 886 ; Horace, Od. il. 20.6 ; Tib.{. 6. 66.
2 Kfihner, II. p. 28 Comp. Eur. Jon. 70,
GAAwy tpaheic ad’ aindrev; Soph. Ant. 121, and many places in the tragedians where aizara {is used in the sense of murder. Aesch. Eum, 168, 48; Eur. Ev. 187; Or. 1547, al.; Monk, ad Eur. Ale. 512; Blomf. Gloss. Choeph. 60. Comp. Ecclus, xxii. 22, xxxi. 21; 2 Macc. xiv. 18; also Plato, Legg. x. p. 887 D, é7 ev yaragks rpeddpevor,
60 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ©
EyevvG0.] were begotten of God, containing the real relation of sonship to God, and thus explaining the former réxva deov, in so far as these were begot- ten by no human being, but by God, who through the Holy Spirit has re- stored their moral being and life, iii. 5. Hence éx Sect éyevv. is not tautolog- ical. ’Ex indicates the issuing forth from God as cause, where the relation of immediateness (in the first and last points) and of mediateness (in the second and third) lies in the very thing, and is self-evident without being distinctively indicated in the simple representation of John.
Ver. 14. Kai] and; not assigning a reason for the sonship just mentioned (Chrys., Theophyl., Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and several others); nor = otv (Bleek), nor in the sense of narely (Frommann), nor yea (Godet), but sim- ply carrying forward the discourse, like every xai in the Prologue ; and not therefore pointing back to ver. 4 (Maldonatus) or to ver. 9 (de Wette), nor joining on to ver. 11 (Liicke: ‘‘ The Logos came not only to His own pos- session, but appeared visibly ;” so, substantially, also Baur and Hilgenfeld), which would be a merely apparent advance in the exposition, because the visible manifestation is already intimated by ¢aivec in ver. 5 and in vv. 9- 13. No ; after having in vv. 4-13 spoken of the Logos as the light, of the melancholy contrast of the darkness of unbelief to that true light divinely attested by the Baptist, and of the exceedingly blessed agency which He has exercised on believers through the bestowal of the gift of sonship, the evan- gelist, on arriving at this last point, which expresses his own deepest and most blessed experience, can no longer delay formally and solemnly again to proclaim the great event by which the visible manifestation of the Logos— previously so frequently presupposed and referred to—had, with all its saving power, been brought about ; and thus by an outpouring of speech, which, prompted by the holiest recollections, soars involuntarily upwards until it reaches the loftiest height, to set forth and celebrate the mode of that mani- festation of the Logos which was attended with such blessed results (vv. 12, 13), and which he had himself experienced. The transition, therefore, is from what is said in vv. 12, 13 of the agency of the manifested Logos, to the nature and mode of that manifestation itself, t.e. consequently to the incarnation, as a result of which He, as Jesus Christ, exhibited the glory of the Only-begotten, and imparted the fulness of grace and truth,—that in- carnation which historically determined what is recorded of Him in vv. 12, 13. Accordingly xai is not definitive, ‘‘ under such circumstances, with such consequences” (Briickner, who inappropriately compares Heb. iii. 19, where xai connects the answer with the question as in continuous narration), but it carries onward the discourse, leading up to the highest summit, which even from ver. 5 shows itsclf as in,the distance. We must interpret it: and—to advance now to the most momentous fact in the work of redemp- tion, namely, how He who had come and wrought so much blessing was manifested and was able to accomplish such a work—the Word became flesh, etc. —6 Adéyoc] John does not simply say xai capt éyévero, but he names the great subject as he had done in ver. 1, to complete the solemnity of the weighty statement, which he now felt himself constrained still to subjoin and to carry onward, as in joyful triumph, to the close of the Prologue.—
CHAP. I., 14. 61
aapé éyévero] The word cdpé is carefully chosen, not as against the divine idea of humanity, which is here not in question,’ but as opposed to the purely divine, and hence also to the purely immaterial nature? of the Logos,* whose transition, however, into this other form of existence necessarily presupposes that He is conceived of asa personality, not as a principle (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 169); as is, besides, required by the whole Prologue. The incarnation of a principle would be for John an unrealizable notion. Just as decidedly is 6 Adyo¢ capt eyévero Opposed to the idea that the Logos became more and more completely odp& (Beyschlag) during the whole unfolding of His earthly life. The 6 Adbyoc capé éyévero is a definite act in the consummation of His history. He became flesh, i.e. a corporeal material being, visible and tangi- ble (1 John i. 2), which He was not before,‘ and by which evidently was in- tended the human mode of existence in which He appeared, and which was known to the reader in the person of Jesus, "Ev capxi éAfAvbev (1 John iv. 2 ; 2Jobn 7 ; comp. 1 Tim. iii. 16) is, in fact, the same thing, though expressed from the point of view of that modality of His coming which is conditioned by the capi éyévero. As, however, éyévero points out that He became what He was not before, the incarnation cannot be o mere accident of His substantial being (against Baur), but is the assumption of another real existence, where- by out of the purely divine Logos-Person, whose specific nature at the same time remained unaltered, and in order to accomplish the work of redemp- tion,® a really corporeal personality, ¢.e. the God-man Jesus Christ (ver. 17), came into existence.* Since odpé necessarily carries with it the idea only of the yvz7," it might seem as if John held the Apollinarian notion, that in Christ there was no human voic, but that the Adyo¢c took its place.* But it is not really so,° because the human yyf does not exist by itsclf, but in necessary connection with the rvevua,” and because the N. T. (comp. viii. 40)
1 Against Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Arit. 1880, p. 459.
2? Hence also cdpé is selected for the pur- pose of expressing the full antithesis, and not capa, because there might be a capa without odpf (1 Cor. xv. 40, 44); and be- sides, the expression 6 Adyos gaya é¢ydvero would not necessarily include the posses- sion of ahuman soul. John might also have written av @pwros. éydvero (v. 27, viil. 40), but odp§ presented the antithesis of the two forms of existence most sharply and strikingly, and yet at the same time un- questionably designates the human person- ality (xvil. 2). According to Baur, indeed, it is said to be imposstdle to understand by the incarnation any proper assumption of humanity.
*Clem. ad Cor. II. 9, ay per rd wpwroy wveiue eydvero cdpf; comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. 197.
4 Comp. the well known ‘' Sum quod eram, mec eram quod sum, nunc dicor utrumque.” In Jesus Christ we have the absolute syn- thesis of the divine and the human.
8 Chap. vi.; Rom. vill. 3; Heb. ff. 14, 15.
* Comp. on the point, 1 John fv. 2; Phil. il. 7; 1 Tim. hil. 16; Heb. ii. 14, v. 7.
7™See Schulz, Abendm. p. 04 ff.; Welss, Lehrbeqr. p. 256.
® Of late, Zeller in particular (in the Theol, Jahrb. 1812, I. 74) has limited the Johannean doctrine of the human element in the per- son of Jesus simply to His corporeity, ex- cluding any special haman anima rationalis. Comp. also Késtlin, p. 148 ff., and Baur, neulest. Theol. p. 862. That ocdapf was the merely formal non-personal clothing of the Logos-subject (Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfeld's Zeilschr. 1866, p. 260), does not correspond with the conception of drdperos, under which Christ represents Himself (vill. 40). This is also in answer to Scholten, who in like manner comes to the conclusion that, in John's view, Jesus was man as to His body only, but the Logos as to His spirit.
* See, on the other side, Mau, Progr. de Christolog. N. T., Kiel 1848, p. 18 ff.
10 Beck, Bibi, Seelent. § 138; Hahn, Theol. d. N. 7.1 § 154.
Se ei ee eee
62 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
knows Jesus only as perfect man.’ In fact, John in particular expressly speaks of the pur (xii. 27) and rvetipa of Christ (xi. 33, xiii. 21, xix. 80), which he does not identify with the Logos, but designates as the substra- tum of the human self-consciousness (xi. 38).2. The transcendental charac- ter, however, of this self-consciousness, as necessarily given in the incarna- tion of the Logos, Weizsicker has not succeeded, in his interpretation of the passages referred to, in explaining away by anything Jesus Himself says in this Gospel. The conception of weakness and susceptibility of suffering,* which Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Olshausen, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and others find in odpé, is quite remote from this verse (comp. 1 John iv. 2), where the point in question is simply that change in the divine mode of existence in which the odp£ bears the défa ; and so also is any anti-Docetic reference, such as Frommann and others, and even de Wette and Lech- ler, imagine. — The supernatural generation of Jesus is neither presupposed nor included (as also Godet maintains), nor excluded,‘ in the 6 Adyo¢ odpé éyé- veto, for the expression contains nothing as to the manner of the incarnation ; it is an addition to the primitive apostolical Christology, of which we have no certain trace either in the oldest Gospel (Mark), or in the only one which is fully apostolic (John), or anywhere in Paul: see on Matt. i. 18; comp. John v. 27, Rom. i. 8, 4.—xai éoxgvwcev iv ypiv) and tabernaeled, i.e. took up His abode, among us: iaoxfvacev here is chosen merely to draw our attention to the manifestation of the incarnate Logos, whose holy oxg- voua (2 Pet. i. 18) was in fact His human substance,* as the fulfilment of the promise of God's dwelling with His people,® and therefore as the Sheki- nah which formerly revealed itself in the tabernacle and in the temple (see on Rom. ix. 4); an assumption which the context justifies by the words : éOeac. 7. ddgav avrov. The Targums, in like manner, represent the Word
?8o John in particular. See Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 4 ff., who, however, explains the capf eyévero from the Valentinian sys- tem, and attributes to the evangelist the notion of a corporeity, real indeed, but not fettered by the limitation of a material body, appealing to vi. 16 ff., vil. 10, 15, viil. 59, 11. 19 ff. Baur's view is similar, though he does not go so far. Baur, p. 367.
* Rightly has the church held firmly to the perfection (perfectio) of the divine and human natures in Christ in the Athanasian sense. No change and no defect of nature on the one side or the other can be justified on exegetical grounds, and especially no such doctrine as that of Gess, that by the incarnation the Logos became a human soul or a human spirit (comp. also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. 198 f.). This modification, which some apply to the céypwors, is unscrip- tural, and is particularly opposed to John's testimony throughout his Gospel and First Epistle. How little does Gess succeed in reconciling his view with John v. 2%, for example,—a passage which is always an
obstacle in his way! Further, according to Worner, Verhdlin. d. Geistes zum Sohne Gott. p. 27, the Logos became a soul. Against Hahn, see Dorner in the Jahrd. f. &. Theol. 1856, p. 398 ff.
* See on Acts fi. 17.
* For assurecly the same subject, which in His divine essence was pre-ezistent as the eternal Logos, may as a temporal human manifestation come into existence and begin to be, so that In and by itself the manner of this origination, natural or supernatural, makes no difference in the conceivableness of the fact (against Baur in the 7heol. Jahrd. 1854, p. 222).
SIn this He tabernacled among us not merely as a divine principle (Beyschlag), but a8 ray Td xAyjpwua ris OeatyTos (Col. il. 9), t.e. exactly what He was as the personal Logos. Thus His dody was the ‘emple of God (fi. 19), the true special dwelling of God's gracious presence.
6 Ex. xxv. 8, xix.45; Lev. xxvi.11; Joel ili. 21; Ezek. xxxvil. 27; Hagg. ii. 8: comp. Ecclus. xxiv. 8; Rey. xxi. 3,
CHAP. I., 14. 63
(810"D) as the 112'9¥, and the Messiah as the manifestation of this. — iy» # piv] refers to the doo é2a3ov airév, vv. 12, 18, to whom John belongs, not simply to the Twelve (Tholuck), nor to the Christian consciousness (Hil- genfeld), nor to mankind generally ; comp. ver. 16. The delievere whom Jesus found are the fellowship who, as the holy people, surrounded the in- carnate Word, and by whom His glory was beheld (comp. 1 John i. 1). — kai éGeacdpueda, x«.7.A.] We must not (as most expositors, even Liicke, Frommann, Maier, de Wette) take this clause as far as zarpd¢ to be a lively insertion, interrupting the narrative ; for the having beheld the dé¢a is the essential element in the progress of the discourse. [See Note V. p. 96.] It is an independent part in the connection ; so that wAypn¢ xap. x. aa., which is usually joined grammatically with 6 26yor, is to be referred to avrod in an irregular combination of cases, determined by the logical subject (B. Crusius, Briickner, Weiss, comp. Grotius), by which the nominative instead of the dependent case (Augustine read rAjpovc) sets forth the statement more emphatically without any governing word.!—rgv dé€av avrod] the Majesty (W133) of the Logos, z.¢. of necessity the dizine glory (in the O. T. symbolically revealing itself as the brilliant light which surrounded the manifestation of Deity, Ex. xxiv. 17, xl. 34 ff.; Acts vii. 2), so far as the Logos from His nature (see what follows) essentially participated there- in, and possessed it in and from His pre-existent state." It presented itself to the recognition of believers asa reality, in the entire manifestation, work, and history of Him who became man ; so that they (not unbelievers) beheld it * (intuebantur), because its rays shone forth, so as to be recognized by them, through the veil of the manhood, and thus it revealed itself visibly to them (1 John i. 1 ; comp. chap. ii. 11). The idea of an inner contempla- tion is opposed to the context (against Baur). The déga rot Adyov, which before the incarnation could be represented to the prophet’s eye alone (xii. 41), but which otherwise was, in its essence, incapable of being beheld by man, became by means of the incarnation an object of external observation by the eye-witnesses (Luke 1. 2 ; 1 John iv. 14) of His actual self-manifestation. We must, however, bear in mind that the manifestation of this divine glory of the Logos in His human state is conceived of relatively, though revealing beyond doubt the divine nature of the Logos, and nothing else than that, yet as limited and conditioned on the one hand by the imperfection of human in- tuition and knowledge, and on the other by the state of humiliation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.) which was entered upon with the ‘‘ becoming flesh.” For the absolute glory, which as such 1s also the adequate ‘‘form of God,” was possessed by the Incarnate One—the Logos, who entered into our human life—only in His pre-existent state (xvii. 5), and was resumed only after His exaltation (xii. 41, Xvi. 5, xxii. 24) ; while during His earthly life His défa as the manifesta- tion of the ica eiva: fem was not the absolutely divine, but that of the God-man.‘
1 See especially Bernhardy, p. 68; Helnd. ¢.g. to the miracles, or even specially to the ad Plat. Thezet. 88, Soph.7; Winer, p. 524 _—sihistory of the transfiguration (Luke ix. 32; {E. T. p. 564]. Wetstein, Tittmann), are arbitrary.
2 Comp. Gess, Person Chr. p. 128. « Which Indeed, even after His exaltation,
® All limitations to individual points, as 1s and ever continues to be that of the God-
64 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
See on Phil. ii. 8, note, and chap. xvii. 5. No distinction is hereby made between the divine and the theanthropic défa (as objected by Weiss) ; the difference is simply in the degrecs of manifestation and appearance. Still Weiss is right in denying, as against’ Késtlin and Reuss, that there is in John no idea whatever of humiliation (comp. xii. 82, 34, xvii. 5). —é6fav] more animated without dé..— o¢ povoyevoic] as of anonly-begotten, i.e. as belongs to such an one,’ corresponds to the nature of one who is povoyert¢ mapa watpéc; Chrysostom: oiav émpere nai eixdg Evetv povoyevy xai yvfatov vidv bvra, x.t.A. The idea of reality * (dvrwe) lies as little in d¢ as in the erroneously so called 3 veritatis (against Olshausen, Klee, and earlicr writers) ; it involves rather the idea of comparison, approaching the meaning of quippe.‘— uo- voyev#e] of Christ, and regarded, indeed, in His divine nature, is Johan- nean, expressing the apostle’s own idea of Christ’s unique relationship as the son of God, i. 18, iii. 16, 18, 1 John iv. 9, though it is put into the mouth of Christ Himself in iii. 16, 18. Comp. the Pauline mpwrordxoc, Col. i, 15, Heb. 1.6, which as to the thing corresponds with the Johannean povoy- evgc, but presents the idea in the relation of time to the creation, and in Rom. viii. 29 to Christianity. Movoy. designates the Logos as the only Son (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 88; Heb. xi. 17; Tob. viii. 17 ; Herod. vii. 221 ; Plato, Legg. UI. p. 691D; Aesch. Ag. 898 ; Hes. épy. 878), besides whom the Father has none, who did not, like the réxva 6eov (vv. 12, 18), become such by moral gencration, nor by adoption, but by the intrinsic relation inhering in the divine essence, whereby He was in the beginning with God, being Him- self divine in nature and person, vv. 1, 2. He did not become this by His incarnation, but is this before all time as the Logos, and manifests Himself as the novoy. by means of the incarnation, so that consequently the povoy. vide is not identical (Beyschlag, p. 151 ff.) with the historical person Jesus Christ, but presents Himself in that person to believers ; and therefore we are not to think of any interchange of the predicates of the Logos and the Son, ‘‘ who may be also conceived of retrospectively.” * Finally, the designation corre- sponds to human relations, and is anthropomorphic, as is vid¢ Geot itself,—a circumstance which necessarily limits its applicability as an expression of the metaphysical relation, which of course excludes the idea of birth as involv- ing the maternal function. Origen well remarks : 1d 62 o¢ povoy. wapa razp. vocivy broGdAAe, Ex THE Ovolacg Tov TaTpod¢ elvat Tov vidv . . . EL yap Kai adZa mapa marpoc Exee tiv drapkuv, paraiwg 4 Tov povoyevots exerro gwvf. —Twarpdc] without the article.*° Ilana rarp. must be joined to povoy., to which it adds the definite idea of having gone forth, i.e. of having come from the Father
man, though without limitation and perfect. —According to Weiss (Lehrdegr. p. 261), the é6fa of the Logos cannot be that of the Originally divine essence itself, but one vouchsafed to Christ for the purpose of His works. This, however, is contrary to the express meaning of the word here, where by the riv 86¢. avbrod, «.7.A., we can only understand His proper glory brought with Him by the Logos into His incarnate life. As to xvii. 22, see on that passage.
1Comp. Hom. Od. @, 22f.; Dem. de. cor. 148 (p. 275, Reisk.): wéAenoy eis tr. "Arrixhy Cioayers .. . médAeuoy “‘Audictvovindy, See Kriger, § 59, 1. 3, 4.
2 Therefore povoy. ts without the article. The expression is qualitative.
§ Euthymius Zigabenus : 6vras.
4 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1002; see Kiih- ner, § 330. 5.
5 Weizsacker, 1862, p. 699.
® Winer, p. 116 [E. T. p. 122].
CHAP. I., 14. 65
(vi. 46, vii. 29, xvi. 27). [See Note VI. p. 96.] Correlative with this is ver. 18, 6 dv eic¢ r. xéAnxav tov warpés, where the only-begotten Son who came forth from the Father is viewed as having again returned to the Father. The conception of having been begotten, and thus of essential origin, would be expressed by the simple genitive (rarpéc) ; or by the dative, or by éx ” or ad, but lies in the word povoyevods itself ; since this expresses the very generation, and therefore the é« ri¢ ovoiag rov rarpo¢ elvac (Origen). Its con- nection with déé¢av (Erasmus, Grotius, Hofmann, Schrifthew. I. 120, Weiss ; already Theophyl.?) is in itself grammatically admissible (Plut. Agis, 2 ; Plato, Phaedr. p. 282 A ; Acts xxvi. 12), but is favoured here neither by the position of the words nor by the connection, which has no concern with the origin of the défa, but only with the designation of its nature ; moreover, the anarthrous povoy. requires a more precise definition, which is exactly what it has in zapa rarpbc. —rAhpne xép x. aAné.] To be referred to avroy as its subject, though this stands in the genitive. See above. It ex- plains how the Logos, having become incarnate, manifested Himself to those who beheld His glory. Grace and truth’ are the two efficaciously saving and inseparable factors of His whole manifestation and ministry, not constt- tuting His défa (Luthardt),—a notion opposed to ii. 11 and xvii.,—but dis- playing it and making it known to those who beheld that glory. Through God's grace to sinful man He became man ; and by His whole work on earth up to the time of His return to His Father, He has been the instrument of obtaining for believers the blessing of becoming the children of God. Truth, again, was what revealed itself in His entire work, especially by His preach- ing, the theme of which was furnished by His intuition of God (ver. 18), and which therefore must necessarily reveal in an adequate manner God's nature and counsel, and be the opposite of darkness and falsehood. Comp. Matt. xi. 27. The truth (aA#@eca) corresponds formally to the nature of the Logos as light ($c) ; the grace (ydpcc), which bestows everlasting life (iii. 15), to His nature as life (Ca7), vv. 4, 5. That the ydpic x. aA7Meca with which He was filled are divine grace and truth, of which He was the possessor and bearer, so that in Him they attained their complete manifestation (comp. xiv. 6), is self-evident from what has preceded, but is not specially indicated, as would necessarily have been done by the use of the article, which would have expressed the grace and truth (simply) «ar éfoyfv. Ver. 16 f. is decisive against the construction of rAfpy¢ with what follows (Erasmus, Paulus). Whether John, moreover, used the words mfp. zépiro¢ x. aA70. with any reference to Ex. xxxiv. 6 (Hengstenberg) is very doubtful, for ¥ in that passage has a different meaning (truthfulness, fidelity). John is speaking independently, from his own full experience and authority as a witness. Through a profound living experience, he had come to feel, and here declares his conviction, that all salvation depends on the incarnation of the Logos.
1 Where, according to Hilgenfeld, the Matthew and Mark also do not use it ; while author must have had inview the female Luke does not employ it in the sense of Aeons of the two first Syzygics of the Val- = saving Christian grace, in which sense it firat
entinian system. John undoubtedly has ocours in the Acts and in Paul. the word xdpis only in the Prologue, buat
66 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 15. [See Note VII. p. 96.] It is to this great fact of salvation to which the Baptist bears testimony, and his testimony was confirmed by the gracious experience of us all (ver. 16). — naprupei] Represents it as pres- ent, as if the testimony were still sounding forth. —xéxpaye] ‘ clamat Joh. cum fiducia et gaudio, uti magnum praeconem decet,” Bengel. He erieth, comp. vii. 28, 37, xii. 44 ; Rom. ix. 27. The Perfect in the usual classical sense as a present.’ Not so elsewhere in the N. T. Observe, too, the solemn circumstantial manner in which the testimony is introduced : ‘‘ John bears witness of Him, and cries while he says.” —oittog v] qv is used, because John is conceived as speaking at the present time, and therefore as pointing back to a testimony historically past : ‘‘This was He whom I meant at the time when I said.” Witheireiv reva, ‘to speak of any one,” comp. x. 36." See on vill. 27.—6 orlow pov ipydp. tumpocbby pov yéyoverv] ‘* He who cometh after me ia here before me ;’—in how far is stated in the clause dr: rparé¢ zou fv, Which assigns the reason. The meaning of the sentence and the point of the expression depend upon this,—namely, that Christ in His human manifestation appeared after John, but yet, as the pre-mundane Logos, preceded him, because He existed before John. On yiveofa: with an adverb, especially of place, in the sense of coming as in vi. 25.° Both are adverbs of place, yet under the local image representing time and not rank (évriudrepsg pot éort, Chrysostom ; so most critics, with Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, de Wette),‘ which would involve a di- verse mode of construing the two particles (the first being taken temporally), and the sentence then becomes trivial, and loses its cnigmatical character, since there is no reason why later comers should stand lower in dignity. Origen long ago rightly understood both clauses as relating to time, though the second is not therefore to be rendered ‘‘ He was before me” (Luther and many, also Briickner, Baeumlein), since #y is not the word ;° nor: ‘‘ He came into being before me,” which would not be referable ‘‘to the O. T. ad- vent of Christ” (Lange), but, in harmony with the idea of povoyevfc, to His having come forth from God prior to all time. It is decisive against both, that dri mparéc pov Fv would be tautological,—an argument which is not to be set aside by any fanciful rendering of zpérog (see below). Nonnus well remarks : mpawroc éueio BEBnxev, orlorepoc boric lxdvee. Comp. Godet and Hengst.; alsoin his Christol. III. 1, p. 675, ‘‘my successor is my predeces- sor,” where, however, his assumption of a reference to Mal. ili. 1 is without any hint to that effect in the words. According to Luthardt (comp. Hof- mann, Weissag. u. Hrf. Il. 256), what is meant to be said is: ‘‘ He who at first walked behind me, as if he were my disciple, has taken precedence of
1 Body ... xat xexpayws, Dem. 271, 11 ; Soph. Aj. 1186; Arist. Plut. 722, Vesp. 415.
3 Xen. Cyr. vii. 83.5; Plato, Crat. p. 482C; Hom. Il. ¢. 479.
§ See Kriiger on Xen. Anad, 1.2.7; Kth- ner, II. p. 89; Nagelsbach, note on Ziad, ed. 8, p. 295. Comp. Xen. Cyrop. vii. 1. 22, ¢yévero SrisOey tav dppepafer ; Anad. vil. 1. 10; 1. 8 24
4 This rendering is not ungrammatical (in opposition to Hengstenberg), if only we maintain that, while adopting it, the local meaning of éuspocGew is not changed. (Comp. Gen. xlvili. 20; Baruch if. 5.)
§ So, too, In Matt. xix. 8 and John xx. 27, yiverOa does not mean esse, but fieri (against Baeumlein); so also in passages such as Luke i. 5, 2 Pet. if. 1.
CHAP. 1, 16, | 67
me, #.¢. He has become my master.” But the enigma of the sentence lics just in this, that 6 oricw nov épyéu. expresses something still future, as this also answers to the customary épyeofla: of the Messiah’s advent. Hofmann’s view, therefore, is more correct, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 10 ff.,—namely, that the meaning of the Baptist is, ‘‘ while Jesus is coming after him, he is already before Him.” But even thus éump. uov yéy. amounts to a figurative designa- tion of rank, which is not appropriate to thé clause irs mparé¢ pou #v, which assigns the reason, and manifestly refers to time. —ére rpdré¢ pov Fv] is a direct portion of the Baptist’s testimony which has just been adduced,’ as ver. 830 shows, presenting the key to the preceding oxymoron : for before me He was in existence. The reference to rank,’ requiring our construing, ‘¢ He was more than J,” is overthrown by #, for which we should have had éoriv, Comp. Matt. iii. 11. Only a rendering which refers to time (i.¢. only the pre-existence of the Logos) solves the apparent opposition between sub- ject and predicate in the preceding declaration. — zpaéro¢ in the sense of apétepoc, answering to the representation, ‘‘ first in comparison with me.”* We must not, with Winer and Baur, force in the idea of absolute priority.‘ This also against Ewald (‘‘far earlier”), Hengstenberg, Briickner, Godet (‘‘ the principle of my existence”). To refuse to the Baptist all idea of the pre-existence of the Messiah, and to represent his statement merely as one put into his mouth by the evangelist,* is the more bascless, the more pointed and peculiar is the testimony ; the greater the weight the evangelist attaches to it, the less can it be questioned that deep-seeing men were able, by means of such O. T. passages as Mal. iii. 1, Isa. vi. 1 ff., Dan. vii. 13 ff., to attain to that idca, which has also Rabbinical testimony in its support, ° and the more decidedly the harbinger of the Messiah, under the influence of divine revelation, took his stand as the last of the prophets, the Elijah who had come.
Ver. 16. Not the language of the Baptist,’ against which gucic révre¢ is decisive, but that of the evangelist continued. —irz (sec critical notes) in- troduces the personal and superabounding gracious experience of believers, with a retrospective reference indeed to the wAfp. ydpiroc x. aA7O., ver. 14, and in the form of a confirmation of John’s testimony in ver. 15: this testimony is justified by what was imparted to us all out of the fulness of Him who was borne witness to.—é« rov wAnpdpu. airoid] out of that whereof He was Sull, ver. 14 ; rAgpwya in a passive sense ; see on Col. i. 19. The phrase and idea were here so naturally furnished by the immediate context, that it is quite far-fetched to find their source in Gnosticism, especially in that of the
1 Against Hengstenberg.
2 Chrysostom, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, QGrotius, and most comm., also B. Crusius and Hofmann.
3 Comp. the genitive relation in xpwrdéroxos waoys xcrigews, Col. 1. 15. See Herm. ad Viger. p. 718; Dorvill. ad Charlt. p. 478; Bernhardy, Fratoeth. 42, p. 122.
* Philippi, d. Kingang d. Joh. Ev., p. 179: “ He Is the unconditioned first (i.¢. the eter-
nal), in relation to me.” The comparison of A and O in the Revelation is inapplicable here, because we have not the absolute o spwros, but wmpwrds pov. Comp. xv. 18; and Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 74 [E. T. p. 84].
§ Strauss, Weisse, B. Bauer, de Wette, Scholten, and many others.
* Bertholdt, CAristol. p. 181.
7 Heracleon, Origen, Rupertus, Erasmus, Luther, Melanchtlon, Lange.
68 THE GOSPEL OF JONWN.
Valentinians.’— 7 e7¢] we on our part, giving prominence to the personal experience of the believers (which had remained unknown to unbelievers), vv. 10, 11.—*wdvrec] None has goneempty away. IJnexhaustibleness of the rAjpuua.—&AdBopev| absolute : we hare receited.—xai] and indeed.*— xaptv avrl xdperog]) grace for grace, isnot to be explained,* NV. 7. instead of O. T. grace,‘ or instead of the original grace lost in Adam (see especially Calovius), since in ver. 17 6 véuoc and 7 ydpic are Opposed to each other, and since in the N. T. generally zépic is the distinctive essence of Christian sal- vation (comp. especially Rom. vi. 14, 15) ; but with Beza and most modern expositors,° ‘‘ so that ecer and anon fresh grace appears in place of that already received.” ‘‘Proximam quamque gratiam satis quidem magnam gratia sub- sequens cumulo et plenitudine sua quasi obruit,” Bengel. So superabundant was the AauBévev ! This rendering is justified linguistically by Theogn. — Sent. 344, avr’ avdv aviag ; Philo, de poster. Caini, I. p. 254 ; Chrys. de sae. vi. 13,—as in general by the primary meaning of avri (grace interchanging with grace) ; it corresponds, in the context, with the idea of the wAgpwya, from which it is derived, and is supported further by the increasingly blessed condition of those individually experiencing it (justification, peace with God, consolation, joy, illumination, love, hope, etc.: see on Rom. v. 1 ff. ; Gal. v. 22; Eph. v. 9). John might have written ydpi im ydpire or xapiv éxi xépw (Phil. ii. 27), but his conception of it was different. Still, any special reference to the fulness of the special yapionara, 1 Cor. xii.-xiv. (Ewald), lies remote from the context here (ver. 17) ; though these, as in general any spiritual blessing (Eph. i. 3), wherewith God in Christ has blessed believers, are not ercluded. i Ver. 17. Antithetical confirmation of yépcv avr? ydpitog ; ‘‘for how high above what was formerly given by Moses, does that stand which came through Jesus Christ !” Comp. Rom. iv. 15, x. 4; Gal. i. 10 ff., al. The former is the law, viewed by Paul as the antithesis of grace (Rom. vi. 14, vil. 3; Gal. iv. 4, and many other passages), in so far as it only lays us under obligation, condemns us, and in fact arouses and intensifies the need of grace, but does not bestow peace, which latter gift has been realized for ‘us through Christ. The antithesis without ué»—dé has rhetorical force (iv. 22, vi. 63).°— #4 xydpzec] in the definite and formal sense of redemption, sav- ing grace, i.e. the grace of the Father in the Son. Hence also xai 7 a246ea is added with a pragmatical reference to ver. 14 ; this, like all Christ’s gifts of grace, was included in the universal ydpev avri yapsrog of ver. 16. More- over, the a44@e:¢a was not given in the law, in so far as its substance, which was not indeed untrue, but an outflow of the divine will for salvation (Rom.
1 Schwegler, Hilgenfeld. ’ Among whom, however, Godet regards
2See Winer, p. 407 [E. T. p. 487]; Har- tang, Partikell. I. 145.
3 With Chrysostom, Cyril, Severus, Non- nus, Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Aretius, Calovius, Jansen, Wolf, Lampe, and many others, even Paulus.
4 Eathymius Zigabenus: ry cacvhy dcayjxny avTi THs TWoAalas.
the phrase with avri as a play wpon words, referring to the O. T. law of retaliation, ac- cording to which “ chaque grdce était la ré- compense d'un mérife acquis." But such an allusion would be inappropriate, since xapis in arti xapt7os is not something human, but divine. * Buttm. N. 7. Gk. p. 844 (E. T. p. 364).
CHAP. I., 18. 69
vii. 10 sqq. ; Acts vii. 38), was related only as type and preparation to the absolute revelation of truth in Christ and hence through its very fulfilment (Matt. v. 17) had come to be done away.’ Comp. Gal. ili. 24. Grace was still wanting to the law, and with it truth also in the full meaning of the word. See also 2 Cor. iii. 18 ff. —zyévero] The non-repetition of 667 is not to point out the independent work of the Logos,* with which é:d is incon- sistent, or of God (Origen), whose work the law also was. It comes from a change of thought (not recognized by Liicke), in that each clause sets forth the historical phenomenon as i actually occurred. In the case of the law, this took place in the historical form of being given, whereas grace and truth originated, came into being, not absolutely, but in relation to mankind, for whom they had not before existed asa matter of experience, but which now, in the manifestation and work of Christ, unfolded their historical origin. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 80.—Observe how appropriately, in harmony with the crea- tive skilful plan of the Prologue, after the incarnation of the Logos, and the revelation of His glory which was therewith connected, have been set forth with glowing animation, there is now first announced the great historical Name, Jesus Christ, which designates the incarnate Logos as the complete concrete embodiment of His manifestation. Comp. 1 John i. 1-8. Only now is the Prologue so fully developed, that Jesus Christ, the historical per- son of the Adyog évoapxog (hence all the less, with Hofmann and Luthardt, to be understood immediately from the beginning under the Logos), comes before the eye of the reader, who now, however, knows how to gather up in this name his full theanthropic glory.
Ver. 18 furnishes an explanation of what had just been said, that 7 aajfeca 6a "I. X. éyévero, ;® for this there was required immediate knowledge of God, the result of experience, which His only-begotten Son alone possessed. — ovdefc] no man, not even Moses. ‘‘ Besides is no doctor, master, or preacher, than the only Teacher, Christ, who is in the Godhead inwardly,” Luther ; comp. Matt. xi. 27. —édpane] has seen, beheld (comp. iii. 11), of the beholding of God's essence (Ex. xxxiii. 20), to the exclusion of visions, theophanies, and the like.* Agreeably to the context, the reference is to the direct vision of God’s essential glory, which no man could have (Ex. 1.¢.), but which Christ possessed in His pre-existent condition as Aéyo¢ (comp. vi. 46), and possesses again since His exaltation. —6 Sv cic rov KédAnr. rob xartpé¢] As éfgyno. refers to the state on earth of the Only-begotten, oy» con- sequently, taken as an imperfect, cannot refer to the pre-human state ;° yet it cannot coincide with é&4yy. in respect of time (Beyschlag), because the eiva cig rov KéA. 7. 7. Was not true of Christ during His earthly life (comp. espe- cially i. 62).° The right explanation therefore is, that John, when he wrote
} Rom. x. 4; Col. Hl. 14; Web. x. 1 ff,
Comp. 1 John fv. 12; also Rom. 1. 2; vil. 18.
Col. i. 15; 1 Tim. f. 17,
2 Clemens, Paedag. i. 7.
§ Not including any explanation of 4 ydpis also (Luthardt), because éwpaxe and ¢fyy7- gato answer only to the conception of the truth in which the vision of God is iuter- preted.
* Against Luthardt, Gess, pp. 128, 236, and others.
* Hence we must not say, with Brickner, comp. Tholuck and Hengstenberg, that a relation of the xovoyerjs is portrayed which was neither interrupted nor modified by
70 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
6 Gv cig 7. x. Tr. 7., expressed himself from his own present standing-point, and conceived of Christ as in His state of exaltation, as having returned to the bosom of the Fathcr, and therefore into the state of the civa: zpd¢ riv 6eév.1 Thus also must we explain the statement of direction towards, ci¢ rov xéAr., which would be otherwise without any explanation (Mark ii. 1, xiii. 16 ; Luke xi. 7) ; so that we recognize in eic as the prominent clement the idea of having arrived at,? not the notion of leaning upon,* nor of moving towards, which is warranted neither by the simple dv (in favour of which such analogies as in aurem dormire are inappropriate) nor by eic, instead of which xp频 or éxi with the accusative ought rather to be expected.* This forced interpretation of cig would never have been attempted, had not ov been construed as a timeless Present, expressing an inherent relation, and in this sense applied * also to the earthly condition of the Son ; comp. Beyschlag, pp- 100, 150. So far as the thing itself is concerned, the elvai cig rov xbAr- does not differ from the civac zpo¢ rév Aedy of ver. 1 ; only it expresses the fullest fellowship with God, not before the incarnation, but after the exal- tation, and at the same time exhibits the relation of lore under a sensuous form (xéArov) ; not derived, however, from the custom (xiii. 28) of reclining at table (thus usually, but not appropriately in respect of fellowship with God), but rather from the analogy of a father’s embrace (Luke vi. 22). In its pragmatic bearing, 6 ov is the historical seal of the é£7yf4oaTo ; but we must not explain it, with Hilgenfeld, from the Gnostic idea of the wAgpepa. {See Note VIII. p. 97.] —éxeivoc] strongly emphatic, and pointing heaven- wards.’ —iény%#oaro] namely, the substance of His intuition of God ; comp. viii. 88. The word is the usual one for denoting the exposition, inter- pretation of divine things, and intuitions.* It does not occur elsewhere in
the Incarnation. The communion of the whereupon 6 &», «.r.A. sets forth the exal-
Incarnate One with God remained, He in God, and God in Him, but not in the same manner metaphysically as before His in- carnation and after his exaltation. He while on earth was still in hearen (iff. 18), yet not de facto, but de jure, because heaven was His home, His ancestral seat.
180 Hofmann, Schrifldew. I. 120, II. 28; Welss, Lehrbegr. 289.
3 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 687 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XH. p. 713 Bauttm. N. 7. Gr. p. 236; [E. T. p. 383].
2 Godet, after Winer, Liicke, Tholuck, Maier, Gess, and most others.
4 Hom. JZ. vi. 467.
6 Philippi's objections (Glaubenel. IV. 1, p. 409 f.) to my rendering are quite bascless. For an explanation of the ay eis rdv KoAr, which occurs to every unprejudiced ex- positor as coming directly from the words themselves cannot be ‘‘arbitrary.”” And it is not contrary to the connection, as both Godet and Beyschlag hold, because what the words, as usually interpreted, say, is already contained in the 6 povoyevns vids,
tation of the Only-begotten—just as in o Hovoy’ vids were given the ground and source of the ééyyjcaro—as its infallible confirma- tion. This also against Gess, p. 1%. My interpretation is quite as compatible with earnest treatment of the deity of Christ (Heng- stenberg) as the usual one, while both are open to abuse. Besides, we bave nothing at all todo here with the earnest- ness referred to, but simply with the correct- ness or incorrectness of the interpretation. Further, I have not through fear of spirit- ualism (as Beyschlag imagines) deviated from the usual meaning, which would quite agree with Ill. 13.
¢ Licko, Tholuck, de Wette, Lange, Brickner, Hengstenberg, Philippi, and most expositors.
7 As with Homer (see Nitzsch, p. 87, note 1), s0 in the N. T. John pre-eminently re- quires not merely to be read, but to be spoken. His work is the epio among the Gospels.
8 Plato, Pol. iv. p. 427 C; Schneid. Theaq. p. 181; Xen. Cyr. vill. 3.11; Soph. 27. 417;
CHAP. I., 18. "1
John, and hence a special reference in its selection here is all the more to be presumed, the more strikingly appropriate it is to the context (against Liicke, Maier, Godet). Comp. LXX. Lev. xiv. 57. [See Note IX. p. 71].
Note.—The Prologue, which we must not with Reuss restrict to vv. 1-5, is not ‘' A History of the Logos,’’ describing Him down to ver. 13 as He was before His incarnation, and from ver. 14 ff. as incarnate (Olshausen). Against this it is decisive that vv. 6-13 already refer to the period of His human existence, and that, in particular, the sonship of believers, vv. 12, 13, cannot be understood in any other than a specifically Christian sense. For this reason, too, we must not adopt the division of Ewald : (1) The pre-mundane history of the Logos, . vv. 1-3; (2) the history of His first purely spiritual agency up to the time of His incarnation, vv. 4-13 ; (3) the history of His human manifestation and ministry, vv. 14-18. John is intent rather on securing, in grand and condensed outline,a profound comprehensive. view of the nature and work of the Logos 3 which latter, the work, was in respect of the world creative, in respect of man- kind illuminative (the Light). As this working of the Logos was historical, the description must necessanly also bear an historical character ; not in such a way, however, as to give a formal history, first of the Adyoc doapxog (which could not have been given), and then of the Adyoc évoapxog (which forms the substance of the Gospel itself), but in such a way that the whole forms a histori- cal picture, in which we see, in the world which came into existence by the cre- ative power of the Logos, His light shining before, after, and through His incarnation. This at the same time tells against Hilgenfeld, p. 60 ff., accord- ing to whom, in the Prologue, ‘‘the Gnosis of the absolute religion, from its immediate foundation to its highest perfection, runs through the series of its historical interventions.’’ According to Késtlin, p. 102 ff., there is a brief triple description of all Christianity from the beginning onwards to the present ; and this, too, (1) from the standing-point of God and His relation to the world, vv. 1-8; then (2) from the relations of the Logos to mankind, vv. 9-13 ; and lastly, (3) in the individual, vv. 14-18, by which the end returns to the beginning, ver.1. But a triple beginning (which Kaeuffer too assumes in the Sichs. Stud. 1844, p. 103 ff.) is neither formally hinted at nor really made : for, in ver. 9, 6 7éyo¢ is not the subject to 7», and this 7» must, agreeably to the context, refer to the time of the Baptist, while Késtlin’s construction and explanation of 7v—epyzouevov is quite untenable ; and because in the last part, from ver. 14 onwards, the antithesis between receiving and not receiving, so essential in the first two parts, does not at all recuragain. The simple explana- tion, in harmony with the text, is as follows : The Prologue consists of three parts,—namely, (1) a description (a) of the primeval existence of the Logos, vv. 1, 2, and (b) of His creative work, ver. 3 (with the addition of the first part of ver. 4, which is the transition to what follows). Next, (2) a representation of Him in whom was life as the Light of mankind, ver. 4 ff., and this indeed (a) as He once had been, when still without the contrast of darkness, ver. 4, and (b) as He was in this contrast, ver. 5. This shining in the darkness is continuous (hence ¢aive:, ver. 5), and the tragic opposition occasioned thereby now unfolds itself before our eyes onwards to ver. 13, in the following manner: ‘Though
comp. the éénynrai in Athens: Ruhnken, ad Tim. p. 100 ff.; Hermann, gotiesd. Alterth. § 1.12.
72 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
John came forward and testified of the Light, not being himself the Light, but a witness of the Light (vv. 6-8,—though He, the true Light, was already ezist- ing (ver. 9),—though He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, still men acknowledged Him not; though He came to His own, His own received Him not (vv. 10, 11); whereas those who did receive Him obtained from Him power to become the spiritual sons of God (vv. 12, 13.’’ Lastly, (3) this blessedness of believers, due to the Logos who had historically come, now constrains the apostle to make still more prominent the mode and fashion in which He was manifested in history (His incarnation), and had revealed His glory, vv. 14-18. Thus the Prologue certainly does not (against Baur) lift the histori- cal out of its own proper soil, and transfer it to the sphere of metaphysics, but rather unveils its metaphysical side, which was essentially contained in and connected with it, as existing prior to its manifestation, and in the light of this its metaphysical connection sums it up according to its essence and antithe- sis, its actual development and the proof of its historical truth being furnished by the subsequent detailed narrative in the Gospel. We may distinguish the three parts thus : (1) The premundane existence and creative work of the Logos, Vv. 1-4a ; (2) His work as the Light of men, and the opposition to this, vv. 4-13 ; (3) The revelation of His glory which took place through the incarnation, vv. 14-18. Or, in the briefest way : the Logos (1) as the creator ; (2) as the source of light ; (3) as ihe manifestation of the God-man. This third part shows us the Incarnate One again, ver. 18, where as doapxoc He was in the beginning—do ov «ig r. xéAr,. tov tarpéc ; and the cycle is complete.
Vv. 19, 20. The historical narrative, properly so called, now begins, and quite in the style of the primitive Gospels (comp. Mark i. ; Acts x. 86, 87, xiii. 28-25), with the testimony of the Baptist. —« ai] and, now first of all to narrate the testimony already mentioned in ver. 15; for this, and not another borne before the baptism, is meant ; see note foll. ver. 18. —airy] ‘‘ The following is the testimony of John, which he bore when,” etc.’ In- stead of ér:, the evangelist puts ére, because the idca of time was with him the predominant one.* Had he written dr, his thought would have been : ‘¢ Hercir? did his testimony consist, that the Jews sent to him, and he con- fessed,” etc. —ol ’Iovdaioc] means, even in such passages as this, where it is no merely indifferent designation of the people (as in ii. 6, 13, iii. 1, iv. 22, v. 1, xviii. 33 ff., and often), nothing else than the Jews; yet John, writing when he had long severed himself from Judaism, makes the body of the Jews, as the old religious community from which the Christian Church had already completely separated itself, thus constantly appear in a hostile sense in face of the Lord and His work, as the ancient theocratic people in corporate opposition to the new community of God (which had entered into their promised inheritance) and to its Head. How little may be dc- duced from this as ground of argument against the age and genuineness of the Gospel, see my Introd. § 8. For the rest, in individual passages, the
2 Following Origen and Cyril, Paulusand simplicity of John’s style. B. Crusius suppose that ore begins a new 2 Comp. Pflugk, ad Hec. 107; Ellendt, Ler. sentence, of which cai wpodrdynee, etc., Isto Soph. II. p. 893. be taken as the apodosis—contrary to the
CHAP. I., 21. %3
contezt must always show who, considered more minutcly as matter of his- tory, the persons in question were by whom the Jews are represented, as in this place, where it was plainly the Sanhedrim’ who represented the people of the old religion. Comp. v. 15, ix. 22, xviii. 12, 81, ete. —x«ai Aevirac] priests, consequently, with their subordinates, who had, however, ® position as teachers, and aspired to priestly authority (see Ewald and Heng- stenberg). The mention of these together is a trait illustrative of John’s precision of statement, differing from the manner of the Synoptics, but for that very reason, so far from raising doubts as to the genuineness, attesting rather the independence and originality of John (against Weisse), who no longer uses the phrase so often repeated in the Synoptics, ‘‘ the scribes and elders,” because it had to him already become strange and out of date. — ct tic el] for John baptized (ver. 25), and this baptism had reference to Mes- siah’s kingdom (Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, xxxili. 23 ; Zech. xiii. 1). He had, generally, made a great sensation as a prophet, and had even given rise to the opinion that he was the Messiah (Luke iii. 15 ; comp. Acts xiii. 25) ; hence the question of the supreme spiritual court was justified, Deut. xviii. 21, 22, Matt. xxi. 23. The question itself is not at all framed in a captious spirit. We must not, with Chrysostom and most others, regard it as prompt- ed by any malicious motive, but must explain it by the authoritative po- sition of the supreme court. Nevertheless it implies the assumption that John regarded himsclf as the Messiah ; and hence his answer in ver. 20, hence also the emphatic precedence given to the oi ; comp. viii. 25. Lu- thardt too hastily concludes from the form of the question, that the main thing with them was the person, not the call and purpose of God. But they would have inferred the call and purpose of God from the person, as the question which they ask in ver. 25 shows. —é& ‘Iepoa.] belongs to antoreilav. —xat SpnoAdéy.] still dependent on the ére.—adpodr. wat ob 4 pv%o.] emphatic prominence given to his straightforward confession ; d¢ GAnO¢ nal creppdc, Euthymius Zigabenus,? —xai &po2.] The first x. dpoa. was absolute ;* this second has for subject the following sentence (ér: recita- tive). Moreover, ‘‘ vehementer auditorem commovet ejusdem redintegratio verbi,” ad Herenn. iv. 28. There is, however, no side glance here at the disciples of John (comp. the Introd.). To the evangelist, who had him- self been the pupil of the Baptist, the testimony of the latter was weighty enough in itself to lead him to give it emphatic prominence. — According to the right order of the words (sce crit. notes), éy& otx etyi 6 X., the emphasis lies upon tyé ; Ion my part, which implies that he knew another who was the Messiah.
Ver. 21. In consequence of this denial, the next point was to inquire whether he was the Hiijah who, according to Mal. iv. 5, was expected (back from heaven) as the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. —ré ody] not, quid ergo es (Beza et al.), but as rig does not again occur (vv. 19, 22):
1 Comp. ‘Axaoé in Homer, which often ‘3: Adfw wpds Uuas cal ovn dmoxpipoua:, Sce means the proceres of the Greeks. Bremi in loc. ; Vaicken. Schol. ad Acé. xiill. 2 Comp. Eur. EZ. 10537: nui nal ote awap- = 11. vyouxa: 3 Soph. Ant, 443; Dem. de Chere. 108. 3 Add. ad Esth. 1. 15, and in the classics,
"4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
what then is the case, if thou art not the Messiah ? what is the real state of the matter ?— Art thou Elijah? §8o put, the question assumes it as certain that John must give himself out to be Elijah, after he had denied that he was the Messiah. —oix eiut] He could give this answer, notwithstand- ing what is said in Luke i. 17, Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10 (against Hilgen- feld), since he could only suppose his interrogators were thinking of the literal, not of the antitypical Elijah. Bengel well says: ‘‘omnia a se amolitur, ut Christum confiteatur et ad Christum redigat quaerentes.” He was conscious, nevertheless, according to ver. 23, in what sense he was Elijah ; but taking the question as literally meant, there was no occasion for him to go beyond that meaning, and to ascribe to himself in a special manner the character of an antitypical Elijah, which would have been neither prudent nor profitable. The ovx eciui is too definite an answer to the definite question, to be taken as a denial in general of every externally de- Jined position (Briickner) ; he would have had to answer evasively. — 6 x po- gitn¢ et of;] The absence of any connecting link in the narrative shows the rapid, hasty manner of the interrogation. 6 rpo¢#r7¢ is marked out by the article as the well-known promised prophet, and considering the pre- vious question 'HAia¢ el cd, can only be a nameless one, and therefore not Jeremiah, according to Matt. xvi. 14,' but the one intended in Deut. xviii. 15, the reference of whom to the Messiah Himself (Acts iil. 22, vii. 37 ; John i. 46, vi. 14) was at least not universal (comp. vii. 40), and was not adopted by the interrogators here. Judging from the descending climax of the questions, they must rather have thought of some one inferior to Elijah, or, in general, of an individual undefined, owing to the fluctuation of view regarding Him who was expected as ‘‘ the prophet.”"? Nonnus well expresses the namelessness and yet eminence of this 6 rpogyrnc : pe? ob pol, bv Karéovot,
Genydépog Ecol mpogdyrns, ayyedoc Eaooptvur ; come shortened at last to the bare od.
Observe how the rigid denials be- Here also we have a no on the Bap-
tist’s lips, because in his view Jesus was the prophet of Deut. xviii.
Vv. 22, 23. Now comes the question which cannot be met by a bare nega- tive ; iva as in ix. 36.— The positice answer to this is from Isa. xl. 8 according to the LXX., with the variation ev6ivare instead of érocudcare, in unison with the second half of the words in the LXX. For the rest, see on Matt. iii. 83. The designation of himself, the herald of the coming Messiah calling men to repentance, as a voice, was given in the words of the prophet, and the accompanying PBowvro¢ év r7 éoguw excludes the idea which Baur entertains, that John here intended to direst himself, as it were, of every personal characteristic. According to Hilgenfeld,* the evangelist has put the passage of Scripture applied to the Baptist by the Synoptics (who, how- ever, have not this account at all) ‘‘ at last into the Baptist’s own mouth.”
1 Grotius, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Klee, Lange. 2 Luthardt thinks of the prophet in the second portion of Isaiah. Comp. Hofmann, Weiseag. u. Hrf. II. p. 69. It would agree with this, that John immediately gives an
answer taken from Isa. xl. But if his inter- rogators had had in mind Isa. xl. ff., they would probably have designated him whom they meant more characteristically, viz. as the servant of Jehovah.
3 Evang. p. 236.
CHAP. I., 24. 75
Ver. 24 ff. The inquiry, which proceeds still further, finds a pragmatic issue in pharisaic style (for the Sanhedrim had chosen their deputies from this learned, orthodox, and crafty party). From their strict scholastic standing-point, they could allow (ovy) so thoroughly reformatory an innova- tion as that of baptism (see on Matt. iii. 5), considering its connection with Messiah’s kingdom, only to the definite personalities of the Messiah, Elijah, or the promised prophet, and not to a man with so vague a call as that which the Baptist from Isa. x]. 8 ascribed to himself,—a passage which the Phar- isees had not thought of explaining in a Messianic sense, and were not accustomed so to apply in their schools. Hence the parenthetical remark here inserted : ‘‘ And they that were sent belonged to the Pharisees,”—a statc- ment, therefore, which points forward, and does not serve as a supplementary explanation of the hostile spirit of the question (Euthymius Zigabenus, Liicke, and most others). — The reply corresponds to what the Baptist had said of himself in ver. 23, that he was appointed to prepare the way for the Messiah. NN. iTis baptism, consequently, was not the baptism of the Spirit, which was reserved for the Messiah (ver. 33), but a baptism of water, as yet without the elementum coeleste ; there was already standing, however, in thcir midst the far greater One, to whom this preparatory baptism pointed. The jirst clause of the verse, ¢y® Barr. éy idat:, implies, therefore, that by his baptism he does not lay claim to anything that belongs to the Messiah (the baptism of the Spirit) ; and this portion refers to the ei od otx el 6 Xprorée of ver. 25. The second clause, however, pécoc, ctc., implies that this preliminary baptism of his had now the justification, owing to his relation to the Messiah, of a livinely ordained necessity (ver. 23) ; since the Messiah, unknown indeed to I ies: already stood in their midst, and consequently what they allowed to Elijah, or the prophet, must not be left unperformcd on his part ; and this part of his answer refers to the ovd2 'HAlac ovdé 6 mpopfrnc in ver. 25. Thus the question ri otv Barrilerg is answered by a twofold reason. There is much that is inappropriate in the remarks of expositors, who have not suffi- ciently attended to the connection : e.g., de Wette overlooks the appropri- ateness of the answer to the Elijah question ; Tholuck contents himself with an appeal to the ‘‘laconic-comma style” of the Baptist ; and Brickner thinks that ‘‘ John wished to give no definite answer, but yet to indicate his relation to the Messiah, and the fact of his pointing to Him ;” while Bacumlein holds that the antithetical clause, 8¢ Barrice: év rvebu. dy., intended to be here inserted, was forgotten, owing to the intervening sentences ; and final- ly, Hilgenfeld, from comparison of Matthew and Luke, deduces the unhis- torical character of the narrative. Heracleon already held that John did not answer according to the question asked of him, but as he aird¢ éBobAero. In answer to him, Origen. —éy4] has the emphasis of an antithesis to the high Baptizer (uéoog d2, etc.), not to tueig (Godet). Next to this, the stress lies on év tdare. This is the element (see on Matt. iii. 11) in which his baptism was performed. This otherwise superfluous addition has a limiting force, and hence is important. —néc0¢] without the spurious dé is all the more emphatic ; see on ver. 17. The emphasizing of the antithesis, however, brings thie pécoc to the front, because it was the manifestation of the Messiah,
“6 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
elready taking place in the cery midst of the Jews, which justified Jonn in baptizing. Had the Messiah been still far off, that baptism would have lacked its divine necessity ; He was, however, standing in their midst, é.c. avapepcypévog tére TH Aap (Euthymius Zigabenus). —dv tyei¢g otn oldare] reveals the reason why they could question as they had done in ver. 25. The emphasis is on éyeic, as always (against Tholuck) ; here in contrast with the knowledge which he himself had (sce on ver. 28, note) of the man- ifested Messiah : you on your part, you people, have the Messiah among you, and know Him not (that is, as the Messiah). In ver. 27, after rejecting the words airdé¢ orev and o¢ éumpoo. pov yéyovev (see the critical notes), there remains only 6 dricw pov Epydpevog (ver. 15), and that in fact as the subject of puécog éorgxev, which subject then receives the designation of its superiority over the Baptist in the ov éya ov« eiui dfcoc, x.t.A. Concerning this designation, see on Matt. iii. 11. —éyo] I for my part. —aé&tog iva} worthy that I should loose ; iva introduces the purpose of the aéeéryc. Comp. ixavog iva, Matt. viii. 8, Luke vii. 6. —airov] placed jirst for emphasis, and corresponding to the éyé.’ Totrov would have been still more emphatic. Ver. 28. On account of the importance of His public appearance, a defi- nite statement of its locality is again given. — A place so exactly described by John himsclf (xi. 18), according to its situation, as Bethany on the Mount of Olives, cannot be meant here ; there must also have been another Bethany situated in Peraca, probably only a village, of which nothing further is known from history. Origen, investigating both the locality and the text, did not find indeed any Bethany, but a Bethabara instead * (comp. Judg. vii. 24%), which the legends of his day described as the place of baptism ; the legend, however, misled him. For Bethany in Peraea could not have becn situated at all in the same latitude with Jericho, as the tradition rep- resents, but must have lain much farther north ; for Jesus occupied about three days in travelling thence to the Judaean Bethany for the raising of Lazarus (see on xi. 17). Yet Paulus (following Bolten) understood the place to be Bethany on the Mount of Olives, and puts a period after éyévero, in spite of the facts that rg ératpeov (comp. ver. 385) must begin the new narration, and that érov Fv ’Iudvv. Barz. must clearly refer to ver. 25 ff. Baur, however, makes the name, which according to Schenkel must be attributed to an error of anon-Jewish author, to have been invented, in order to represent Jesus (7) as beginning His public ministry at a Bethany, seeing that He came out of a Bethany at its close. Against the objection still taken to this name even by Weizsiicker (a name which a third person was certainly least of all likely to venture to insert, seeing that Bethany on the Mount of
1Qn avrou after of, see Winer, p. 140 [E. ogy is not at allappropriate to the position T. p. 155). of Bethany on the Mount of Olives. Origen
2 To suppose, with Possinus, Spicil. Hoang. himself explains the name Bethabara with p. 82 (in the Catena in Marc. p. 882f.), that an evident intention to allegorize: olxos both names have the same signification «aracxevns (N13). The derivation of the (INVIY 3, domus transitus, ford-house; name Bethany (Lightfoot: *)°TT 1°3, house TT'38 3, domus navie, ferry-house)—a of dates; Simon: 713}! M3 locus depres- view to which also Lange inclines, L. J. 11. siont# ; others: NJ’ 113, domus miseri) is 401,—1s the more untczable, asthisetymel- doubtful.
CHAP. I., 28. G7
Olives was so well known), see Ewald, Jahrd. XII. p. 214 ff. As to the historic truth of the whole account in vv. 19-28, which, especially by the real- ity of the situation, by the idiosyncrasy of the questions and answers, and their appropriateness to the characters and circumstances of the time, as well as by their connection with the subsequent designations of the day, reveals the recollections and interest of an eye-witness, see Schweizer, p. 100 ff.; Bleek, Beitr. p. 256.—éaov jv 'lwdévv. Barr. 1 where John was employed i in baptizing.
Note.—(1) Since, according to vv. 26, 27 (comp. especially &v 6 ei¢ ove oldare, which implies his own personal acquaintance), the Baptist already knows the Messiah, while according to vv. 31-33 he first recognized Him at His baptism through a divine onueiov, it follows that the occurrences related in vv. 19-28 took place after the baptism of Jesus; and consequently this baptism could not have occurred on the same or the following day (Hengst.), norin the time between vy. 31 and 32 (Ewald). Wieseler,{Ebrard, Luthardt. Godet, and most exposi- tors, as already Liicke, Tholuck, de Wette, following the older expositors, rightly regard the events of ver. 19 ff. as subsequent to the baptism. It is futile to appeal, as against this (Briickner), to the ‘‘ indefiniteness’’ of the words dv tueic ob« oidare, for there is really no indefiniteness in them ; while to refer them to a merely preliminary knowledge, in opposition to the definite acquaint- ance which began at the baptism, is (against Hengst.) a mere subterfuge. That even after the baptism, which had already taken place, John could say, ‘« Ye know Him not,” is sufficiently conceivable, if we adhere to the purely historical account of the baptism, as given in vv. 31-34. See on Matt. p. 111 ff. (2) Although, according to Matt. iii. 14, John already knows Jesus as the Messiah when He came to be baptized of him, there isin this only an apparent discrep. ancy between the two evangelists ; see on ver. 31. (3) Mark i. 7, 8, and Luke iii. 16 ff., are not at variance with John ; for those passages only speak of the Messiah as being Himself near at hand, and do not presuppose any personal acquaintance with Jesus as the Messiah. (4) The testimonies borne by the Baptist, as recorded in the Synoptics, are, both as to time (before the baptism) and occasion, very different from that recorded in John i. 19 ff., which was given before a deputation from the high court ; and therefore the historic truth of both accounts is to be retained side by side,' though in details John (against Weiase, who attributes the narrative in John to another hand; so Baur and others) must be taken as the standard. (5) To deny any reference in ver. 19 ff. to the baptism of Jesus (Baur), is irreconcilable with vv. 31 and 33 ; for the evan- gelist could not but take it for granted that the baptism of Jesus (which indeed Weisse, upon the whole, questions) was a well-known fact. (6) Definite as is the reference to the baptism of Jesus, there is to be found no allusion whatever in John’s account to the history of the temptation with its forty days, which can be brought in only before ver. 19, and even then involving a contradiction
1 Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 522, sees in John's account not so much an historical narrative, us rather (?) a “very significant literary in- troduction to the Baptist, who to a ceriain extent (?) is officially declaring himself. <Ao- cording to Scholten, the Baptist. during his ministry, did not at all recognize Jesus as
Messiah, and Matt. ffi. 14, 15 is sald to be an addition to the text of Mark; while the fourth Gospel does not relate the baptism of Jesus, but only mentions the revelation from heaven then made, because to narrate the former would not be appropriate to the Gnosis of the Logos.
"8 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
with the Synoptics. [See Note X. p. 98.] The total absence of any mention of this—important as it would have been in connection with the baptism, and with John’s design generally in view of his idea of the Logos (against B. Cru- sius)—does not certainly favour the reality of its historic truth as an actual and outward event. Comp. Schleiermacher, LZ. J. p. 154. If the baptism of Jesus be placed between the two testimonies of ver. 19 ff. and ver. 29 ff. (so Hilgen- feld and Briickner, following Olshausen, B. Crusius, and others), which would oblige us still to place it on the day of the first testimony (see Briickner), though Baeumlein (in the Stud. 2. Krit. 1846, p. 389) would leave this uncertain ; then the history of the temptation is as good as expressly excluded by John, because it must find its place (Mark i. 12 ; Matt. iv. 1; Luke iv. 1) immediately after the baptism. In opposition to this view, Hengstenberg puts it in the period after iii. 22, which is only an unavailing makeshift.
Ver. 29. Ta exatpceov] on the following day, the ncxt after the events narrated in vv. 19-28. Comp. vv. 35, 44 (ii. 1), vi. 22, xii. 12.—épyéun. xpoc atvr.] coming towards him, not coming to him, i.e. only so near that he could point to Him (Baur). He came, however, neither to take leave of the Baptist before His temptation (Kuinoel, against which is ver. 85), nor to be baptized of him (Ewald, Hengstenberg ; sce the foregoing note) ; but with a purpose not more fully known to us, which John has not stated, be- cause his concern here was only with the testimony of the Baptist. If we were to take into account the narrative of the temptation,—which we are not,—Jesus might be regarded as here returning from the temptation.’'—ide 6 auvocg tov Geodv, x.r.A.] These words are not addressed to Jesus, but to those who are around the Baptist, and are suggested by the sight of Jesus ; comp. ver. 36. As to the use of the singular ide, when several are addressed, see on Matt. x. 16. The article denotes the appointed Lamb of God, which, according to the prophetic utterance presupposed as well known, was expected in the person of the Messiah. This characteristic form of Messianic expectation is based upon Isa. liii. 7. Comp. Matt. vili. 17 ; Luke xxii. 37 ; Acts viii. 32; 1 Pet. ii. 22 ff. ; and the dapviov in the Apoc- alypse.* The genitice is that of possession, that which belongs to God, t.e. the lamb appointed as a sacrifice by God Himself. This interpretation fol- lows from the entire contents of Isa. liii., and from the idea of sacrifice which is contained in é alpwr, x.r.A. We must not therefore render: ‘‘ the Lamb given by God” (Hofmann, Luthardt). But while, according to this view, the lamb, designated and appointed by God, is meant,—the lamb spoken of in holy prophecies of old, whose fulfilment in Jesus was already recog- nized by the Baptist,—it is erroncous to assume any reference to the paschal lamb.* Such an assumption derives no support from the more precise defi- nition in 6 alpwr, x.t.4., and would produce a iorepov mpérepov ; for the view which regarded Christ as the paschal lamb first arose ex eventu, because He was crucified upon the same day on which the paschal lamb was slain (see
1§ee Euthymius Zigabenus, Liicke, Lu- 12; 4 Adwy 6 éx ris duds ‘Tovésa, Rev. v. 5. thardt, Riggenbach, Godet. 3 Luther, Grotius, Bengel, Lampe, Olshau-
2 On the force of the article, see ver. 21, sen, Maier, Reuss, Luthardt, Hofmann, & mpodirns ; also 7 piga Tov ‘leccai, Rum. xv. Hengstenberg ; comp. Godet.
CHAP. I., 29. 29
on xviii. 28 ; 1 Cor. v. 7). He certainly thus became the antitype of the paschal lamb, but, according to the whole tenor of the passage in Isaiah, He was not regarded by the Baptist in this special aspect, nor could He be s0 conceived of by his hearers. The conception of sacrifice which, according to the prophecy in Isaiah and the immediate connection in John, is con- tained in 6 ayvoc rod Oecd, is that of the trespass-offering, DWN, Isa. liii. 10 ;! 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10, i. 7%. It by no means militates against this, that, ac- cording to the law, lambs were not as a rule employed for trespass-offerings (Lev. xiv. 2, Num. vi. 12, relate to exceptional cases only ; and the daily morning and evening sacritices, Ex. xxix. 38 ff., Num. xxviii., which Wet- stein here introduces, were prayer- and thank-offerings), but for sacrifices of purification (Lev. v. 1-6, xiv. 12 ; Num. vi. 12) :* for in Isaiah the Servant of Jehovah, who makes atonement for the people by His vicarious sufferings, is represented as a lamb; and it is this prophetic view, not the legal pre- scription, which is the ruling thought here. Christ was, as the Baptist here prophetically recognizes Him, the antitype of the 0. T. sacrifices : He must therefore, as such, be represented in the form of some animal appointed for sacrifice ; and the appropriate figure was given not in the law, but by the, prophet, who, contemplating Him in His gentleness and meekness, repre- sents Him as a sacrificial lamb, and from this was derived the form which came to be the normal one in the Christian manner of view. The apostolic church consequently could apprehend Him as the Christian Passover ; though legally the passover lamb, as a trespass-offering, which it certainly was, differed from the ordinary trespass-offerings.* This Christian method of view accordingly had a prophetical, and not alegal foundation. To exclude the idea of sacrifice altogether, and to find in the expression Lamb of God the representation mercly of a divinely consecrated, innocent, and gentle sufferer,‘ is opposed to the context both in Isaiah and in John, as well as to the view of the work of redemption which pervades the whole of the N. T. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 159 ff. —6 alpwv r. duapr. tr. xéopov] may either signify, ‘‘ who takes away the sin of the world,” or, ‘‘ who takes upon himself,” etc., 7.¢. in order to bear it. Both renderings (which Flacius, Mclanchthon, and most others, even Baeumlein, combine) must, according to Isa. liii., ex- press the idea of atonement ; so that in the first the cancelling of the guilt is conceived of as a removing, a doing away with sin (an abolition of it) ; in the second, as a bearing (an expiation) of it. The latter interpretation is usually prefcrred,® because in Isa. lili. the idea ‘is certainly that of bearing by way of expiation (RWI: LXX. ¢épe1, avéveyxe, avoice:). But since the LXX. never use aipev to express the bearing of sin, but always gépew etc.,
1 As to the distinction between trespass or guilt and sin offerings, TNO, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 76 ff.; and for the various opinions on this distinction, especially Keil, Arch. I. § 46; Oehler in Herzog’s Encyd. X. p. 462 ff.; Sualachiitz, Jf. R. p. 821 ff.
2 Concerning DW, Lev. v. 6, see Knobel tn loe.
? Ewald, Alderth. p. 467 f.; Hengstenberg
takes a different vicw, Opfer. d. h. Schr. p. mf. ‘Gabler, Ale. in Joh. 1. 29, Jen. 1808- 1811, in his Opuse. p. 514 ff.; Paulus, Kui- noel.
®So Ltcke, B. Crusius, de Wette, Hengs- tenberg, Briickner, Ewald, Weber, v. Zorne Goties, p. 230.
80 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
while on the other hand they express the taking away of sin by alpew;' and as the context of 1 John iii. 5, in like manner, requires us to take ra¢ dyuap- tiag 4uav apy, there used to denote the act of expiation (comp. ii. 2), as signifying the taking away of sins ; 80 6 aipwy, etc., here is to be explained in this sense,—not, indeed, that the Baptist expresses an idea different from Isa. liil., but the expiation there described as a bearing of sins is represented, according to its necessary and immediate result, as the abolition of sins by virtue of the vicarious sacrificial suffering and death of the victim, as the adérnowe duapriac, Heb. ix. 26.* John himself expresses this idea in 1 John i. 7, when referring to the sin-cleansing power of Christ's blood, which oper- ates also on those who are already regenerate,* by xa€apiler juag and méone duaptiag. The taking away of sins by the Lamb presupposes His taking them upon Himself. The interpretation ‘‘ to take away,” in itself correct, is (after Grotius) misused by Kuinoel : ‘‘ removebit peccata hominun, 7.¢. pra- vitatem e terra ;” * and Gabler has misinterpreted the rendering ‘‘to bear :”
‘‘qui pravitatem hominum. . . i.e. mala sibi inflicta, patienti et mansueto.
animo sustinebit.” Both are opposed to the necessary relation of the word to 6 auvoc r. Oeov, a8 well as to the real meaning of Isa. hii. ; although even Gabler’s explanation would not in itself be linguistically crroneous, but would have to be referred back to the signification, to take upon oneself, to take over. -— The Present 6 aipwy arises from the fact that the Baptist pro- phetically views the act of atonement accomplished by the Lamb of God as present, This actis ever-enduring, not in itself, but in its effects (against Hengstenberg). Luthardt holds that the words are not to be understood of the future, and that the Baptist had not Christ’s death in view, but only regarded and designated Him in a gencral way, as one who was manifested in a body of weakness, and with liability to suffering, in order to the salva- tion of men. But this is far too general for the concrete representation of Christ as the Lamb of God, and for the express reference herein made to sin, especially from the lips of a man belonging to the old theocracy, who was himself the son of a sacrificing priest, a Nazarite and a prophet. —r7y dpapriayv] the sins of the world conceived of as a collective unity ; ‘‘ una pestis, que omnes corripuit,” Bengel. Comp. Rom. v. 20.—ro0v xécpovr] an extension of the earlier prophetic representation of atonement for the people, Isa. lili., to all mankind, the reconciliation of whom has heen olject- ively accomplished by the iAaorfpiov of the Lamb of God, but is accomplished subjectively in all who believe (iii. 15, 16). Comp. Rom. v. 18.
rote.—That the Baptist describes Jesus as the Messiah, who by His sufferings makes expiation for the world’s sin, is to be explained by considering his apoc-
18am. xv. 25, xxv. 28; Aq. Ps. xxxi. 5, where Symm. has a¢éAns aud the LXX. adjxas.
3 Comp. already Cyril: iva rov xécpou thy apapriay avéAy; Vulgate: qui (ollit ; Goth.: afnimith.
3 See Diisterdieck tn loc., p. 99 ff.
4Comp. Baur, ¥. 7. Theol. p. 896: “Ina general sense, He bears away and removes
sin by His personal manifestation and min- istry throughout.’ This is connected with the error that we do not find in John the same significance attached to Christ's death which we find tn Paul.
5 Fisch. Pers. 544; Soph. 7r. 70; Xen. Mem. iv. 4. 14; 1 Maco. xiil. 17; Matt. xi 29, al.
CHAP. I., 30. 81
alyptic position, by which his prophecies, that had immediate reference to the person and work of Jesus, were conditioned ; comp. vv. 31 ff. It was not from a sudden glimpse of light obtained in a natural manner (Hofmann, Schweizer, Lange), or from agrowing presentiment (de Wette), or from a certitude arrived at by reason and deep reflection (Ewald) ; but from a revelation (comp. ver. 33). This was necessary in order to announce the idea of a suffering Messiah with such decision and distinctness, even according to its historical realization in Jesus ;—an idea which, though it had been discovered by a few deep-seeing minds through prophetic hints or divine enlightenment (Luke ii. 25, 34, 35), nevertheless undoubtedly encountered in general expectations of a kind dia. metrically opposite (xii. 34; Luke xxiv, 26),—and in order likewise to give to that idea the impresa of world-embracing universality, although the way was already prepared for this by the promise made to Abraham. The more foreign the idea of a suffering Messiah was to the people in general ; the more disin- clined the disciples of Jesus showed themselves to accept such a view (Matt. xvi, 21 ; Luke xxiv. 25) ; the more certain that its unfolding was on the path of historical development, while even thus remaining 8 constant cxdvdadov to the Jews ; at once the more necessary and justifiable does it appear to suppose & special divine revelation, with which the expression borrowed from Isa. liii. may very well be consistent. And the more certain it is that the Baptist really was the subject of divine revelations as the forerunner of the Messiah (comp. Matt. iii. 14), all the more unhistorical is the assumption that the evangelist divests the idea of the Messiah of its historical form (Keim) by putting his own knowledge into the Baptist’s mouth (Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schol- ten ; comp. de Wette’s doubt, but against this latter, Brickner), This view receives no support from the subsequent vacillation of the Baptist (Matt. xi. 3), because the revelation which he had received, as well as that made to him at the baptism ver. 32), would not exclude a subsequent and temporary falling in- to error, and because this was not caused by any sufferings which Jesus under- went, but by his own sufferings in the face of the Messianic works of Jesus, whereby the divine light previously received was dimmed through human weakness and impatience, It is only by surrendering the true interpretation (see 6 alpwy above) that Luthardt avoids such a supposition as this. The notion of a spiritualizing legend (Schenkel) is of itself excluded by the genuineness of the Gospel, whose author had been a disciple of the Baptist. Moreover, Jesus Himself, according also to the testimony of the Synoptics (Mark ii. 20; Matt. xii. 39, etc.), was sufficiently acquainted from the very first with the certainty of His final sufferings,
Ver. 30 does not refer to vv. 26, 27, where John bears his witness before the deputies from the Sanhedrim, but to an earlier testimony borne by him before his disciples and hearers, and in this definite enigmatic form, to which ver. 15 likewise refers. So essential is this characteristic form, that of itself it excludes the reference to vv. 26, 27.1 The general testimony which John had previously borne to the coming Messiah, here receives its definite application to the concrete personality there standing before him, j.¢. to Jesus. —éor i] not #» again, as in ver. 15, for Jesus is now present. —é yd] possesses the emphasis of a certain inward feeling of prophetic certitude. —
1 De Wette, Hengst., Ewald, Godet, and others.
82 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
av%p] as coming from the Baptist, more reverential and honourable than GvOpuras.*
Ver. 31. Kay] not J also, like all others, but and J, resuming and car- rying forward the éyé of ver. 30. Though the Baptist had borne witness in a general way concerning the Messiah, as ver. 30 affirms, Jesus was, at tho time when he bare that witness, still unknown to him as in His own person the historic Messiah. [See Note XI. p. 99.] Ver. 834 shows that «ai in xayé is the simple and, for the thrice repeated xayé, vv. 31-34, can only be arbitrarily interpreted in different senses. The emphasis of the éyé, however (I on my part), consists in his ignorance of the special individuality, in the face of the divine revelation which he had received. —ovn gdecv atrér] that is, as the Messiah, see ver. 33; not ‘‘as the manifestation of a pre- existent personality” (Hilgenfeld); still not denying, in general, every kind of previous acquaintance with Jesus (Liicke, Godet), which the following iva gavepwO) and by iueic ov« oidare in ver. 26 forbid. This ov« pdev leaves it quite uncertain whether the Baptist had any personal acquaintance generally with Jesus (and this is by no means placed beyond doubt by the legendary prefatory history in Luke i. 36 ff., which is quite irreconcilable with the text before us). That Jesus was the Messiah became known to the Baptist only at the baptism itself, by the sign of the descending dove ; and thissign was immediately preceded only by the prophetic presentiment of which Matt. iii. 14 is the impress (see on that passage). Accordingly, we are not to assume any contradiction between our text and Matt. l.c.,* nor leave the ovx ydecv With its meaning unexplained ;' nor, again, are we to interpret it only comparatively as a denial of clear and certain knowledge.‘ —4a22’ iva gavepwOy, x.t.A.] emphatically beginning the clause, and stating the pur- pose of the Baptist’s manifestation as referring to Messiah, and as still apply- ing notwithstanding the xayo otx géew, and being thus independent of his own intention and choice, and purely a matter of divine ordination. —iva gave pw0y)| This special purpose, in the expression of which, moreover, no reference can be traced to Isa. xl. 5 (against Hengstenberg), docs not ex- clude the more generally and equally divine ordinance in ver. 23, but is in- cluded in it. Comp. the tradition in Justin, c. Tryph. 8, according to which the Messiah remained unknown to [iimself and others, until Elijah anointed Him and made Him manifest to all (¢avepav rac rojoy). —éiv try vdare Baxrifwv] o humble description of his own baptism as compared with that of Him who baptizes with the Spirit, ver. 33 ; comp. ver. 26. Hence also the éys, Jon my part. For the rest, we must understand ¢y r. id. Barr. of John’s call to baptize in general, in which was also included the con- ception of the baptizing of Jesus, to which ver. 32 refers.*
Ver. 32. What John had said in ver. 31, viz. that though Jesus was un-
1 Acts xvil. 81; Zech. vi. 12; Dem. 4%.6; | Tischendorf), following B. C. G. L. P. A. &.,
Herod. vil. 210; Xen. Hier. vii. 3. cursives, and some of the Fathers, reads év 2 Strauss, Baur, and most others. véar:; but the article after ver. 26, comp. ® Brickner. ver. 83, would be more easily omitted than 4‘ Neander, Mater, Riggenbach, Hengsten- inserted. It is demonstrative, for John as
berg, Ewald. he speaks is standing by the Jordan.
‘For ey rq téar:r, Lachmann (now also
CHAP. L, 33. 83
known to him as the Messiah, yet his commission was to make him known to the people, needed explanation ; and that as to the way in which he himself had come to recognize Him as the Messiah. 'This was, indeed, a necessary con- dition before he could make the manifestation to the people. This explana- tion he now gives in the following testimony (not first spoken upon another occasion, Ewald) concerning the divine sign, which he beheld. And the evangelist considers this testimony so weighty, that he does not simply con- tinue the words of the Baptist, but solemnly and emphatically introduces the testimony as such: xal épvaprtpyoev, x.t.Aa.. words which are not therefore parenthetical (Bengel, Liicke, and most), but form an impressive part of the record : ‘‘ And a testimony did John bear, when he said.” The following dr is simply recitative. —reOéapar] I hace seen; Perfect, like éipaxa in ver. 34, which see. The phenomenon itself took placc at the bap- tism, which is assumed as known through the Gospel tradition, and is refer- red to in ver. 33 by 6 wéupac pe Banrifew ev ddarc, which implies that the sign was to take place at the baptism of the person spoken of. This is in answer to Baur, p. 104 ff., according to whom there is no room here for the supposition that Jesus was baptized by John,—an assertion all the more groundless, because for inserting the baptism of Jesus before ver. 19, and with this for the narration of a fact which is assumed as universally known, there is no place in the plan of this Gospel.—The sight itself here spoken of was no mere product of the imagination, but a real cision ; it indicates an actual event divinely brought about, which was traditionally worked up by the Synoptics into a visible occurrence more or less objective (most unhesitatingly by Luke)
but which can be the subject of testimony only by virtue of a Oewpia vorriny (Origen). See on Matt. iii. 17, note.—od¢ wepiorepar] te. shaped likea dove: avtirvroy piunua medecddoc, Nonnus. See on Matt. iii. 16. According to Ewald, ‘‘the sudden downward flight of a bird, coming near to Him at the moment, confirmed the Baptist’s presentiment,” ctc. Conjectures of this kind are additions quite alien to the prophetic mode of view. —«ai Execvev éx’ avrév] The transition here to the finite verb isowing to the importance of the fact stated.’ ix’ airéyv, however, is not synonymous with éx’ avroi (xix. 31); the iden is, ‘it remained (‘fluttered not away,’ Luther) directed towards Him.” We are to suppose the appearance of a dove coming down, and poising itself for a considerable time over the head of the person. See on éxi with the accusative (iii. 836 ; 1 Pct. iv. 14), secm- ingly on the question ‘‘ where ?””
Ver. 88. John’s recognition of Jesus as the Messiah (whom he had not before known as such) rested upon a revelation previously made to him with this intent ; and this he now states, solemnly repeating, however, the declaration of his own ignorance (kaya oix gdecv avrév).—éxeivoc] in em- phatic contrast with his own reflection. —einrev] i.e. by express revelation. We cannot tell the precise time or manner of this prior revelation. By it John was referred to some outwardly visible oypetov (Idy¢) of the Spirit, in a
1 Bernhardy, p. 478; Buttmann, N. 7. Gk. 2Schaef. ad Long. p. 427; Matthiae, p. p. 827 (E. T. p. 882}, 1873; Kihner, ad Xen. Anad, i. 2. 2.
84 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
general way, without any defining of its form. He was to see it descending, and this descent took place in the form of a dove, and after that divine inti- mation there was no room for doubt. Comp. on Matt. iii. 17, note. —ég’ bv av Idy¢] that is, when thou baptizest Him with water. This is not express- ly stated in the divine declaration, but John could not fail so to understand it, because, being sent to baptize, he would naturally expect the appearance of the promised sign while fulfilling His mission ; comp. ver. 81. He therefore describes the giver of the revelation as 6 réuwac je, x.7.A., and the evangelist puts the statement in the conditional form : é9’ dv av, «.7.4., ¢.6., according to the connection of the narrative : ‘‘ When, in the fulfilment of this your mis- sion, you shall see the Spirit descending upon one of those whom thou baptizest, this is He,” ete. —év mvetyu. adyigv] by communicating it to those who believe upon Him. See on Matt. iii. 11. The designation of this communi- cation as a baptism very naturally arose from its close relation to the work of the Baptist’s mission,’ because the gift of the Spirit, according to tho prophetic figure (Jocl iii. 1; Isa. xliv. 3), had been promised under the form of an outpouring (comp. Acts ii. 83). The contrast itself distinctly sets before us the difference between the two baptisms : the one was a prepara- tion for the Messianic salvation by repentance ; the other, an introduction thereto by the divine principle of life and salvation, the communication of which presupposes the forgiveness of sins (see on Mark i. 4).
Ver. 34. A still more distinct and emphatic conclusion of what John had to adduce from ver. 31 onwards, in explanation of the otré¢ éorzy mentioned in ver. 30. —xayo] and Ionmy part, answering triumphantly to the double xayé in vv. 81, 88. —édpaxa] i.¢, as the divine declaration in ver. 83 had promised (idyc). This having seen is to the speaker, as he makes the declara- tion, an accomplished fact. Hence the Perfect, like re@éaua: in ver. 82. Nor can the ze xaprtipyx«a be differently understood unless by some arbi- trary rendering : it does not mean : ‘‘ I shall have borne witness” (de Wette, Tholuck, Maier), as in the classics the sorist is used (see on vi. 86) ; or, ‘‘ I have borne witness, and do so still” (Grotius, Liicke), or ‘‘ testis sum factus” (Bengel, comp. Bernhardy, p. 3878 ff.) ; but, J have borne witness, that is, since I saw that sight ; so that, accordingly, John, immediately after the baptism of Jesus, uttered the testimony which he here refers to as an accom- plished fact, and by referring to which he ratifies and confirms what he now has testified (ver. 80).?— 472 otroc, x.r.A.] the subject-matter of the psuapt.—6 vidcg tov Beow] the Messiah, whose divine Sonship, however, had already been apprehended by the Baptist in the metaphysical sense (against Beyschlag, p. 67), agreeably to the testimony borne to His pre- existence in vv. 80, 15.° The heavenly voice in Matt. iii. 17, in the synop- tic account of the baptism, corresponds to this testimony. All the less on this account are the statements of the Baptist concerning Jesus to be regarded as unhistorical, and only as an echo of the position assigned to the former in the Prologue (Weizsicker). The position of the Baptist
1 Comp. Matt. ill. 11; Mark f. 8; Luke fii, SSrre Geov ydvos obros, decgdoto rorhos,
16; Acts i. 5, xi. 16. Nonzus. 2 Gomp. also Winer, p. 256 [Th. T. p. 273].
CHAP. I., 34. ' 85
in the Prologue is the result of the history itself. That the meaning attaching to vide r. beot in the fourth Gospel generally is quite different from that which it has in the Synoptics (Baur), is a view which the passages Matt. xi. 27, xxviii. 19, should have prevented from being entertained.
Note. —On vv. 32-34 we may observe in general : (1) The Adyoc and the rvetua dy:ov are not to be regarded as identical in John’s view,! against which the é Adyog caps éyévero in ver. 14 is itself conclusive, in view of which the rveiya in our passage appears as an hypostasis distinct from the Adyo¢c, an hypostasis of which the odpé éyévero could not have been predicated. The Acyoc was the substratum of the divine side in Christ, which having become incarnate, entered upon a human development, in which the theanthropic subject needed the power and incitement of the rvevya, (2) He was of necessity under this influence of the Spirit from the very outset of the development of His thean- thropic consciousness (comp. Luke ii. 40, 52, and the visit when twelve years old to the temple), and long before the moment of;His baptism, so that the mvevua was the awakening and mediating principle of the consciousness which Jesus possessed of His oneness with God ; see on x. 36. Accordingly, we are not to suppose that the Holy Ghost was given to Him now for the first time, and was added consciously to His divine-human life as a new and third element ; the text speaks not of receiving, but of a manifestation of the Spirit, as seen by John, which in this form visibly came down and remained over Him, in order to point Him out to the Baptist asthe Messiah who, according to O. T. prophecy (Isa. xi. 2, xlii. 1), was to possess the fulness of the Spirit. The pur- pose of this divine oyueiov was not, therefore (as Matthew and Mark indeed represent it), to impart the Spirit to Jesus (which is not implied even in iii, 34), but simply for the sake of the Baptist, to divinely indicate to him who was to make Him known in Israel, that individuality who, as the incarnate Logos, must lung before then have possessed the powers of the Spirit in all their fulness (comp. iii. 34). The zvevya in the symbolic form of a dove hovered over Jesus, remained over Him for a while, and then again vanished (comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 150). This the Baptist saw ; and he now knows, through a previously received revelation made to him for the purpose, who it is that he has to make known as the Messiah who baptizes with the Spirit. To find in this passage a special stimulus imparted through the Spirit to Jesus Himself, and perceived by the Baptist, tending to the development or opening up of His divine-human consciousness and life,? or the equipment of the Logos for a coming forth from his state of immanence (Frommann), or the communica- tion of official power,* us the principle of which the Spirit was now given in order to render the capé fit to become the instrument of His self-manifestation,* —as in a similar way B. Crusius already explained the communication of the Spirit as if the zveiua (in distinction from the Adyoc) were now received by Jesus, as that which was to be further communicated to mankind ;—these and all
1 Against Baur, dif. Theol. d. N. 7. I. 3 Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 874; comp. Wdrner, 268; J. E. Chr. Schmidt, ind. Bil. f. Kriz. Verhaltn. d. Geistes, p. 44. u. Exeg. I. 8 p. 361 ff.; Eichhorn, Zind. I1- * Luthardt, after Kahnis, vom heiligen 158 ff.; Winzer, Progr., Lps. 1819. Geiste, p. 44; comp. also Hofmann, Schrift- 2 Lficke, Neander, Tholuck, Osfander, Jew. I. 191, II. 1, 166; Godet; and Weisse, Ebrard, de Wette, Riggenbach, and others; LeArbegr. p. 268, who connects with ver. 52. comp. Lange and Beyschlag, p. 103.
86 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
such theories find no justification from our Gospel at least, which simply records a manifestation made to the Baptist, not a communication to Jesus ; and to it must be accorded decisive weight when brought face to face with those other diverging accounts. Thus, at the same time, the whole phenome- non must not be regarded as an empty, objectless play of the imagination (Liicke): it was an objective and real sign divinely presented to the Bap- tist’s spiritual vision, the design of which (iva gavepwh% 1G ‘Iopana, ver. 31, that is, through the Baptist’s testimony) was sufficiently important as the yvopiona of the Messish,' and the result of which (ver. 34) corresponded to its design ; whereas, the supposition that we have here a record of the receiving of the Spirit imports into the exposition something quite foreign to thetext. Dis- carding this supposition, we deprive of all support the opinion that the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus at His baptism is a mythical inference of Ebionitisin (Strauss), as well as the assertion that here too our Gospel stands upon the verge of Gnosticism (Baur) ; while the still bolder view which (in spite of the Panrifuy év rvedpart dyiy) takes the mvetza to be, not the Holy Spirit, but the Logos (in spite of i. 14), which as a heavenly Aeon was for the first time united at the baptism with Jesus the earthly man (so Hilgenfeld, following the Valen- tinian Gnosis), does not even retain its claim to be considered na later historical analogy. There remains, however, in any case, the great fact of which the Baptist witnesses—‘‘ the true birth-hour of Christendom’’ (Ewald): for, on the one hand, the divinely sent forerunner of the Messiah now received the divinely re- vealed certainty as to whom his work as Elijah pointed ; and, on the other hand, by the divinely assured testimony which he now bore to Jesus before the people, the Messianic consciousness of Jesus Himself received not only the consecration of a heavenly ratification, but the warrant of the Father's will, that now the hour was come for the holy beginning of His ministry in word and work. It was not the formation of the Messiah’s purpose, but rather His entrance on its realization (comp. Acts xiii. 23) which was the event of world-historical sig- nificance that marked this hour, when the fulness of time was come for the ac- complishment of the cuunsel of God.
Vv. 85, 36. [dacv cior#xes] pointing back to ver. 29.—dio] One was Andrew, ver. 41. The other? Certainly John himself,* partly on account of that peculiarity of his which leads him to refrain from naming himself, and partly on account of the special vividness of the details in the following account, which had remained indelibly impressed upon his mem- ory ever since this first and decisive meeting with his Lord. — én 82é pag] denoting jired attention.* The profoundest interest Iced him to fix his gaze upon Him, —ide 6 auvig tr. Ge0%] These few words were quite sufficient
that he therefore has his place after John; then we certainly cannot say, with Steitz
1 Justin. ¢. Tryph. 8&8. 2 Already Chrysostom (according to Cor
derius, Cat.; Theodore of Mopsuestia) men- tions the same view, but along with it the other : Src éxetvog ovxt Twy éemojpwr hy, which he seems to approve of.—Bat if JoAn is here already (and see on ver. 42) indicated though not by name, and afterwards (ver. 46) Bartholomew under the name Nathanad ; if, again, ver. 42 implies that James is brought to Jesus by his brother John, and
(in the Stud. vw. Krit. 1868, p. 497): “The order in which Papias, in Euseb. iif. 39, quotes the six apostles, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, exactly cor- responds with that in which these names occur in succeasion in the fourth Gospel."
3 Comp. ver. 43; Mark x. 21, 27, xiv. 67; Luke xx. 17, xxil. 61.
CHAP. I., 37-40. 87
- to'direct the undivided attention of both to Him who was passing that way ;
¢
for, beyond a doubt (against de Wette, Ewald,—because the fact that nothing is now added to the 6 ayvig r. Gecd gives the words quite a retrospec- tive character), they had been witnesses the day before of what is recorded in vv. 29-34. . The assumption of a further conversation not here recorded ' is unnecessary, overlooks the emphasis of the one short yet weighty word on which hangs their recollection of all that occurred the day before, and moreover is not required by ver. 87. We need not even ask why Jesus, who was now walking along (reperar.) in the same place, was with John, because the text says nothing about it. Answers have been devised ; e.g.
_ Bengel : ‘‘ Jesus had sufficiently humbled Himself by once joining Himself
with John ;” Lampe: ‘‘ He wished to avoid the suspicion of any private understanding with the Baptist.” Equally without warrant in the text, B. Crusius and Luthardt: ‘Jesus had already separated Himself from the Baptist to begin His own proper ministry, while the Baptist desired indi- rectly to command his disciples to join themselves with Jesus ;” as Heng- stenberg also supposes, judging from the result, and because he at the same time regards the two as representatives of all John’s disciples.
Vv. 87-40. And the two disciples heard (observed) him speak. For he had not addressed the words ide 6 auvic r. Ocov directly to them, but in general (comp. ver. 29) to those round about him.—7xoAo0t@7oeav} not the fol- lowing of discipleship, nor in a ‘‘ sens profondément symbolique” (Godet), but simply : ‘‘ they went after Him” (oviorepot 7ABov ddirat Xprarov vecooouévoio, Nonnus), in order to know Him more intimately. Nevertheless Bengel rightly says: primae origines ecclesiae Christianae.—orpageic] for He heard the footsteps of those following Him.—ré Cyreire] what do you desire? He anticipates them by engaging in conversation with them, not exactly because they were shy and timid (Euthymius Zigabenus). But no doubt the significant Oeacduevoc, «.t.A. (intuitus), was accompanied by a glance into their hearts, ll. 25.—rov pwévecc] correlativeto the repiza- rovvrt, ver. 36 ; therefore : ‘‘ where dost thou sojourn ?”* They regarded Him as a travelling Rabbi, who was lodging in the neighbourhood at the house of some friend. —éEpyeocfe x. Speae] come and ye will see (see the criti- cal notes) ; a friendly invitation to accompany Him at once.‘ They had sought only to know where the place was, so that they might afterwards seck Him out, and converse with Him undisturbed. We have not here the Rabbinical form of calling attention, 7XV &3,° nor an imitation of Rev. vi. 1 (Weisse), nor yet an allusion to Ps. Ixvi. 5, 9, and a gentle reference on the part of Jesus to His Godhead (Hengstenberg), for which there was no occa- sion, and which He could not expect to be understood. —7200v, «.t.A.] marks the simplicity of the narrative. —jé1..c] insertion of the direct address, common in dependent clauses. Kiihner, II. 594 ; Winer, p. 251
! Kuinoel, Lfiicke, and most. place where He was lodging was near or
2 wetpay Aafeiy avrov, Euthymius Zigabe- remote, although Ewald would infer the mus. latter from the reading oweode.
3 Polyb. xxx. 4. 10; Strabo, iii. p. 147. ® Buxt. Ler. Talm. p. M8; Lightfoot, p.
¢ There is nothing to indicate whetherthe 968.
88 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(E. T. p. 268]. —r9v guép. éx.] te the remaining part of that day, not at once from that day onwards (Credner, against whom is Ebrard). — dexdatn| that is, at the beginning of their stay with Him. We have no reason to suppose.in John, as Rettig,’ Tholuck, Ebrard, Ewald, the Roman mode of counting the hours (from midnight to midnight, therefore ten o’clock in the morning) instead of the Jewish, which is followed elsewhere in the N. T. and by Josephus (Vit. 54), i.e. four o’clock in the afternoon ; because there is time enough from 4 p.m. till late in the evening to justify the popular expression ri yuép. éx.; because, moreover, in xi. 9 it is plainly the Jewish method which is followed ; which also in iv. 6 best suits the context, and is not excluded in iv. 52, while in xix. 14 it is with a harmon- istic view that the Roman reckoning is resorted to. The Romans themselves, moreover, frequently measured the day after the Babylonian computation of the hours, according to the twelve hours from sunrise to sunset ; and the tenth hour especially is often named, as in our text, as the hour of return from walking, and mention of it occurs as a /ate hour in the day, when ¢.g. the soldiers were allowed to rest,* or when they went to table,’ etc. See Wetstein. — The great significance of this hour for John (it was the jirst of his Christian life) had indelibly impressed it on his grateful recollection, and hence the express mention of it here. This consideration forbids our giving, with Hilgenfeld and Lichtenstein, to the statement of time an onward ref- erence to the incident next mentioned, the finding by Andrew of his brother Simon. Briickner, too, imports a foreign element into this statement of time, when he says that it indicates, in connection with ver. 41 ff., how rapidly faith developed itself in these disciples.
Vv. 41-48. Still on the same day (not on the following, as, after the early expositors, de Wette, Baur, Luthardt, Ewald, and most others suppose ; see, on the contrary, the évatpiov which again appears, but not till ver. 44), Andrew first meets his brother Simon. —xzparo¢c] We must understand the matter thus : Both disciples go out from the lodging-place (at the same time, or perhaps Andrew first), still in the first fresh glow of joy at having found the Messiah,‘ that each of them may seek his own brother (we must assume that both brothers were known to be in the neighbourhood), in order to inform him of the new joy, and to bring him to Christ. Andrew is the first * who finds his brother. John does not say that he also sought his brother James, found him, and brought him to Jesus ; and this is in keeping with the delicate reserve which prevents him from naming either himself or those belonging to him (even the name of James does not occur in the Gospel), Still this may be clearly seen from the zxpéroc, and is con-
1 Stud. u. Krté. 1830, p. 106. 2 Liv. ix. 87.
clally minute; so here. According to Baur, N. T. Theol. p. 898, the author has given an
® Martial, vil. 1.
*Jobn’s use here and in iv. Wof rdov Meogoiay (TVW) is accounted for by the depicting of the scene exactly as it occurred whereas in |. 20, 25, when he simply writes historically, he uses the ordinary transla- tion Xpioros. The genre picture is spe-
antiquarian notice, as it were, of this He- brew name, which occurs nowhere else in the N. T.
5 rpwros, NOt wrpwroy, an inelegant change adopted by Lachmann, afterA. B. M. X. RF,
CHAP. I., 44, 45. 89
firmed by the narrative of the Synoptics, in so far that both James and John are represented as being called at the samc time by Jesus (Mark i. 19 and parallels). Bengel, Tholuck, de Wette, Hengstenberg, wrongly say that Andrew and John both sought out Simon. The rdv idiov is against this ; as it neither here nor elsewhere (comp. v. 18) occurs as a mere pos-. sessive (against Liicke, Maier, de Wette, and others), but in opposition to that which is foreign. Any antithetic relation to the spiritual brotherhood in which John as well as Andrew stood to Simon (Hengstenberg), is quite remote from the passage. — et p7xayev] emphatically beginning the clause, and presupposing the feeling of anzious desire excited by the Baptist. The plural is used because Andrew had in mind the other disciple also. — é p Ba é- pac, x.7.A.] This fixed look (ver. 86) on the countenance of Simon pierces his inner soul. Jesus, as the Searcher of hearts,’ sees in him one who should hereafter be called to be the rock of the church, and calls him by the name which he was henceforth to bear as His disciple (not first in Matt. xvi. 18, as Luthardt thinks). A rock is the emblem of firmness as early as Homer (Od. xvii. 463); comp. Ezek. iii. 9. There is no contradiction here with Matt. xvi. 18 (it is otherwise with Mark iii. 16), as if John transferred the giving of the name to this place (Hilgenfeld, comp. Baur and Scholten), for in Matt. xvi. 18 the earlier giving of the name is really presupposed, con- Jirmed, and applied. See on Matt.—ovd ef Lipwr, «.r.2.] This belongs to the circumstantiality of the solemn ceremony of the name-giving ; it is first said who he vs, and what in future he should be called.* i ei Linu is not, as Ewald thinks, a question ; and there is no ground for supposing that Jesus immediately recognized him,* for Andrew introduced his brother to Jesus. Grotius and Paulus‘ give arbitrary explanations of the reading *"Iwva, but see the critical notes. For the rest, we must not say, with Hil- genfeld, ‘‘ Peter here loses the pre-eminence of the first called disciple ;” but : Peter is first giren this pre-eminence in the synoptical accounts (Matt. iv. 18 and parallels); but the personal recollection of John must take precedence of these. See especially the note following ver. 52.
Vv. 44, 45. Tg ératp.] i.e. after the last-mentioned day, ver. 89, which is the same with the rg érabp. of ver. 35, consequently the fourth day from 1. 19.—70éAnoev, x.7.A.] He just willed to go forth, and findeth, etc. ; therefore still at the lodging-place, ver. 40, for ée/feiv refers to the stay there (uéver, ver. 40).—edpioxec] as if accidentally, but sce xvii. 5 ff. — The statement, instead of being hypotactic in form (‘‘ when he would go out, he findeth”), is paratactic, as often in Greek from Homer downwards.* We
21]. 25; Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 268.
2Comp. Gen. xxxii. 28, xxxv. 10, xvii. 5.
® Cyril, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aretius, Maldonatus, Cornelius & Lapide, Bengel, Luthardt, and many, comp. Strauss.
‘The fantastic play upon the words in Lange's L. J. II. 469, is of this sort. He renders: *‘Now thou art the son of the timid dove of the rock ; In future shalt thou be called the sheltering rock of the dove
(the church).” According to the true read ing of the passage, the name of Peter's father contained in Bapwra which occurs in Matthew, must be regarded as an ab- breviation for John, and bas nothing what- ever to do with dore. See on Matt. xvi. 17.
5 Nagelsbach, z. Jéiaa, p. 65, ed. 8; Kahner, IT. p. 416, and in the N. T.; Buttmann, NY. 7’. Gr. p. %A9 [E. T. p. 196].
90 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
must place the scene at the commencement of the journey homeward, not on the road during the journey (Liicke).—axod. yor} of following as disci- ples. Comp. Matt. iv. 19, 20, ix. 9 ; see also ver. 46, ii. 2. The invitation to do this (not merely to go with Him) is explained by ver. 45, as brought about by the communications of Andrew and Peter, though certainly the heart-piercing look of Jesus Himself, and the impression produced by His whole bearing, must be regarded as the causes which mainly led Philip to come to a decision. John does not record the further conversations which of course ensued upon the axod. wor, and the obedience which followed, be- cause his aim was to narrate the call. —éx r. wéAewc, x.7.A.] see on Matt. viil. 14.
Ver. 46. Etjpioaxes] when and where in the course of the journey we are not told,—perhaps at some distance from the road, so that Philip, observ- ing him, quitted the road, and went towards him. According to Ewald, “not till after their arrival in the village of Cana, which nevertheless is named for the first time in ii. 1, and to which Nathanael belonged” (xxi. 2). The supposition that Nathanael was on his way to John’s baptism (Godet) is quite groundless. —Na@avaya, 78D), i.e. Theodorus (Num. i. 8; 1 Chron. ii. 14), is identical with Bartholomaeus. For, according to this passage, in the midst of calls to the apostleship, comp. xxi. 2, he ap- pears as one of the twelve ; while in the lists of the apostles,’ where his name is wanting, we find Bartholomaeus, and placed, moreover, side by side with Philip (only in Acts i. 13 with Matthew ;? comp. Constitt. Apol. vi. 14. 1). This identity is all the more probable, because Bartholomew is only a patronymic, and must have become the ordinary name of the individual, and that in most frequent use ; and thus it came to pass that his own dis- tinctive name does not appear in the synoptic narrative. —dv typawpe] of whom, etc. See on Rom. x. 5.—Mwic#e] Deut. xviii. 15, and gener- ally in his Messianic reference and types. Sce on ver. 46.—rév ard Nala- pér] for Nazareth, where Jesus has lired with His parents from infancy up- wards, passed for His birthplace. Philip may have obtained his knowl- edge from Andrew and Peter, or even from Jesus Himself, who had no occa- sion at this time to state more fully and minutely his relation to Nazarcth ; while the rép vidv rot ’Iwof¢, which must rest upon a communication from Jesus, leaves His divine Sonship undisturbed. To attribute to Philip knowledge of the facts with regard to both points (Hengstenberg) is in
1 Matt. x.8; Luke vi 14; Mark 1. 18; Acts i. 18.
? Hilgenfeld regarded him as identical with Malihew; but how much opposed is this view to the history of Matthew's call! though the meaning of his name 1s not dif- ferent from that of Matthew's. Very re- cently, however, Hilgenfeld has supposed that the name answers to the Matthias who was appointed in the place of Judas (XN. 7. extra canon. IV. p. 105). Schleiermacher, L. J. p.868,considers it very doubtful whether Na- thanael belonged to the twelve at all. Chrys-
ostom, Augustine, and others, long ago de- nied that he did, but this is already assum- ed in the ‘“‘duae viae *(Hilgenfeld, V. 7. extra canon. TV.). According to Spaeth, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1868, p. 168 ff., Na- thanael is to be taken as a «ymdolical name, invented by the writer, under which the Apostle John himself is said to be represent- ed. The author of the Appendix, chap. xxi. 2,-where Nathanael is expressly dis/in- guished from the sons of Zebedee, is said to have made a mistake.
CHAP. I., 47-49. 91
itself improbable, and is not in keeping with the simplicity of his words. But it is a groundless assumption to suppose that John knew nothing of the birth at Bethlehem ; for it is Philip’s own words that he records (against Strauss, de Wette). See on vil. 41.
Ver. 47. Can anything good come out of Nazareth? A question of aston- ishment that the Messiah should come out of Nazareth. But Nathanael asks thus doubtingly, not because Nazareth lay in Galilee, vii. 52,' nor because of its smallness, a8 too insignificant to be the birthplace of the Messiah,’ nor from both reasons together (Hengstenberg); nor, again, because the prophecy did not speak of Nazareth as the Messiah’s birthplace (Godet) ; but, as the general expression ri dyafév proves (it is not the more special 6 Xptoréc), because Nathanael, and probably public opinion likewise, looked upon the little town as morally degenerate : it must bave been so regarded at least in the narrow circle of the surrounding villages (Nathanael belong- ed to Cana). We have no historical proof that this was so; outside the N. T. the place is not mentioned, not even in Josephus ; nevertheless Mark vi. G6, and the occurrence recorded Luke iv. 15 ff., well correspond with Nathanael’s judgment as to its disrepute in a moral point of view. —aya06v] which.must be pre-eminently the case if the Messiah were to come there- from,—He whose coming must be a signally holy and sublime manifesta- tion. —épyov x. tide] ‘‘ optimum remedium contra opiniones praeconceptas,” Bengel.
Ver. 48. Ilepi avrow] to those, therefore, journeying with Him, but so that the approaching Nathanael hears it, ver. 49. —a4706¢] truly an Israel- ite, not merely in outward descent and appearance, but in the moral nature which really corresponds to that of an upright Israelite. Comp, Rom. ix. 6, ii. 29. ’Ev @ d620¢ obx éore tells by what means he is so. Thus sincere and honest, thus inwardly true, should every Israelite be (not simply free from self-righteousness, but possessing what essentially belongs to truth); and Nathanael was all this. This virtue of guilelessness, as the characteristic of the true Israelite, is not named as belonging generally to the ancient ideal of the nation (Liicke, de Wette ; this view arbitrarily passes by the reference to the nation historically which lay much nearer); but in view of the venerable and honourable testimonies which had been uttered concerning the people of Israel (¢.g. Num. xxili. 10), whose father was him- self already designated OF &, LXX. ar2acroc,? Gen. xxv. 27 3 Aq. drAvie,* Symm. czwuoc. — Jesus here also, as in vv. 43, 44, appears as the searcher of hearts.
Ver. 49. The approaching Nathanael heard the testimony of Jesus, and does not decline His commendation,—itself a proof of his guileless honesty ; but he asks in amazement how Jesus knew him.—dvra trd +r. ov«gy] belongs, as ver. 51 shows, not to gwrfca, but to eidév ce. Thus, before
The Fathers, Luther, Melanchthon, «ai otre wAacras ciciv ayafoi. Soph. 216 C:
Ebrard, and many. ° ot wh wAagras, GAAd’ Svtes drrdcodor. 2 Licke, de Wette, Hug, Krabbe, Ewald, 4 Comp. Aristoph. Piut. 1150: 00 yap 86A0¥" Lange, Briickner, and others. yoy épyoy, GAA’ arAay rpérey,
® Comp. Plato, Legg. 1. p. 42 D: dAndas
92 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Philip, vv. 46, 47, met and called him (¢wvfoa:, comp. ii. 9, iv. 16, xi. 28, Xviil. 33), Nathanael had been under a fig-tree ; whether the fig-tree of his own house (Mic. iv. 4 ; Zech. iii. 10), whether meditating (perchance upon the Messianic hope of the nation), praying, reading,—which employments, according to Rabbinical statements (see in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein), took place beneath such trees,—we are not informed. He had just come from the tree to the place where Philip met him.’— «idév oe] is usually taken as referring to a glance into the depth of his soul,* but contrary to the simple meaning of the words, which affirm nothing else than : I saw thee, not [knew (dyvov) thee, or the like. Comp. also Hengst. The miraculous element in the eidév oz, which made it a o7jeiov to Nathanael, and which led to his confession which follows in ver. 50, must have consisted in the fact that the fig-tree either stood out of sight of the place, or so far off that no ordi- nary power of vision could have discerned a person under it. Eidév oe thus simply interpreted gives the true solution to Nathanael’s question, because there could not have been this rapport of miraculous far-seeing on the part of Jesus, unless brought about by the immediate recognition of the true Israelite when he was at that distance. This spiritual elective affinity was the medium of the supernatural ecidév ce. Nonnus well says : dupao0r xat mpa- wideoot Tov ov wapedvta doxebwv. Jesus would not have seen an ordinary Jew, who, as being without this spiritual affinity, was beyond the limits of sight. iad rv ove.] with the article : ‘‘ under that well-known fig-tree, beneath which you were,” or, if the tree was within the range of vision, pointing towards it. De Wette also rightly abides by the simple meaning, JI saz thee, but thinks that what caused the astonishment of Nathanael was the fact that Jesus saw him when he believed himself to be unobserved (though John re- garded this seeing as supernatural). But this gives no adequate psychologi- cal motive for the confession of ver. 50 ; and we must then further assume, with Ewald, that the words of Jesus reminded Nathanael of the deep and weighty thoughts which he was revolving when alone under the fig-tree, and he thus perceived that the depths of his soul were laid open before the spirit- ual eye of Jesus—which, however, is not indicated in the text.
Ver. 50. The double designation is uttered in the excitement of joyful certainty. The simple faith in the Messiah, expressed in ver. 41, is here in- tensified, not as to its subject-matter, but in its outward expression. Comp. Luthardt, p. 844. The second designation is the more definite of the two ; and therefore the first, in the sense in which Nathanael used it, is not as yet to be apprehended metaphysically (against Hengstenberg) in John’s sense, but is simply theocratic, presupposing the national view (Ps. ii. 7 ; John xi. 27) of the promised and expeeted theocratic King,* without perhaps implying the teaching of the Baptist (Olshausen). The early occurrence of such con-
1 The reference of the eléy ve to the same 2 Where it is imagined, though without place where Philip called him (so, afterthe the slightest hint to that effect in the text, Greek Fathers, B. Crusius) must be re- that Jesus had a short time before passed jected, because neither the spd roi— by the fig-tree unodserved. guovyca nor the dvra Urd rhy cungv would 3 Comp. Riehm in the Stud. vu. Krié. 1865, thus have any essential significance. p. 68 ff.
CHAP. I., 51. 93
fessions therefore by no means conflicts with that later one of Peter (Matt. xvi. 8), in which is recognized the higher import of the words (against Strauss).
Ver. 51. Weoretece is, with Chrysostom and most others (also Lach- mann and Tischendorf, not Godet), to be taken ¢nterrogatively ; see on xx. 29.1 But the question is not one of censure, which would only mar the fresh bloom of this first meeting (Theophylact : ‘‘he has not yet rightly believed in Christ’s Godhead ”’); nor the expression of slight disapproval of a faith not yet based upon adequate grounds (de Wette, comp. Ewald); but rather of the surprise with which Jesus joyfully acknowledges the faith, hardly thus early to be looked for, of Nathanael. And to this faith, so surprisingly ready in its beginning, He promises something greater (é¢ eArida déprepov EAxwv, Nonnus) by way of further conjirmation.—rotrwyv] Plural of the category ; ‘‘ than this which you now have met with, and which has become the ground of your faith.”—xai Aéye: avrg] specially introduces the further explanation of the peifw ratrev as a most significant word. —apny apy AEyw tbyiv] The double auf does not occur in other parts of the N. T., but we find it twenty-five times in John, and only in the mouth of Jesus,—therefore the more certainly original. — iv] to thee and Andrew, John, Peter (James, see in ver. 42), and Philip. — a2dpr.] from now onwards, for Jesus was about to begin His Messianic work. See chap. ii. Thus, in this weighty word He furnishes His disciples with the key for the only cor- rect understanding of that work. —d peace, x.7.A.] The ‘‘ opened heaven” has no literal and independent significance, but is conformed to the imagery of the metaphor which follows. [See Note XII. p. 99.] Observe here the perfect participle : heaven stands open ; comp. Acts vii. 56. The ascending and descending angels are, according to Gen. xxviii. 12, a symbolical represen- tation of the uninterrupted and living intercourse between the Messiah and God,—an intercommunion which the disciples would clearly and vividly recognize, or, according to the symbolic form of the thought, would see as matter of experience throughout the subsequent ministry of Jesus.* The ‘‘angels” are not therefore personified divine powers (Olshausen, de Wette, and several), or personal energies of God’s Spirit (Luthardt and Hofmann), but as always, God’s messengers, who bring to the Messiah God’s commands, or execute them on Him,’ and return again to God (avafaivovrac), while others descend with new commissions (xarafaiy.). We are not told whether, and to what extent, Nathanael and his companions already perceived the symbolic meaning of the declaration. It certainly does not refer to the actual appear- ances of angels in the course of the Gospel history,‘ against which ardépr: is con-
1 As to the paratactic protasis, which may be read interrogatively or not according to the character of the discourse, see C. F. Hermann, J’rogr. 1849, p. 18; Scheibe in Schneidew. Philolog. 1850, p. 362 ff. Comp. also Nagelsbach’s note on the liad, p. 850, ed. 8.
* This expression tells us nothing con- cerning the origin of Christ’s knowledge of God, which ver. 18 clearly declares, and
which cannot therefore be attributed to a series of progressive revelations (Weiz- sicker); the expression rather presupposes that origin. Comp. also Weiss, LeArvegr. p. 286 ff.
2 Comp. Matt. fv. 11, xxvi. 58; Luke xxii. 48. 4Chrysostom, Cyril., Euthymius Ziga- benus, and most of the early expositors.
94 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
clusive ; nor merely to the working of miracles (Storr, Godet), which accords neither with the expression itself, nor with that reference to the Messiah's ministry as a whole which is implied in azdpre dpeobe, etc. —avafBaiv.] is placed jirst, in remembrance of Gen. xxviii. 12, without any special purpose, but not inappropriately, because when the dyeofe takes place, the inter- course between heaven and earth is already going on. We may supply azé Tov viow Tov avdp. after avafaiv from the analogy of what follows.’ — Concern- ing 6 vidg rod avdp., see on Matt. viii. 20 ; Mark ii. 8, note. In John likewise it is Jesus’ standing Messianic designation of Himself ; here, where angelic powers are represented as waiting upon Him who bears the Messi- anic authority, it corresponds rather with the prophetic vision of the Son of Man (Dan. vii. 14), and forms the impressive conclusion of the whole sec- tion, confirming and ratifying the joyous faith and confession of the first disciples, as the first solemn self-avowal on the part of Jesus in their pres- ence. It thus retained a deep and indclible hold upon the recollection of John, and therefore stands as the utterance of the clear Messianic conscious- ness of Jesus unveiled before us at the outset of His work. It is precisely in John that the Messiahship of- Jesus comes out with the greatest definite- ness, not as consequence and result, but already, from the beginning, the sub- ject-matter of our Lord’s self-consciousness, ?
Note.—[See Note XIII. p. 99.] The synoptical account of the call of the two pairs of brothers, Matt. iv. 18 ff. and parallels, is utterly irreconcilable with that of John as to place, time, and circumstances ; and the usual explanations re- sorted to—that what is here recorded was only a preliminary call,* or only a social union with Christ (Luther, Liicke, Ebrard, Tholuck ; comp. also Ewald and Godet), or only the gathering together of the first believers (Luthardt), but not their call—fall to the ground at once when we see how the narrative proceeds ; for according to it the pa%nrai, ii. 2, are with Jesus, and remain with Him. See on Matt. iv. 19, 20. The harmony of the two accounts consists in this sim- ply, that the two pairs of brothers are the earliest apostles. To recognize in John’s account not an actual history, but a picture of the author's own, drawn for the sake of illustrating his idea (Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schenkel),—that, viz., the knowledge of the disciples and that of Jesus Himself as to His Messianic destination should appear perfect from the outset,—is only one of the numer- ous self-deceptions in criticism which form the premisses of the unhistorical conclusion that the fourth Gospel is not the work of the apostle, but of some writer of much later date, who has moulded the history into the form of his — own ideal. On the contrary, we must here specially observe that the author, if he wished to antedate the time and place of the call, certainly did not need to invent a totally different situation from that which was before his eyes in the
1 See Kfihner, IT. p. 608.
2 The historic accuracy of this relation, as testified by John, stands with the apos- tolic origin of the Gospel, against which also the objections of Holtzmann in his historically excellent investigation (Jahrd. J. D. Theol, 1887, p. 889), can have no effect.
8 So, most recently, Mércker, Ueberein-
stimm. der Evang. @. Matt. u. Joh., Mein- ‘ngen 1868, p. 10 ff. The rdv Acyouevor Hérpov, Matt. iv. 18, furnishes no proof, as {fs plain from the parallel in Mark i. 16, which is the source of Matthew's account, but has not those words. They are simply a personal notice added from the standing-point of the writer, as In Matt. x. 2.
NOTES. 95
Synoptics. Besides this, the assumption that, by previously receiving John's baptism, Jesus renounced any independent action (Schenkel), is pure imagina- tion. Weizsiicker (p. 404) reduces John’s account to this : ‘‘ The first acquaint- ance between Jesus and these followers of His was brought about by His meeting with the Baptist ; and on that occasion, amid the excitement which the Baptist created, Messianic hopes, however transitory, were kindled in this circle of friends.’’ But this rests upon a treatment of the fourth Gospel, which refuses to it the authority of an independent witness, and finds in its author merely the poet of a thoughtful Idyll. And when Keim (I. p. 653) finds here only the invention of an age that could no longer endure the humble and hu- man beginnings of Jesus, but would transfer to His first appearance the glory which, as a matter of history, distinguished His departure and exaltation, his procedure is all the more daring, the more close he himself brings the origin of the Gospel to the lifetime of the apostle, and into contact therefore with the most vivid recollections of His disciples.
Nores spy AMERICAN Eprrorg.
IIL. Fy 1d ga 7d dAnIcvdv.—** There was the genuine light.” Ver. 9.
It is difficult to give to #v the meaning of aderat (as if rapjv), was present, assigned to it by Meyer, but hardly supported by the analogy of vii. 39. It seems better, with Weiss, to construct it with épyduevov, but regard it as placed emphatically in advance. ‘There toas’’ (as against the preceding ovx« jv) ‘*the genuine light’ (in contrast with John, the supposed but not the real light ; the Avzvoc ; not the gar) ‘‘ which lighteth every man, coming into the world.’’ Thus 7v ényéuevov forms a periphrastic imperfect : not equivalent to 7AGev, came, but marking impendency—what was just on the point of being. Or 7 may be taken independently, as the verb of existence, ‘‘there was, as against the sup- posed and mere secondary light, the genuine Light, which, coming into the world,’’ etc. The one of these constructions the Revised Version has placed in its text, the otherin the margin. In either case Weiss seems right, against Meyer, in constructing épyduevov with oa¢ and not with dyOpwrov. The latter construc- tion seems idle in thought and un-Johannean in diction. There is scarcely a phrase more characteristic of John than that which designates Christ as ‘‘ com- ing into the world,” whilo he never distinctively so designates human birth.
IV. etc ra idca HA0er. Ver. 11.
This is among the expressions which try the capacities of a fureign tongue, to reproduce the flexible and delicate Greek. The rendering of the Common Ver., ‘*He came unto his own, and his own,” etc., is very defective, and that of the Revision, ‘‘ He came unto his own (marg. his own things),’’ is scarcely better. Meyer's rendering, ‘‘ to his own possession,’’ is much preferable, yet inferior, I think, to that suggested by Frederick Field (Otium. Norv. vol. ii., p. iii.), ‘‘ He came to his own home, and his own people,’’ or without the italics : ‘his own home, and his own people.” The meaning of id:a would perhaps be adequately given without the ‘‘own.” He came unto his home. See John ix. 27, ‘‘ From that hour the disciple took her ei¢ rd idia ;’ Acta xxi. 6, tréorpepay elo td idia ; Esth. v. 10.
96 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The verse is of striking significance. A single brief phrase binds into one the Old and the New Testament, identifying the Jesus of the New Covenant with the Jehovah of the Old. Its climactic character is also striking. He who had made the world was in it, and it did not recognize Him ; He came to what had been His special inheritance, His chosen home, and they of His household did not receive Him—the Evangelist’s euphemism for hate, rejection, persecution, and murder.
V. « And we beheld His glory.’’ Ver. 14.
It is, I think, much better and simpler to regard, with most editors and in- terpreters (against Meyer and Weiss), xai éGeacdueba—nartpéc, as parenthetical, and rather momentarily interrupting the course of thought than following in its main drift. It is rather the essential nature of the Word: ‘‘ full of grace and truth,” that is for the time being in the writer's mind. He turns aside for a moment to his and his companions’ vision of His glory, but immediately resumes with wAnpn¢ the suspended thought and construction. The assump- tion of the violent change by which rAzpz¢ is attached ungrammatically to the sentence as an incidental member, is unnecessary and unnatural. The ‘‘ grace and the truth’’ dwelling in the Word is the main iden (ver. 15 being also par- enthetical) from ver. 14 to ver. 17.
The éGeacauefa dégav, as aor. (not 2ecueGa, used to behold) may not improbably refer specifically to the extraordinary display of glory on the Mount of Trans- figuration, which must have made and did make (2 Pet. i. 16-19) a most power- ful impression on those who witnessed it.
VI. Tapa rarpéc, from the Father, Ver. 14.
The more natural construction of rapa rarpéc is, I think, rather with dogav @ glory from the Father) than with povoyevoic. Granting that rapa rarpdéc admits the explanation ‘ An only-begotten (sent) from the Father,” still it seems less natural than ‘‘a glory from the Father,” which is explained by the interjected O¢ povoyevovc, as of an(not the) Only-begotten. With this construction mapa is easier ; the construction is more forcible and elegant, and it suggests the instances in which the Father bestows direct honour upon the Son. Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; John xii. 28. ‘He received from God the Father honour and glory.’’ And this testimony directly from the Father John seems repeatedly to have heard.
VII. ‘* John beareth witness.’’” Ver. 15.
Vv. 14, 15, 16, should, I think, be constructed as follows. 14. And the word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld [gazed upon} his glory, a glory, as of an Only-begotten, from the Father) full of grace and truth ; (15. John testifieth concerning him, and crieth, saying, He who cometh after me hath taken place in advance of me; because he was before me) ; 16. and out of his fulness did all we receive, and grace for grace.
The mind of the Evangelist isso impregnated with the testimony of the Baptist in its fulness and great significance, that he breaks the main thread of his thought to introduce it at ver. 15, anticipating here the testimony which was historically borne at vv. 26, 30. It seems to me also that the words 4 épx6- uevoc éricw pov do not here refer to ‘‘ something still future,” to an advent of the Messiah yet to come (which indeed formally it actually was), but expresses
~
NOTES. 97
the economical relation of the two personages ; John being the predicted and recognized predecessor of Jesus; Jesus in the order of time, his follower.— Hath taken place in advance of me. Although he cometh and came after and behind me, yet he has already taken precedence of me, and this on account of his intrinsic and egsential superiority. Jesus has not yet been made manifest to Israel, but the Baptist recognizes him as already present, and as having already taken that place of transcendent superiority which belongs to his na- ture, and will very soon publicly display itself.
VOW. 6 dv eig rév xéArov rov tmarpéc. Ver. 17.
Three constructions of 6d» are grammatically possible. One would make it strictly an imperfect participle, relative to efyyjoaro, the being being contem- poraneous with the unfolding. This view would have few advocates. The sec- ond and more common construction takes it as a timeless present, expreasing the eternal relation of the Sonto the Father, irrespective of the incarnation. Meyer and Weiss both reject this, and refer it to the existing historical relation of the Son since His exaltation. They explain by this the Prep. ei¢ (marking His re-entrance into this relation), for which otherwise we should have év. In either case we must ask after the logical import and relation of the participial clause to the entire sentence. If it refer to the Son's essential and eternal relation to the Father, it would then account for His capacity and fitness to unfold God : He fathoms and discloses the depths of the Being in whose bosom He dwells. If it refer to His post-incarnate relation, this idea would be irrelevant, and the clause would naturally express the relation of affection in which He stands to the Father, not indeed aaa table-companion, reclining upon His bosom, but as enfolded in the arms of His love. This harmonizes, it is true, with the frequent language of the Gospels (‘‘ my beloved Son’’), yet seems scarcely to meet the logical demands of the passage. I cannot but think the prevalent interpreta- tion, which makes it express Christ’s inherent and essential relation to the Deity, as here more probable, while still the cic, instead of év, may be deter- mined by the fact, present so naturally to the mind of the writer, of the Son's recent resumption of the apparently suspended relation.
IX. Vv. 1-18. Analysis.
Of this pre-eminently profound and wonderful passage—without its rival in human literature—it may not be inadmissible to endeavour to aid the understanding by a brief additional analysis. It falls, I think, naturally into three main divisions.
I. The Pre-incarnate and Eternal Word in His essential character and rela- tions, vv. 1-5.
If. Preparation, through His harbinger John, for His entrance into the world, with anticipatory glance at His actual coming and its consequences, vv. 6-13.
Itt, Resumption from ver. 9 (or ver. 5). Incarnation of the Word, as im- parter to men of essential grace and truth.
I. The Word, in His relation to God of distinction and identity (1, 2) ; as me- dium of creation (3) ; as possessing inherently life and light, and their source to men (4) ; and the rejection of the light by men (5).
II. Preparation for the coming of the Word into the world by the sending
98 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
of His harbinger, as His witness (6, 7); not the light, but the lamp; not the original, but the reflected light ; emphatically, for testimony (8). In contrast with this secondary light, the genuine, archetypal light, the universal enlight- ener, was then coming into the world (9). Under the prompting of this contrast of the coming of the real (as against the supposed) light, the writer anticipates and beholds Him actually in the world which he had made, but un- known by it (10), coming to His own home-people, but rejected by them (11) ; yet to all who received Him by faith, bringing sonship with God (12) through a supernatural and divine birth (13).
OI. Resumptian from ver. 9 (or ver. 5), taking up the next great stage in the Word’s history, His becoming incarnate, tabernacling among men (revealing to us His glory) fall of grace and truth (15). (Interjected parenthetical testimony of John by anticipation, regarding Him as subsequent in appearance, but taking place in advance of and above him, 15). Universal communication of this fulness of truth and grace (16); the Law being given through Moses, but es- sential grace and truth through Christ (17); through whom finally—,the grand and solemn climax and sum of all),—as the only-begotten Son, the invisi- ble God has been unfolded to men.
X. The Temptation. Ver. 28, Note.
Meyer summarily rules out the Synoptic account of the Temptation as unhis- torical. It cannot come into the narrative of John (he holds) before the dep- utation from Jerusalem (ver. 19), without being in contradiction with the Syn- optists. If the baptism be placed between vv. 19 and 28, then of course John's narrative leaves no place for it until ch. iii. vv. 22-36, where Hengstenberg places it, and which Meyer calls ‘‘ an unavailing makeshift.’’ But remembering, in the first place, that there are broad gaps to fill up alike in Matthew and in John, and that it is often a matter of judgment, and of somewhat difficult de- cision, to determine just where the lacunae are ; and then observing that in Matt. the Temptation, while on the one hand it immediately follows the baptism, yet on the other immediately precedes that return to Galilee which is probably to be identified with that of John iv. 1-3, it does not seem by any means im- possible to place it during that period of our Lord’s sojourn on the Jordan which John describes in chap. iii. 22 ff. True, the connecting particles of Matt. and Mark (rére then and etOv¢ straightway) are somewhat against this, yet (considering the elasticity of the connecting particles in the Gospels) I think not insuperably. That this is its only possible or its most probable location, [ would not maintain. It certainly cannot be affirmed without hazard that it cannot find a place in the Synoptics without contradiction to John ; for it and the baptism may have come in before the Jewish deputation, and atpiov he next day of John i. 19 may be the day of Jesus’ return from the wilderness. The historical accounts are so obviously and intentionally incomplete, that contra- diction here between John and the Synoptists can be affirmed only by those who deny in general the historical validity of the Gospels, or who know a good deal more about the details of the history which they outline than did their writers. Hengstenberg’s view is not here ‘‘an unavailing makeshift.” It is simply an alternative—possibly not the most probable one,—between different modes of filling out the brief and fragmentary notices of the Gospels.
NOTES. 99
XI. ‘* IZ knew him not.” Ver. 31.
That John first became aware at the baptism that Jesus was the Messiah is by no means certain, though perhaps not improbable. The ‘ Iknew him not” does not, as Weiss justly remarks, refer necessarily to the time of the baptism, but more probably to the time when the Baptist entered on his ministry. Be- sides, the decided emphasis in the above phrase on the éyd, as if he had said, ‘Tt was not J that knew him,” makes it doubtful if the Baptist does not mean simply to affirm that his cognizance of the Messiahship of Him whom he was announcing was not a thing self-derived, but he was indebted for his knowledge to the same Divine source whence he received his commission. It really has nothing to do with the nature or degree of his previous personal acquaintance with Jesus. The careful and exact narrative of Luke i. 36 ff., which Meyer stigmatizes as ‘‘legendary,’’ istherefore by no means ‘‘irreconcil- able with the text before us.’’ The narrative of Luke neither affirms nor necessarily implies any such acquaintance of the Baptist with Jesus as to make certain his previous knowledge of the Lord’s Messiahship ; and if it did, it would still be true that he knew him not from his own knowledge («ayo ove géev avrév), but from the heavenly revelation. And whatever his previous knowledge, the testimony at the baptism sealed and confirmed it,
XI. ‘' Heaven standing open.” Ver. 51.
So Meyer gives exactly the force of the part. aveyysra, It does not denote the process of opening (dvoyduevov : see ox:Couévouvs, Mark i. 10), or the mere fact of being momentarily opened (avo:zQévta, dvepxOnoav, Mark iii. 16), or being open as sequel to the act of opening (avepypévov, dinvoryuévovc, Acts vii. 56). Both the common Eng. Ver. (open) and that of the Rev. Ver. (opened ) are inaccurate or ambiguous, failing of the precise force of the Greek (standing open), which denotes simply the permanent condition of mutual intercommunion between earth and heaven.
ADI. Ver. 51, Note.
It seems entirely gratuitous in Meyer thus to assume the utter irreconcila- bleness of John’s account of the calling of the two pairs of brothers with that
' of the Synoptists. The facts of the call must have been matter of such com-
plete notoriety in the apostolic circle, that ignorance on the part of either of the Evangelists seems out of the question ; and we are certainly not to assume contradiction between them in so simple and plain a matter without strong necessity. We are bound to suppose that the interstices existing in the Gospel records — confessedly fragmentary — would here, as elsewhere, if filled up, render them a coherent and consistent narrative. And in point of fact there is here scarce even the semblance of contradiction. John informs us that Peter, Andrew, and himself (John) formed the acquaintance of Jesus at the Jordan, with the Baptist, but gives no intimation that they were then called by Him to permanent discipleship. The Synoptists inform ns that these three, along with James the brother of John, were called by Jesns later on the Sea of Galilee into His permanent intimacy, but gives no hint that they had not seen and known Him earlier. On the contrary, the promptness with which they then obeyed His call and abandoned their vocation and home renders
100 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
probable precisely the preparation of some such previous acquaintance, The two accounts, in fact, mutually supplement and explain each other, The call in the Synoptists is the natural sequel to the seemingly incidental meet- ing in John. The meeting in John explains the otherwise unexplained and seemingly accidental occurrence in the Synoptists. True, we have disciples now accompanying Jesus into Galilee, attending with Him the marriage feast, visiting with Him Capernaum, and going with Him up toJderusalem. But precisely who and how many these were we have no word of information ; probably among them were, during much of the time, most of those mentioned in the first chapter of this Gospel. But these were undoubtedly not the only ones, nor is it proba- ble that at this time they were constantly the same. With our Lord’s increas- ing notoriety, the number of His adherents was doubtless enlarging and fluctu- ating, and it is extremely probable that the first whom He called to His abiding intimacy were the two pairs of brothers (one of whom, James, we have, indeed, no assurance to have been with Him at the Jordan) from their employment on the Lake of Galilee. At what time Jesus had dismissed them to their callings before He finally recalled them we do not and need not know. Our Lord had had them with Him long enough to try their fitness for their destined work, and they had been with Him long enough to enable them, when the hour arrived, to make an intelligent decision. Nothing is more natural than that Jesus, before requiring the final decision, should send them fora season to their homes and pursuits, and let them there review the extraordinary scenes through which they had passed. That Meyer, de Wette, and Briickner should find here a certain contra- diction in the Gospels is extraordinary indeed, and fittingly has his latest Ger- man editor, Weiss (with Litko, Thol, Ew. Lith, Hengst. God.), held to their en- tire agreement.
CHAP. II., 1. 101
CHAPTER ILI.
Ver. 10. rére is wanting in B. L. &.* Min. Verss. ; deleted by Tisch. But how easily might it, in itself superfluous, have been passed over before rdv ! — Ver. 11. The rv before apy7zv we must delete, with Lachm. and Tisch., follow- ing A. B. L. A, Min., Origen, and other Fathers. — Ver. 12. ®vecvav. A. F. G. A. Min. Copt. Arm. Pers. p. Ver. Nonn.: éuevev. In keeping with the pre- ceding xaréBy and the following avéBn. — Ver. 15. Forté xépua, B. L. T. X. 33. Copt. Arm. Ver. Origen: ra xépyzara (explanatory). — Ver. 17. dé is want- ing in B. L. X. &. Copt. ; bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. Added for the connection. For caragdyerac Elz. has xarégaye, against all the Uncials, from the LXX.— Ver. 22. After éAeye Elz. has atroic, an addition feebly supported.
Ver. 1. Tpiry]is, with Origen, c. Cels. vi. 80, to be reckoned from the last- named day, i. 44, not from the coming to Cana (Ewald), which has not yet been alluded to. Thus we have in all siz days from i. 19, not seven (see on i, 41), in which number Luthardt would find this-symbolic meaning : ‘‘ It is a Sabbath, as it were, which Jesus here is keeping.” — By r7¢ Tade- Aatag the village of Cana (now not Kafar kenna, as Hengstenberg and Godet still think, but Hana e-Jelil ; see Robinson, III. p. 448 ; Ritter, XVI. 753 f£.), about three hours N.W. from Nazareth, is distinguished from another Cana ; for in ver. 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2, rp TadcAatac is also added, and hence it must be taken as a standing descriptive addition, as if belonging to the name (like our ‘‘ Freiburg im Breisgau” and the like), and not here as a mere allusion to the arrival in Galilee (B. Crusius). The other Cana lay in the tribe of Asher, Josh. xix. 28 (S.E. from Tyre ; comp. Robinson, ITI. 657), and though also to be considered as belonging to Galilee, was yet so near to Phoenicia, that the designation of our Cana as K. ra TadsAatac, in distinction from the other, is justified on geographical grounds. Ewald distinguishes our Cana from the Kanath lying east of the river district, but the name (3), Num. xxxii. 42, 1 Chron. ii. 23 ; and Bertheau on the word ; Kavé3 LXX., Kavéda Josephus) does not correspond. —xat fv § warnp, x.T.A.] Mary was already there when Jesus and His disciples arrived in Cana, no doubt arranging and helping (see vv. 8, 5) in the friend’s house where the wedding was to take place. That shortly before the baptism of Jesus she had come to live at Cana (Ewald), but soon after removed thence to Capernaum (ii. 12), disregards the specific intimation both here and in iv. 46. That Joseph was not there with her, is in keeping with his entire and unexplained disappearance from the Gospel narrative after Luke ii.41 ff. It is usually, though without special proof (see vi. 42), assumed that he was already dead.
102 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 2. Jesus also and His disciples (those won in chap. i.) were invited, i.e. when, in the meanwhile, He had come to Cana.’ To take éxagdy as pluper- fect is objectionable both in itself (see on xviii. 24), and also because the disciples had been first won by Jesus on the way. But there is nothing against the supposition that Jesus had journeyed not to Nazareth, but to Cana, on account of the wedding ; for He may have known (through Nathanael, Godet thinks) that His mother was there, and because, consider- ing the friendly relations with the family, He did not need a previous invita- tion. This isin answer at once to Weisse, II. 208, who finds an invitation inconceivable ; to Lange, who holds that Jesus found the invitation await- ing Him at Nazareth (?) ; and to Schleiermacher, who makes the invitation to have preceded even His baptism. Of the disciples, Nathanael, moreover, was himself a native of Cana (xxi. 2). But apart from this, the friendly invitation of the disciples along with Jesus by no means implies a previous extended ministry of Jesus in Galilee (Schenkel), or even such a ministry at all before His baptism (Schleiermacher).— As to the sing. éxA#dy, see Kihner, § 438, 1; Buttmann, Y. 7. Gk. 110 (E. T. p. 126 ff.].
Ver. 3. ‘Yorepyo. oivor] when a scarcity of wine had occurred,—on what day of the marriage feast (it usually lasted seven, Gen. xxix. 27; Judg. xiv. 14 ; Tob. ix. 12, x. 1) we are not told.*, The expression sorepei rt, something fails or runs short, belongs to later Greek (Mark x. 21 ; Isa. li. 14; Neh. ix. 21; Diosc. v. 86). —olvov ovxn Exovar] they are short of wine, they, i.e. the family of the bridegroom, who provided the feast. [See Note XIV. p. 117.] They might be disgraced by the failure of the wine. The words, however, are not only an expression of interest, which was the more reasonable, as the deficiency was accelerated by the invitation of her Son and His disciples ; but they also contain, as Jesus Himself understood (ver. 4), an indirect appeal for help, as is confirmed by ver. 5, prompted by thoughtful consideration for the credit of the house providing the feast. Some find herein a call to work a miracle. But this would imply either that Mary had inferred from the conception, birth, etc., of her Son, His power of working miracles, which she now expected Him to display, or that Jesus had already, on some previous occasion, though in a narrower circle, wrought wonderful works (the former hypothesis in Chrysostom, Theophy- lact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Baumgarten, Maier, Godet, Hengstenberg, and many more; the latter in Licke and others),—assumptions which are equally incapable of proof. Nor would the supply of this want of itself suggest the need of a miracle, and the thought of so disproportionate a means occurring to Mary’s mind without any adequate reason, even by the recollection of such traits as are related in Luke ii. 49 ff. (Briickner), or by
1 Schenkel inconsiderately says. that,‘‘ ac- cording to our Gospel, Jesus was to all @&ppearance transported to Cana by a miracle of almighty power.”
3 The text does not say that it lasted only one day, as Hengstenberg finds expressed in ver. 1, where we are simply told that the marriage began on the third day,—which
has nothing to do with its duration. Nor is there any hint in the text of ‘‘ poor circum- stances,’ for it speaks of the master of the feast and of servants. Least of all does the inviting of Jesus’ disciples along with Himself imply poverty. This also in answer to Godet.
CHAP, II., 4. 103
the miracle at His baptism, or by the call of the disciples, or by the declara- tion of i. 52, of which she would be informed at the marriage (Godet), is quite inexplicable, even supposing that she had observed more clearly than any others the change which had taken place in her Son, and had therefore with fuller expectation looked up to Him as the Messiah (Ewald’s view, comp. Tholuck). Rather did she wish to prompt Jesus in a general way to render help ; and this she would suppose He would do in the most natural manner (by furnishing wine), a method as obvious as that of miracle was the reverse. But Jesus, in the feeling of His divine call (ver. 4), intended to render help in a special and miraculous manner ; and with this design of His own in view, returns the answer contained in ver. 4. In this way the obscurity of the words is removed (which Lampe and de Wette dwell upon), and at the same time the objection raised from ver. 11 (by Strauss, B. Bauer, Schweizer, Scholten) against the entire narrative, upon the assumption that Mary (from the Logos standing-point of the evangelist, it is supposed !) expected a miracle. Lastly, it is purely gratuitous to suppose that Mary wished to give a hint to Jesus and His disciples to go away (Bengel, Paulus); yet Ebrard (on Olshausen) has again preferred this view, explaining afterwards ‘‘ mine hour” of the time of His death, when Jesus would have to leave the marriage- feast (which thus symbolizes the period of His earthly ministry). This is not profundity, but a mere playing with exegesis.
Ver. 4. Jesus understands His mother's wish, but has in mind a method of help altogether different from what she meant. He therefore repels her interference, in the consciousness of the call which here is given Him to begin His Messianic ministry of miracles, and holds out the prospect of ren- dering help at a later period. — ri tuoi «ai oof;] arejection of fellowship (39) *o-mp, Josh. xxii. 24; Judg. xi. 12, al.; Matt. viii. 20; xxvii. 19 ; Mark 1. 24 ; Luke viii. 28 ; also in the classics ; see Bernhardy, p. 98), here with reference to the help to be rendered, which He Himself, without His mother’s assistance, and independently of her, would accomplish, accord- ing to His own divinely determined call and will, and in a miraculous manner. Godet well says: ‘‘Sa devise sera desormais: mon pére et moi.”' The appellation yfvae added to the ri—ooi (which Hofmann thinks should be joined to what follows ; but why ?) does not contain anything unfriendly (‘‘ duriter respondet,"” Melanchthon), as is clear already from xix. 21 ; see also Wetstein. Comp. xx. 15. But His not saying prep followed involuntarily from the consciousness of His higher wonder-working capacity and will, by virtue of which, as an au#rwp, He rejects the interference of feminine weakness, such as was presented here before Him in His mother. The remark of Euthymius Zigabenus is not happy (comp. Augustine) : ‘‘ He spoke thus as God ;” that of Epiphanius, Beza, Calvin, and many others, is singular: ‘‘His aim was to oppose that future Mariolatry which He foresaw.” Still, the passage tells against that worship. Schenkel says erroneously, quoting Mark iii. 21, ‘‘ He was at variance with the members of His family.” — 4} dpa pov] can only mean, the requisite time for me to
1 Comp. Dorner, Jesu siindlose Vollkommenh. p. 11.
104 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
help.’ 80 also Hengstenberg, in accordance with the context. Jesus, con- scious of His close communion with the Father, sees clearly that this His first manifestation of Himself as Messiah in the working of miracles stands, even with reference to its time of beginning, in connection with the divine appointment ; and He feels that the moment (7 épa = & xa:péc, as in xvi. 21, and often in the N. T. and the classics) for this first Messianic display of power is not yet present when His mother refers to the want of wine. How He was conscious of. the exact horas et moras for working, cannot be more precisely determined. Euthymius Zigabenus is substantially right : # rov Yavparoupyjoa: ; and Ewald : ‘‘the hour of full Messianic sense of power.” Strangely attributing to Mary thoughts of that kind, Baumgarten Crusius remarks, ‘‘the moment of my public appearance as Messiah ;” and Godet : ‘‘l"heure de l’avénement royal.” Anticipating ver. 11, Liicke, Tholuck, Briickner, Maier, Baur, Baumgarten render : ‘‘ the moment of the recelation of my glory.” Comp. Luthardt : ‘‘ This miracle, as the figurative prolepsis of Christ’s subsequent full relation of Himself before the eyes of men, was of significance only for that narrow circle, and was intended to lead Jesus on from it into public life,”’—of which, however, the text contains no hint either in ver. 5 or elsewhere.
Ver. 5. The words of Jesus last spoken implied that He intended to help, though not immediately. Hence Mary’s direction to the servants, whose service she supposed Jesus would require (perhaps to go and fetch wine). Any allusion to Gen. xli. 55 (Hengstenberg) is remote from the text. Ebrard reads into the passage, that Jesus, after He had spoken, ver. 4, rose and turned towards the servants.
Ver. 6. ’Exei] Whether in the feast chamber, or perhaps in the vestibule, we are not told. —wtdpta:| water-pitchers for carrying water, iv. 28. *— é£] Not stated as explanatory of the Jewish custom, but as vividly describing the exact circumstances, yet not with any symbolic signficance (six, Lange thinks, was the number of poverty and labour). —«eipevac] positae, set down, placed there. Comp. xix.29; Jer. xxiv. 1; Xen. Oec. vill. 19: yirpac
. evxpivac xeyévag. —KaTa tov kadap. Tav 'Iovd.] i.e. for the sake of cleansing (the hands and vessels, Matt. xv. 2; Mark vii. 3 ff.; Luke xi. 89 ; Lightfoot, p. 974), which the Jews practised before and after meals. On xara, in which, asin 2 Tim. i. 1, ‘‘notio secundum facile transit in no- tionem propter.” * —yer prac] In conformity with his Hellenic tendency, John gives the Attic measure, which, however, is equal to the Hebrew 12
1 It is an error to suppose that 4 apa wow of which was certainly the crucifixion ; and
in John always signifies the hour of Christ's death. Its reference depends entirely upon the context, as in vii. 80, viii. 20, where ft means the hour of Christ's seizure; and xiii. 1, where the more precise definition is expressly given. Already trivds in Chrysos- tom, Ebrard, and many, take it here as meaning the hour of Christ’s death. Hilgen- feld understands it of the hour of the glorification of Jesus, the culminating point
that Jesus, according to John, gives ex- pression to the fall consciousness of the Logos, and its superhuman independence of all human counsel.
2 Often in the LXX. ; Dem. 1155. 6; Arist. Vesp. 926; Lysistr. 827, 858; Lucian, Dem. enc. 2.
* Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 8. 18. Comp. Winer, p. 376 [E. T. p. 898].
Ser -
CHAP. II., 7, 8. 105
(Josephus, Ant. viii. 2.9). The Attic metretes contained 12 yéero or 144 xortAa, 14 Roman amphorae, i.e. about 21 Wiirtemburg measures (seeWurm, de ponderum ete. rationib. 126), and about 33 Berlin quarts, in weight eighty pounds of water [about 8} gallons] (Bertheau, Gesch. d. Israel, p. 77).? Each pitcher contained two or three metretae (which are not, with Ammon, after Syr. to be referred to a smaller measure, nor with Ebrard, to that of an amphora) ; for as a row of siz pitchers is named, avd can, consistently with the context, only be taken in a distributive sense, not in the signification— which is, besides, linguistically untenable (see Winer, p. 372 [E. T. p. 898])—of circiter, according to which all six must have held only about two or three metretae (Paulus, Hug). The great quantity of water thus turned into wine (252-378 Wirtemburg measures, 106-160 gallons) seems out of proportion, and is used by Strauss and Schweizer to impugn the his- toric character of the narrative ; but the beneficené purpose of the miracle makes it conceivable (compare the miraculous Feedings), and we are to sup- pose that what was left over may have been intended by Jesus as a present for the married pair, while the possible abuse of it during the feast itself was prevented by the presence of the Giver. We must also bear in mind that the quantity was suggested to Him by the six pitchers standing there ; and therefore, if the beneficent Wonder-worker has not in general to measure the exact need, He had occasion all the more not to fall below this quantity suggested by the circumstances, by transforming the contents of but one or two pitchers, and omitting the rest. The blessing conferred by the Won- der-worker has also, considering the circumstances, its appropriateness and decorum, in keeping with which He was not to act in a spirit of calculation,
' but rather to give plentifully, if the abundance was suggested by the number
of the vessels.
Vv. 7, 8. The transformation is accomplished in the time between ver. 7 and ver. 8."—airoic] the servants, who obeyed Him according to the di- rection of Mary, ver. 5; not, as Lange’s imagination suggests, ‘‘ under the influence of a miraculously excited feeling pervading the household.” — y ¢ p i- oare] The most natural supposition from this and ver. 6 is that the pitchers were empty, the water in them having been used up before the feast began, and were to be filled afresh for use after meat. Observe, moreover, that Christ does not proceed creatively in His miracles, either here or in the feed- ings. —éwe &vw] This is stated for no other purpose than to give promi- nence to the quantity of the wine which Jesus miraculously produced. — avrAfgoare] Altogether general, without specifying any particular pitcher, —showing that as all were filled, the water in a/Z was turned into wine (in
- answer to Selmer and Olshausen). From the nature of the case, no object is
appended, and we therefore can only understand the general word it. The
1 Comp. Béckh, Staatshaush. I. 127; Her- mann, Privatalterth. § 46. 10.
2The commencement of the transfor- mation might indeed be placed after the drawing out, and consequently after ver. 8, a0 that only that portion of water which ‘was drawn was converted into wine. But
the minute statement of the number and large size of the vessels in ver. 6, by which it is manifestly intended to draw attention to the greatness in a quantitative point of view of the miracle of transformation, presupposes rather that all the water in the pitchers was converted into wine.
106 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
drawing out was done by means of a vessel, a tankard,’ out of which the master of the feast would fill the cups upon the table. — The ap yer pi- x A22vo0¢, table-master,’ is the chief of the waiters at table, upon whom devolved the charge of the meats and drinks, and the entire arrangement of the repast. See Walch, De architriclino, Jena 1753. Comp. Fritzsche on Ecclus, xxxv. 1, where he is designated as #yotyevoc. He was at the same time the taster of the meats and drinks, and is not to be confounded with the ovurociapyor, modimperator, arbiter bibendi, who was chosen by the guests themselves from among their own number.‘
Vv. 9, 10. The parenthesis, usually made to begin with x. ov« gde:, must be limited to ol d2 d1dxov01—idwop, because the xai ot« pdec not only con- tinucs the construction, but assigns a reason for the gwvei rdv vuudiov, x.7.A., which follows ; for had the man known whence the new wine had come, he would not in surprise have called the bridegroom, etc. —rd iduwp olv. yeyev.] not the wine which had been water (Luther), but the water after having become wine (and now being wine : observe the force of the perfect). Had the ré been repeated, this water, as that which had been made wine, would have been distinguished from other water (aqguam, eam dico quae, etc.).° The 76 not being repeated, the dup olv. ye;rv. is united into one conception. — xéddev éariv] whence it came, i.e. that it had been drawn out of the water- pitchers. This is evident from the following of qvrAnxéreg rd idwp. The table-master, therefore, cannot have been present at the drawing out of the water, ver. 8. Concerning the present éoriv, see i. 40. — The insertion of the words ol d2 diéxovor, x.7.A., serves to give prominence fo the reality of the miracle, —y deraay] i.e. Té8ev éoriv, but they did not know that it was wine which they brought. —¢wvei] He called him to him (comp. i. 49), and said to him. Whether the bridegroom was just outside at the time (as Nonnus represents), or was reclining at the table, or is to be supposed as employed in the chamber, does not appear. —6 adpyitpixa.] an unneeded repetition, but occasioned by the parenthesis, as often in Greek. — rae dv¥purog, x.T.A.] spoken under the impression that the bridegroom had kept the good wine in reserve, and had not allowed it to be put forth (rivyo:), but now was regaling them with it. We may suppose the words to have been spoken jocularly, in joyous surprise after tasting the wine. The general custom, however, to which the table-master refers, is not elsewhere with any cer- tainty confirmed (the proof in Wetstein is doubtful) ; nor, indeed, consid- ering the playful way in which it was spoken, does it need any voucher. — Srav petvadiacr] when they have become intoxicated, so that they can no longer appreciate the goodness of the wine. The word does not mean any- thing else ; not when they hare well drunk,® because tntozication is the essen- tial though relative conception (see also Gen. xliii. 34; Hag. i. 6; Rev. xvii. 2). The man says only in joke, as if it were a general experience, what
2 wpéxoos, Hom. Od. xviii. 397. 4 Xen. Anad. vi. 1.80; Herm. Privatailterth. 2 Comp. Nitzsch on Hom. Od. ». 188. § 28, 29; Mitscherlich, ad Hor. Od. i. 4. 18. 3 Heliod. vii. 27, in Petron. 27 triclinar- § See Kiihner, ad Xen. Anad. iv. 6. 1. ches, elsewhere also called rpaweCorords *Tholuck, de Wette, and several, ¢.g. (Athen. iv. p. 170 D E-- Beck. Char. II. 282). _Beza, Cornelius a Lapide, and others.
CHAP. II., 11. 107
he certainly may often have observed, and no inference can be drawn from his words that the guests at Cana were already intoxicated ; especially as wo dpre simply means till now, after they have been drinking so long at the table, in antithesis with the rpérov.
Ver. 11. The r7» before apy# being spurious (see critical notes), we must translate : This, as a beginning of His miracles, did Jesus at Cana. See on iv. 54.1 From this it is clear that it is the first miracle in general, and not merely the first of those that were wrought in Cana (iv. 46 sqq.), that is meant (so already rivés in Chrysostom and Paulus). This concluding re- mark of John’s simply serves to express, with the very first of them, the teleological nature of the miracles of Jesus generally. —rav dé€av avrod] not ‘‘ His excellent humanity” (Paulus), but His divine Messianic majesty, as ini. 14. The miracles of Jesus, as He Himself testified, had for their ob- ject not only the défa of the Father, but also His own, xi. 4 (in opposition to Weizsicker, Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 165). The former is in fact the latter, and the latter the former. Observe how in John (as well as in the Synoptics) Jesus begins His Messianic ministry in Galilee, even in this His first miracle. —xai iwiorevoav, k.7.4.] and His disciples became believers in Him. The faith which they already had (i. 85-52) was only in- troductory, belonging to the commencement of their connection with Jesus; now, upon the basis of this manifestation of His glory (i. 14), came the more advanced and fuller decision, a new epoch in their faith, which, moreover, still continued susceptible of and requiring fresh additions even to the end (xi. 15, xiv. 11). There is no hint here of any contrast with the unbelief afterwards manifested by the people (Briickner), nor can this be inferred from ver. 12 ff. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegriff, p. 102.
Note.—This turning of the water into wine must be regarded as an actual miracle: for John as an eye-witness (see on i. 41, 42), in the most simple and definite manner (comp. iv. 46), represents it as such, and as the first manifes- tation of the divine glory dwelling in Christ in the direction of miraculous working (not as portraying beforehand the heavenly marriage supper, Rev. xix. 8, Matt. xxvi. 29, as Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. 2, p. 407, and Baumgar- ten, p. 99, take it). Every exposition which explains away the miraculous element contradicts the words and the purpose of St. John, infringes on his credibility and capacity for simple observation, and places even the character of Jesus in an ambiguous light. The physical inconceivability, which neverthe- less is not identical with absolute impossibility (against Scholten, p. 215), per- tains to this work in common only with every miracle ;* and hence the appeal made to a supposed accelerated process of nature (Olshausen, comp. already Augustine and Chrysostom), which must have been at the same time an arti- ficial process, is only a superfluous crutch on which the representation is made to lean, inapplicable to the other miracles, and as arbitrary as it is (in the ab-
1 Bernhardy, p. 819; Stallbaum, ad Fiat. feeling, as the disciples were at a later Gorg. p. 510 D. time upon the mount of transfiguration,
*It does not become more conceivable and that Christ, from the full spring of by Lange's fiction (LZ. J. II. p. 479), whichis His highest life-power, made them drink quite unsupported by the text, viz.thatthe creatively “in the element of this higher company were elevated toahighertone of feeling.”
108 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
sence of a vine) inadequate. Its inconceivableness in a telic point of view John himself removes in ver. 11 ; and remembering its design as there stated, the miracle was not an act of luxury (de Wette), but of abounding human kindness in blessing (see on ver. 6). To suppose another design, viz. that Jesus wished to show how opposed He was to the strict asceticism of the Baptist (Flatt, Ols- hausen), is pure and arbitrary invention, in opposition to ver, 11. The fact that the Synoptics have not the narrative amounts to nothing, because John selected and wrote independently of the synoptical series of narrations ; and as they have not the first, so neither have they the last and greatest miracle. We must, after all, abide by the simple statement that there was a change of substance (ver. 9), effected by the power of Jesus over the sphere of. nature, in conformity with a higher law of causation. Granting this power, which the whole range of the Gospel miracles demands, there is no ground whatever for resting (against ver. 9) in the assumption of a mere change of attributes in the water, whereby (after the analogy of mineral waters) it may have received the colour and taste of wine (Neander). It is levity equally objectionable, and a wronging of a writer so serious as John, to explain what occurred as a wedding joke, as Paulus (Jesus had a quantity of wine brought into the house, and had it mixed with water out of the pitchers and put upon the tables, ver. 4 having been spoken jestingly) and Gfrérer (Mary brought the wine with her as a wed- ding present, and during the feast, at the right moment, she gave her son a sign to bring out and distribute the gift) unite in doing. Thus, instead of the transmutation of the water, we have a frivolous transmutation of the history. Lastly, the mythical explanation contradicts the trustworthiness and genuine- ness of the Gospel. According to it, fact is resolved into legend—a legend de- rived from the analogies of the histories of Moses (Ex. xv. 23 sqq.) and Elisha (2 Kings ii. 19), as Strauss will have it, or from a misunderstood parable, as Weisse thinks; while de Wette—without, however, adopting the mythical view, but not fully recognizing the historic character of the narrative—regards the dispensing of the wine as a counterpart to the dispensing of the bread, and both as answering to the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper ; an ex- planation all the more inept, as there is not the least hint of it in the narra- tive, and as the Lord’s Supper is not even mentioned in John. Schweizer and Weisse reckon the paragraph among the interpolations which have been added to the genuine Johannean nucleus,—an arbitrary assertion ; while Baur, whose criticism rejects the whole Gospel, transforms the narrative into an alle- gory, wherein water is the symbol of the Baptist, wine of the Messiah's dig- nity (i.e. the bridegroom's), and the transformation typifies the transition from the preparatory stage of the Baptist to the epoch of Messianio activity and glory (comp. Baumgarten Crusius, p. 82); and Hilgenfeld (Evang. p. 248) looks upon the turning of the water into wine as a counterpart to the synoptical narrative of the temptation, and illustrating the elevation of Jesus above all narrow asceticism. Thus, too, some of the Fathers (Cyril, Augus- tine, and many others) allegorize the miracle, without, however, surrendering its objective and historical character as a fact; whereas Ewald, while re-
1 Ammon also, Z. J. I., falls back upon _ the brim, !s unknown to us.” The miracle an erroneous idea and representation on _is thus reduced into a natural event behind the part of John: “ What took placeinthe the scenes. Schenkel simply enough re- intervening time, when the water pitchers moves every miraculous element from the were empty, and soon after were filled to _history, as belng legendary adornments.
CHAP. II., 12. 109 nouncing any investigation into the historic probability of the narrative, re- gards it as the gilding of the idea of the beneficent power of the Messianic spirit, whereby even now water should everywhere become wine. Luthardt holds, indeed, the objective historical reality, but regards the manifestation of the déga to have been in contrast with that givenin the 0. T.,—the gift of God occupying the place of the command, and the higher life, which Jesus the bridegroom makes known in this miracle, the place of outward purification. Similarly Scholten, p. 164, But while the representation of Christ as bride- groom is quite remote from the narrative, John gives ne support or sanction to the idea that the miracle was symbolical, either in the remark of ver. 6 (card r. xaGap, 7. ’Iovd.) or in that of ver. 11 (égavép. r. 56£. avrov). — The miracle at Cana is, finally, the only one to which the Synoptics have no one that corresponds. But all the less are the miracles in John to be used in support of the assertion that, in John, Christ, after the manner of the Gnostics, announces another and higher God than the God of the O. T.! According to Keim, the marriage in Cana, the first great beaming forth of the divine glory, stands in John as ‘‘a loving portrait” of Christ, and designedly in place of the painful tempta- tion in the wilderness. But this glory beamed forth stillmore grandly, and more significantly in its bearing upon the Saviour’s whole ministry, in his threefold triumph over Satan.
Ver. 12. Mera rotvro xaréBn, x.7.4.] Direct from Cana? or from Nazareth (i. 46), whither Mary, Jesus, and the disciples had returned ? The latter must be assumed as the correct view, because the brothers of Jesus (His brothers literally, not His cousins, as Hengstenberg again maintains ; see vil. 8, 5, and on Matt. i. 25, xii. 46, 1 Cor. ix. 5) had not been with Him at the wedding. ‘It is quite arbitrary to suggest that they were acci- dentally omitted to be mentioned in ver. 2 (Baumgarten Crusius, following earlier commentators). —xaré By] down, for Kagapvaotu (to be written thus, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, in John likewise) lay on the shore of the lake of Tiberias. —atvtro¢g x. § watnp, «.t.A.] A common éravdépAu- og (correction).* John does not tell us why they went down to Capernaum * (Matt. iv. 13 is in a totally: different connection). The settlement of the family at Capernaum is left uncertain by John ; the fact had but little inter- est for the Judaistic standing-point of his history, and is neither recorded here, as Ewald maintains (the x. éxei éuecvav ov 7oAA. ju. which follows is against this), nor even presupposed (Wieseler, de Wette, Tholuck), for the mention of the brothers who were not with Him at the marriage forbids this. Nor is the settlement attested either by iv. 3, 43, or by vi. 17, 59.—ob mrodAdge #uépac] becagse the Passover was at hand, ver. 13, which Jesus (and the disciples, iii. 22) attended ; not, therefore, on account of misconstruction and hostility (Ewald).
2 Hilgenfeld, Zehrbdeqr. 281.
8 See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 26: ad Matt. p. 4%; ad Marc. p. 70; Stallbaum, ad Fiat. Crit. p. 80 E.
Capernaum, and Jesus had stayed at his father’s house. An utterly groundiess conjecture, made forthe sake of harmo- nizing (i. 45; comp. Luke lv. 88, Mark 1. 29):
> Hengstenberg supposes that John men- tions this only from a feeling of personal interest ; that he himself had belonged to
which would require us to regard Bethsaida as a suburb of Capernaum; see, on the contrary, Matt. xi. 21, 28.
110 | THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 18-16. Kai] Simply the continuative and, é.e. during this short stay at Capernaum. — For vv. 14-16, see on Matt. xxi. 12, 18. — zdvrac] refer not to the persons, but to the animals named immediately afterwards with the ré—xai, t.¢. not only, but also.' Thus the unseemliness which some have found in the use of the scourge,—certainly intimated by the connection of wohoag and é&Badev,—and along with it every typical explanation of the scourge (Grotius, Godet, and others regard it as the symbol of God’s wrath), disappear. [See Note XVI. p. 118.] —’ E£éye«e] uncontracted form, to be taken as aor.*—ré xéppa] coin, especially small coin. Mostly in the plural in Greek. The singular here is collective. —xai roig rag weptoe- pac, «.t.A.] He could not of course drive out the doves like the other ani- mals, and He therefore says to those who sold them, ¢gpare ravraévrev0ev. John is here more minute than the Synoptics ; but we must not regard the words as indicating greater mildness towards the sellers of the doves, because these were used by the poor (Rupertius, de Wette). The command p@ roceire, x.T.A., addressed to them applied to all.—rov warpé¢ pov] Admiranda auctoritas, Bengel ; the full consciousness of the Son manifested itself already (as in Luke ii. 49) in the temple. — olx. éumopior] a house of, a place of, merchandise. The holy temple house had, in the Lord’s view, become this, while the temple court had been made a place of buying and marketing.* Possibly Zech. xiv. 21 was in His thoughts.
Ver. 17. ’"Exvgodnoar] At the very time of the occurrence, and not (as Olshausen) after the resurrection, which, as in ver. 22 (comp. Xii. 16), would have had to be stated. — The text quoted is Ps. Ixix. 10 ; the theocratic sufferer in this psalm, a psalm written during the exile, isa type of the Messiah ; see xv. 25, xix. 28 ff. Comp. Rom. xv. 38, xi. 9; Acts i. 20. —katragayerai pe] will devour or consume me, is to be understood of a power which wears one out internally, Ps. cxix. 139, not to be referred to the death of Jesus,‘ for the disciples could at that time have thought of any- thing but His death ; comp. ver. 22. In this wrathful zeal, which they saw had taken hold of Jesus, they thought they saw the Messianic fulfilment of that word in the psalm, wherein the speaker declares his great zeal for God's house, which was yet to wear him out. The fulfilment relates to the 6 ChAog Tov olxov oov, of which the xaragdyeras indicates only the violence and permanence ; and there is therefore no ground for imagining already any gloomy forebodings on the part of the disciples (Lange).° As to the future ¢ayouac, which belongs to the LXX. and Apocrypha, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 327 ; like the classical gdouaz, it never stands as present (against Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Godct, and others). :
Note.—[See Note XV. p. 117.] If there was but one cleansing of the temple, then either John or the Synoptics have given an erroneous narrative. But if it hap-
1 See Baeuml. in doc., and Partik. 225. 4Bengel, Olshausen, Hofmann, Weissaq. 2 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 222. u. Erf. p. 111; Luthardt, comp. Brfickner. 3’Eumrépuoy, Thuc. i. 138.8; Dem. 957, 27; 5 For écfieww and édeay, used of consuming
Xen. de red. fii. 83; Herodian. vill. 2.6; emotions (as in Aristophanes, Vesp. 287), see Ezek. xxvil. 8; Isa. xxili. 17, not the same Jacobs, a@ Anthol. VI. 280; Del. epigr. p. AS é€umopia, 257.
CHAP, II., 17. 111
pened twice,' first at the beginning, and then at the end of the Messianic ministry of Jesus,—a supposition which in itself corresponds too well to the significance of the act (in so far as its repetition was occasioned by the state of disorder remaining unchanged after so long an interval had elapsed) to be inconceiv- able (as has been asserted by sume), or even merely to pass the limits of prob- ability,—it is then, on the one hand, conceivable that the Synoptics do not contain the first cleansing, because Christ’s early labours in Jerusalem do not belong to the range of events which they generally narrate ; and, on the other hand, that John passes over the second cleansing, because he had already re- corded the Messianic onueiov of the same kind. We are not therefore to sup- pose that the one account is true, and the other false, but to assume that the _ act was repeated. See on Matt. xxi. 12, 13. So the Fathers and most subsequent writers ; also Schleiermacher, Tholuck; Olshausen, B. Crusius, Maier, Ebrard, Luthardt, Riggenbach, Lange, Baumgarten, Hengstenberg, Godet, etc. Others, on the contrary, admitting only one temple-cleansing, decide in favour, some of the synoptical account,* and some of John’s.* The latter would be the correct view, because John was an eye-witness ; although we are not to suppose, as Baur, in accordance with his view of the fourth Gospel, thinks that John derived the facts from the Synoptics, but fixed the time of the transaction independently, in consistency with his idea of the reformatory procedure. See also Hilgenfeld, who traces here the ‘peculiarity of John,’’ who, with reference at least to the knowledge of the disciples and the relations of Jesus to the Jews, begins where the Synoptics leave off ; and thus his narrative is merely a peculiar de- velopment of synoptical materials. Finally, upon the supposition of two dis- tinct cleansings of the temple, any essential difference between the two acts themselves is not to be discovered. Luthardt, indeed, following Hofmann (comp. Lichtenstein, p. 156), thinks that, in the synoptical account, Jesus as prophet protects the place of divine worship, but that in John’s He as Son ex- ercises His authority over the house; but the o olxdéd¢ pov of the Synoptics, as the declaration of God, exactly corresponds with ry olxov rod marpdéc pov in John as the word of Christ. The distinction, moreover, that the first cleansing was the announcement of reformation, and the second of judgment (Hengst.), cannot be made good, separates what is clearly connected, and attaches too much impor- tance to collateral minutiae. This remark in answer to Godet, who regards the first cleansing as ‘‘un appel,” the second as ‘‘une protestation.’’” The essential element of difference in John’s account lies in the very striking declaration of Jesus about the temple of His body, ver. 19, of which the Synoptics have not a word, and which possesses great prophetic significance as uttered at the outset of His Messianic ministry, but has no special fitness at the end of it. Jesus accordingly did not utter it again at the second cleansing, but only at the first, though upon that second cleansing also, occasion was given for so doing (Matt. xxi. 23). It is this very declaration, however, which marks unmistak- ably from the beginning the Messianic character of the appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem (against Weizsacker, Evang. Gesch. p. 260). Chap. vii. 3 is not the first place which has to do with the Messianic appearance.
1 “Whether it took place beforo or after, once or twice, it takes nothing from our faith.”"—LurTaHErR.
3 Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Schol- ten, Schenkel. Comp. also Luther: ‘It
seems to me that John here edipe over the three first years."’
3 Lficke, de Wette, Ammon, Krabbe, Brickner, Ewald, Weizaicker, and many others; Bacumlein hesitatingly.
112 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 18, 19. The same question as in Matt. xxi. 23, but how totally dif- ferent an answer! It cannot therefore be used to confirm the supposed identity of the two events. —amrexpié.] Asin Matt. xi. 25 (which see), and often, denoting what is said upon occasion of Christ’s act, and with ref- erence thereto. —ri onueiov] If what He had done was to be recognized as appropriate to Him, it must be based upon a really prophetic éfovcta, and consequently upon divine authorization ; in proof of this, they desired a special miraculous sign or act, accrediting Him as a divine messenger, and which was to be wrought by Him before their eyes, NR, oyyeiov rig aidevriac, Euthymius Zigabenus ; comp. vi. 30.—decanvbecc] dost thou bring before us, lettest us see." — re] cic éxcivo, Gri, ix. 17, xi. 51, xvi. 9 ; Mark xvi. 14 ; 2 Cor. i. 18, xi. 10.2. Consequently in the sense of guatenus.* — x orei¢) The present denotes the act just performed, but which is still regarded as present. —Ver. 19. Aboare rév vady rovrov, x.t.A.] refers, according to the apostle’s explanation in ver. 21, to the death and resurrection of Jesus, 80 that he consequently means His body as the dwelling-place of God, who was in Christ (x. 38, xiv. 10, 11, 20, xvii. 21, i. 14), 7.e. as the antitype of the temple,‘ and, in conformity with this, His violent death as the pulling down, and His resurrection as the rebuilding of it. We must therefore, ac- cording to John, suppose that Jesus, with the temple structure before Him, to which He points (this temple here), sees in it the sacred type of His body, and with the directness of ancient prophecy (as often, ¢.g., in Isaiah), substi- tutes the image for the object represented, so that these sharp, vivid strokes, dashed down without explanation, contain, as in a pictorial riddle, a symbolico-prophetic announcement of His resurrection,® as in Matt. xii. 39, xvi. 4, and in harmony with what we are to assume throughout, that He never in express terms foretold His resurrection, but only obscurely and by figure. The thought accordingly, divested of this figurative envelope, is, according to John, no other than this : kill me, and within three days* Iwill rise again. The imperative in the protasis is not permissive merely, which weakens the emotion, but contains a challenge ; it springs from painfully ex-
1Comp. Hom. Jl. v. 244: Kpoviwy—sexvis ona Bporoiow. Od. y. 174
2 See Fritzsche ad Matt. p. 248.
3 See Ast, Lex. Plat. IT. 488.
4 Considering the oft-recurring represen- tation of the indwelling of God in Christ, it is very far-fetched to derive the temple comparison here from the Valentinian Christology concerning a higher body of the Messiah appropriate for union with the Logos (in answer to Hilgenfeld, Lehrdegr. 247). Seeing, further, that Christ (ver. 16) calls the literal temple “Hite Father's house,” how can the Demiurge be conceived of as the God of the Jews ? How can we reconcile with that expression even ‘“a milder Gnosticism” (Hilgenfeld, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 516)? Simply to admit that “a weak reference to the supreme God was
not wanting even in Judaism,” is both in- correct in itself, and altogether unsulted to solve the palpable contradiction.
8 It is assumed (with Bengel) still in my 4th edition, that Jesus indicated the ref- erence to his body “nutu gesture,’ but that the Jews did not notice it. This is inadmissible, because thus the roéroy would have no reference whatever to the temple of stone, whereas the entire scene in the temple court shows that this reference is contained in it. Besides, such a gesture would be inappropriate to the use of an enigmatical word, for it would at once give the key to its solution. The intellectual point would be quite lost.
¢ Ey, see Bernhardy, p. 209; Winer, p. 361 {E. T. p. 885].
CHAP, II., 18, 19. 113
cited feeling, as He looks with heart-searching gaze upon that implacable opposition which already shows itself, and will be satisfied only with His death. Comp. zAzpdaroe, Matt. xxili. 82. John’s explanation is adopted by the ancients, and among modern expositors by Kuinoel, Tholuck, Hilde- brand,’ Kling,* Krabbe, Klee, Olshausen (at least as to their inner meaning, while the words, he thinks, were apparently simply a repelling paradox), Maier, Hasert,* Hauff,‘ Briickner (against de Wette), Laurillard,* Baum- marten, Maicr, Baeumlein, Godet, also Luthardt (though introducing a double meaning ; by putting Jesus to death, Israel destroyed itself as the house of God, while the resurrection was the setting up of God’s spiritual house ;° similarly Baur, p. 137 ff., who, however (and with him Hilgenfeld), traces the expression to synoptic elements much later in point of time. But John’s explanation is abandoned, since the time of Herder (com Sohne Gottes) and Henke,’ by Eckermann, Paulus, Liicke, Schweizer, Bleek, B. Crusius, Ammon, Strauss, Gfrérer, de Wette, Ewald, Weizsiicker, Schenkel, Scholten, and many others, who, with various modifications, explain the pulling down of the temple of the decay of the old temple religion, and the setting up in three days of the new spiritual theocracy so soon to be established ; thus the imperative is taken by some as a challenge (as above) (Herder, Henke, Ewald), by some again as a concession (Schen- kel), and by some as an hypothesis (Liicke, B. Crusius, de Wette : ‘Granted that ye destroy”’)—according to de Wette, with allusion perhaps to the late partial demolition of the temple by Herod. But (1) before we can assume that John of all men, who elsewhere was so deeply im- bued with the mind of Jesus, wholly misunderstood Him, and that too at the time when he wrote his Gospel, when the old degenerate religion had been long since overthrown, and the new spiritual sanctuary long since set up,—we must have the most decisive evidence of such a misunderstanding. Otherwise, we are to seck the true interpretation of any saying of Jesus from him, and especially in this case, where he distinctly opposes his own explanation to the misconception of the Jews, and gives it not only as his own, but also as that of the rest of the disciples. (2) The accusation in Matt. xxvi. 61, Mark xiv. 58 (comp. Acts vi. 13) is no argument in favour of the modern in- terpretation, for it is based only upon the Jewish misunderstanding of the saying. (3) The place and occasion alike suggested the temple as an illus- tration, but they determined nothing as to the subject-matter of the compari- son ; & signin general was asked for, not one bearing specially upon the temple. (4) The setting up of the spiritual temple was an event not at all dependent upon & previous destroying of the old economy ; on the contrary, a be- ginning had already been made, the further devclopment of which was not the effect but the cause (the fermenting clement) of the dissolution of the
1In Hiiffell’s Zeitechr. TI. 1. ° cerda J. interpretat. est, Lugd. B. 1858,
2In d. Stud. u. Krit. 1#35, p. 127. p. 1 ff.
3 Uebdb. ad. Vorhersagungen Jesu von seinem *Comp. Ebrard, Lange, Riggenbach, Tode, Berlin 1839, p. 81. Hengstenberg.
4 Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 106 ff. 7 Programm 1798, tin Pott, SwWloge, I.
® De locis ev. Joh. in quibus ipse auctor p.8 ff.
114 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
old theocracy : hence the relation of the protasis to the anodosis of the sentence would be neither logically nor historically correct. (5) This spirit- ual building up was so far from being a momentary act, and was to so great a degree a gradual development, that neither the conception of a sign in general, nor the words in three days, which belong essentially to this conception, have any corresponding relation thereto; the latter expression, even if taken in a proverbial sense,’ could only mean “‘in a Jew days,” and therefore would be quite unsuited to the comparison, and would even have the appearance of grandiloquence. Moreover, as the three days joined to the éyepé (raising up) were the jized correlative of Christ's resurrection, this should itself exclude the modern explanation. (6) A new temple would of necessity have been spoken of as another (comp. Mark xiv. 58), but éyeopd airéy can only mean the same ; and thus the Jews as well as John rightly understood it, for Jesus did not say tyepd &AAov or Erepov, or the like.* (7) It is only a seeming objection to John’s explana- tion, that according to N. T. theology Christ did not raise Himself from the dead, but was raised by the Father. Any such contradiction to the Chris- tian mode of view, if real, must have prevented John himself above every one from referring the words to the resurrection. But the objection dis- appears if we simply give duc weight to the figurative nature of the ex- pression, which rests upon that visible contemplation of the resurrection, according to which the Subject that arises, whose resurrection is described as the re-erecting of the destroyed temple, must also be the Subject that erects the temple,—without affecting the further doctrine, which, moreover, does not come under consideration, that the causa efficiens, i.e. the actual revivify- ing power, is the Father. Christ recciving His life again from the Father (x. 17) and rising again, Himself raises up by His very resurrection the destroyed temple.‘—For éyeiperv of erecting buildings, see Ecclus, xlix. 11; 3 Esdras v. 44, viii. 81; Ael. V. H. 12, 23 ; Herodianus, 3, 15, 6 ; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 75.
Note.—It cannot perplex us in John's explanation, that the answer which Jesus gave was rightly understood at the time neither by the Jews nor by the disciples. It was the manner of Jesus, as especially appears in'John, to throw out seeds of thought for the future which could not take root af the time. Comp. Chrysostom : roAAd rotaira phéyyerae Toig pév TéTe Gxovovo. ove dvTa diAa, Toi¢ dé pera tavra tadueva. Tivog dd ivexev tovro motel ; Iva decxOg mpoeddc Gvwlev Ta feta Tavra, brav e&EAby Kai rig mpoppycewc 7d TEAC 8 dN Kal Ext THE Mpogyrelas TaUrn¢ yéyovev, And that in its very first appearance He foresaw the development of the opposition of this seemingly guileless party, onward to its goal in the de-
1 Hos. vi. 2, not Luke xifi. 88; but see Dissen ad Dem. de cor. p. 362.
2 Appeal is wrongly made to Matt. x. 89, where yvxnv denotes earthiy life merely, and then av77» life eternal. yvx7y as weil as avryv there means nothing but the soul ; and the enigma of the expression lies not in a different sense being applied to these two wordg, but in a different temporal rela-
tion of evpwr and droddce,
3 Comp. ver. 22; Acts ii. 24, 81 ff.. ili. 15, iv. 10, v. 80, ad. ; Rom. iv. 2%, vili. 11; 1 Cor. vi.14; 2Cor. iv. 14; Gal. 1.1; Eph. i. 21; Col. fl. 12; 1 Thess. i. 10; 1 Pet. 1. 21.
4 See, moreover, Briickner, p. 57, and Godet. Comp. Ignat. Smyrn. 2: dAnOas
avégrnoey éavrov,
CHAP. II., 20-22. 115
struction of the temple of His body, can be regarded as an unhistorical presup- position of the Logos doctrine only by one who, on the one hand, can by criti- cal doubts ' get rid of the early references of Jesus to His death which are con- tained in the Synoptics (e.g. Matt. x. 38, xii. 39, x. 23), and, on the other hand, does not sufficiently estimate Christ’s higher knowledge, as shown in John, and especially that acquaintance with the heart by virtue of which He appre- hends the full intent (vi. 64) of this in itself justifiable requirement of a sign.
Ver. 20. An intended deductio ad absurdum. Tecoapdk. x. && treaty] length of time named without 2.” The great number of years stands em- phatically first. — %xodo0u%67] ¢.¢. so far as it was already complete. The proposed enlargement and renewal of the temple of Zerubbabel was begun in the 18th year of Herod the Great’s reign,* and was first completed, ac- cording to Josephus,‘ under Herod Agrippa II., a.p. 64. How the 46 years named here prove that the passover then being held was that of the year 782 (A.D. 29), corresponding with the year of the Baptist’s appearance ac- cording to Luke iii. 1 (August 781-2), see on Acts, Introd. § 4. Wieseler, p. 166, reckoning onwards from Nisan 785, places the end of the 46th year exactly in Nisan 781.°
Vv. 21, 22. Tot sdpzarog] * Genitive of apposition ; see Winer, p. 494 [E. T. p. 531]. — Ver. 22. od v] represents the recollection as answering to the true meaning of that declaration. —épzv4c070a] they became mindful of, ver. 17, xii. 16. The saying came afresh to their remembrance when it was explained as a fact by the resurrection ; previously, because not under- stood, it had been forgotten. With 7yép@n comp. éyepa, ver. 19.—xa? txiorevoay, «.r.A.] As the result of this recollection, they believed the Script- ure (felt convinced of the truth of its statements),—observing the harmony of its prophecies concerning the resurrection of Jesus’ with that saying of Christ’s,—and the word which Jesus had (then, ver. 19) epoken, which now, as fulfilled in the resurrection, presented itself to them in its full prophetic truth. Upon rioretecv revi in St. John, comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 20. — Schweizer (whom Scholten follows) regards vv. 21, 22 as spurious, quite groundlessly. The statement is the exact outcome of St. John’s inmost personal experience.
2 Comp. Kelm, Geschichil. Christus, pp. 3, 86, ed. 3. 2 Bernhardy, p. 81; Winer, p. 205 [E. T. p.
§ Autumn of 784-5; see Joseph. Anté. xv. 11. 1.
4 Antl. xx. 9. 7.
§ Ewald reckons from sB.c. 2 to a.p. %, and, counting only the /ui intervening years, he gets the 46, thus omitting s.o. 20, the year in which the rebuilding began, and a.p. 28, the year of the passover named in our text.—For the rest, it must be re-
‘membered (in opposition to Keim's doubts
in his Gesch. J. I. p. 615) that the statement in the text does not necessarily oblige us to suppose an oixosouciobas without any
interruptions. The building had been going on now for 46 years. Comp. also Wieseler in Herzog’s Encykt. XXI. 546.
* John explains the saying so simply and definitely, that there is no room for the double meaning which Luthardt, Hengsten- berg, and others import into it. With equal simplicity and definiteness does he represent the meaning given as that of Jesus Himself (against Weizsicker, p. 266). In like manner vil. 38, xii. 82, xxi. 19. In none of these passages is any distinction drawn between the explanation and the meaning intended by Jesus Himself.
7 Ps. xvi. 10; Isa. lill.; cf. Luke xxiv. %; Acts xlll. 88 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv.4; Matt. xii. 40,
116 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 23. Aé} introducing a characteristic summary statement (to ver. 25) regarding this stay of Jesus at the feast, in order next to give prominence to a special scene, the story of Nicodemus in iii. 1 ff._—é». r. ‘lepoo. éy rT. wadoxa év rH éoptry| The latter clause is not added as an explanation for Greek readers (that should have been done at ver. 13), but ‘‘ He was at Jerusalem during the passover in the feast (engaged in celebrating the feast) ;” thus the first é is local, the second temporal, and the third joins on with jv, and expresses the surroundings, that in which a person is engaged (versari tn aliqua ré).'—OAewpovrvrec, «.t.A.] while they beheld His miracles, etc.? Euthymius Zigabenus rightly says: éxeivor yap axpiBéorepov ériorevor, boot uy did Ta onpeia pdvov, GAAG Kal did tH didacKaAiay avrov éexiotevov. Their faith in His name (as that of the Messiah) did not yet amount to any dcci- sion of their inner life for Jesus, but was only an opinion, produced by the sight of His miracles, that He was the Messiah ; comp. viii. 80, vi. 26. Luther calls it ‘‘ milk faith.” Comp. Matt. xiii. 20. Onrd onpeia, comp. ili. 2. None of the miracles of this period has been recorded ; xx. 80, comp. iv. 45. Consequently, not only the Synoptics, but John also speaks sum- marily of multitudes of miracles, without relating any of them individually (against Schleiermacher, ZL. J. p. 201).
Vv. 24, 25. Atroc 62, «.7.A.] But He on His part, though they on their part, on account of His miracles, believed on Him. — ovx« ixtor. éavrév] an intentional antithesis to the preceding ézior. cig rd dvoya avtov. Observe the emphatic éavrév : it must not be taken as meaning ‘‘ He kept back #is doctrine from them” (Chrysostom, Kuinoel, and many), or ‘‘ His work” (Ebrard) ; but He did not trust Himself, i.e. His own person, tothem; He refrained from any closer personal intercourse with them, Without any such reserve, rather with confident self-surrender, had He given Himself to His intimate Galilean friends. Towards the Jews in Jerusalem, on whom, from His knowledge of the human heart, He could not bestow this self-de- votion, because they lacked the inward moral conditions necessary thercto, His bearing was more strange and distant. Observe the imperfects éxicrevev and éyivwoxe.—did rd abrov yevdon. wavr.] because He Himself (as in the following avréc) knew all men, universal. Respecting none did His per- sonal knowledge fail Him with regard to the state of his moral feeling. — nai dre, x«.7.A.] negative expression of the same thought in the popular form of a still further reason. —iva] not instead of the infinitive construc- tion (Matt. iii. 14 al.), but the object of the need is conceived of in the form of a purpose which the person needing guidance entertains. Comp. xvi. 80; 1 John ii. 27. —repi rot av@p.] docs not apply to Jesus Him- self (‘‘concerning Him as man,” Ewald), but concerning any man with whom He had at any time to do.*—airéc¢] of Himself, 2.e. avtodidaxroc, Non- nus.t—ri gv év te avOp.] the inward, though not outwardly indicated
1 See, concerning elva: év here, Bernhardy, ? Sec Bernhardy, p. 315; Winer, p. 109 p. 210; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. 628. (E. T. p. 115].
2 On abrod, comp. Lycurg. 2: ratra éuod 4See Herm. ad Viger. p. 788; Kriger, éGempycare, and Kiihner, § 528, a@ Xen. Mem. <Anab. ii. 8.73; comp. Clementine Homi. ili. i. 1. 11. 18: aweipw Yuxns OfOadAuyg,
NOTES. “117
capacity, character, disposition, and so on ; 1d xpurrdv rod vovc, Origen. Comp. Nonnus : é0a dpevic évdobev avip eizxev axnpbaty xexadvpptva papei atyqs. To this supernatural and immediate discernment, as possessed by Jesus, special prominence is often given by John.’ Like His working of miracles, it is the life expression of His divine essence.”
Norges sy AMERICAN Eprror.
XIV. “‘ They have no wine.” Ver. 3.
Weiss follows Meyer in the opinion that the mother's declaration to her Son, ‘‘they have no wine” did not contemplate a miracle, but only some general, indefinite mode of meeting the want, such as possibly His varied resources might devise. But the more generally received explanation of the words seems far more probable, which finds in them an intimation to her Son that He should take the present occasion for at once supplying a want and exhibiting His miraculous powers. The long residence of Jesus in the bosom of His family had indeed produced no such miraculous displays as she had once perhaps eagerly anticipated. But the circumstances have now materially changed. He has left his home for that wonderful baptism, with its divine attestations, of which Mary cannot have been ignorant, and she cannot fail to have followed His course up to the present festival, in which He appears surrounded by a train of disciples all glowing with the ardor of the discovery of the long-looked- for Messiah, and with the enthusiastic recognition of the ‘‘Son of God and the King of Israel.” All this cannot fail to have been poured by these glad disciples into the ears of the eager mother. Familiar now as was early Jewish history with miracles, and numerous and striking as were those that had clustered around the infancy of Jesus, it would seem that Mary could scarcely avoid looking for some corresponding miracles to signalize His entrance on that public career which was apparently opening.—And that her language to her Son now indi- cates her desire for the performance of a miracle would seem almost certain from His reply. Meyer and Weiss hold that His reply repels the idea of maternal interference with His non-Messianic functions ; but it is precisely such interference that His reply does not indicate. It could scarcely be an infringement of their relations that she should appeal to Him for some natural and merely human aid in the emergency, and it is far more con- ceivable that she should make an unwarranted appeal to His miraculous pow- ers than that He should rebuke, ever so gently, an interposition which she had not attempted. That a half-unconscious maternal pride in her Son, and a de- sire before these many guests to have a display of His extraordinary powers, is not indeed intimated, but may be deemed probable. )
XV. The cleansing of the Temple. Vv. 13-22.
Weias in his edition of Meyer takes ground agninst Meyer (as well as against a large portion of the Fathers and later commentators), denying the repetition (as recorded Mark xi. 15-18) of the miraculous cleansing of the 'lemple. Re-
1 Comp. f. 49, 50. Iv. 19, 20, vi. 61, 64, xi. 4, 3 Ps. vil. 10, cxxxiz. 2; Acts xv. & 15, xiii. 11, xvi. 19, xxi. 17.
118 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
jecting one of the accounts, and assuming that that of Mark sprang from the Synoptic Gospels’ knowing but one visit of Jesus to the Passover, he gives the preference to the record of John, and regards it as far more probable that Jesus signalized His opening ministry by this symbolic act of purification. It was thus and then, he holds, altogether appropriate; while, on the contrary, at His last visit, when His contest with the Jewish hierarchy was reaching its climax, and He had already abandoned the nation, and foretold the destruction both of the city and the Temple, it seems but an objectless and almost wanton act of provocation to His enemies. To many, however, the matter would appear quite otherwise. While they recognize the fittingness of the cleansing to the opening of Christ’s ministry, it would seem to them equally appropriate to His final, but first strictly Messianic and kingly entrance into Jerusalem, that He should unite with His first formal appearance as Messianic King another sym- bolical assertion of the purity of His kingdom. The miracle seems equally fitting to the opening and the close of His career.
XVL ‘‘ Making a scourge.” Ver. 15.
The scourge, I cannot but think, was made by Jesus, and held in His hands, simply as a symbol of force. That He actually used it, either on the men or the animals, we may not indeed positively deny, but can just as little positively affirm. With neither could the use of it be necessary, and there is in it a certain unseemliness, something which detracts from the dignity of the Lord, and that equally in the case of the irrational and of the rational offender. Alike in the case of the men and the brutes, the Lord’s volition must have sufficed.
-—y--- --
CHAP. III., 1, 2. 119
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 2. Instead of atréy, the Elzevir has rdv ’Incoiv, in the face of decisive testimonies. The beginning of a new section and of a church lesson. — Ver. 2, The position of djvura: immediately after ydp (Lachm. Tisch.) is supported by preponderating testimony. — Ver. 5. For r. @ eo% Tisch. reads ray otpavav, upon ancient but yet inadequate testimony (®* Inst. Hippol. etc.),— Ver. 13, 6 d» év rT. ovp.] wanting in B. L. T». &. 33, Eus. Naz. Origen ; deleted by Tisch. But these mysterious words may easily have been regarded ar objectionable or superfluous, because not understood or misunderstood ; and there was nothing to suggest the addition of them. — Ver. 15. np) admrdAnrac, add’) is deleted by Tisch. after B. L. T>, ®. Min. Verss. Fathers. Rightly so ; it is an addition borrowed from ver. 16. — The readings éx’ avréy (Lachm.), én’ adr@ and év aire (Tisch.), have indeed less support than the received ¢i¢ atrdéy, but this lat- ter forced itself in as the most current form of expression, and é» avr@ is, following DB. T®. Codd., It., to be preferred. — Ver. 19. The order avrav covnp4 has preponderating evidence in its favour. — Ver. 25. The Elzevir has "lovdaiwy, instead of ’Ioudaiov, in the face of decisive testimony. The plural evidently was inserted mechanically. — Ver. 31 f. The second érdvw cnavrwy éori has against it very weak testimony, viz. D. 8. Min. and some Verss, and Fathers. But the following «ai (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.) is omitted not only by the same testimonies, but also by B. L. Min. Copt. Pers., and must be regarded as an interpolation, the absence of which originally led more easily to the omission of érdvw 7. «.— Ver. 34. 6 Dede after didwory is wanting in B, C.* L. T>. &. Min. Ver. Brix. Cyr.; bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. A supplying of the subject, which seemed uncertain.
Vv. 1, 2. Prominence is now given to a specially important narrative, con- nected by the continuative dé and belonging to that first sojourn in Jerusa- lem,—viz. the conversation with Nicodemus, wherein Jesus more fully explains His person and work. No intimation is given of any inner connection with what precedes (Liicke : ‘‘now comes an instance of that higher knowledge possessed by Jesus ;” de Wette, Lange, Hengstenberg : ‘‘an illustration of the entire statement in ii. 23-25 ;” Tholuck : ‘‘ an instance of the begin- nings of faith just named ;” Luthardt : ‘‘from the people collectively, to whom Jesus had addressed Himself, a transition is now made to His dealing with an individual ;” Ewald : ‘‘Nicodemus appears desirous to make an exception to the general standing aloof of men of weight in Jerusalem”). — &v@pwroc] in its most ordinary use, simply equivalent to rig ; not ‘un exemplaire de ce type humain que Jésus connaissait si bien” (Godet). It is quite independent of ii. 25, introducing a new narrative. —Nixddnposg, & frequent name as well among the Greeks' as among the Jews.” We know
1 Demosth. 549. 28, and later writers. 8 DP3 or pop? see Lightfoot and Wetstein.
120 TIE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
nothing certain of this man beyond the statements concerning him in St.
John (comp. vii. 50, xix. 89).1 The Nicodemus of the Talmud was also
called Bunai, must have survived the destruction of Jerusalem, and was known under this latter name as a disciple of Jesus.?_ The identity of the two is possible, but uncertain. Theso-called Heangelium Nicodemi embraces,
though in a doubtful form, two different treatises, viz. the Acta Pilati and
the Descensus Christi ad inferos.* — ip x wv] He was a member of the Sanhe- drim, vii. 50 ; Luke xxiii. 13, xxiv. 20. — He came to Jesus by night,‘ being still undecided, in order to avoid the suspicion and hostility of his colleagucs.
He was not ahypocrite (as Koppe in Pott* holds), who pretended to be simple in order to elicit from Jesus some ground of accusation ; a circumstance which,
if true, John would not have failed to state, especially considering what he says of him in vii. 50 and xix. 39: he was, on the contrary, though of a somewhat slow temperament, a man of honourable character, who, together with others (oidauvev, comp. tac, ver. 7), was in a general way convinced by the miracles of Jesus that He must be a divincly commissioned and divinely supported Teacher, and he therefore sought, by a confidential interview, to determine more exactly his to that extent half-believing judgment, and es- pecially to find out whether Jesus perhaps was the very Messiah. His position as a Pharisce and a member of the Sanhedrim shows how strongly and honestly he must have felt this need. Comp. xii. 42.¢— That the disci- pies, and John in particular, were with Jesus during the interview, has nothing against it (as de Wette and most others think), for Nicodemus came to Jesus by night only through fear of the Jews ; and the vivid and peculiar features, with the harmonious charactcristics of the narrative, even if touched up by the pen of John, confirm the supposition that he was a wit- ness. If not, he must have received what he relates from the Lord Himself,
as it impressed itself deeply and indelibly upon his recollection. As to the result of the interview, nothing historically to be relied upon has come down to us, simply because there was no immediate effect apparent in Nicodemus.
But see vii. 50, xix. 89. — bre awd Geov EAHA. Seddoxadog] that thou
1 According to Baur, p. 178, he isa ¢ypical person, representing the believing and yet really unbelieving Judaism, just as the Sa- maritan woman (chap.iv.) represents believ- ing heathendom : thus leaving it uncertain how far the narrative is to be taken as fact. According to Strauss, the whole owes its origin to the reproach that Christianity made way only among the common people (notwithstanding 1 Cor. 1. 26, 27). Weisse rejects at least the truth of the account, which de Wette designates ‘a poetical, free, and highly spiritualized reproduc- tion.”” See on the other hand Brtickner. According to Hilgenfeld, the whole conver- sation cannot be understood “unless we view it from the evangelist's standing- point ;” in which the design is simply and solely to explain how Christianity essen- tiully distinguished itself from Judaism.
According to Scholten, we have here set forth the power of Christianity triumph- ing over the slowness of heart and preju- dices of the learned,—this merely, without any historical basis of fact in the story.
2See Delitzsch inthe Zeitschr. f. Luther. Theol. 1854, p. 643.
3 See Tischendorf, Erang. Apocr. p. 208 ff.
4A symbolical reference to “ fhe still Le- nighted mind” must not be attributed to this simple historical statement (against Hengsxtenberg).
& Sylloge, IV. p. 81 ff.
*¥or the entire section see Knapp, Scripta var. arg. 1. 188; Fabricius, Commen- tat. Gott. 1825; Schollin Klaiber's Sfudicn, V.1, p. 71; Jacobi in the Stwd. u. Avril. 13h, 1; Hengstenberg in the Zvang. KZ. 1860, 49; Steinfass in the Meklend. Zeitechr. 16u4A, p. 913.
CHAP. IIIL., 3. 121
art come from God as teacher. The expression implies the thought of one divinely sent, but not the idea of the Logos (as Bretschneider holds). — Travta Ta onpeia} emphatic, haecce tanta signa. —éiadv py y 6 Oed¢ per’ avrow] Sre ovn && otxeiug dvvduews ravra rorei, GAA’ Ex THe Tou Yeov, Euthymius Zigabenus. From the miracles (ii. 23) Nicodemus thus infers the assistance of God, and from this again that the worker of them is one sent from God. Ver. 3. In ver. 2 Nicodemus had only uttered the preface to what he had it in his mind to ask ; the question itself was to have followed. But Jesus interrupts him, and gives him the answer by anticipation. This question, which was not (as Lange thinks, in contradiction of the procedure of Nico- demus on other occasions) kept back with remarkable prudence and caution, is to be inferred solely from the answer of Jesus ; and it was accordingly no other than the general inquiry, ‘‘ What must a man do in order to enter the Messiah's kingdom ?” not the special one, ‘‘Is the baptism of John sufficient for this ?” (Baeumlecin), for there is no mention of John the Baptist in what follows ; comp. rather Matt. xix. 16. The first is the question which the Lord reads in the heart of Nicodemus, and to which He gives an answer,-— an answer in which He at once lays hold of the anxiety of the questioner in its deepest foundation, and overturns all Pharisaic, Judaistic, and merely human patchwork and pretence. To suppose that part of the conversation is here omitted (Maldonatus, Kuinoel, and others), is as arbitrary as to re- fer the answer of Jesus to the words of Nicodemus. Such a reference must be rejected, because Jesus had not given him time to tell the purpose of his coming. We must not therefore assume, either that Jesus wished to lead him on from faith in His miracles to that faith which effects a moral trans- formation ;’ or that ‘‘ He wished to convince Nicodemus, who imagined he had made a great confession in his first words, that he had not yet so much as made his way into the porticoes of true knowledge” (Chrysostom); or that ‘‘ He wished to intimate that He had not come merely as a Teacher, but in order to the moral renewal of the world,” * or, ‘‘ Videris tibi, O Nicodeme, videre aliquod signum apparentis jam regni coelorum in hisce miraculis, quae ego edo ; amen dico tibi: nemo potest videre regnum Dei, sicut oportet, si non, etc.” (Lightfoot, approved by Licke, and substantially by Godet also). —éidv ph tig yevv. &vodter] except a man be born from above, t.6. except aman be transformed by God into a new moral life. Seeon i. 13. What is here required answers to the yeravoeire, etc., with which Jesus usually be- gan His preaching, Mark i. 15. &vuwdev, the opposite of xérwier, may be taken with reference to place (here equivalent to éx tov ovpavod ;* or with ref- erence to time (equivalent to é& apyjc); Chrysostom gives both renderings. The latter is the ordinary interpretation‘—because Nicodemus himself (ver. 4) thus understood it. Accordingly, dvwSev would be equivalent to werum,
1 Augustine, de Wette, comp. also Lu- 322; Baruch vi. 68; James i. 17, Hil. 15.
thardt and Ebrard. ‘Syriac, Augustine, Vulgate, Nonnus, * Baumgarten Crusius, comp. already Luther, Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Maldonatus, Cyril, and Theophylact. eto. (so likewise Tholuck, Olshausen,
7 Comp. Xen. Mem. lv. 8. 14; Symp. vi.7; Neander, and substantially Luthardt, Thue. iv. 7. 8; Soph. Ev. 1047; Eur. Cyel. Hengstenberg, Godet.
122 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
again, anew, as Grimm (on Wisd. xix. 6) also thinks. But this is unjusti- fiable even on linguistic grounds, because dvedcr when used of time signifies not tterum or denuo, but throughout, from the beginning onwards" (and so Ewald and Weiss interpret it),* and the local rendering is required alike by the meaning of the word (ver. 81, xix. 11, 23), and the usage of the Evangelist, who uniformly conceives regeneration not as a new or second, but as a heav- enly or divine, birth ; see i. 18 ; 1 John ii. 29, iii. 9, iv. 7, v. 1. The rep- resentation of it as a repeated, a renewed birth is Pauline (Tit. iii. 5, comp. Rom. xii. 2; Gal. vi. 15 ; Eph. iv..28, 24; Col. iii. 9) and Petrine (1 Pet. lil, 28). "AvwWev, therefore, is rightly taken as equivalent to é« Seer by Ori- gen, Gothic Vers. (tupathré), Cyril, Theophylact, Aretas, Bengel, etc. ; also Liicke, B. Crusius, Maier, de Wette, Baur, Lange, Hilgenfeld, Baeum- lein, Weizsiicker (who, however, adopts a double sense), Steinfass. —id civ] i.e. as a partaker thereof. Comp. ciceAdciv, ver. 5, and see ver. 86, also ideiv Sdvarov (Luke ii. 26; Heb. xi. 5), diagdopdy (Acts ii. 27), fufpag ayadde (1 Pet. iii. 10), révdoe (Rev. xviii. 7).* Not therefore ;: ‘‘ simply to see, to say nothing of entering,” Lange ; comp. Ewald on ver. 5. It is to be observed that the expression Bac. rov Seos does not occur in John, save here and in ver. 5 ;‘ and this is a proof of the accuracy with which he had recorded this weighty utterance of the Lord in its original shape. In xviii. 86 Christ, on an extraordinary occasion, speaks of His kingdom.” The conception of ‘‘the kingdom” in John does not differ from its meaning elsewhere in the N. T. (see on Matt. iii. 2). Moreover, its necessary correlative, the Parousia, is not wanting in John (see on xiv. 8).
Ver. 4. The question does not mean : ‘‘If the repetition of a corporeal birth is so utterly impossible, how am I to understand this dvwev yervyd prac?” (Liicke); nor: ‘‘ How can this dywiev yevy. take place, save by a second cor- poreal birth ?” as if Nicodemus could not conceive of the beginning of a new personal life without a recommencement of natural life (Luthardt, comp. Hofmann); nor: ‘‘ How comes it that a Jew must be born anew like a proselyte ?” (Knapp, Neander, comp. Wetstein ; for the Rabbins liken proselytes to new-born babes, Jevamoth, f. 62.1; 92. 1); nor again: ‘‘ This requirement is as impossible in the case of a man already old as for one to
1 This, and not ‘again from the begin- ning,” as Hofmann (Schri/tbewets, II. 11) arbitrarily renders it, ts the meaning of aveGey, Itis self-evident that the concep- tion from the beginning does not harmonize with that of being born. Nor, indeed, would “again from the beginning,” but simply “again,’’ be appropriate. Again Srom the beginning would be waAcw dvwAev, as in Wisd. xix. 6; Gal. iv.9. The passage, moreover, from Josephus, Anét. i. 18. 8, which Hofmann and Godet (following Krebs and others) quote as sanctioning their ren- dering, is inconclusive. For there we read dircay avwdev worecra : ‘he makes friendship Jrom the beginning onwards," not implying
the continuance of a friendship before un-
used, nor an entering again upon it. Arte- midorus also, Oneirocr. 1. 14, p. 18 (cited by Tholuck after Wetstein), where mention is made of a dream of a corporeal birth, uses avw6ey in the sense not of again, but as equivalent to cocitus with the idea of a divine agency in the dream (Herm. Gotlesd. Alterth. § 87. 7. 19).
2 Lukel. 3; Acts xxvi. 5; Gal.iv. 9; Wisd. xix. 6; Dem. 589, 22. 1082, 7. 18; Plat. Phil. 44 D.
? From the classics, see Jacobs ad Del. epigr. p. 887 ff. ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 348.
* The expression, moreover, fac. ray ovpavey (comp. the Critical Notes) is not found in John.
CHAP. III., 5. 123
enter again, etc.”.’ These meanings are not in the words, they are simply imported into them. But the opinion that Nicodemus wished to ‘‘ entangle Jesus in His words” (Luther), or, under excited feelings, intentionally took the requirement literally in order to reduce it ad absurdum (Riggenbach), or ‘‘bya stroke of Rabbinical cleverness in argumentation” to declare it to be too strongly put (Lange, Life of Jesus, p. 495), is opposed to the honourable bearing of this straightforward man. According to the text, what Nicode- mus really asks is something preposterous. And this is of such a nature, that it is only reconcilable with even the scanty culture of a Jewish theologian (ver. 10), who could not, however, be ignorant of the O. T. ideas of circum- cision of heart (Deut. xxx. 6; Jer. iv. 4), of a new heart and a new spirit (Ex. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27; Ps. li. 12, Ixxxvi. 4 ff.), as well as of the outpouring of the Spirit in the time of the Messiah (Joel ii.; Jer. xxxi.), upon the assumption that, being a somewhat narrow-minded man, and somewhat entangled by his faith in the miracles, he was taken aback, con- fused and really perplered, partly by the powerful impression which Jesus produced upon him generally, partly by the feeling of surprise at secing his thoughts known to Him, partly by the unexpected and incomprehensible dvudev yevvy Siva, in which, however, he has an anticipation that something miraculous is contained. In this his perplerity, and not ‘‘in an tronical humour” (as Godet thinks, although out of keeping with the entire phe- nomenon), he asks this foolish question, as if Jesus had spoken of a corporeal birth, and not of a birth of one’s moral personality. Still less can there be a suspicion of this question being an invention, as if John merely wished to represent Nicodemus asa very foolish man (Strauss ; comp. de Wette and Reuss),—a notion which, even on the supposition of a desire to spin out the conversation by misapprehensions on the part of the hearers, would be too clumsy to be entertained. —yéfpwv Sv] when he is an old man; Nicode- mus added this to represent the impossibility with reference to himself ina stronger light. —de7repov] with reference to being for a time in the mother’s womb before birth. He did not take the dywiev to mean detrepov, he simply did not understand it at all.
Ver. 5. Jesus now explains more fully the dvuSev yev797va: onwards to ver, 8.—& tdarog x. xvebtparoc] water, inasmuch as the man is baptized therewith (1 John v. 7, 8; Eph. v. 26) for the forgiveness of sins (Acts ii. 88, xxii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 11), and spirit, inasmuch as the Holy Ghost is given to the person baptized in order to his spiritual renewal and sancti- fication ; both together *—the former as causa medians, the latter as causa efficiens—constitute the objective and causative element, out of which (comp. i. 18) the birth from above is produced (éx), and therefore baptism is the Aovrpav rahyyeveciag (Tit. ill. 5 ; comp. Tertullian o. Mare, i. 28). But that Christian
1 Schweizer, B. Crusius, Tholuck, comp. concerning the baptism ofthe Spirit, greatly Baumgarten and Hengstenberg. errs when he declares that to make regen- 32 Weisse, who does not regard the rite of ation depend upon baptism by water “is baptism by water as having originated in (ittle better than blasphemy” (Evangelienfrage, the institution of Christ, but considersthat ip. 194). it arose from a misapplication of His words
.
124 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
baptism (ver. 22, iv. 2), and not that of John,' is to be thought of in édaroc, is clear from the x. rvebyaroc joined with it, and from the fact that He who had already appeared as Messiah could no longer make the baptism of His forerunner the condition, not even the preparatory condition, of His Messi- anic grace ; for in that case He must have said ovx é£ idarog pudvov, GAA Kal. If Nicodemus was not yet able to understand ivdarog as having this definite reference, but simply took the word in general as a symbolical designation of Messianic expiation of sin and of purification, according to O. T. allusions,? and to what he knew of John’s baptism, still it remained for him to look for more definite knowledge, to the immediate future, when the true explanation could not escape him (iv. 2, iii. 22). We are not therefore to conclude from this reference to baptism, that the narrative is ‘‘ a proleptic fiction” (Strauss, Bruno Bauer), and, besides Matt. xviii. 3, to suppose in Justin and the Clementines uncanonical developments (Hilgenfeld and others ; see Intro- duction, § 2). Neither must we explain it as if Jesus were referring Nicode- mus not to baptism as such, but only by way of allusion to the symbolic import of the water in baptism (Liicke ; Neander, p. 910). [See Note XVII. p. 144.] This latter view does not satisfy the definite yevvydg éf, upon which, on the other side, Theodore of Mopsuestia and others, in modern times Olshausen in particular, lay undue stress, taking the water to be the female principle in regeneration (the Spirit as the male)—water being, according to Olshausen, ‘‘the element of the soul purified by true repent- ance.” All explanations, moreover, must be rejected which, in order to do away with the reference to baptism,* adopt the principle of an & dé dvoiv, for water and Spirit are two quite separate conceptions. This is especially in answer to Calvin, who says : ‘‘ of water, which is the Spirit,” and Grotius : ‘* sniritus aqueua, i.e. aguas instar emundans.” It is further to be observed, (1) that both the words being without the article, they must be taken ge- nerically, so far as the water of baptism and the Holy Spirit are included in the general categories of water and Spirit ; not till we reach ver. 6 is the concrete term used ;—(2) that idarog is put first, because the gift of the Spirit as a rule (Acts ii. 38) followed upon baptism (Acts x. 47 is an excep- tional case) ;—(8) that believing in Jesus as the Messiah is presupposed as the condition of baptism (Mark xvi. 16) ;—(4) that the necessity of baptism in order to participation in the Messianic kingdom (a doctrine against which Calvin in particular, and other expositors of the Reformed Church, contend) has certainly its basis in this passage, but with reference to the convert to Christianity, and not extending in the same way to the children of Christians, for these by virtue of their Christian parentage are already Gyo: (see on 1 Cor. vii. 14). Attempts toexplain away this necessity—e.g. by the compar- ative rendering: ‘‘not only by water, but also by the Spirit” (B. Crusius ; comp. Schweizer, who refers to the baptism of proselytes, and Ewald)—are meanings imported into the words.
1B. Crusius ; Hofmann, Schri/tbeweis, IT. 3 Krummacher, recently, inthe Stud. u. 2. 12; Lange, who, however, generalizes rit. 1859, p. 609, understands by the water ideally ; and earlier comm. the working of the Holy Spirit. How unten-
9 Ezek. xxxvi. 2; Isa.!. 16; Mal. fff. 3; able! forthe Spirié is named as a distinct Zech. xiif. 1; Jer. xxxiil. 8. factor side by side with water.
Lt
CHAP. III., 6-8. 125
Ver. 6. A more minute antithetic defining of this birth, in order further to elucidate it. — We have ‘not in what follows two originally different classes of persons designated (Hilgenfeld), for the new birth is needed by all,’ but two different and successive epochs of life. —rd yeyevunnu.] neuter, though designating persons, to give prominence to the statement as general and categorical, See Winer, p. 167 [E. T. p. 178]. —éx rjc capxéc] The cap is that human nature, consisting of body and soul, which is alien and hostile to the divine, influenced morally by impulses springing from the power of sin, whose seat it is, living and operating with the principle of sen- sible life, the wy#. See on Rom. iv. 1. ‘' What is born of human nature thus sinfully constituted (and, therefore, not in the way of spiritual birth from God), is a being of the same sinfully conditioned nature,’ without the higher spiritual moral life which springs only from the working of the divine Spirit. Comp. i. 12, 18. Destitute of this divine working, man is merely jleshly, animal (1 Cor. ii. 14), rempaptvog td tiv auapriav (Rom. vii. 14), and, despite his natural moral consciousness and will in the voic, is wholly under the sway of the sinful power that is in the odp& (Rom. vii. 14-25). The jlesh, as the moral antithesis of the epirit, stands in the same relation to the human spirit with the mind, as the prevailingly sinful and morally powerless life of our lower nature does to the higher moral principle of life (Matt. xxvi. 41) with the will converted to God ; while it stands in the same relation to the divine spirit, as that which is determinately opposed to God stands to that which determines the new life in obedience to God (Rom. viii. 1-3). In both relations, flesh and spirit are antitheses to each other, Matt. xxvi. 41 ; Gal. v. 17 ff. ; accordingly in the unregenerate we have the lucta carnis et MENTIS (Rom. vii. 14 ff.), in the regenerate we have the lucta carnis 4 Sprritus (Gal. v. 17).—é« rov mvebyarog) that which is born of the Spirit, 4.6. that whose moral nature and life have proceeded from the opera- tion of the Holy Spirit,* 23 a being of a spiritual nature, free from the ddmin- ion of the odpé, and entirely filled and governed by aspiritual principle, namely by the Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 2 ff.), walking év xacvéryre mvebuaroc (Rom. vii. 6).— The universality of the statement forbids its limitation to the Jews as natural descendants of Abraham (Kuinoel and others), but they are of course included in the general declaration ; comp. ver. 7, iuzac. —In the apodoses the substantives cépf and mveiya represent, with stronger em- phasis (comp. vi. 63, xi. 25, xii. 50; 1 John iv. 8; Rom. viii. 10), the adjectives capxixéc and mvevyarexdc, and are to be taken qualitatively.
Vv. 7, 8. To allay still more the astonishment of Nicodemus (ver. 4) at
1 S8ee ver. 7; comp. also Weiss, Lehrve- griff. p. 128.
*The sinful constitution of the cdpt in itself implies the necessity of a being born of the Spirit (vv. 3.7); comp. 1 John fi. 16. The above exposition cannot therefore be considered as attributing to John a Pau- line view which {s strange tohim. This is in answer to Weiss, according to whom Jesus here merely says, ‘“‘as the corporeal
birth only produces the corporeal sensual part.” Stmilarly J. Maller on Sin, vol. I. p. 449, II. $882. See on the other hand, Lu- thardt, v. freien Willen, p. 898.
® The é« rov dsaros, implying the é« rov wvevparos (after ver. 5), and the meaning of which fs clear in itself, is not repeated by Jesus, because His aim now is simply to let the contrast between the gcapf and the syevya stand out clearly.
126 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the requirement of ver. 8, Jesus subjoins an analogy drawn from nature, illustrating the operation of the Holy Spirit of-which He is speaking. The man is seized by the humanly indefinable Spirit, but knows not whence He cometh to him, and whither He leadeth him. —i,@¢] individualizing the general statement : ‘‘te et e08, quorum nomine locutus ¢s,” Bengel. Jesus could not have expressed Himself in the jirst person. —1rd xrvevpea] This, as is evident from vei, means the wind,’ not the Spirit (Steinfass). It is the double sense of the word (comp. 131) which gave rise to this very analogy from nature. A similar comparison has been made between the Av‘man soul, so far as it participates in the divine nature, and the well-known but inexplic- able agency of wind.* On the expression rd mveipa vei, see Lobeck, Paral. 503. —5r0v &éAec] The wind blowing now here, now there, is personified as a free agent, in keeping with the comparison of the personal Holy Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 2).* — row] with a verb of motion.‘ Expressing by anticipation the state of rest following upon the movement. Often in the N. T. as in John (vii. 85, viii. 14, xii. 85) and Heb. xi. 8.— otrug tori rac, «t.AJA popular and concrete mode of expression (Matt. xiii. 19, etc.); 80 ds it, i.e. with reference experimentally to the course of his higher birth, with every one who has been born (perfect) of the Spirit. The points of resemblance summed up in the otruc are : (1) the free self-determining action of the Holy Spirit,* not merely the greatness of this power, Tholuck ; (2) the felt ex- perience of His operations by the subject of them (rijv guv}v airod ax.); and (8) yet their incomprehensibleness as to their origin and their end (427 obx oldac, x.7.4.), the latter pertaining to the moral sphere and reaching unto eternal life, the former proceeding from God, and requiring, in order to understand it, the previously experienced workings of divine grace, and faith ensuing thereupon. The man feels the working of grace within, coming to him as a birth from above, but he knows not whence it comes ; he feels its attraction, but he knows not whither it leads. These several ele- ments in the delineation are so distinctly indicated by Jesus, that we cannot be satisfied with the mere general point of incomprehensibleness in the comparison (Hengstenberg), upon the basis of Eccles. xi. 5.
Vv. 9, 10. The entire nature of this birth from above (raira) is still a puzzle to Nicodemus as regards its possibility (the emphasis being on diva- tat); which we can easily understand in a learned Pharisee bound to the mere form and letter. He asks the question in this state of ignorance (haes- itantis est, Grotius), not in pride (Olshausen). Still, as one acquainted with the Scriptures, he might and ought to have recognized the possibility ; for the power of the divine Spirit, the need of renewal in heart and mind, and the fact that this renewal is a divine work, are often mentioned in the O. T. Jesus therefore might well ask in wonder: Art thou the teacher,
1 Gen. vill. 1; Job xxx. 15; Wisd. xill. 2; “Comp. Hom. JZ. 18. 219; Soph. 7vach. 40:
Heb. {. 7; often in the classics. xeivos 8 Swou BéSynxev, ovders olde; and see 2 Xen. Mem. 4. 3.14. Comp. also Eccles. Lobeok ad Phryn. 45; Mitzn. ad Antiph. xi.5; Ps. oxxxv. 7. 169, § 8.
3 Concerning the personality of the Holy 8 Srov OéAa, cCtUp. 1 Cor. xil. 11; John v. Spirit as taught in John, see especially 21. xiv.-xvl.
CHAP. Ill, 11, 12. 127
etc. ? The article 6 d:ddcx. and the row "Iop. following designate the man not merely in an official capacity (Ewald), which would not distinguish the, individual, but as the well-known and acknowledged teacher of the people.' Hengstenberg puts it too strongly : ‘‘ the concrete embodiment of the ideal teacher of Israel ;"’ comp. Godet. But Nicodemus must have held a po- sition of influence as a teacher quite inconsistent with this proved igno- rance; there isin the article a touch of irony, as in the question a certain degree of indignation.*
Ver.e11. Jesus now discloses to the henceforth silent Nicodemus, in growing excitement of feeling, the source of his ignorance, namely, his un- belief in what He testifies, and which yet is derived from His own knowledge and intuition. — The plurals we know, etc., are, as is clear from the sin- gulars immediately following in ver. 12, simply rhetorical (plurals of category,* and refer only to Jesus Himself. [See Note XVIII. p. 144.] Comp. iv. 38, and its frequent use by St. Paul when he speaks of himself in the plural. To include the disciples (Hengst. Godet), or to explain them as referring to general Christian consciousness as contrasted with the Jewish (Hilgenfeld), would be quite inappropriate to the language (see especially 8 éupdx. papr.). To understand them as including John the Baptist,‘ or him along with the prophets,* or even God,* or the Holy Ghost (Bengel), is arbitrary, and without a trace of support in the text, nay, onaccount of the have seen, opposed to it, for the Baptist especially did not by i. 84 occupy the same stage of éwpaxéva: with Christ. It is, moreover, quite against the context when B. Crusius says: ‘‘men generally are the subjects of the verbs oldayev and éwpdx.,” 86 that Auman thinge—what one sees and knows (ra émiye:a, ver. 12)—are meant.—Observe the gradual ascent in the parallelism, in which éupdéxapey, refers not to the knowledge.attained in this earthly life (Weizsiicker), but to Christ’s vision of God in His pre-existent state. Comp. ver. 32, i. 18, vi. 46, vili. 88, xvii. 5. —ov AauBd vere] ye Jews: comp. rov 'Iopaga, ver. 10 ; and for the fact itself, i. 11, 12. The reproach, like the ob moretere of ver, 12, refers to the nation as a whole, with a reference also to Nicodemus himself. To render this as a question (Ewald) only weakens the tragic rela- tion of the second half of the verse to the first.
Ver. 12. How grievous the prospect which your unbelief regarding the instructions I have already given opens up as to the future !—ra éxiyeca) what is on earth, things which take place on earth (not in heaven). We must strictly adhere to this meaning of the word in this as in all other passages." To the category of these earthly things belonged also the birth from above (against Baeumlein), because, though wrought by a power from heaven, itis accomplished on earth; and because, proceeding in repentance and faith, it is a change taking place on earth within the earthly
18ee Bernhardy, p. 315; Winer, p. 110 ® Luther, Beza, Calvin, Tholuck.
[E. T. p. 115]. ® Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, 3 Nagelsbach on the Iliad, ed. 8, p. 424. Rupertus, Calovius, eto. > Sauppe and Kiihner ad. Xen. Mem. 1. 2 7 1 Cor. xv. 40; 2 Cor. v. 1; Phil. if. 10, il. 46. 19; Jas. iff. 15. Comp. Wisd. ix. 16, and
* Knapp, Hofmann, Luthardt, Welzsick- Grimm, Handbuch, p. 189. er, Welas, Steinfass.
128 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
realm of our moral life ; and because it is historically certain that Christ everywhere began His work with this very preaching of repentance. But the Lord has in His mind not only the doctrine of regeneration just declared to Nicodemus, but, as the plural shows, ali which thus far He had taught the Jews (elroy iuiv) ; and this had been hitherto only ériyeca, and not érovpéva, of which He still designs to speak." It is therefore wrong to refer the ex- pression to the comparison of the wind (Beza) or of corporeal birth (Grotius), as prefiguring higher doctrine ; for the relation to the faith spoken of did not lie in these symbols, but in the truths they symbolized. The meaning of the words is quite altered, moreover, if we change the word éxiyeca into ‘‘ human and moral” (B. Crusius), or confine its meaning to what is stated in the immediate context (Liicke), or, with de Wette, make the point of differ- ence to be nothing more than the antithesis between man’s susceptibility of regencration as a work within him and his susceptibility of merely believing. —The counterpart of the éziyeca are the érovpévea, of which Jesus intends to speak to them in future, 7.¢. things which are in heaven (so in all places, Matt. xviii. 35 ; 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49 ; Eph. i. 8; Phil. ii. 10, etc.). To this category belong especially the Messianic mysteries, 1.e. the divine decrees Sor man’s redemption and final blessedness. Thesc are heacenly things, because they have their foundation (Wisd. ix. 16, 17) in the divine will, though their realization commences in the present «orld, through the entire work, and in particular through the death of Jesus and the faith of mankind ; but while still unaccomplished, belongs to the divine counsel, and shall be consum- mated and fully revealed by the exalted Christ in the kingdom of the Messiah, when the («1 aidvo¢g will reveal itself as the goal of perfection (Col. iii. 4), and ‘‘it will appear what we shall be.” To the érovpaviorc, therefore, does not first belong what is to be said of His exaltation, Matt. xxvi. 64 (Steinfass) ; but as the first and main thing, that which Jesus immediately utters in ver. 14 ff., wherein the heavenly element, 7.e. what is in the counsels of God (vv. 15, 16), is clearly contained. In the connection, that which is heavenly is difficult to be understood ; but this difficulty has nothing to do with the word itself, as Liicke holds.
Ver. 13. ‘‘ And no other than I can reveal to you heavenly things.” This is what Jesus means, if we rightly take His words, not an assertion of His divinity as the first of the heavenly things (Hengstenberg), which would make the negative form of expression quite inexplicable. Comp. 1. 18, vi. 46. — The «ai is simply continuatire, not antithetic,* nor furnishing a basis, or assigning the motive.*?—obdeic avaBéByxev, x.7.A.] which, on account of the perfect tense, obviously cannot refer‘ to the actual ascension of Christ *
lelsovis dizxt, not dizerunt,as Ewald thinks, who regards the ancienés in the O. T. as the subject, and upon too feeble evidence reads émsrevcare instead of morevere. This new subject must have been expressed, and an éyw should have stood over against it in the apodosis. Comp. Matt. v. 21,22. The earthly might be appropriate to the law (following Col. fl. 17; Heb. ix. 5, x. 1), but not to the prophets.
2 Knapp. Olshausen.
3 Beza, Tholuck ; Luke, Lange.
4 Against Augustine, Beza, Theophylact, Rupertus, Calovius, Bengel, eto.
8 So also Weizsicker, who assumes that we have here an experience belonging to the apostolic age, carried back and placed in the mouth of Christ. An anachronism which would amount to literary careless- ness.
i
CHAP. III., 13. 129
nor gives support to the unscriptural raptus in coelum of the Socinians ;' nor is to be explained by the unio hypostatica of Christ’s human nature with the divine, by virtue of which the former may be said to have entered into heaven (Calovius, Maldonatus, Steinfass, and others). It is usually taken figuratively of a spiritual elevation to God in order to a knowledge of divine things, and a coming to the perception of divine mysteries, which thus were brought down, as it were, by Christ from heaven (see of late especially Beyschlag) ; to support which, reference is made to Deut. xxx. 12, Prov. xxx. 4, Baruch iii. 29, Rom. x. 6, 7. But Christ brought with Him out of His pre-eristent state His immediate knowledge of divine things (ver. 11, i. 18, viii. 26, a/.), and possesses it in uninterrupted fellowship with the Father. To represent Him, therefore, as, during His earthly life, bringing it down by a figurative and spiritual exaltation to heaven, is wholly inappropriate. ‘O éx row ovp. xara. also must be taken literally, of an actual descent ; and there is therefore nothing in the context to warrant our taking avaf. cic r. ovp. symbolically. Hengstenberg rightly renders the words literally, but at the end of the verse would complete the sense by add- ing, ‘‘who will ascend up into heaven.” An addition arbitrary in itself and by no means to be looked for in John : out of harmony with the connec- tion, and certainly not readily intelligible to one like Nicodemus, though it were the point of the declaration : hence not properly suppressed, and least of all as a saying concerning the future. Godet does not get beyond the explanation of essential communion with God on the part of Jesus from the time of His birth. The only rendering true to the words is simply this : Instead of saying, ‘‘ No one has deen in heaven except,” etc., Jesus says, as this could only have happened to any other by his ascending thither, ‘‘ No one has ascended into heaven except,” etc.; and thus the ei y4 refers to an actual eristence in heaven, which is implied in the avaféBxev. And thus Jansenius rightly renders : Nullus hominum in coelo fuit, quod ascendendo fieri solet, ut ibi coelestia contemplaretur, nisi, etc.; and of late Fritzsche the elder in his Novis opusc. p. 230 ; and now also Tholuck, and likewise Holtzmann in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1865, p. 222.—6 éx row ovp. xara- Bé¢] which took place through the incarnation. These words, like 6 d» év rT. ovp., are argumentative, for they necessarily imply existence in heaven ; but 6 dv, which must be taken as an attributive of 6 vide r. avfp., and not as belonging to xarafdc¢, and therefore has the article, cannot be equivalent to dg #v (Luthardt ; Hofmann, I. 184 ; Weiss, etc.), as if wort, rd mpérepov or the like were there, but is equivalent to d¢ éor:, whose existence is in heaven, who has there His proper abode, His home.?—6é vidc rot avOp.] a Messianic designation which Christ applics to Himself, in harmony with the fulfilment of the prophetic representation in Dan. vil. 18, which began with the xaraBd¢ (comp. oni. 62). Nicodemus could understand this only through a fuller development of faith and knowledge.
1 See Oeder ad Caltech. Racov. p. 348 ff. the coming down from heaven to the con-
3 Nonnus: acrepderrs peAdOpe warpiov ov8ag §=s-« @etion of His mission, and the being in éxev.—TX. 2 is similar: rvddds ar: blind heaven tothe continuity of His God-conscious- from one's birth. SchleJermacher refers ness. Seee.g. his Leden Jesu, p. 27 ff.
130 ’ THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Note.—According to Beyschlag, p. 99 ff., this verse is utterly opposed to the -
derivation of Christ’s higher knowledge from the recollection of a pre-existent life in heaven. But we must bear in mind, (1) that the idea of an ascent to God to attain a knowledge of His mysteries (which Beyschlag considers the only right explanation) never occurs in the N. T. with reference to Jesus—a circumstance which would surprise us, especially in John, if it had been uttered by Jesus Himself. But it was nof uttered by Him, because He has it not, but knows His knowledge to be the gift of His Father which accompanied Him in His mission (x. 36). (2) He could not have claimed such an ascent tu heaven for Himself alone, for a like ascent, though not in equal degree, must belong to other men of God. He must, therefore, at least have expressed Him- self comparativey: obdei¢ oF Tug dvaséfnnev &. T. ovp. Os 6, x.7.A. Even the church now sings : ** Rise, rise, my soul, and stretch Thy wings Towards heaven, Thy native place.”’
But something distinct and more than this was the case with Christ, viz. as to the past, that He had His existence in heaven, and had come down therefrom ; and as to His earthly present, that He is in heaven.
Vv. 14, 15. Jesus, having in ver. 13 stated the ground of faith in Him, now proceeds to show the Dlessednese of the believer—which is the design of His redemptive:-work—in order the more to incite those whom He is ad- dressing to fulfil the fundamental condition, contained in faith, of partici- pating in His kingdom. That this is the logical advance in the discourse, is clear from the fact that in what follows it is the blessedness of faith which is dwelt upon ; see vv. 15, 16, 18. We have not here a transition from the possibility to the necessity of communicating heavenly things, ver. 18 (Liicke) ; nor from the étdeal unveilings of divine things to the chief mystery of the doctrine of salvation which was manifested in historical reality (de Wette, comp. Tholuck and Brickner); nor from the first of divine things, Christ's divinity, to the second, the atonement which He was to establish (Hengsten- berg, comp. Godct) ; nor from the Word to His manifestation (Olshausen) ; nor from the work of enlightenment to that of blessing (Scholl) ; nor from the present want of faith to its future rise (Jacobi : ‘‘ faith will first begin to spring up when my iywor is begun”) ; nor from Christ’s work to His per- son (B. Crusius) ; nor from His person to His work (Lange). The event re- corded in Num. xxi. 8 is made use of by Jesus as a type of the divinely appointed manner and efficacy of His coming death,’ to confirm a prophecy still enigmatical to Nicodemus, by attaching it to a well-known historical illustration. The points of comparison are : (1) the being lifted up (the well- known brazen serpent on the pole, and Jesus on the cross) ; (2) the being saved (restored to health by looking at the serpent, to eternal (u4 by believing on the crucified One). Any further drawing out of the illustration is arbitra- ry, as, for instance, that of Bengel: ‘‘ut serpens ille fuit serpens sine veneno
1 Which, consequently, He had clearly Christian literature, Zpist. of Barnabas, ec. foreseen not for the first time in vi. 51 12; Ignatius ad Smyrn. 2, interpol.; Justin, (Weizsicker) ; comp. on li. 19. Apol, 1. 60, Dial. c. Tr. 94.
2 Comp. Wisd. xvi. 6, and, in the earliest
a
CHAP. III., 14, 15. 131 contra serpentes venenatos, sic Christus homo sine peccato contra serpentem antiquum,” comp. Luther and others, approved by Lechler.’ Lange goes furthest in this direction ; comp. Ebrard on Olshausen, p. 104. There is, further, no typical element in the fact that the brazen serpent of Moses was a dead representative (‘‘as the sign of its conquering through the healing power of the Lord,” Hengstenberg). For, apart from the fact that Christ was lifted up alice upon the cross, the circumstance of the brazen serpent being a lifeless thing is not made prominent either in Num. xxi. or here. — Swwsvar) not glorified, acknowledged in His exaltation (Paulus), which, following iywoe, would be opposed to the context, but (comp. viii. 28, xii. 82, 33) shall be lifted up, that is, on the cross,7—answering to the Aramaean \p!,7 a word used of the hanging up of the malefactor upon the beam.‘ The express comparison with the raising up of the brazen serpent, a story which must have been well known to Nicodemus, does not allow of our ex- plaining iypwijo. as = 035, of the exaltation of Jesus to glory,* or as inclid- ing this, so that the cross is the stepping-stone to glory (Lechler, Godet) ; or of referring it to the near coming of the kingdom, by which God will show Him in His greatness (Weizsiicker) ; or of our abiding simply by the idea of an erhidition,* which Christ underwent in His public sufferings and death; or of leaving wholly out of account the form of the exaltation (which was certainly accomplished on the cross and then in heaven), (Luthardt), and concciving of an exaltation for the purpose of being visible to all men (Holtz- mann), as Schleiermacher also held ;’ or of assuming, as the meaning intelligible for Nicodemus, only that of removing, while Jesus still had in mind His being lifted up on the cross and up to God.*—¢éei] accord- ing to the divine decree, Matt. xvi. 21, Luke xxiv. 26, does not refer to the type, but only to the antitype (against Olshausen), especially as between the person of Christ and the brazen serpent as such no typical rela- tion could exist. — Lastly, that Jesus should make a thus early, though at the time enigmatic, allusion to His death by crucifixion, is conceivable both on the ground of the doctrinal peculiarity of the event, and of the extraor- dinary importance of His death as the fact of redemption. Sec on ii. 19. And in the case of Nicodemus, the enigmatic germ then sown bore fruit, xix. 39. — Adopting the reading ¢v atr@ (see Critical Notes), we cannot refer it to morebuv, but, as ui) ardéayrac, GA’ is spurious (see Critical Notes), to éyy: ‘‘every believer shall in Him (i.e. resting upon Him as the cause)
have eterna. life.”
1 Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 826.
*The higher significance imparted to Christ's person and work by His death (Baur, Neutlest. Theol. 879) \s not implied {n the word vpwOyra:, but in the comparison with the serpent, and in the sentence following, which expresses the odject of the lifting up. This passage (comp. 1. 29) should have pre- vented Baur from asserting (p. 400) that the Pauline doctrine concerning such a signifi- cance in Christ's death is wholly wanting in St. John's doctrinal view. See also vi.
Comp. xx. 81, v. 89, xvi. 33, xiii. 81.— wv aid-
51, 58, 54. ® Comp. the Heb. Apt Ps. cxlv. 14, oxlvi.
4 See Ezra vi. 11; Gesenius, 7hes. I. 428 ; Heydenreich in Htiffell’s Zeifechr. II. 1, p. 72 ff.; Brickner, 68,69. Comp. Jest. XII. patr. Pp. 789 : eiptos UAproOyceras cai dri EvAoV tpe- Onoeras.
* Bleek, Beitr. 281.
® Hofmann, Weiseag. u. Evf. I. 148.
7 Leben Jesu, 845.
® Hofmann, Schrif/tew., II. 1, 301.
132 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. veov] eternal Messianic life, which, however, the believer already has (évy) as an eternal possession in aidv ovto¢, viz. the present self-conscious devclop- ment of the only true moral and blissful (#7, which is independent of death, and whose consummation and full glory begin with the second advent.’ Ver. 16. Continuation of the address of Jesus to Nicodemus, onwards to ver. 21,? not, with Erasmus, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Paulus, Neander, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier (see also Baeumlein), an explanatory meditation of the evangelist’s own ; an assumption justified neither by anything in the text nor by the word yovoyevfc, a word which must have been transferred from the language of John to the mouth of Jesus (not vice versa, as Heng- stenberg thinks), for it is never elsewhere used by Christ, often as He speaks of His divine sonship. Sceoni.14. The reflective character of the follow- ing discourse harmonizes with the didactic purpose of Christ, and the pre- terites 7ydr7yoav and 7 need not be explained from the standing-point of a later time : there seems, therefore, no sufficient basis for the intermediate view (of Liicke, de Wette, Brickner), that in this continued account of the dis- course of Jesus, vv. 16 ff., John inserts more explanations and reflections of his own than in the preceding part, though such a supposition would scarcely (as Kling and Hengstenberg think) militate against the trustworthiness of John, who, in recording the longer discourses, has precisely in his own liv- ing recollection the abundant guarantee of substantial certainty. — oir w] 80 much ; see on Gal. iii. 8. — y 4p] reason of the purpose stated in ver. 15. — ny&nnoev] loved, with reference to the time of the éduxev.—rov xéopor} i.e. mankind at large,* comp. wac, ver. 15, xvii. 2; 1 John ii. 2.—rodyv povoy.] tomake the proof of His love the stronger, 1 John iv. 9 ; Heb. xi. 17 ; Rom. viii. 32.—? dé wx«ev] He did not reserve Him for Himself, but gave Him, 7.e. tothe world. The word means more than azéovrecAcr (ver. 17), which expresses * the manner of the Zduxev, though it does not specially denote the giving up to death, but the state of humiliation as a whole, upon which God caused His Son to enter when He left His pre-existent glory (xvii. 5), and the final act of which was to be His death (1 John iv. 10). The indicative following, aore, describes the act objectively as something actually done. See on Gal. li. 13 ; and Klotzad Devar. 772. —p axdanrac, x.r.a.] On the subjunc- tive, as marking present time, see Winer, 271 [E. T. p. 287]. Note the change from the Aorist to the Present, making destruction (by banishment
1 Comp. vi. 40, 44, 45, 54, 58, xiv. 3, xvil. 24; 1 John ill. 14, iv. 9.
2 Luther rightly praised ‘“‘the majesty, simplicity, clearness, expressiveness, truth, charm” of this discourse. He“ exceedingly and beyond measure loved "’ this text.
® This declaration is the rock upon which the absolute predestination doctrine goes to pieces, and the supposed (by Baur and Hilgenfeld) metaphysical dualism of the anthropology of St. John. Calovius well unfolds our text thus: (1) salutis principium (nyam.) 3 (2) dilectionis objectum (the xécpos, not the electi) ; (8) donum amplissimum (His
only-begotten Son); (4) pactum gratiostssi- mum (faith, not works) ; (5) Jinem misstonis Christi saluberrimum.
4 Welzsaicker In the Zeilechr. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 176, erroneously finds wanting in John an intimation on the part of Christ that He is the Logos who came toluntarily to the world. He is, however, the Logos sent of God, who undertook this mission in the feeling of obedience. Thus the matter is presented throughout the N. T., and the thought that Christ came avro@eAjs is quite foreign thereto.
CHAP III., 17, 18. 133 to hell in the Messianic judgment) appear as an act accomplished ; while the possession of the Messianic life is described as now already existing (commencing with regeneration), and as abiding forever. Comp. on ver. 15.
Ver. 17. Confirmation of ver. 16, in which azéore:Aev answers to the éduxev, xpivy to the dréAyra:, and ow6y to the éyy Cw aiduov of ver. 16. Consider- ing this exact correspondence, it is arbitrary with modern critics (also Liicke, B. Crusius) to understand the second rév xéouov differently from the first, and from the r. xéoyov of ver. 16, as denoting in the narrow Jewish sense the Gentile world, for whose judgment, 7.e. condemnation, the Messiah, according to the Jewish doctrine, was to come.’ Throughout the whole context it is to be uniformly understood of the world of mankind as a whole. Of it Jesus says, that He was not sent to judge it,—a judgment which, as all have sinned, must have been a judgment of condemnation,—but to pro- cure for it by His work of redemption the Messianic salvation. ‘‘ Deus saepe ultor describitur in veteri pagina ; itaque conscii peccatorum merito expec- tare poterant, fillum venire ad poenas patris nomine exigendas,” Grotius. It is to be remembered that He speaks of His coming in the state of humili- ation, in which He was not to accomplish judgment, but was to be the medium of obtaining the odfeo8a: through His work and His death. Judg- ment upon the finally unbelieving was reserved to Him upon His Second Advent (comp. v. 22, 27), but the «piua which was to accompany His works upon earth is different from this (see on ix. 89). — The thrice-repeated meee has in it a tone of solemnity. Comp. i. 10, xv. 19.
Ver. 18. More exact explanation of the negative part of ver.17. Mankind are either believing, and are thus delivered from condemnation (comp. v. 24), because if the Messiah had come to judge the world, He would only have had to condemn sin ; but sin is forgiven to the believer, and he already has everlasting (w7 ;—or they are unbelieving, so that condemnation has already been passed upon them in idea (as an internal fact),* because they reject the Only-begotten of God, and there is no need of a special act of judgment to be passed on them on the part of the Messiah ; their own un- belief has already passed upon them the sentence of condemnation. ‘‘ He who does not believe, already has hell on his neck,” Luther ; he is airoxa- rdxpitoc, Tit. ili, 11. Ver. 18 does not speak of the last judgment which shall be the solemn and ultimate completion of this temporal judgment, * but
1 See Bertholdt, Christol. pp. 208, 228.
9 Hence it !s clear that the signification of xpiveey as meaning condemnatory judgment is correct, and not the explanation of Weiss, Lehrbegrif, p. 184, according to whom the “ judgment” here means In gen- eral only a decision either for life or death. In that case, not ov xpiverar, but 78 xedepiras, must apply also to the deilever. But this very distinction, the ov «pivera: used of the believer and the #éy xdepira: of the unbe- Ilever, places the explanation of a condemna- tory xplvav beyond doubt. This is also against Godet, who with reference to the
believer hits upon the expedient of suppos- ing that the Lord here anticipates the judg- ment (viz. the *‘constater l'état moral’’). But according to the words of Jesus, this suggestion would apply rather to the case of the unbeliever.
§ This ¢emporal judgment of the world is the word's history, the conclusion of which is the last Judgment (v. 27), which, however, must not (as Schlelermacher, Z. J. 855) be dissipated by means of this text Into a merely natural issue of the mission of Jesus. See on v. 2%. See also Groos in the Stud, u. Krit. 1868, p. 251.
134 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
it does not call it in question, in opposition to the Jewish Messianic belief (Hilgenfeld). See on v. 28-80, xii. 81. Well says Euthymius Zigabenus : } amoria Katéxpive xpd TH¢ Kataxpioews. Comp. ver. 86.—reriorevxer] has ' become a believer (and remains so) ; the subjective negation in the causal clause (contrary to the older classical usage), as often in Lucian, etc., denoting the relation as one presupposed in the view of the speaker.’ Otherwise in 1 John v. 10.—rov povoy. viovt tr. Oe0%] very impressively throwing light upon the #67 xéxpira:, because bringing clearly into view the greatness of the guilt.
Ver. 19. The #7 xéxpiracis now more minutely set forth, and this in its moral character, as rejection of the light, 7.¢. of God’s saving truth,— the possessor and bringer in of which was Christ, who had come into the world,—and as love of darkness. ‘‘ But herein consists the condemnation (as an inner moral fact which, according to ver. 18, had already occurred), that,” etc. 7 xpiowe is the judgment in question, to be understood here also, agreeably to the whole connection, of condemnatory judgment. But in airy
. . dre (comp. 1 John v. 11) we have not the reason (Chrysostom and his followers), but the characteristic nature of the judgment stated. —éri 1rd ga¢, etc., cad gyaénayoar] The first clause is not expressed in the depend- ent form (dre dre 7d gac, etc., or with Gen. abs.), but as an independent statement, in order to give emphatic prominence to the contrast setting forth the guilt.?—7yan70av] after it had come. Jesus could now thus speak already from experience regarding His relations to mankind as a whole ; the Aor. docs not presuppose the consciousness of a later time. See ii. 28, 24. ‘Hyd. is put first with tragic emphasis, which object is also served by the simple xai (not and yet). The expression itself : they loved the darkness rather (potius, not magis, comp. xii. 48 ; 2 Tim. iil. 4) than the light,—padrov be- longing not to the verb, but to the noun, and 4 comparing the two concep- tions,*—is a mournful meiosis ; for they did not love the light at all, but hated it, ver. 20. The ground of this hatred, however, does not lie (comp. ver. 6, i. 12) in a metaphysical opposition of principles,‘ but in the light- shunning demoralization into which men had sunk through their own free act (for they might also have done the aajfeca, ver. 21). The source of unbe- lief is immorality. — 4» yap avrav, «.t.a.] The reason why ‘‘ they loved the darkness rather,” etc. (see on i. 5), was their immoral manner of life, in consequence of which they must shun the light, nay, even hate it (ver. 20).
Observe the growing emphasis from atrév onwards to rovnpd, for the works which they (in opposition to the individual lovers of the light) did were evil ; which srovnpé does not in popular usage denote a higher.degree of evil than gaia, ver. 20 (Bengel), but answers to this as evil does to bad (worthless).°
Ver. 20. [4p] The previous ydp laid the historical basis for the state- ment 7ydarncav of avOpwro, x.t.A. : this second ydp is related to the same state-
1See Herm. ad Viger. p. 806; Winer, p. Partik. p. 136.
442 [E. T. p. 474). 4 Baur, Hilgenfeld, Colanf. 2See Kihner, I. 416; Winer, p. 585 [E. T. & Fritzsche ad Hom. p. 297. Comp. v. 29; p. 630). Rom. ix. 11; 2 Cor. v. 10; Jas. iff. 16; ¢davaAa
3 Ellendt, Lex. Soph. Il. p. 51; Baéuml. épyain Plat. Crat. p. 429 A; 3 Macc. ili. 22.
CHAP. I1I., 21. 135
ment as explanatory (see on Matt. vi. 32, xviii. 11 ; Rom. viii. 6), introduc- ing a general elucidation, and this from the psychological and perfectly natural relation of evil-doers to the light which was manifested (in Christ) (rd pac not different from ver. 19), which they hated as the principle op- posed to them, and to which they would not come, because they wished to avoid the Zcyyoc which they must experience from it. This ‘‘coming to the light” is the believing adherence to Jesus, which, however, would have to be brought about through the perdvora.’—iva py Ae y yO4] Inten- tion. This fAeyyor is the chastening censure, which they shunned both on account of their being put to shame before the world, and the threatening feeling of repentance and sorrow in their self-consciousness.* This dread is both moral pride and moral effeminacy. Luthardt * refers the chastening only to the psychological fact of an inner condemnation. But against this is the parallel gavejw%, ver. 21. —- Observe, on the one hand, the parti- ciple present (for the rpdéfac might turn to the light), and, on the other, the distinction between 7 pédaawy (he who strires after, agit, pursues as the goal of his activity) and zo:v, ver. 21 (he who does, facit, realizes as a fact).* Ver. 21. '0 d2 rocdv ray GA4G0.] The opposite of 6 gavAa zpdéoow, ver. 20, and therefore aA#fe is to be taken in the ethical sense : he who does what is morally true, so that his conduct is in harmony with the divine moral standard.* Moral truth was rerealed before Christ, not only in the law (Weias), but also (see Matt. v. 17) in the prophets, and, outside Script- ure, in creation and in conscience (Rom. i. 19 ff., il. 14 ff.).*— iva gavep. avrowv ra épya] gavep. is the opposite of the pa) éAeyy6H of Ver. 20. While the wicked wishes his actions not to be reproved, but to remain in dark- ness, the good man wishes fis actions to come to the light and to be made man- fest, and he therefore comes mpo¢ rd ga¢ ; for Christ, as the personally man- ifested Light, the bearer of divine truth, cannot fail through His working to make these good deeds be recognized in their true nature. The mani- festation of true morality through Christ must necessarily throw the true light on the moral conduct of those who come to Him, and make it manifest and show it forth in its true nature and form. The purpose iva ¢gavep., x.t.A., does not spring from self-seeking, but arises from the need, originat- ing in a moral necessity, of moral satisfaction in itself, and of the triumph of good over the world. —aitrowt] thus put before, for emphasis, in opposition to the evil-doer, who has altogether a different purpose in his acts. —érc év Oe¢, x.1.A,] the reason of the before-named purpose. How should he not cherish this purpose, and desire the gavépworc, seeing that his works are wrought in God/ Thus, so far from shunning, he has really to atrive after the manifestation of them, as the revelation of all that is divine.
1In opposition to Colani, who finds a = pew 4 Set xpdrrey, wovovwrae 88 ravarria, alse circle in the reasoning of vv. 19,20. Seo iv. 5. 4, al. ; Rom. 1. 81, if 38, vil. 15, xflf. 4. Godet. See generally, Franke, ad Dem. Ol. ill. 15.
2 Comp. Luke fil. 19; John vill. 8; Eph. * Comp. Isa. xxvi. 10; Ps. cxix. 30; Noh. v. 11,18. “*Gravixs malae conscicntiae lux ix. 88; Job iv. 6, xiil. 6; 1 John 1.6; 1 Cor.
est,’ Senec. ep. 122. 14. v. 8; Eph. v. 9; Phil. iv. 8. 2 Comp. B. Crusius. * Comp. Groos, p. 255.
Comp. Xen. Mem. ill. 0. 4: émocraudvove
136 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
We must take this év @e¢, like the frequent év Xporg, as denoting the element in which the épydjecGac moves ; not without and apart from God, but living and moving in Him, has the good man acted. Thus the xaré rd GéAnua rob Gcov, 1 John v. 14, and the xara fedv, Rom. viii. 27, 2 Cor. vii. 10, also the cic Gedy, Luke xii. 21, constitute the necessary character of the iv 6c, but are not the év ded itself. —épya cipyacuéval] as in vi. 28, ix. 4, Matt. xxvi. 10, e. al., and often in the classics.—Observe from ver. 21, that Christ, who here expresses Himself generally, yet conformably to ex- perience, encountered, at the time of His entering upon His ministry of en- lightenment, not only the ¢aiAa rpdocovres, but also those who practised what is right, and who were living in God. To this class belonged a Nathanael, and the disciples generally, certainly also many who repented at the preach- ing of the Baptist, together with other O. T. saints, and perhaps Nicode- mus himself. They were drawn by the Father to come to Christ, and were given to Him (vi. 37) ; they were of God, and had ears to hear His word (viii. 47, comp. xviii. 37) ; they were desirous to do the Father's will (vii. 17) ; they were His (xvii. 6). But according to ver. 19, these were excep- tions amid the multitude of the opposite kind, and even their picty needed purifying and transfiguring into true righteousness, which could be attained only by fellowship with Christ ; and hence even in their case the way of Christian penitence, by the manifestation of their works wrought in God, brought about by the light of Christ, was not excluded, but was exhibited, and its commencement brought about, because, in view of this complete and highest light, the sincere Old Testament saint must first rightly feel the need of that repentance, and of the lack of moral satisfaction. Conse- quently the statement of vv. 3, 5 still holds true.
Vv. 22, 23. After this interview with Nicodemus’ (wera ravra) Jesus be- took Himself with His disciples from the capital into the country of Judea, in a north-easterly direction towards Jordan. "Iovdaiay is* an adjective. —iBdarelev] during His stay there (Jmperf.), not Himself, however, but through His disciples, iv. 2. Baur, indeed, thinks that the writer had a definite purpose in view in this mode of expression ; that he wished to bring Jesus and the Baptist as closely as possible together in the same work. But if so, the remark of iv. 2 would be strangely illogical ; sce also . Schweizer, p. 194. The baptism of Jesus was certainly indeed a continu- ation of that of John, and did not yet possess the new characteristic of Matt. xxvili. 19 (for see vii. 39); but that it already included that higher element, which John’s baptism did not possess (comp. Acts xix. 2, 3),— namely, the operation of the Spirit, of which Christ was the bearer (ver. 34), for the accomplishment of the birth from above,—is manifest from ver. 5, a statement which cannot be a prolepsis or a prophecy merely. — 7 v 62 cai 'lodvy., x.7.4.] and John was also employed in baptizing, namely in Aenon, etc. This name, usually taken as the intensive or adjectival form
1To interpose a longer interval, ¢.7. a 2 As in Mark 1.5, Acts xvi. 1, 1 Macc. il return to and sojourn in Galilee, is quite 23, xiv. 38, 87, 2 Macc. v. 23, 8 Esr. v. 47, An- gratuitous. Not before iv. 8does Jesusre- = thod. vil. 645. turn to Galilee.
CHAP. III., 24-26. 137 of {'3, is rather = [1 [‘Y, dove spring ; the place itself is otherwise unknown, as is also the situation of Salim, though placed by Eusebius and Jerome eight Roman miles south of Scythopolis. This is all the more uncertain, because Aenon, according to the mention of it here (comp. iv. 8), must have been in Judaea, and not in Samaria, and could not therefore have been the Ainun discovered by Robinson.’ Ewald thinks of the two places Py pnw in Josh. xv. 82. So also Wicseler, p. 247. In no case could the towns have been situated on the Jordan, which would have been incon- sistent with the dr: idara woAAd. Comp. Hengstenberg, who likewise refers to Josh. xv. 82, while Pressel * prefers the statement of Eusebius and Jerome. For the rest, the narrative of the temptation, which Hengstenberg' places in the period after ver. 22, has nothing to do with the locality of our passage : it is wholly foreign to it.— The question why John, after the public ap- pearance of Jesus, still continued to baptize, without baptizing in His name, is answered simply by the fact,* that Jesus had not yet come forth as John ex- pected that the Messiah would, and that consequently the Baptist could not suppose that his work in preparing the way for the Messiah’s king- dom by his baptism of repentance was already accomplished, but had to await for this the divine decision. This perseverance of John, therefore, in his baptismal vocation, was by no means in conflict with his divinely re- ceived certainty of the Messiahship of Jesus,‘ and the parallel ministry of the two must not be looked upon as improbable, as ‘‘ in itself a splitting in sunder of the Messianic movement” (Keim).
Ver. 24 corrects, in passing, the synoptic tradition ® [Sce Note XIX. p. 145], which John knew as being widely spread, and the discrepancy in which is not to be explained either by placing the imprisonment between John iv. 2 and 3, and taking the journey of Jesus to Galilee there related as the same with that mentioned in Matt. iv. 12,° or by making the journey " of Matt. iv. 12 to coincide with that named in John vi. 1 (Wieseler). See on Matt. iv. 12. Apart from that purpose of correction, which (in spite of the subtleties of Ebrard) is specially apparent if we compare Matt. iv. 17, the remark, which was quite intelligible of itself, would be, to say the least, superfluous,—unnecessary even to gain space for bringing Jesus and the Baptist again alongside each other (Keim), even if we were to venture the suggestion, of which the text says nothing, that Jesus felt Himself obliged, as the time of the Baptist was not yet expired, to bring the kingdom of God near, in keeping with the form which the Baptist had adopted (Lu- thardt, p. 79).
Vv. 25, 26. Oty] In consequence of the narration of ver. 23 (ver. 24 being a parenthetical remark). Nothing is known more particularly as to this question ({4r70:¢) which arose among John's disciples.” Its theme was
1 Later Explorations. p. 400. (Hengstenberg). But in tho connection of
2 In Herzog's Encyki. XIII. 826. Matthew, there is no place for it before fy. * Against Bretschneider, Weisse, Baur. 12,
4 As Weizsicker, p. 820, thinks.
* It is supposed, indeed, that John simply wishes to intimate that what he records, Vv. 22-96, must be placed before Matt. iv. 12
* Lacke, Tholuck, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and many others.
7 é¢yévero tx trav pod. 'lwdvy., comp. Lu- clan. Alex. 40; Herod. y. 21.
138 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
“‘ purification” (repi xaBapiopov), and, according to the context, did not refer in general to the usual prescriptions and customs (Weizsicker), but more immediately to the baptism of John and Jesus, and was discussed with u Jew, who probably regarded the baptism of Jesus as higher and more effica- cious in its power of purifying (from the guilt of sin) than that of John. Comp. ver. 26. Possibly the prophetic idea of a purifying consecration preceding the Messiah’s kingdom’ was spoken of. Who the ’Iovdaioc was (Hofmann, Tholuck, a Pharisee) cannot be determined. A Jewish Christian’ would have been more exactly designated. According to Luthardt, it was an unfriendly Jew who declared that the baptism of John might now be dispensed with, and wished thus to beguile the Baptist to become un- faithful to his calling, that he might the better work against Jesus. An artificial combination unsupported by the text, as also by @ ci pepaprt- pnkac, ver. 26. For that this indicated a perplerity on the part of the disci- ples as to the calling of their master finds no support in the words of the Baptist which follow. There is rather expressed in that @ od peyapr., and in all that John’s disciples advance,—who therefore do not name Jesus, but only indicate Him,—a jealous irritation on the point, that a man, who himself had just gone forth from the fellowship of the Baptist, and who owed his standing to the Baptist’s testimony in his favour (#), should have opened such a competition with him as to throw him into the shade. Through the statements of the Jew, with whom they had been discussing the question of purification, there was awakened in them a certain feeling of envy that Jesus, the former pupil (as they thought), the receiver of a testimony at the hand of their master, should now presume to put himself forward as his superior rival. They saw in this a usurpation, which they could not recon- cile with the previous relation of Jesus to the Baptist. But he, on the con- trary, vindicates Jesus, ver. 27, and in ver. 28 brings into view His far higher position, which excluded all jealousy. —é¢ qv werd cod, x.7.A.] i, 28, 29. —ide and ovrog have the emphasis of something unexpected ; namely, that this very person should (according to their view) interfere with their master in his vocation, and with such results !—xai révrec¢, an exaggeration of excited feeling. Comp. xii. 19. Not: ‘all who submit to be baptized by Him” (Hengstenberg).
Vv. 27, 28. The Baptist at first answers them, putting his reply in the form of a general truth, that the greater activity and success of Jesus was given Him of God, and next reminds them of the subordinate position which he held in relation to Jesus. The reference of the general affirmation to the Baptist himself [Bee Note XX. p. 145], who would mean by it: ‘‘non possum mihi arrogare et rapere, quae Deus non dedit,” Wetstein,® is not in keeping with the context ; for the petty, jealous complaint of the disciples, ver. 26, has merely prepared the way for a vindication of Jesus on the part of the Baptist ; and as in what follows with this intent, the comparison
2 Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Zech. xiii. 1; Hofm. 380 Cyril, Rupertus, Beza, Clarius, Jan- Weissag. u. rf. Tl. 87. sen, Bengel, Liicke, Maler, Hengstenberg, * Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, §Godet, and others. Ewald.
CHAP. IIL, 29, 30. 139 between the two, as they, in vv. 27, 28, according to our interpretation, stand face to face with each other, is thoroughly carried out ; see vv. 29, , 80, 81; so that Jesus is always jirst characterized, and then John. We must not therefore take ver. 27 as referring to both.'—owv dtvarai] rela- tively, ¢.¢. according to divine ordination. — 4 v4 pw 7 o¢] quite general, aman, any one ; not as Hengstenberg, referring it to John, renders it: ‘because Lam merely a man.” —AapuBavecv] not arrogate to himself (éavrg Aauf., Heb. v. 4), but simply to receive, answering to be giten.—airol tueic] though you are so irritated about him. — zaprvp.] Indic : ye are yourselves my witnesses, see i. 19-28, the substance of which John sums up in the words ovx eipzi, etc. They had themselves appealed (ver. 26) to his paptupia concerning Jesus, but he sepirpéxe: tabrqy xa? aitov, Euthymius Zigabenus. —aAA’ brc] Transition to dependent speech.*—éxeivov] re- ferring not to the appellative 6 Xprordc, but to Jesus as the Xpioréc.
Vv. 29, 30. Symbolical setting forth of his subordinate relation to Jesus. The bridegroom is Jesus, John is the friend who waits upon Him ; the bride is the community of the Messianic kingdom ; the wedding is the setting up of that kingdom, now nigh at hand, as represented in the picture which the Baptist draws (comp. Matt. ix. 15, xxv. 1 ff.). The O. T. figure of God’s union with His people as a marriage® forms the basis of this comparison. It may reasonably be doubted whether Solomon’s Song (especially v. 1, 6) was in the Baptist’s thoughts when employing this illustration ;* for no quotation is made from that book in the N. T., and therefore any allegori- cal interpretation of this Song with Messianic references cannot with cer- tainty be presupposed inthe N. T. Comp. Luke xiii. 31, note.—Hete whom the bride (the bride-elect of the marriage feast) belongs is the bridegroom,— therefore it is not I.— The friend of the bridegroom (kar’ éfoyfv : the appoint- ed friend, who serves at the wedding) is the rapaviudgioc, who is also, Sanhedr. f. 27, 2, called AM, but usually [AvIW.°— 6 éornKxde x. dxobuv avrod) who standeth (tanquam apparitor, Bengel) and attentively heareth him, i.e. in order to do his bidding.* Contrary to the construction (xai), and far-fetch- ed, is the rendering of B. Crusius : who is waiting for him (éor7«.), and when he hears him, viz. the voice of the approaching bridegroom. (?)” Tholuck also, following Chrysostom, adds to the text in rendering : ‘‘ who standeth,
1 Kuinoel, Tholuck, Lange, Briickner, (jest, and now so near to the Baptist, that
Ewald, Luthardt, who, in keeping with his view of ver. 26, takes ver. 27 to mean: “The work of both of us is divinely ordained, and therefore I, for my own part, am justified in continuing my work after the appearance of Jesus, so long at least as tho self-witness of Jesus is not believed.”
3 Winer, p. 589 [E. T. p. 577 f.].
* Isa. liv. 5; Hos. il. 18,19; Eph. v. 82: Rev. xix. 7, xxl. 2, 9.
* Bengel, Luthardt, Hengstenberg.
§ Lightfoot, p. 980; Buxtorf, Lex. Talm. s. v. ; Schoettgen, p. 835 ff.; and see on 2 Cor. xi. 2.
*The working of Jesus was so mani-
this feature of the comparison is fully ex- plained by it. Neither in this place nor elsewhere is there any answer to the ques- tion, whether and what personal inter- course the Baptist had already had with Him (Hengstenberg thinks “ through inter- mediate persons, especially through the Apostle John "’). In particular, the assump- tion that the interview with Nicodemus be- came known to the Baptist (through the disciples of Jesus who had previously been the Baptist’s disciples) is quite unnecessary for the understanding of the words which here follow (against Godet).
140 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
having jinished his work as forerunner.” The Baptist had still to continue, and still continued working. The éoryx. must be regarded as taking place at the marriage feast, not previously during the bridal procession (Ewald, who refers to the frequent stoppages which took place in it); but it does not mean standing at the door of the wedding chamber, nor ax. avrov the audi- ble pleasure of the neuly married pair. An indelicate sensualizing (still found in Kuinoel) unwarranted by the text.— yap@ yaipe.] he rejoiceth greatly.’ Comp. 1 Thess. iii. 9, where, in like manner, d:¢4 stands instead of the classical évi, év, or the dative. —dia rv dwvAv rot vung.) Not to be understood of his loud carcsses and protestations of love,” nor of the command of the bridegroom to take away the cloth with the signum virginitatis (thus debasing the beautiful figure), nor of the conversing of the bridegroom with the bride‘—all unwarranted by the gencral guv7v, which refers merely to the conrersation and joy of the bridegroom amid the marriage mirth.® The explanation, also, which makes it the voice of the approaching bridegroom who calls the bride to fetch her home, would need to be more precisely indicated,° and is not in keeping with 6 éornxwe; * the ministry of Jesus, moreover, was already more than a call to that bring- ing home, which might have symbolized His jirst appearing. Comp. Matt. ix. 15. — Note, finally, how the ardent expression of joy stands contrasted with the envious feelings of John’s disciples. —ciry otv } yapa, x.r.A.] ovv infers the avrg from the application of the figure : this joy, therefore, which is mine, viz. at the bridegroom’s voice. —werwAfgpwrar] has been JSulfilled completely, so that nothing more is wanting to it. The Baptist, with prophetic anticipation, sees, in the successful activity of Jesus, and in the flocking of the people to Him, the already rising dawn of the Messiah’s kingdom (the beginning of the marriage). On rexdjp. comp. xv. 11, xvi. 24, xvii. 13; 1 John i. 4. —deci] asinver. 14. This noble self-renunciation was based upon his clear assurance of the divine purpose. —atfdvecv] in influence and efficiency. —éAarrowva@ac] the counterpart of increase : to become less.°
Vv. 81, 82, down to ver. 35, is not the comment of the evangelist.’ Ver. 82, comp. with vv. 29, 30, seems to sanction the notion that it is ; but as no intimation to this effect is given in the text, and as the thread of discourse proceeds uninterruptedly, and nothing in the subject-matter is opposed to it, we may regard it as the continued discourse of the Baptist, though elabo- rated in its whole style and colouring by John,—not, however, to such an
1 See Lobeck, Paralip. p. 524; Winer, p. 424 [E. T. p. 466).
4 Grotius, Olshausen, Lange.
* Michaelis, Paulus.
4 Tholuck and older expositors.
§ Comp. Jer. vii. 34, xvi. 9, xxv. 10.
® Against B. Crusius and Luthardt.
7 For the raparvudios does not stand there. wailing for the bridegroom, but accom- panies him on his way to the bride’s house. The standing and walting pertain to the
female attendants on the bride, Matt. xxv. 1 ff.
8 Jer. xxx. 16; Symm.; 2 Sam. iff. 1; Ecclus. xxxv. 28, al. ; Thuc. fi. 62.4; Theo- phr. H. pl. vi. 8.5; Josephus, Andéé. vil. 1. 5, Comp. Plat. Leg. ill. p. 681 A: avfavondvwy éx Twv eAarrévey.
9So Wetstein, Bengel, Kuinoel, Paulus, Olshausen, Tholuck, Klee, Maier, Baum- lein.
CHAP. III., 31, 32. 141
extent that the evangelist’s record passes almost entirely into a comment of his own.’ We perceive how the Baptist, as with the mind of Jesus Himself, unveils before his disciples, in whose narrower circle he speaks, with the growing inspiration of the last prophet, the full majesty of Jesus ; and with this, as his swanlike song, completes his testimony before he vanishes from the history.?, Even the subsequent momentary perplexity (Matt. xi.) is psycho- logically not irreconcilable with this (see on i. 29), simply because John was éx t7¢ yc. But the Baptist, notwithstanding his witness concerning Jesus, has not gone over to Him, because the calling of forerunner had been once divinely committed to him, and he felt that he must continue to fulfil it so long as the Messianic kingdom was not yet established. These remarks tell, at the same time, against the proof drawn from this passage that the entire scene is unhistorical (Strauss, Weisse, Reuss, Scholten, following Bretschnei- der).— 6 dvubev ipxdp.] He who cometh from abore, i.e. Christ (comp. ver. 18, viii. 28), whose coming, i.e. whose coming forth from the divine glory in human form as Messiah, is here regarded as still in the process of manifestation (cf. viii. 14), and hence as a present phenomenon, and not ended until it has been consummated in the establishment of the kingdom. —xdvtwv] Mase. John means the category as a whole to which Jesus be- longed—all interpreters of God, as is clear from what follows, vv. 81, 32. — 6 &v éx THO yHo) i.¢. the Baptist, who, as an ordinary man, springs from earth, not heaven.—éx r#¢ y#o éorc] as predicate denotes the nature conditioned by such an origin. He is of no other kind or nature than that of one who springs from earth ; though withal his divine mission (i. 6), in common with all prophets, and specially his divinely conferred baptismal vocation (Matt. xxi. 25, 26), remain intact.—xai ix r. y#¢o Aadei] and he speaketh from the earth. His speech has not heaven as its point of departure, like that of the Messiah, who declares what He has seen in heaven (see ver. 82); but it proceeds from the earth, so that he utters what has come to his knowledge upon earth, and therefore under the limitation of earthly con- ditions,—a limitation, however, which as little excluded the reception of a revelation (i. 88 ; Luke iii. 2), as it did in the case of the saints of the O.T., who likewise were of earthly origin, nature, and speech, and afterwards «6.9. in that of the Apostle Paul.*? The contents of the discourse need not there- fore relate merely to ra ériyeca (ill. 12), as Weisse thinks, but may also have reference to érovpdva, the knowledge and promulgation of which, however, do not get beyond the éx puépove (1 Cor. xiii. 9 ff.). The expression éx ri¢ yi¢ Aca. must not be confounded with éx row xécpov AaAriv, 1 John iv. 5. —é é« row ovp. épx., x.r.A.] A solemn repetition of the first clause, linking on what follows, viz. the antithesis still to be brought out, of the é« ri¢ yi¢ Aarei. —8éSpanxe, xal 7#xovce] i.e. during His pre-existence with God,
1 Liicke, de Wette, Comp. also Ewald. tire character of this self-assertion. Euthy- * It is self-evident, that all that issaid in mius Zigabenus: rpds ovyxprocy rev Ureppuay ver. 31f. was intended to incite the dis- Adyey rod Xpierov. Hofmann, Schriftdew. II. ciples of John to believe in Jesus, and to 1, p. 14, misapprehends this, supposing that frighten them from unbelief. this ver. 31 has no reference to the Baptist. ® The Fathers rightly perceived the rea-
142 THE GOSPEL OF JOUN.
i. 15, 18, iii. 11. From it He possesses immediate knowledge of divine truth,! whose tcitness (uaprupei) He accordingly is. Note the interchange of tenses.* —rowvro] this and nothing else. — «x. 7. papr. abrow obdeic AapB.] tragically related to what precedes, and introduced all the more strikingly by the bare cai. Comp. i. 10, iii. 11. The expression otdclic Aap. is the hyperbole of deep sorrow on account of the small number of those—small in comparison of the vast multitude of unbelievers—who receive His witness, and whose fellowship thus constitutes the bride of the marriage. John: himself limits the ovdeig by the following 6 AaBay, x.r.A. Comp. i. 10, 11, 12. The concourse of hearers who came to Jesus (ver. 26), and the Baptist’s joy on account of his progress (vv. 29, 30), could not dim his deep insight into the world’s unbelief. Hence his joy (ver. 29) and grief (ver. 32), both forming a noble contrast to the jealousy of his disciples (ver. 26).
Ver. 83. Avrowv] placed before for emphasis : His witness, correlative with the following 6 6eéc. —éogpdyctoer] has, by this receiving, sealed, i.e. confirmed, ratified as an act. For this figurative usage, see vi. 27 ; Rom. iv. 11, xv. 28 ; 1 Cor. ix. 2; 2Cor.i. 22; Eph. i.18.2?—dére é @edc¢ aAné. éorcv]| In the reception of the witness of Jesus there is manifested on man’s part the practical ratification of the truthfulness of God, the human “‘ yea cerily” in answer to the proposition ‘‘ God is true,” because Jesus (sce ver. 84) is the ambassador and interpreter of God. The non-reception of that witness, whereby it is declared untrue, would be a rejection of the divine truthfulness, the ‘‘nay” to that proposition. Comp. 1 John v. 10. Refer- ence to O. T. promises (Luthardt) is remote from the context.
Ver. 34. The first yép serves to state the reason for the Zo¢pdyicev, Sri, etc. ; the second, for the ré Afuara tr. Oeov Aadei, so far, that is, as it would be doubtful, if God gave the Spirit é« uérpov, whether what God's ambassador spoke was a divine revelation or not ; it might in this case be wholly or in part the word of man.—év yap aréoar. 6 @eé¢] not a general statement merely, appropriate to every prophet, but, following ver. 31, to be taken as more precisely defining a hearenly (avwbev, éx Tov ovpavov) mission, and referring strictly to Jesus. This the context demands. But the following ot yap éx pétpov, x.t.A., must be taken as a general statement, because there is no airy. Commentators would quite arbitrarily supply ev7¢,* so as to render it, not by measure or limitation, but without measure and in complete fulness, God gives the Holy Spirit to Christ. This supplement, unsuitable in itself, should have been excluded by the present didworv, because we must regard Christ as possessing the Spirit long before. The meaning of this general state- ment is rather : ‘‘ He does not give the Spirit according to measure” (as if it consequently were out of His power, or He were unwilling to give the Spirit beyond a certain quantitative degree, determined by a definite measure) ;
1 Decisive against Beyschlag, p. 96, who understands the words only of a prophetic sight and hearing through the Spirit, is the antithesis with the Baptist (who was yet himself a prophet), running through the whole context, as also the éravpw savroy éoriy, which ranks Jesus above the prophets.
Comp. also Heb. xif. 25.
2 Kibner, I. p. 76.
3 Jacobs, ad Anthol. 1x. pp. 22, 144, 172.
4The subterfuge of Hengstenberg is no better: ““we must supply, in the case before us.” See also Lange.
CHAP. III., 35, 36. 143 He proceeds herein independently of any wér pov, confined and limited by no restricting standard. The way in which this is to be applied to Jesus thus becomes plain, viz. that God must have endowed Him’ when He sent Him from heaven (ver. 81), in keeping with His nature and destination, with the richest spiritual gifts, namely, with the entire fulness of the Spirit (xav rd ax2npwua, Col. i. 19), more richly, therefore, than prophets or any others ;— which He could not have done had He been fettered by a measure in the giving of the Spirit. *— éx wérpod] é used of the rule.* Finally, the ot yap éx pérpov must not be regarded as presenting a different view from ver. 32 (comp. Weiss, p. 269) ; for the Spirit was in Christ the principle where- by He communicated (the jazciv) to men that which He had beheld with God. See on vi. 68, 64; Actsi. 2.
Ver. 35. A further description of the dignity of Christ. The Father hath given unlimited power to His beloved Son. —a yax.] the ground of the dédux. —révra] neut. and without limitation. Falsely Kuinoel : omnes doctrinae suae partes (comp. Grotius: ‘‘omnia mysteria regni”)! Nothing is ex- empted from the Messianic éfovsia by virtue of which Christ is xegad? trip mdvra, Eph. i. 22, and révrov xtpioc, Acts x. 86; comp. xiii. 8, xvii. 2; Matt. xi. 27 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27; Heb. 11.8. —év rg yecp? airod) Result of the direction of the gift, a well-known constructio praegnans.‘
Ver. 86. All the more weighty in their results are faith inthe Son and un- belief ! Genuine prophetic conclusion to life or death. —é yee [. ai.] ‘he has eternal life,” i.¢. the Messianic (wf, which, in its temporal development, is already a present possession of the believer ; see on vv. 15, 16. At the Second Advent it will be completed and glorified ; and therefore the anti- thesis oun bperae Cw», referring to the future aidv, is justified, because it presupposes the oix Eye: (f. —amwecOdv] not: ‘*he who does not believe on the Son” (Luther and the Fathers), but : ‘‘he who is disobedient to the Son ;” yet, according tothe context, so far as the Son requires faith.’ Con- trasted with this is the ixaxo? riorews, Rom. i. 5.-— 4 opy 4] not punishment, but wrath, as the necessary emotion of holiness ; see on Rom. i. 18 ; Eph. li. 8; Matt. iii. 7.—yévec] because unreconciled inasmuch as the faith which appropriates reconciliation (iii. 16), is rejected, comp. ix. 41. This pévec (the term is not épxeraz) implies that the person who rejects faith is still
1 ov ydp pérpa Adyao [or rather rvevpzaros] odpee Adyor.—Nonnus,
9 Hitzig, in Hilgenfeld’s Zelféechr. 1880, p. 182 ff., taking the first half of the verse asa general statement, applicable to every prophet, would read the relative ov instead of ov, * according to the measure, that is, in which He gives the Spirtt."" Considering the yap, this rendering is impossible.—Ewald and Brickner come nearest to our inter- pretation. B. Crusius and Ebrard (on Ols- hausen) erroneously make év awéer. «.1.A. the subject of Si8mcw (6 665 is spurious, see the critical notes; but this yields a thought nelther true in itself, nor in keep-
ing with the context. Godot puts an anti- thetical but purely imported emphasis upon &iseory: to other messengers of God the Spirit is not given, but only lent by a * visite momentanée ;” but when God gives the Spirit, He does so without measure, and this took place on the first occasion at the baptism of Jesus. This is exegetical poet- izing.
* See Bernhardy, p. 280; comp. on 1 Cor. xif. 27.
4 Winer, p. 38 [E. T. p. 414]
§ Comp. Acts xiv. 2, xix. 9; Rom. xi. ®; Fritzsche, ad Hom. I. p. 17.
144 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
in a moral condition which is subject to the divine wrath,—a state of sub- jection to wrath, which, instead of being removed by faith, abides upon him through his unbelief. The wrath, therefore, is not originated by the refusal to believe (Ritschl, de ira Dei, pp. 18, 19 ; Godet), but already exists, and through that refusal remains.’ Whether or not this wrath rests upon the man from his birth,? this text gives no information. See on Eph. ii. 3. — That the Baptist could already speak after this manner, is evident from chap. 1, 29.— én’ avréy] ag ini. 82, 83.
Nores By AMERICAN Eprror.
XVII. ‘* From water and spirit."". Ver. 5.
Weiss says, ‘‘ Meyer says justly that the absence of the article from ddaro¢ and mvetuaroc indicates that they are taken generically, but overlooks the fact that with this every direct reference to John’s baptism, or even to Christian baptism, is excluded . . . The two factors are simply co-ordinated, the water conceived in its essence as a purifying factor (but not from the guilt of sin, as Meyer and others, but from sin itself), the spirit as the efficient creative prin- ciple of the new life (comp, the union of the two in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27) ; and the thought is that without the doing away of the old sinful nature, and the creation of an entirely new nature from an efficient principle, the new birth does not exist.. . . It is historically inconceivable that Jesus should have spoken to Nicodemus of Christian baptism.’’
And yet in the widespread excitement which John’s baptism had recently produced and was now producing, and in the near prospect of His own about to be instituted baptism, it seems scarcely possible that Jesus should not have had them both, and Nicodemus one of them, in mind.
XVIII. Oidapev, ** We know.” Ver. 11.
‘‘To take this and the following plurals purely rhetorically as plurals of category, and refer them barely to Jesus Himself, is against all analogy in the discourses of Jesus, against the immediately following sing. (ver. 12), and finds support neither in the totally diverse plur. iv. 38, nor in the plur. of the Pau- line Epp. Of course it cannot include God or the Holy Spirit. To make it in- clude the disciples, or explain it from the general Christian consciousness, as against the Jewish consciousness, is forbidden by the language itself (espec. 4 éwpdx, papr.). Jesus rather unites himself with the messengers of God, whose word, if it come to that test, must be accepted as credible, while in the actual historical situation the one properly referred to is John the Baptist, who by his proclamation of water baptism, and of spiritual baptism through the Messiah, had already, like Christ Himself (ver. 5), pointed to the necessity of a new birth from water and spirit’’ (Weiss).
1 Augustine; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. certainly the wdve must, according to the Werk, I. p. 289. context, be an e¢ernal abiding, if the traxoy * This is also against Hengstenberg. But sicrews never occurs.
NOTES, 145
XIX. The Synoptic tradition. Ver. 24.
It is by no means certain that the Synoptic tradition needs any such correc- tion. The conversations and events here recorded (ch. ii. 1-iii, 36) are not contained at all in the Synoptists, and their natural place—the only place allowed by Matt. and Mark—is before Matt. iv. 12, and thus is in no contradic- tion with the Synoptical account. It is clear, however, that the Baptist’s im- prisonment must have followed closely upon the events of ch. iii., in all proba- bility before those of iv. 1, and that hence a tradition might have arisen some- what antedating the imprisonment ; or that John, aware how close was the im- pending imprisonment upon the conversation and events here recorded, might deem it proper to inform his readers that that event, so close at hand, had not as yet taken place. That it did occur very soon after may be inferred from this very intimation of the Evangelist, and becomes nearly certain from John iv. 1, 2, which records the return of Jesus to Galilee, and must be identical, it would seem, with that recorded, Matt. iv. 12, which follows upon Jesus’ hear- ing of the imprisonment of the Baptist. If the two journeys do not coincide, then that recorded in John must have preceded the one related by Matt., and the Lord must have gone into Galilee and returned before the imprisonment, which seems greatly to crowd events and is altogether unlikely. Every diffi- culty is obviated by placing the imprisonment between chs. iii. and iv. of our Gospel, where from the very remark of the Evangelist (ver. 24) it very prob- ably belongs. It is true that the Evangelist does not expressly mention it here, but neither doés he again mention it anywhere ; and it is as easy to assume its occurring here as at any later period. The interval between the close of ch. iii. and the opening of ch. iv. is undoubtedly not long, but it is indefinite, and the odv which opens ch. iv. is too familiar and vague a connective with John to forbid a sufficient interval for the Baptist’s imprisonment to have occurred. If, then, Meyer alleges that the returns of Jesus to Galilee in John and Matthew are identified for harmonistic reasons, we may reply that it is as reasonable, in dealing with credible historians, to assume their agreement when nothing forbids it, as to assume their disagreement when nothing requires it. It is not necessary to suppose, in John iv. 1, that John was still baptizing. The ellip- sis may be as easily supplied by had baptized as by was baptizing.
XX. ‘*A man can receive nothing,’’ etc. Ver. 27.
I think Meyer (followed by Weiss) is certainly wrong in referring the ‘‘man’’ here to Jesus. Nothing in the connection requires, or more than superficially suggests it. The disciples were complaining, in jealous irritation probably, of the altered relations between their Master and his late protégé. John does not need to defend, and does not defend Jesus. He only needs to defend himself, or rather explain his position, and show that the present state of things lay precisely in the line of the divine purposes, and that he had never anticipated or claimed a different result. ‘‘A man can receive nothing except it be given him from above’’; he cannot transcend the sphere and destiny assigned him; and you yourselves bear me witness that I never professed to be the Messiah, but only His servant and harbinger; never the Bridegroom, but only His friend and attend- ant. The thought is thus most natural, and the language introducing the reply more appropriate to what John would use of himself than of Jesus. He would
146 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
scarcely, with this exalted personage directly in mind, have naturally designated Him as an 4y9puroc, and referred to Him in His character of limitation and dependence. Of himself he would be likely to say, ‘‘ A man can receive nothing except it have been given him from above ; he cannot transcend the divine limitations. Of Jesus he would have been likely to speak in a different language, implying that a being such as He must necessarily arise to the position required by His origin and nature. He who had been originally ‘‘ before him’’ must take His place in advance of him (must ‘‘ become before him’’). The Baptist’s statement therefore may, indeed (with Thol., Lange, Ewald, Luthardt, etc.) be a general statement, but having an indirect reference to himself—a view not essentially differing from that which applies it to himself primarily and specifi- cally (as Liicke, Hengst., Godet, etc.); but it cannot be spoken with Jesus directly in mind, as the Baptist would not thus have included Him with com- monmen. He would scarcely within a few sentences have spoken of the same person as a ‘‘man” (dv@pwroc) who ‘“‘ could receive nothing that was not given him from above,” and as ‘‘He that cometh from above” and ‘is above all.” Though the sentiment was strictly as true of Jesus as of John, yet it seems eminently unnatural that regarding Jesus John should precisely here and in this manner have uttered it.
CHAP, IV. 147
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 3. rdéAcv] wanting in A. and many other Uncials and Cursives, Syr. p. Pers. p. Or. Chrys. Itis found, indeed, in B. (inthe margin) C. D. L. M. T’.8., bat was probably added to denote the refurn. — Ver. 5. ot] Elz. Tisch. 4, against C.* D. L. M. 8. Curss. Chrys., an inelegant correction. — Ver. 6. dcci] Lach. Tisch. read o¢, for which the testimonies are decisive. — Vv. 7-10. For zceiv, Tisch. foll. B.*C.* D. &.* reads zeiv, for which also wiv occurs. eiv is to be adopted on account of the preponderating testimony. — Ver. 14. The words ov ujp—dSdow att@ are wanting in C.* Curss. and some Verss. and Fathers, even Or. ; bracketed by Lach. The testimonies are too weak to warrant our striking them out, and how easily might their omission have occurred through éuovore- Aetr. !— For dupnoy Lach. and Tisch. read dipjoe:, following preponderating evidence. But the Future seems to be connected with an early omission of uy (which we still find in D.). — Ver. 15. épywpac) the Indicative épyopac or dtépxo- pas (80 Tisch.) is bad Gk., and has witnesses enough against it (A. C.D. U. V. A. ; even &.*, which has d:épywpuaz) to be regarded as a transcriber'’s error; comp. xvii. 3. — Ver. 16. 6’Igoovy is wanting in B. C.* Heracl. Or. ; an addition. The position cov rdv dvdpa (Tisch.) is too weakly attested by B. Curss, Or. (three times) Chrys. — Ver. 21. ytvai, miotevady yor] Lach.: y. wicrevé u.; Tisch. : wiorevé up. y. Amid manifold diversities of testimony the last must be adopted as the best authenticated, by B. C.* L. &. Ver. Sahid. Heracl. Or. Ath. Cyr. Chrys. Hilar. — Ver. 27. For ¢Oavyafov Elz. has ¢@avpacav, against decisive tes- timony. — Ver. 30. After ¢&;A0ov Elz. has ov», against decisive testimony. Added for the purpose of connection, instead of which dé also occurs, and C. D. Verss. have xai before &£7A400rv, and accordingly Lachm. puts this «ai in brackets. — Ver. 34. 70:5] B. C. D. K. L. T>. II. Cursives, Clem. Heracl. Or. Cyr. Chrys. : ro7ow ; recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. ; a co-ordi- nation with what follows.— Ver. 35. For rerpdunvocg Elz. has rerpdynvor, against almost all the Uncials. A clumsy emendation. Comp. Heb. xi. 23. — Ver. 36. Before 6 Gepif. Elz. has xai (bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch.), condemned by B. C.* D. L. T®. &. Cursives, Verss. and Fathers. Through the very ancient variation, which joins #éy either with what follows (A. C. D. Cyr.) or with what precedes (Or.), the insertion of xai is the result of the latter mode of connection. If xai were genuine, neither of the two constructions would have prompted its omission. — Ver. 42. After xéoyov Elz, has 6 Xproréc, which Lachm. Tisch., following important witnesses, have deleted as an exegetical addition. — Ver. 43. xai d77AGev] wanting in B. C. D. T?. &. Cursives, Codd. It. Copt. Or. Cyr. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. ; supplementing addi- tion after ver. 3, not in keeping with John’s mode of expression. — Ver. 45. Instead of é we must adopt dca, with Lachm. Tisch., following A. B. C. L. Cursives, Or. Cyr. Chrys. As the conception expressed by éoa is already in ravra, d would seem more appropriate, which therefore we find in vv. 29, 39, in Codd. — Ver. 46. After ovv Elz, has 6 'Incots, which is altogether wanting in
148 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
important witnesses, and in others stands after cdAiv (60 Scholz), A common addition. — Ver. 47. avrév after 7p. is wanting in B. C. D. L. T°. &. Cursives, Verss. Or. Aug. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. Supplementary. — Ver, 50. g] Lachm. Tisch., following A. B. C. L. 8**, read dy. An unskilful emendation. — Ver. 51. amyvrncav] B. C. D. K. L. &. Cursives: txqvrycay. So Lachm. and Tisch. ; rightly, for John elsewhere always has érapr, (xi. 20, 30, xii. 18). — 6 wai¢g cov] Lachm. Tisch.: 6 7. avzo?, upon such weighty evi- dence that the received reading must be regarded as a mechanical alteration in imitation of ver. 50.— Ver. 52. Instead of y0éc, we must, with Lachm, and Tisch., following the majority of Codd., adopt é76é¢.
Vv. 1-8. 'Q¢ obv éyvo, «.7.4.] obv, igitur, namely, in consequence of the concourse of people who flocked to Him, and which had been previously mentioned. Considering this concourse, He could not failtocome to know (éyvw, not supernatural knowledge, but comp. ver. 58, v. 6, xi. 57, xii. 9) that it had reached the ears of the Pharisees, how He, etc. This prompted Him, however, to withdraw to Galilee, where their hostility would not be so directly aroused and cherished as in Judea, the headquarters of the hierarchy. To surrender Himself to them before the time, before His hour arrived, and the vocation of which He was conscious had been fulfilled, was opposed to His consciousness of the divine arrangements, and the object of His mission. He contented himself, therefore, for the present with the interest which He had already excited in Judea on behalf of His work, and withdrew, for the time being, to His own less esteemed country.’ As to the date of this return, see ver. 85 ; it is an arbitrary invention to say,* that upon leaving Judea Le gave up baptizing because John’s imprisonment (?) brought a ban of unclean- ness upon Israel (515 sq.). The performance of baptism must be supposed as taking place subsequent to this, when conversions are spoken of (¢.g. ver. 58), comp. iii. 5; and Matt. xxviii. 19 does not contain a wholly new command to baptize, but its completion and extension to all times and nations. —ol ¢apic.] It is only this party, the most powerful and most dangerous of the Jewish sects, that is still named by John, the evangelist who had become furthest removed from Judaism. — dr: 'Ijoot¢, «.1.4.] a
1 According to Hofmann, Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 168 f., whom Lichtenstein follows, Jesus withdrew, because He was apprehen- sive lest what had come to the Pharisees’ ears should be made use of by them to throw suspicion on the Baptist. But this is all the less credible, when we remember that Jesus certainly, as well as John himself (ill. 80), knew it to be a divine necessity that He should increase and the Baptist decrease, and therefore would hardly determine his movements by considerations of the kind supposed. He could more effectually have met any such suspicions, by testifying on be- half of the noble Baptist in the neighbour- hood where he was, than by withdrawing from the scene. No; Jesus went out of the way of the danger that threatened Himself,
and to which He knew it was not yet time for Him to expose Himself; comp. vii. 1, x. 40, xi. M4. Nonnus: ¢devywr Avocay amorov axnAjtrwy Papicaiwy, Still, however, we must not, with Hengstenberg and most others, suppose that this retirement to Galilee arose from the fact that John had already fallen a prey to Pharisaic persecution, and that Jesus had all the more reason to apprehend this persecution. There is no hint whatever of the supposed fact that the Pharisees had delivered John over to Herod. This explanation is based merely upon an attempt at harmonizing, in order to make this journey back to Galilee the same with that named in Matt.iv. 12. See on ili. 24. 2 Lange, Z.J. IT. p. 515.
CHAP. IV., 4, 5. 149
terbatim repetition of the report ; hence the name (1 Cor. xi. 28), and the present tenses. Comp. Gal. i. 238. — % Iwdvyyc] whom they had less to fear, on account of his legal standpoint, and his declarations in i. 19 ff., than Jesus, who with at once so reforming, wonder-working, and effective an agency, and so weightily attested by John, had appeared in Jerusalem.— Ver. 2 is not to be put in a parenthesis, for the construction is not interrupt- ed. [See Note XII. p. 99]. —xairo: ye] quanquam quidem, although.? The thing is thus expressed, because ‘‘ semper is dicitur facere, cui praeministra- tur,” Tertullian. A pretext for this lay in the fact that John did himself baptize. But why did not Jesus Himself baptize? Not that He might give Himself only to preaching (1 Cor. i. 17); for that a principle underlay His non-baptizing is shown by John’s unconditional statement of it ;* nor again, because He would then have necessarily baptized unto Himeelf,* for He could have done this ; nor again for the clear maintenance of the truth ‘that He is down to the present day the universal baptizer” (IIengstenberg), an arbitrarily invented abstraction, and even foreign to the N. T. Nonnus points to the true reason : ov ydp dvag BanriCev év idart. Bengel well says: ‘‘baptizare actio ministralis, Acts x. 48, 1 Cor. i. 17 ; Johannes minister sua manu baptizavit, discipuli ejus ut videtur neminem, aé Christus baptizat Spiritu sancto,” which the disciples had not power to do until afterwards (vii. 89). Comp. Ewald b. For the rest, ver. 2 does not contain a correction of himself by the evangelist (Hengstenberg and early exposi- tors),—as to whom we cannot see why he should not at once have expressed himself correctly,—but rather a correction of the form of the rumour mentioned in ver. 1. Comp. ili. 26. Nonnus: érfruyog ob xéde hun. In this consists the historical interest of the observation,‘ which we are not to regard as an unhistorical consequence of transporting Christian baptism back to the time of Jesus.
Vv. 4,5. "Ede:] from the geographical position ; and hence the usual way for Galilean travellers lay through Samaria (Josephus, Antt. xx. 6. 1), unless one chose to pass through Perea to avoid the hated land, which Jesus has at present no occasion to do. Comp. Luke 1x. 52. — ei¢ réAv] to or towards a city (not into, ver. 28 ff.). Comp. Matt. xxi. 1; see Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 81. — Zvyap] (not Lcydép, as Elz. has, against the best authorities) is, ac- cording to the usual opinion,—though, indeed, the Aeyouévyy, comp. xi. 54, pointing to an unknown place, does not tally with it,—the same town as that called DIW (LXX. Evyéu, comp. Acts vii. 16; also Liceza, comp. Josephus) in Gen. xxxiii. 18, Josh. xx. 7, Judg. ix. 7, et. a. ; after the time of Christ, however, called Neapolis,® and now Nablus.* Upon the remnant of the Samaritans still in this town, see Rogers on the Modern Samaritana, London 1855 ; Barges, les Samaritains de Naplouse, Paris 1855. The name
1 See Baeumlein, Partix. p. 245 ff.; Klotz, 4 Against Baur and Hilgenfeld.
ad Devar. p. 634 f. 5 Joseph. Jeli. iv. 8. 1. 2 Against Thomas, Lyra, Maldonatus, and *See Crome, Beschreid. von Pal. I. p. 108 most. f’.: Robinson, IIT. 3886; Rosen, in the
* So already Tertaliian de dapt. 11. Zei‘achr. d. morgenl. Gesellech. 1800, p. 634 ff.
150 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Lvzdp' (which Credner arbitrarily refers to a mere error in transcription) would be thus a corruption of the old name, perhaps intentional, though it had come into ordinary use, and signifying drunken town (according to Isa. xxviii. 1), or town of lies, or heathen town, after Hab. iii. 18 (PY). Reland tukes the former view, Lightfoot and Hengstenberg the latter, Hengsten- berg supposing that John himself made the alteration in order to describe the lying character of the Samaritane—quite against the simplicity of the narrative in general, and the express Arcyouévyy in particular. This Acyou., and the difference in the name, as well as the following mAnciov, etc., and ver. 7, suggest the opinion that Sychar was a distinct town in the neighbour- hood of Sychem.* The name may still be discovered in the modern al Askar, east of Nablus. Schenkcl still sees also here an error of a Gentile-Christian author. — The ywpiov belonged to Sychem (Gen. xxxiii. 19, xlviii. 22, LXX. Josh. xxiv. 32),* but must have lain in the direction of Sychar. — rAnoiov] the town lay in the neighbourhood of the field, etc. Here only in the N. T., very often in the classics, a simple adverb.
Ver. 6. Iayq rov ’Iaxd3] a spring-well (ver. 11), the making of which tra- dition ascribed to Jacob. It is still in existence, and regarded with rever-
‘ence, though there is no spring-water in it.4 The ancient sacredness of the spot made it the more worthy of being specially noted by John. — otruc] thus, without further ado, just as He was, without any ceremony or prepara- tion, ‘‘ ut locus se obtulerat,” Grotius ; drAd¢ we érvye, Chrysostom.® The rendering ‘‘ tired as He was” (Erasmus, Beza, Winer, Hengstenberg), so that the preceding participle is repeated in meaning,* would require the.oitwr to be placed before, as in Acts xxvii. 17, xx. 11. — én? ry ryyq] at the well, de- noting immediate proximity to it, ver. 2 ; Mark xiii. 29 ; Ex. ii. 15." — dpa
. &xrn] noon, mid-day ; dixtoc Opn, Nonnus. Here again we have not the Roman reckoning (sce oni. 40), though the evening ® was the more usual time for drawing water. Still we must not suppose that the unwonted time was intended to indicate to Jesus ‘‘ that the woman was given Him of the Father” (Luthardt, p. 80). Jesus knew this, independently of the hour. But John could never forget the hour, so important in its issues, of this first preaching to the Samaritan woman, and therefore names it. Comp. 1. 40.
Vv. 7-9. Tuv) ix r. Zazap.] to be taken as one designation, a Samaritan- woman. John gives prominence to the country to which she belonged, to
1 Concerning the Talmudic name ‘5\D, see Wieseler, Synopese, p. 256 ff.
2 Hug, Luthardt, Lichtenstein, Ewald, Brickner, Baeumlein. See especially De- litzsch, in Guericke's Luth. Zeitschr. 1856, p. 244 ff.; Ewald, Jahrd. VIII. 255 ff., and in his Johann Schr. I. 181.
* The LXX. in Gen. xlviil. 22 render DIY
by Zcc:ua, the error being that they took the Hebrew word directly asa name, whereas jt is only an allusion to the town Sichem.
* See Robinson, III. p. 380; Ritter, XVI. 634. 5 See Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 495; Nagels-
bach, z. Jlias, p. 68, ed. 8.
6 See Bornemann in Rosenmilller’s Rep. II. p. 246 ff., Ast, J.c.; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Pro- tag. p. 314C.
7 See Bernhardy, p. 249; Relsig,ad Oed. Col. 281; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 541.
® If it had been six o'clock in the evening (as also Isenberg In the Luther. Zeitechr. 1868, p. 454 ff. maintains, for the sake of xix. 14), how much too short would the remain- der of the day be for all that follows down to ver. 40! We must allow a much longer time, in particular, for vv. 28-30, and yet ver. 83 still presupposes bright daylight.
CHAP. Iv., 10. 151 prepare the way for the characteristic features of the following interview. It is not the town two miles distant (Sebaste) that is meant, but the country. — avrAjoa: idup| The modern Nablus lies half an hour distant from the southern well, and has many wells of its own close by.’ It is therefore probable that Sychar, out of which the woman came,’ was a separate town.’ It is in itself an arbitrary supposition to imagine, with Hengstenberg, that this ‘¢Give me to drink” has underlying it ‘‘a spiritual sense” (‘‘Give me the spiritual refreshment of thy conversion),” and is opposed to ver. 8, which by no means assigns the reason why Jesus entered into conversation with the woman ; for He might have done this in the apostles’ presence, though, according to Hengstenberg, He must have sent them away (all ex- cepting John),* on purpose to have an undisturbed interview with the woman. All this is mere imagination. — Ver. 8. yép] The reason why He asked the services of the woman; the disciples, whose services He would otherwise have claimed, were absent. — iva rpogd¢ ayop.] According to later tradition (‘‘ Samaritanis panem comedere aut vinum bibere prohibitum est,” Raschi, ad Sota, 515), this would not have been allowed. But the separa- tion could not have been so distinctly marked at that time, especially as to commercial dealings and intercourse with the Galileans, since their road lay through Samaria. Jesus, moreover, was raised above these hostile divisions which existed among the people (Luke ix. 52).— Ver. 9. The woman recognized that Jesus wasa Jew by His language, and not by His accent merely. — rac] gui jit ut. The words of the woman indicate the pert femi- nine caprice of national feeling. There is no ground for supposing (Hengst. ) that the woman had at this stage any presentiment that He who addressed her was other than an ordinary Jew. — ov yap, x.r.A.] not a parenthesis, but the words of the evangelist. — Jews with Samaritans, without the article. Ver. 10. Jesus certainly recognized at once the susceptibility of the woman ; allowing, therefore, His own need to stand in abeyance, He began the con- versation, which was sufficiently striking to excite at once the full interest of her sanguine temperament, though at the outset this interest was noth- ing but feminine curiosity. — rv dup. r. Geo] the gift of God, which you may now partake of by conversation with me. Not certainly the person of Jesus Himself (the Greek Fathers, Erasmus, Beza, and others, also Hengst. and Godet), to which he refers only as the discourse advances with the xa of closer definition. — od av gryoac] thou wouldest have prayed Him (i.e. to give thee to drink), and LHe would have, etc. Observe the emphatic ot (the request would have come from thee). —idup Cav] The woman takcs this to mean spring-water, OTT OD, Gen. xxvi. 19, Lev. xiv. 5, Jer. ii. 13, as op-
1 See Robinson, IIT. 388.
2 That, considering the sacred character of the water, she did not hesitate about the distance of the well from Sychem (Heng- stenberg), is without any hint in the text.
3 As to the forms weiv and wir (80 Jacobs, Del. epigr. vi. 78), see Herm. Herodian. § 47 ; Buttmann, NV. 7. Gr. p. 88 [(E. T. p. 66], who prefers wi», though this is regarded by
Fritzsche (de conform. Lachm. p. 27) as the mistake of a copyist. As to the phrase Sides meaty, without any object expressed, see Kriiger, § 55. 8. 21.
4 Who must, according to Godet also, havo remained with Him. A gratuitous addl- tion, made for the purpose of securing a guarantee for the accuracy of the narrative.
152 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
posed to water in a cistern. Comp. vivi fontes and the like among the,Ro- mans ; sec Wetstein. Christ does indeed mean spring-water, but, as in vii. 88, in a spiritual sense (comp. ver. 14), namely, God's grace and truth (i. 14), which He, who is the possessor of them, communicates by His word out of His fulness, and which in its living, regencrating, and, for the satisfying of spiritual need, ever freshly efficacious power, is typified by water from the spring.’ He does not mean Himsel/, His own life (Olshausen, Godet, following Epiphanius and most others), in the same manner as He speaks of Himself as the bread of life, vi. 85, for this is not indicated in any part of the present colloquy ; nor does He mean /atth (iii. 15), as Liicke thinks, nor the Spirit,* the gift of which follows the communication of the living water. Any reference to baptism® is quite remote from the text. Calvin is substantially right when he sees typified totam renovationis gratiam.
Vv. 11, 12. ‘‘ Thou canst not mean the spring-water here in this well ; thou couldest not give this to me, for thou hast no bucket,‘ which is needed on account of the depth of the well ; whence hast thou, therefore, the spring-water thou speakest of ?” — xipie] The rig éorev 6 Abywy coz, etc., ver. 10, has given the woman & momentary feeling of respect, not unmixed with irony. — otre fol- lowed by «ai is rare, 8 John 10.° — ps) ob petfwv, x.7.A.] Notice the emphatic of coming first : ‘‘thow surely art not greater,” etc.; ‘‘ thou dost not look like that !” Comp. viii. 53. — peifur] i.e. more able, in a position to give what is better. By him was the well given us, and for him it was good enough for him and his to drink from ; yet thou speakest as if thou hadst another and a better spring of water! The woman dwells upon the enig- matical word of Christ at first, just as Nicodemus did, iii. 4, but with more cleverness and vivacity, at the same time more boldly, and with feminine loquacity. — rot marpd¢ 7uzav] for the Samaritans traced their descent back to Joseph.* They certainly were not of purely heathen origin (Hengsten- berg).’ — ¢ édwxev, x.7.4.] a Samaritan tradition, not derived from the O. T. —xai avrdc, x.t.A.] xaé issimply and, neither for xai é¢, nor, and indeed. The @péupara are the cattle,® not servants (Majus, Kypke),? whom there was no need specially to name ; the mention of the herds completes the picture of their nomadic progenitor. — rd tdwp rd Cév] which thou hast to give ; ver. 10.
1 Comp. analogous passages, Ecclus. xv. 8, xxiv. 21; Baruch iil, 12; Buxtorf, Lez. Talm. p. 2298.
2 Calovius, Baumgarten Crusius, Lu thardt, Hofmann.
3 Justin, Cyprian, Ambrose, and most others.
4 avtAnua, elsewhere the drawing of water, is used in the sense of haustrum. Nonnus ex- plains it «dSov éAxvoripa (a bucket to draw water).—The woman had with her a vépia, ver. 28 (comp. if. 6), but she must also have had an avrAnya, provided witha long handle or rope to draw the water up, or at least some contrivance for letting down the vépia itself. f
*See Winer, p. 460 [E. T. p. 494]; Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 222; Klotz, ad Devar. 714.
* Josephus, Anéé. vil. 7. 8, vili. 14. 8, xi. 8. 6. ™ See Keil on2Kings xvii. 24; Petermann in Herzog'’s Encykl, XIII. 367.
® Plato, Polit. p. 261 A; Xen. Oec. xx. 28; Ages. ix. 6; Herodlan. iii. 9. 17 ; Josephus, Anté, vil. 7. 8. «
® The word, the general meaning of which is guicquid enutritur, is found on inscriptions as applied to slaves; itis used of children likewise in the classics (Valck. Déialr. p. 249), asin Soph. PAU. 248; comp. Ord. Rer, 1143. It does not occur in the LXX. or Apocrypha.
CHAP. Iv., 13-16. 153
Vv. 18, 14. Not an explanation, but (comp. iii. 5) a carrying out of the metaphor, to lead the woman nearer to its higher import. — rotrov] referring to the well. — ov yu? dip. cig r. aidava] ‘will certainly not thirst for ever,” anti- thesis to fleeting bodily refreshment, ver. 18. Comp. vi. 834. That heavenly grace and truth which Christ communicates, when received by faith into the inner life, for ever supplies what we need in order to salvation, so that the lack of this satisfaction is never felt, because the supply is always there. Bengel admirably remarks : ‘‘ Sane aqua illa, quantum in se est, perennem habet virtutem ; et ubi sitis recurrit, hominis non aquae defectus est.” The ex- pression in Ecclus. xxiv. 20 : of rivovréc pe (Wisdom) ér: depiaove:, rests upon a different view of the continuity of enjoyment, namely, that of the indi- vidual moments passing in the continual alternation of desire and satisfaction, and not of the unity which they make up, and of their condition as a whole. — yevhoerat tv ate, x.7.A.] the positice effect following the negative (and hence 1d idwp 4 déow airg is emphatically repeated) : divine grace and truth appropriated by faith will so energetically develop their life in him in tnexhaust- ible fulness, that its full impelling power endures unto eternal Messianic life. Upon his entrance into the Messiah’s kingdom (comp. iii. 8, 5), the man takes along with him this inner living power of divine ydpic xat GAfOra, Vi. 27. — GAAzobaz eic. to spring up into, often also in the classics,’ but with ref- erence to water here only. A Greek would say rpopeiv cic ; yet the word in the text is stronger and more vivid. The {(u) aidy. is conceived of locally, under the imagery of a widespreading spring ; to render eic¢ ‘‘ reaching to everlasting life,”* arbitrarily lets go the concrete comparison, one of the main features in which is endless power of springing up. This description of the well springing up into everlasting life is the jinishing touch of the picture. On éic ¢. ai., see ver. 86. °
Vv. 15, 16. The woman as yet having no apprehension of the higher meaning of the water spoken of (against B. Crusius, Lange), yet being in rome degree perplexed, asks, not in irony, as Lightfoot and Tholuck think, but sincerely, for this wonderful water, which at any rate must be of great use to her.—Jesus breaks off suddenly, and commences, by a seemingly un- important request, ‘‘ Call thy husband,” to lay hold of the woman in her inner life, so that the beginnings of her faith in Him might be connected with His supernatural knowledge of her peculiar moral relations. This process must be accompanied with the awakening in her of a sense of guilt (see ver. 29), and thus pave the way for repentance ; and who dare deny that, besides the im- mediate object, this may have been included in the purpose of Jesus ? though He does not directly rebuke, but leaves the feeling to operate of itself (against Strauss and most others). — ¢dvzc. r. dvdpa cov] We are not to ask here what the husband was to do (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus : ‘‘ that he might partake with her of the gift of salvation that was before her ;” so also Liicke) ; because the command was only an apparent one, not seriously intended, for Jesus knew the relations of the woman, and did not merely find His prophetic gift awakened by the answer she gave, as Liicke and
1 Hom. JZ. «, 887; Xen. Mem. |. 3. 9. * B. Crusius, Luthardt, Brickner, Ewald.
154 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Godet gratuitously assume. The +r. évdpa cov was the sore spot where the healing was to begin. According to Lange,' it would have been unseemly if Jesus, now that the woman showed a willingness to become His disciple (?), had continued to converse longer with her in her husband's absence ; Ilis desire, therefore, was in keeping ‘‘ with the highest and finest sense of social propriety.”” But the husband was nothing more than a paramour ! — éavé] in the sense of come back, as‘the context shows.’
Ver. 17, 18. The woman is taken aback ; her light, naive, bantering manner is now completely gone, and she quickly seeks to shun the sensitive point with the answer, true only in words, ovx éyw avdpa ; but Jesus goes deeper still. — xatcc] rightly, truly ; viii. 48; Matt. xv. 7; Luke xx. 89. How sar truly, what follows shows,—namcly, only relatively, and therefore the ap- proval is only apparent, and in some degree ironical. — avdpa oix éxw] ‘‘a husband I have not ;” as it is the conception of avip which Jesus has to em- phasize, it stands first. — révre yap, «.t.A.] It is doubtful whether she really had five successive husbands, from whom she had been separated either by death or by divorce, or whether Jesus included paramours, using avdpac in a varying sense according to the varying subjects ; or whether, again, He meant that all fice were scortatores (Chrysostom, Maldonatus, and most others). The first supposition is to be adopted, because the present man, who is not her husband, stands in contrast with the former husbands. She had been therefore five times marricd (such a history had already seared her con- science, ver. 29 ; how, is not stated), and now she was either a widow or a divorced wife, and had a paramour (vd0ov axvizz7v, Nonnus), who lived with her as a husband, but really was not her husband (hence the oix éor: is em- phatically put first). To interpret the story of the five husbands as a whole as a symbolical history of the Samaritan nation,’ either as a divinely intended coincidence (Hengst. Késtlin, comp. Baumgarten and Scholten), or as a type in the mind of the evangelist (Weizsiicker, p. 387), so that the symbolic meaning excludes any actual fact (Keim, Gesch. J. p. 116), or again as fiction (B. Bauer), whose mythical basis was that history (Strauss), is totally desti- tute of any historical warrant. For the man whom the woman now had must, symbolically understood, represent Jehovah ; and He had been the God of the Samaritans before the introduction of false gods, and therefore it would have been more correct to speak of siz husbands (Heracleon actu- ally read if). But how incredible that Jesus would represent Jehovah undcr the similitude of a paramour (for the woman was now living in concubinage), and the ‘‘ fivefold heathenism” of the nation under the type of real mar- riages !— For the rest, the Lord’s knowledge of the woman's circumstances was immediate and supernatural. To assume that He had ascertained her history from others (Paulus, Ammon), is opposed to the Johannean view ; while the notion that the disciples introduced into the history what they afterwards discovered,‘ is psychologically groundless, if once we admit that
12D. J. 11. p. 5380 f. 3 According to 2 Kings xvii. 24 ff.; Jose-
2 See Hom. @d. a. 408, 8. 830; Xen. Anadb. phus, Anté. ix. 14. 3: wevre €Oun... exactoy fi. 1.1, v. 1.4; Baruch Iv. 87; Tobit !. 18; tdcow Ged» eig Sapap. comicarrtes,
Heind. ad Plat. Pret. p. 810 C. Comp. xly. * Schweizer, p. 189. 18; Luke xix. 13.
CHAP. IY., 19, 20. 155 Jesus possessed a knowledge of the moral state of others (and here we have not merely a knowledge of outward circumstances,—against de Wette) beyond that attainable by ordinary means.’ Lange invents the strange and unnecessary (ii. 24. f.) addition, that ‘‘ the psychical effects produced by the five husbands upon the woman were traceable in her manner and mien, and _ these were recognized by Jesus.” — ainfic] az something true.*
Vv. 19, 20. The woman now discerns in Jesus the man of God endowed with higher knowledge, a prophet,* and puts to Him accordingly—perhaps also to leave no further room for the unpleasant mention of the circumstan- ces of her life which had been thus unveiled—the national religious question ever in dispute ; a question which does not, indeed, imply a presentiment of the superiority of the Jews’ religion (Ewald), but one, the decision of which might be expected from such 8 prophet as she now deemed Him to be. The great national interest in this question, ‘ is sufficient to remove any apparent improbability attaching to it as coming from the lips of this morally frivolous woman.*® Luthardt thinks that she now wished to go in praycr for the forgiveness of her sins to the holy place appointed, and only desires to know where ; on Gerizim or in Jerusalem. But she has not yct arrived at this stage ; she gives no intimation of this ; she does not call the place a place of expiation (this also against Lange); and Jesus, in His answer, gives no hint to that effect. Her secking after religious information is still theo- retical mercly, attaching itsclf to a matter of popular controversy, naive, without depth of personal anxiety, as also without thought of fundamental differences, which Hengstenberg attributes to her as a representative of the Samaritans, who would first remove the national stumbling-block ; see ver. 25. — Gewpa] wepcoxoreizat nai Oavudser, Chrysostom. — ol rarépec ju.] Since duetc stands in contrast, we are not to go back to Abraham and Jucod (accord- ing to a tradition based upon Gen. xii. 6 ff., xiii. 4, xxxiii. 20);° we must simply take the reference to be to the ancestors of the Samaritans as far back as the building of the temple on Mount Gerizim in the time of Nehemiah. —In this mountain] pointing to Gerizim, between which and Ebal the town of Sychem (and Sychar) lay. The temple there had already been destroyed by John Hyrcanus ; but the site itself, which Moses had already fixed as that wherein the blessings of the law were to be spoken (Deut. xi. 29, xxvii. 12, 18), was still held sacred by the people,’ especially also on account of Deut. xxvii. 4 (where the Samaritan text has OD?) instead of 54Y), and is s0 even at the present day.° Concerning the ruins on the top of the mountain, see especially Barges, as before, p. 107 ff.
1We must not therefore suppose with Ewald that Jesus named simply a round number of husbands, which in a wonderful manner turned out to be right.
2 S8ee Winer, p. 433 [E. T. p. 464]. Comp. Plato, Gorg. p. 498 D: +.totr’ adnOécrepoy cipnxas ; Soph. Phil. 909; Lucian, D. ¥. vi. 8; Tim, W.
3 Comp. 1 Sam. Ix. 9; In Greek and Latin writers: Hom. J. 1.70; Hesiod, Theog. 88; Virgil, Gecrg. iv. 302; Macrobtus, Sad. 1. 20. 5.
4 See Josephus, Anté. xiii. 8. 4.
® Against Strauss, B. Bauer.
* Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, and many others, also Kuinvel and Baumgarten Crusius.
7 Comp. Josephus, Antt. xvill. 4.1; Bell. fil. 7. 82,
®See Robinson, IIT. p. 319 ff.; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. p. 688 ff.; Abulfathi, Annabd, Samar. arab. ed., ed. Vilmar, 1565, Pro- leg. 4.
156 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 21. Jesus decides neither for the one place nor for the other ; nor does He pronounce both wrong (B. Crusius) ; but as His aim is to give her the living water, divine grace and truth, He rises to the higher point of view of the future, whence both the local centres and limitations of God’s truc worship disappear; and the question itself no longer arises, because with the triumph of His work all outward localizing of God’s worship comes to an end, not indeed absolutely, but as fettering the freedom of the outward service, — mpooxuvgo.] As spoken to the woman, this refers not to mankind generally (Godet), nor to the Israelites of both forms of religion (Hilgenfeld, comp. Hengst.), but to the future conversion of the Samaritans, who thus would be freed from the ritual on Mount Gerizim (which is therefore named Jirst), but were not to be brought to the ritual in Jerusalem, and therefore iv 'lepocoA. has its warrant with reference to the Samaritans.’ The divine ordainment of the temple service was educational. Christ was its aim and end, its rAfpwore ; the modern doctrine of the re-establishing of Jerusalem in its grandeur is a chiliastic dream (see Rom. xi. 27, note). —7@ rarpi] spoken from the standing-point of the future converts, to whom God, through their faith in the Reconciler, would be Father : ‘‘ Tacite novi foederis sua- vitatem innuit,” Grotius.
Ver. 22. Jesus has answered the question as to the where of worship ; He now turns, unasked, to the object of worship, and in this He pronounces in favour of the Jews. The chain of thought is not : ‘‘as matters now stand,” and so on (Liicke and most others) ; such a change of time must have becn indicated. — 8 oix oidare] ye worship what ye know not. God is meant, who is named not personally, but by the neuter, according to His essence and character, not as He who is worshipped, but as that which is worshipped (comp. the neuter, Acts xvii. 23, according to the more correct reading) ; and this is simply God Himself, not. ra rov Geot or ra mpdc rdv Gedy (Liicke), which would not be in keeping with the conception expressed in mpooxvveit' ; for what is worshipped is not what pertains to God, but God (comp. vv. 21,
28, 24). The ovx oldare is to be understood relatively ; comp. vii. 28. As )
the Samaritans received the Pentateuch only, they were without the devel- oped revelation of God contained in the subsequent books of the O. T., par- ticularly in the Prophets, especially the stedfast, pure, and living develop- ment of Messianic hope, which the Jews possessed, and had also lost, with the temple and its sacred shrines, the abiding presence of the Deity." Jesus, therefore, might well speak of their knowledge of God, in comparison with that of the Jews (sjpeic), who possessed the full revelation and promise, as ig- norance ; and He could regard this great superiority of the Jews as unaffected by the monotheism, however spiritual, of the Samaritans. According to de Wette, whom Ebrard follows, the meaning is: ‘‘ ye worship, and zn soe doing, ye do what ye know not,”—which is said to refer to the arbitrary and uphistorical manner in which the Samaritan worship originated. According to this, the 6 must be taken as in 8 dé viv (4, Gal. ii, 20 (comp, Bengel), and
1 Against Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. p. 108. 1857, p. 517; and in his Zeilschr. 1863, 2 Rom. ill. 2, ix. 4, 5.
CHAP. IV., 23, 24. 157 would denote the mpooxivyore itself, which is accomplished in the rpooxuveiv.' But in that case it would have been more logical to write 6 tpeic mpooxvveire, ovx oidare. Tittmann, Morus, Kuinoel, also erroneously say that 6 stands for caf 5, pro testra ignorantia. It is the accusative of the object, in which is ineluded the dative, or even the accusative of the demonstrative, for tpooxiv. ‘is construed in both ways.*—eic] i.e. Jews, without a conjunction, and hence all the more emphatic. According to the whole connection, it must mean we Jews, not Christians, as if suei¢ Were intended in the Gnostic sense to denote, as something altogether new, the distinctively Christian conscious- ness, as contrasted with the unconscious worship of the Israelitish race in its Samaritan and Jewish branches.* That Jesus, being Himself a Jew (Gal. iv. 4 ; John i. 11), should reckon Himself among the Jews, cannot be thought strange in the antithesis of such a passage as this. But in what follows, the Lord rises so high above this antithesis between Samaritan and Jew, that in the future which He opens up to view (vv. 28, 24), this national distinctiveness ceases to have any significance. Still, in answer to the woman’s question, He could simply and definitely assign to the Jews that superiority which historically belonged to them before the manifestation of that higher future ; but He could not intend ‘‘ to set her free from the un- reality of her national existence” (Luthardt), but rather, considering the oc- casion which presented itself, could make no concession that would preju- dice His Messianic patriotism, based as this was upon historical fact and upon the divine purpose (Rom. i. 16).— dre 9 owr., x.7.2.] because salra- tion (of course, not without the Saviour, though this is not named) proceeds from the Jews (not from the Samaritans),—a general doctrinal statement, incontestably true, based upon the promise to Abraham, Gen. xii.,‘ concern- ing the salvation of the Messiah’s kingdom, whose future establishment is rep- resented as present, as is natural in such an axiomatic statement of historic fact. As salvation is of the Jews, this design of their existence in the econ- omy of grace constitutes the reason (ér¢) why they, a8 a nation, possessed the true and pure revelation of God, whose highest culmination and con- summation is that very salvation ; comp. Rom. ix. 4,5. It must not, indeed, be overlooked that jueic. . . oldayev was not true of every individual of the qucic (not of those who rejected the salvation), but refers to the nation as a whole in its ideal existence as the people of God, whose prerogative as such could not be destroyed by empirical exceptions, Thus the invisible church is hidden in the visible.
Vv. 28, 24. But * this antithesis will also disappear (comp. ver. 21) by the worship of the true (i.e. answering to the ideal of such, comp. i. 19) wor- shippers of God, whose time is coming, yea, already is present (inasmuch a3 Jesus had already gathered round Him a small band of such worshippers).
1 See Bernhardy, p. 106. if ze»... 8é were there), but, as is clear
2 See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p 468.
*Hilgenfeld, comp. his Zettschr. 1868, p. 218 ff.
* Comp. Isa. fi. 8; Mio. iv. 2
SadAd, yef, as contrasted, not with the H owrnpia éx Tr, ‘lovSaiwy doriy (Hilgenfeld, as
from what follows (the true spoc«vveiv), with the vuets . . . oiganer, Baeumlein re- gards it us an intensified addition to ver. 21, ‘yea, the hour is coming.”” But thus ver. 22 would be arbitrarily overleaped.
158 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
He could not add xai viv éorcv to the épy. Spa of ver. 21. —év rvebpare x. aA78.] expresses the element wherein the worship is carried on in its two closely connected parts, viz. : (1) In spirit ; t.e. the worship does not consist in out- ward acts, gestures, ceremonies, limitations of time and place, or in any- thing pertaining to the sphere of sense ; it has to do with that higher spiritual nature in man which is the substratum of his moral self-conscious- ness, and the seat of his true moral life, manifesting itself in thoughts, feelings, efforts of will, moods of elevation, excitements, etc.; otherwise the worship would belong to the sphere of the flesh merely, which is the opposite of true worship. Comp. Rom. i. 9: 6 Aarpebu év ré rvetyart pov. It is spirit-evident, from both the O. T. and N. T. view, that the rvevua in which this takes place is influenced by the divine Spirit (comp. Rom. viii. 14-16, 26); but we must not take éy mvetyar: (ver. 24) to denote objectively the Divine Spirit (Luthardt, Briickner, Bacumlein, fol- lowing the early expositors). The mpocxivotcy év rveiu. is rational, Rom. xii. 1 ; it docs not in itself exclude the ritus externos, but it does exclude all mechanical ritualism, and all opus operatum. (2) In truth, not ‘‘in sincerity, honesty,” which would be greatly too weak a meaning after o/ aA7yivol, but, so that the worship harmonizes with its object, not contradicting, but cor- responding with, God's nature and attributes. Otherwise it belongs to the sphere of the wridoc, either conscious or unconscious ; this weidoc, and not oxi OF Tirol, is the antithesis of aAnfcia. — rpooxuyyrhe, save only in Eusta- thius and Hesychius, occurs only in Inseript. Chandl. p. 91. —xat ydp, x.1.A.] Jor the Father also, etc. Thexai denotes that what the rpooxvyyrai do on their part is also what the Father Himself desires. Luther, B. Crusius, Tholuck, Hlengstenberg, and most others, erroneously render as if it were xai yap totobrove OF wai yap Cqret. The emphasis given by xai in «at ydp always rests upon the word immediately following (even,in 1 Cor. xiv. 8).’ It does not elsewhere occur in John. Usually the xai has been overlooked ; but the Vulgate rightly renders: nam et pater.” —Cyrei] He seeks after, desires.* rototrave is with marked emphasis put first : of this character He desires His worshippers to be. — rveipa 6 Gedc, x.t.A.] The predicate emphatically stands first (comp. i. 1 : Bcd Hw 6 Adyoc) : a Spirit is God, etc. Hereto God's will is added His nature (ver. 28), as a further motive for true worship,’ to which the nature and manner of the worship on man’s part must correspond, IIow utterly heterogeneous would be a carnal and spurious worship with the perfectly pure and holy nature of God, completely raised above every limit
1 Stallbaum, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 467 B.
2 Comp. Herod. 1. 94; John I. 89, iv. 27, ai.
3 Ilvevpa 6 Ged is not to be conjoined with the assumption of a corporeléy belonging to God (in answer to the concessions of Ham- berger in the Jahrd. f. D. Th. 1867, p. 421). Jesus might take tt for granted that every one who belonged to the O. T. monotheism understood that God is a Spirit, aecording to Ex. xx. 4, Jer. xxxi. 3; and it is by no means necessary to refer to the traces of Sumaritan spiritualism, in order to make
the expression more intelligible as ad- dressed to the woman (Gesenius, de Theol. Sam. p.12; de Pentat. Sam. orig. p. 58 ff.). Hvevza must not be regarded as Indicating something new in comparison with the O. T. (Lutz, dtl. Dogm. p. 45; Kistlin, LeAr- begr. p. 78), but as something known, and emphasized with corresponding impressive- ness on account of itsimportance. Comp. Hofmann, Schrifibew. I. 68 ff. ; Weiss, Lehr-
begr’. p. 54, 55.
CHAP. LY., 25-27. 159 of sense, of place, of particularism, of all need and dependence, simply because He is Spirit / while a spiritual and true worship is @eompere x. xardAAndoc,' and is homogeneous with the idea of God as Spirit.
Vv. 25, 26. The woman is struck by Christ’s answer, but she does not yet understand it, and she appeals to the Messiah ; Xpior Xprorév EAefev, Nonnus. Well says Chrysostom : eiAcyyiaoev 7 yuv) (she grew dizzy) mpoc rd Aex6évra, xai annyébpevoe mpdc Td inpoc Trav eipnukvuv, gat Kauovoa dxovoov ti dno, x.t.A. The presentiment that Jesus Himself was the Messiah is not to be recognized in her words (against Luthardt) ; yet these are neither evasive nor abrupt (Liicke, de Wette), but express the need of the manifestation of the Messiah, which was deeply felt in this moment of profound impression, —a need which Jesus perceived, and immediately satisfied by the declaration that followed. The Samaritans, sharing the national hope of the Jews, and taking their stand upon the Messianic passages in the Pentateuch (suchas Gen. xv., xlix. 10, Num. xxiv., and especially Deut. xviii. 15), were expecting the Messiah, ? whom they called 273877 or 37 ,* whose mission they apprehended less in & political aspect, though also as the restoration of the kingdom of Israel, and the re-establishment of the Gerizim-worship, yet merely as the result of human working.‘ Against B. Bauer's unbistorical assertion, that at that time the Samaritans had no Messianic belief,® see B. Crusius. Mec- oiag (without the article, as in i. 42) is uttered by the woman as a proper name, and thus she adopted the Jewish title, which was doubtless well known in Samaria, and the use of which might be so closely connected with a feel- ing of respect for. the highly gifted Jew with whom she was conversing, that there is no adequate ground for the assumption that the evangelist puts the word into her mouth (Ammon). — réyra] used in a popular indefinite sense.— éyé eize] Tam He, i.e. the Messiah, ver. 25, the simple usual Greek expression, and not in imitation of Deut. xxxii. 39. Observe the plain and direct avowal, in answer to the guilelessness of the Samaritan woman, whose faith was now ready to acknowledge Him (comp. Chrysostom). The consider- ation of the special circumstances, and of the fact that here there was no danger of a political abuse of the avowal (vi. 15), obviates the seeming contradiction between this early confession and Matt. viii. 4, xvi. 20.
Ver. 27. 'Eri rotry] Hereupon, while this was going on.* Often in Plato. — t6abyalov] the descriptive imperfect alternates with the simply narrative Aor.’ — yerd yuvaxéc] with a woman ; for they had yet to learn the fact that Jesus rose above the Rabbinical precepts, teaching that it was be- neath the dignity of man to hold converse with women, and the directions of the law upon the subject (see Lightfoot, Schocttgen, and Wetstein). —
1 Euthym. Zigab.
2The Samaritan name SW? or STN is by some rendered ‘the converter (so Gese- nius and Ewald), and by others the refurn- ing one (Moses), as Sacy, Juynboll (Com- mentar. tn hist. gentie Sam. L. B. 1846), Hengstenberg. Both are linguistically ad- missible; the latter, considering Deut. xvill. 15, Is the more probable.
* Now a Muhdy; see Robinson, ITT. 820.
*S8ee Gesen. de theol. Sam. p. 41 ff., and ad carmina Sam. p. 7% f.; Bargés, passim ; Vilmar, passim.
§ Keang. Geach. Joh. Betl. p. 418 ff.
® See Bernhardy, p. %0; Winer, p. 367 [E. T. p. 802].
7 See Kithner, I. 74.
160 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ovdelc pbvrot, x.7.A.] reverential fear. — ri Cyreic] what desirest thou? t.e. what has led thee to this surprising conversation ? (i. 89). There is no warrant for referring yer abri¢ by Cevyua (rap’ abrijc) also to Cyreic (Liicke, de Wette) ; and just as little for rendering (yretv. by the unwonted meaning contend, as if the disciples thought there was a discussion prompted by national hostil- ity going on (Ewald). — 4] or, 4.6. if thou desirest nothing.
Vv. 28-80. Otv] in consequence of the disciples’ coming, which inter- rupted the interview with Jesus. — ad¢jxev, x.7.A.] obtw¢ avhgby TE wupi trav wvEvuaTiKaY vaudtuv, O¢ Kal Td dyyog ageivat nal riy ypeiav, de hv mapeytvero, Euthymius Zigabenus. How great the power of the decisive awakening of the new life in this woman ! — rdvra 50a] often thus used together in the classics.’ — éxoijoa] thus from @ sense of guilt she described what. Jesus had said to her. His words were the summary of her moral _his- tory. — uhre obroc, x.7.A.] not must he not be really the Meisiah? as if the question implied an affirmation. So Licke, but against the constant use of the interrogative nfs, which implies, this is not perhaps the Messiah, isit ? requiring, indeed, a negative answer, yet to be explained psychologically from fear and bashful surprise over the fact too great for belief. The woman believes it ; but startled at the greatness of the discovery, she does not trust herself, and ventures modestly only to ask as one in doubt.? Observe in ver, 80 the change from éf7AGov to the vividly descriptive gpyovro (see on ver, 27, xx. 8). In the latter word the reader sees the crowd coming. Comp. ver. 40, where they arrive.
Vv. 81-84. 'Ev 16 peragt] in the meantime,* after the woman had gone, and before the Samaritans came.—Ver. 32. Jesus, making the sensuous the clothing of the supersensuous (the pastvs animi), speaks from a feeling of inner quickening and satisfaction, which He had just experienced from the change He had wrought in the Samaritan woman,—a feeling which He was to experience still more strongly throughout His divinely appointed work onwards until its completion. This inner satisfaction now prompts Him to refuse bodily sustenance. Observe the emphatic antithesis of éyé and dtyei¢. — As to Bpdac, and fpaya, ver. 84, see on Col. ii. 16.-—— Ver. 38. In the question uf#ric, x.7.a.. prompted by a misunderstanding of His words, the emphasis is upon #veyxev, ‘* surely no one has brought Him,” etc. — Ver. 34. éuov Bpdual z.e. without a figure, ‘‘ what gives me satisfaction dnd enjoyment is this: I have to do what God desires of me, and to accomplish that work of redemption which He (airod placed emphatically first) has committed to me” (xvii. 4). Observe (1) that iva is not the same as 47, which would ex- press objectively the actual subject-matter of éudv Bp. ; it rather indicates the nature of the Bpaza viewed as to its end, and points to the aim and pur- pose which Jesus pursues,—a very frequent use of it in John. (2) The present oid denotes continuous action, the Aor. redeidow the act of comple- tion, the future goal of the mm. Comp. xvii. 4.
Ver. 35. The approaching townspeople now showed how greatly already
1 Xen. Anad. fi. 1. 2; Soph. 7. 870, 880, 3802. 884; Bornem. ad Anab. 1. 10. 8. 2 Xen. Symp. £14; Luolan, V. Z. 1 22, 2 See on Matt. xii. 28; Baeumlein, Pertizk. D.D.x. 1.
CHAP. IV., 35. 161 the Iva roid was in process of accomplishment. They were coming through the corn-field, now tinged with green ; and thus they make the ficlds, which for four months would not yield the harvest, in a higher sense already white harvest-fields. Jesus directs the attention of His disciples to this; and with the beautiful picture thus presented in nature, He connects further appropriate instructions, onwards to ver. 88. — Do not ye say], that is, at the present season of the year (ér:). The ipeic stands contrasted with «hat Jesus means to say, though the antithesis is not indicated in what follows by éyé, because the antithesis of time comes into the foreground.’ The supposition that the disciples had, during their walk, made an observation of this kind to each other (and this in a spiritual sense with reference to the needed hoping and waiting), as Hengstenberg suggests, is neither hinted at, nor is in harmony with the Praesens Aéyere. — ire re . . . Epxetac] Harvest began in the middle of Nisan (Lightfoot, v. 101), z.e. in April. The words, therefore, must have been spoken in December, when Jesus, as the seed-time fell in Marchesvan (the beginning of November), might be already sur- rounded by springing corn-ficlds, the harvest of which, however, could not be expected for four months to come. We render therefore : there are still four months and (we wait, until) the harvest comes. As to the paratactic ex- pression with xai instead of a particle of time,. see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Symp. p. 220 C; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. 881. On the chronological im- portance of the passage, see Wiescler, Synopse, p. 214 ff. The taking of the words as prorertial,’ as if the saying were a general one : ‘‘ from seel-tiime to harvest is four months” (sced-time would thus be made to cxtend into December ; comp. Bara Meeia, f. 106, 2), is forbidden, not only by the fact that such a proverb oecurs nowhere clase, but by the fact that seed-time is not here mentioned, so that ér: (comp. the following éd7) does not refer to a point of time to be understood, but to the time then present, and by the fact, likewise, that the emphasized tyuei¢ would be inexplicable in an ordinary proverb (comp. rather Matt. xvi. 2).* It is worth while to notice how long Jesus had been in Judea (since April). — rerpauqvoc] se. xpdvoc.*— rag xydpac}] regiones. They had just been sown, and the young secd was now springing up, and yet in another sense they were white for being reaped ; for, by the spectacle of the townspeople who were now coming out to Christ across these ficlds, it appeared in concrete mahifestation before the eyes of the disciples (hence érdapare roig oofadpotc, x.t.A.), that now for men the time of conversion (of ripeness) was come in the near establish- meat of the Messiah’s kingdom, into which, like the harvest produce, they might be gathered (comp. Matt. iii. 12). Jesus, therefore, here gives a prophetic view, not only of the near conversion of the Samaritans (Acts vill. 5 ff.) ; but, rising above the concrete fact now before them, from the
1The versatility of thought often in Greek changes the things contrasted as the sentence proceeds. See Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. 168; Schaef. ad Timocr. p. 768, 18.
2 Lightfoot, Grotius, Tittmann, etc., also Licke, Tholuck, de Wette, Krafft, Chronol. p. 73.
* This also is in answer to Hilgenfeld, who takes ér: with reference tv the present, and not the future, and interprets it: four months are not yet gone, and yet the harvest is already here. This strange rendering derives no support whatever from xi. 80.
« See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 549.
162 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
people of Sychar who were flocking through the fields of springing preen, His prophetic eye takes in all mankind, whose conversion, begun by Him, would be accomplished by His disciples. See especially ver. 38. Godct wrongly denies this wider prophetic reference, and confines the words to the immediate occurrence, as an improvised harvest feast. Such an explana- tion does not suffice for what follows, vv. 36-38, which was suggested, in- deed, by the phenomenon before them, but embraces the whole range of service on the part of Christ's disciples in their relation to their Lord. If awe do not allow this wider reference, ver. 88 especially will be of very strange import. — dz] not because, but according to common attraction,’ that they are, etc. —7d6,] even now, at this moment, and not after four months ; put at the end for emphasis.? Not, therefore, to be joined with what fol- lows,* which would make the correlation with ér: inappropriate. For the rest, comp. Ovid, ast. v. 357: ‘‘maturis albescit messis aristis.”
Ver. 86. This harvest—how full of recompense for the reapers (i.e. for you, my disciples) ! The wages for the reaper’s labour consist in this, that («ai erplicative) he gathers fruit into life eternal (this is spoken locally, as denot- ing the granary, as is clear from ovvdye, against Luthardt, who takes ¢i¢ to denote the result) ; comp. ver. 14, without any figure : ‘‘ He converts men, and thus secures for them an entrance into the Messiah's kingdom.” There- upon, alike the sower (Christ) and the reaper rejoice together, according to God’s ordinance (iva). Chrysostom and many others wrongly take ozeipwy to denote the prophets. For éuov, with one verb in the singular and two sub- jects, comp. Hom, ZI. d. 61: et di) ouod méreude te dau Kai Zomde Axatodc 5 Soph, Aj. 1058. Here, however, it certainly significs the simultaneousneas of the joy, not simply joy in common (B. Crusius, Luthardt) ; for it is the joy of harvest, which the sower also shares in time of harvest, on account of the blessing with which His toil in sowing is now crowned.
Vv. 37, 38. ‘‘ Alike the sower and the reaper, I say, for in this case they are different persons.” —év yap tobrw, x.t.A.] for herein, in this relation of sowing and reaping, the saying (the proverb of ordinary life, rd Ae) énev0v) has its cssential truth, i.e. its proper realization, setting forth its idea.’ The ecference of the 206;0¢ to the words of the servant, Matt. xxv. 24, which Weizsicker considers probable,* would be very far-fetched ; the rendering of aarbivéc, however, as equivalent to aAnfjc, 2 Pet. ii. 22 (de Wette and many others), is quite opposed to the peculiar usage of John (so xix. 35). The article before aA7@., which through want of attention might easily have
1 Winer, p. 581 [E. T. p. 626 f.]. pv0ov, add’ adnO@vdy (i.e. & real) Adyor 2Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaedr. p. %6 E; ¢ Weizsicker, in his harmony of the ad Menex. p. 2% A). Comp. 1 John iv.8; words of John with those of the Synoptics,
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anabd. 1. 8. 16.
37A.C.*D. EL... Codd. It. al., Schulz, Tisch., Ewald, Ebrard, Godet.
4 Plato, Georg. p. 447A; Phaed. p. 101 D; Pol. x. p. 621 C3; comp. o madads Acyos, Phaed. p. 240 C; Gorg. p. 499 C; Soph, Trach. 1.
* Comp. Plat. Jim. p. GE: wy sAac0évra
{inwhich the latter are dealt with very freely (p. 282 ff.), brings in general much that is far-fetched into parallelisms which cannot be demonstrated, The intellectual inde- pendence of personal recollection and re- production {in John raises him above any such search after supposed borrowings.
CHAP. IV., 39. . 163 been omitted,’ marks-off the predicate with exclusive definiteness.? With respect to other relations (not év rofzw), the proverb does not express its proper idea.—<As to the proverb itself, and its various applications, see Wetstein. The a? rf:vdv of it is explained in ver. 38. — éyé} with emphasis : I, consequently the sower in the proverb. — The preterites avéote:2za and eiceAna. are not prophetic (de Wette, Tholuck), but the mission and calling of ‘the disciples were already practically involved in their reception into the apostolate.* Comp. xvii. 8.—éAdoe and avrav refer to Jesus (whom Ols- hausen, indeed, according to Matt. xxiii. 834, even excludes !), not to the prophets and the Baptist, nor to them together with Christ (so the Fathers and most of the early writers, also Lange, Luthardt, Ewald, and most others), nor in a general way to all who were instrumental in advancing the preparatory economy (Tholuck). They are plurals of category (see on Matt. ii, 20; John iii. 11), representing the work of Christ, into which the disciples entered, as not theirs, but others’ work, i.e. a distinct and different labour. But the fact that Jesus was the labourer, while self-evident from the conncction, is not directly expressed, but with intentional self-renuncia- tion, half concealed beneath the plural 4240. He it was who introduced the conversion of mankind ; the disciples were to complete it. He prepared and sowed the field ; they were called upon to do what was still further necessary, and to reap. The great toil of the apostles in fulfilling their call is not denied ; but, when compared with the work of Jesus Himself, it was the casicr, because it was only the carrying on of that work, and was encovr- agingly represented under the cheerful image of harvesting (comp. Isa. ix. 3; Ps. exxvi. 6). If &220 is to be taken as referring to Philip’s work in converting the Samaritans, Acts viii. 52, upon which Peter and John entered (Baur), or to Paul’s labour among the heathen, the fruit of which has fallen to the earlier apostles (Hilgenfeld), any and erery exegetical im- possibility may be with equal right allowed by a iorepov zpédrepov of critical arbitrariness.
Ver. 39 ff. Resumption of the historical narrative of ver. 80, which here receives its elucidation, to which then the continuation of the history attaches itself, vv. 40-42.‘ — ore eimé oe révra, x.t.A.} Indication of conse nee ratifying ver. 18. —d:d rév 24) 0v atroi] on account of His word (teaching). No mention is made of miracles, but we must not infer from this that there was no need of miracles among the Samaritans ; see, on the other hand, Acts viii. 6 ff. Jesus found that in this case His «ord sufficed, and there-
13. C.* K. L. T.b A. Or.
2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. 82; Kihner, II., 149.
? According to Godet, aréer. is to bo taken as referring toa summons, discovered by him in ver. 86, to the work of reaping among the aproaching Sycharites. He then takes a\Aot xexon. to refer to the labour of Jesus -in His interview with the woman. The latter words are said to have been spoken to the disciples, who thought He had been resting during their absence, with a
“finesse qu’on oseralt presque apneller légérement malicieuse,” and with an ‘‘aim- . able sourire."” Such weighty thoughts as dénooroAn and xéwo¢ represent are utterly incompatible with such side hints and pass- ing references. And it fs a pure invention to find In ver. San “invitation & prendre la faucilie.”
* As tothe position of the words r oA Aoi er, ¢ig aur. ray Zanu., see Buttmann, VY. T. Gr. p. $82 [E. T. p. 888].
164 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fore upon principle (see ver. 48) He forbore to work miracles, and His mighty word was all the mightier among the ‘unprejudiced people. — dia tiv ai Aadidv] on account of thy talk. So Aadé invariably in classical Greek. The term is purposely chosen, as from the standing-point of the speaker ; whereas John, as an impartial narrator, with cqual appropriateness, writes tov Adyov in ver. 39. As to Aadd in Vili. 43, where Jesus thus designates His own discourse, see in loc. Observe, besides, the emphatic of as con- trasted with the Adyoc of Jesus which they themselves (airoi) have now heard. — axyxéapev] the following érz refers to both verbs. They have heard that Jesus was the Messiah, for this became evident to them from His words. — 6 owryp tov xdouov|] not due to the individuality of John (1 John iv. 14), and put into the mouths of the people, as Liicke and Tholuck are inclined to suppose, but a confession quite conceivable as the result of the two days’ ministry of Jesus ; universalism, moreover, being more akin to the Messianic faith of the Samaritans (see Gesenius, de Samar. theol. p. 41 ff.) than to that of the Jews, with their definite and energetic feeling of nationality.
Note.—The prohibition in Matt. x. 5 militates neither against this narrative of John iv. in general, nor in particular against the promise of ver. 35 ff. It had merely a femporary force, and was abrogated again by Matt. xxviii. 19, 20, and Acts i. 8; and, moreover, it presented no insuperable barrier to restrict Jesus in His work (for He did not wholly exclude even Gentiles from His teaching). Acts viii. 5 ff. is no proof whatever that this history in John is of mythical origin ; it is, on the contrary, the fulfilment of the promise given here. Its several features are so original, and so psychologically true, and the words of Jesus (see especially vv. 21-24) come so directly from the living depths of His soul, that the exceptions taken against certain particulars (as, for instance, against the misunderstandings on the part of the woman ; against the words concerning the food, ver. 32 ; against the command of Jesus, ‘‘ Go, call thy husband ;’’ against the woman’s question concerning the place of worship ; against the faith of the Samaritans, which is said to contradict Luke ix. 53) are of no real weight, and are explicable only by the very authenticity of the nar- rative, not by the supposition of an intentional poetizing. This is in answer to Strauss, B. Bauer, and partly Weisse ; also to Scholten, who considers that the author’s object was to describe in 4 non-historical picture the spirit which actuated Jesus even towards the Samaritans. As a full guarantee for that part of the narrative, which the disciples, being absent, could not have witnessed, we may, considering the vivid impress of genuineness which marks it, fairly assume that Jesus Himself communicated it to the evangelist, and there is no need for the unfounded supposition that (ver. 8) John was left behind with . Jesus (Hengstenberg, Godet). When, finally, Baur (p. 145 ff. ; comp. also Hilgenfeld) resolves our history into a typus,—'‘the Samaritan woman being a figure of heathendom, susceptible, readily opening itself to faith, and presenting a wide harvest field,’’ a contrast to Nicodemus, the type of unsusceptible Juda- ism,—with all this arbitrariness on the part of the inventor, it is passing strange, if this were his object, that he did not bring Jesus into contact with a real heathen woman, for this would have been quite as easy to invent ; and that he should keep the words of the woman so free from the least tinge of anything of a heathen nature (ver. 20 ff.), and have put into her mouth so clear an expres-
t
CHAP. IV., 43, 44. 165 sion of Messianic hope (vv. 25, 42),—this p banging 3 is aus out of character on the part of such an inventor,
Vv. 48, 44.’ Tae dbo 4uépac] The article is to be explained by ver. 40. — aurdéc] ipse, not merely others with reference to Him, but ‘‘ He Himself did not hesitate to testify,” etc. As to the fact itself, see Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24. Schenkel’s inference from zpogfry¢ that Jesus did not yet regard Himself as the Messiah, involves a misuse of the general term within the category of which the conception of Messiah is embraced. — Euaprip.| not in the sense of the Pluperfect (Tholuck, Godct ; see on xviii. 24), but then, when He returned to Galilee. [See Note XXII. p. 170.] — ydp is the ordinary for ; and rarpid: is not the native fown, but, as is clear from TadAaiav, vv. 48, 45, the native country. So also usually in Greek writers, from Homer downwards. The words give the reason why He did not hesi- tate to return to Galilee. The gist of the reason lies in the antithetical reference of év ri idig warpid:. If, as Jesus Himself testified, a prophet had no honour in his own country, he must seek it abroad. And this Jesus had done. Abroad, in Jerusalem, He had by His mighty works inspired the Galileans who were there with that respect which they were accustomed to deny to a prophet at home. Thus He brought the prophet’s honour with Him from abroad." Accordingly (ver. 45) He found a reception among the Galileans also, because they had seen His miracles in Jerusalem (ii. 23). It is therefore obviously incorrect toe understand Tad:Zaiav specially of Upper Galilee, as distinct from Zower Galilee, where Nazareth was situated. So Lange, in spite of the fact that T'a4.4. here must be the universal and popular name for the whole province, as distinct from Samaria (éxei#ev), whether we retain xai ar#Adev as in the Elzevir or not. It is further incorrect, and an utterly arbitrary gloss, to interpret rarpic as meaning Nazareth, and ;dp as referring to the fact that He went, indeed, to Galilee, but not to Nazareth (Chrysostom and Euthymius Zigabenus : to Capernaum).* It is also oppos- ed alike to the context, and the universal (including the Johannean) view which regards Galilee as Christ’s home (i. 46, ii. 1, vii. 3, 41, 52), to take natpic as denoting Judea, and yédp as stating the reason (in the face of the quite different reason already given, vv. 1-8) why Jesus had left Judea ; ‘
1 Bee Ewald, Jahrd. X. 1860, p. 108 ff. He agrees for the most part with my render- ing ; comp. also his Johann. Schr. I. p. 194; in like manner Godet, who, however, without the slightest hint of it in the text, supposes & purpose on the writer's part, in connection with ili. 24, to correct the synoptical tradition. John wishes “ con- stater I‘intervalle considérable qui sépara du baptéme de Jésus son retour définitif et son établissement permanent en Galilée.’’ In {il. 24 he states the fact, and here he gives the motive. Scholten puts the em- phasis which prompts the following ydp upon éxabey, a word which {s quite un- essential, and might just as well have been
omitted.
* Baeumlein urges, against my explana- tion: “We cannot believe that, after the words ‘ He betook himself to Galilee,’ there should follow the reason why He had be- fore left Galilee." This, however, is not the logical connection at all.
380 Cyril, Nonnus, Erasmus, Beza, Cal- vin, Aretius, Grotius, Jansen, Bengel, and many; also Kypke, Rosenmiilier, Olshau- sen, Klee, Gemberg in Stud. u. Xrit. 1845, I.; Hengstenberg, Baeumlein.
4 Origen, Maldonatus, B. Bauer, Schweg- ler, Wieseler, B. Crasius, Schweizer, Kést- lin, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and formerly Ebrard.
166 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
whence some, ¢.g. Origen and Baur, take rerpi¢ in a higher sense, as signi- fying the native land of the prophets,’ and therefore of the Messiah also, and most, like Hilgenfeld, as having reference to the birth at Bethlehem. Liicke has rightly, in his 8d ed., abandoned this interpretation ; but, on the other hand, takes ydp as equivalent to namely, and refers it not to what precedes, but to what follows,” so that ver. 44 gives an explanation in passing on the point : ‘‘that the Galileans on this occasion received Jesus well, but only on account of the miracles which they had seen in Jerusalem” (de Wettc). But though in the classics }ép explicative often precedes the sentence to be explained,* especially in parenthesis,‘ this usage is without precedent in the N. T. (Rom. xiv. 10, Heb. ii. 8, are not instances in point), and espe- cially foreign to John's simple style of narration ; morcover, the ‘ indeed, — but only,” thus put into ver. 45, is obtruded on the words, which have ncither pév after édé¢., nor afterwards a uévor dé, or any similar expression.’ According to Briickner, Jesus came to Galilce because (but sce vv. 1-3) He supposed that IIe should find no honour there, and conscquently with the intention of under- taking the conflict for the recognition of His person and dignity. According to Luthardt, whom Ebrard now follows,® the words imply the hope enter- tained by Jesus of being able to remain in rest and silence in Galilee more easily than anywhere clse. But both explanations are incompatible with the following dre ov, x.r.2., which certainly means that the Galileans received Him with honour, as He was called immediately thereafter to per- form a miracle. We should at least expect dé or a44a (comp. Nonnus) to introduce the statement, and not ot». In what follows, moreover, regard- ing the residence in Galilee, we are told neither about conflict nor about the repose of Jesus, but simply of the healing of the nobleman’s son. Lastly,
1 So also B. Crusius, who compares vil. 52. Quite erroneously, when the general and proverbial character of the statement is considered. After iv. 8, however, the reader can expect no further explanation of the reason why Jesus did not remain in Judea. Schwegler and B. Bauer suppose that here Judea is meant as the native land of Jesus, and make use of this as an argu- ment against the genuineness and histori- cal truth of the Gospel. Comp. also Késtlin in the Theol. Jahro. 1851, p. 186. Hilgenfeld, Ecang. p. 206: ‘*a remarkable inversion of the synoptical statement, wherein the Gospel appears asa free compilation by a post-apostolic author” (Zeilschr. 1862. p. 17). Schwelzer also finds it such a stum- biing-block, that he regards it as proving the following narrative to be a Galilean in- terpolation. Gfrdrer, hell. Sage, II. 289, rightly indeed understands the words as re- ferring to Galilee, but considers that we should supply the following: “dut very slowly and reluctantly, for,” etc.
2So substantially also Tholuck, Olshau- 6en, Maier, de Wette.
$ See Hartung, Partixell. I. p. 467 ; Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 75 ff.
4 See Bremi, ad Lya. p. 66; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. 1. 338.
6 Weizsiicker also, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theat. 1859, p. 695, regards ydp not as intro- ducing a reason, but as demonstrative. John intimates that he will not narrate much of Christ's ministry in Galilee ; he re- fers to that saying as if shrinking from un- pleasant recollections. But this is not in the text, nor is it compatible with the con- nection in ver. 45, and the history that follows. Weizsiicker, indeed, thinks (comp. his Unters. ad. @. ev. Gesch. p. 276) that in this synoptic saying John refers to the synoptic account of that Galilean ministry, tohich he would not himself describe. Who ever could imagine that? especially when John at once goes on to narrate the good reception given to Jesus in Galllee, and His miracle of Oless- ing there. Did the Lord betake Himself to “a roluntary obacurity,” coucerning which John wishes @o be silent ?
* Comp. Hofmann, Jeissag. u. Erf. I. 88, also Schriftvew. IL. 1, p. 171.
CHAP. IV., 45-50. 167
it is contrary to the words (because ore ot» 726ev in ver. 45 directly resumes the cic r. Tad. of ver. 48, and admits of no interval), to make, with Hauff,! the train of thought terminate with ver. 44, and take ver. 44 itself as a general description of the result of Christ’s Galilean ministry. Thus édéSavro is said to indicate that He did and taught much there ; which is clearly a gloss foisted into the text.
Vv. 45, 46. ’Edéavro airév] The reception which He found among them was one of faith, for He now brought with him from Jerusalem the honour which the prophet had not in his own country ; hence wdvra éwpaxérec, K.T.A., because they had seen, etc., and in this we have the key to the right under- standing of ver. 44. -— Ver. 46. ov] in consequence of this reception, which encouraged Him to go farther into the country. He goes, however, again straight to Cana, because here He had relatives, and might hope in conse- quence of His first miracle to find the soil prepared for his further labours. — k. qv tig Baotdixde, x.T.A.] év Kagapvaobu should be joined to 7. Baotduxéds, a royal person, is, according to the frequent usage of Josephus (see Krebs, p. 144) and other writers,” not a relation of the king,’ but one in the service of the king (Herod Antipas) ; whether military man (thus often in Josephus ; Nonnus : i@ivev orparijyv), civilian, court retainer, is uncertain. —6 vidc] according to ver. 49, still young. The article indicates, perhaps, that he was the only one.
Vv. 47, 48. ’AnqABe xpdc¢ avrév] from Capernaum to Cana.— iva] the subject of the request is its purpose. — jpyedre] in €0 erat, ut.4 The man’s prayer is conccivable partly from the first miracle at Cana, and partly from the fame of Jesus which had followed Him from Jerusalem. — ‘‘ Unless ye see signs and wonders, ye will certainly not believe,” is spoken in displeasure against the Galileans generally (ver. 45), but including the suppliant; Jesus fore- secing that the healing of his son would make him believe, but at the same time that his faith would not be brought about without a miracle. The Lord's teaching was in His own view the weightiest ground of faith, especially according to John (comp. ver. 41), though faith based on miracles was not rejected, but under certain circumstances even required by Him (x. 88, xiv. 11, xv. 24), though not as of highest, but secondary rank, according to their purpose as a divine attestation of the teaching. It is incorrect to put the emphasis upon idyre, unless ye see with your own eyes, etc., condemning the entreaty to accompany him. In this case should both idyre have been put first (against Bengel and Storr), and roi¢ 6¢a2,u0i¢ or the like been added ; and in truth the man saw the miracle, and a greater one than if Jesus had gone with him. —oyueia xai répatra] see on Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Rom. xv. 19. As to the reproach itself, comp. 1 Cor. i. 22.
Vv. 49, 50. Then follows a still more urgent entreaty of the father’s love, tried by the answer of Jesus; the 73 sadiov pov, my child, marking the father’s tendcr affection. Comp. Mark v. 28.— Jesus rewards his confidence with the short answer, Go thy way, thy son lireth ; thus an-
' Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 117 ff. lowed by Chrysostom. * Plutarch, Polyb., etc. ; see Wetstein. Comp. Luke vii. 2; Hemsterhuis, ead *So Baronius, Bos, and many, also al- Lucian. D. M. II. p. 546.
168 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
nouncing the deliverance from death accomplished at that very moment by an act of His will through miraculous power operating at a distance (not by magnetic healing power, against Olshausen, Krabbe, Kern, thus resorting toa sphere as foreign to the miracles of healing as it is inadequate as an expla- nation). As little can Christ's word be regarded as a medical prognosticon,' nor is any trace found in the text of an effect resulting from faith in general, and the spiritual movement of the masses (Weizsiicker).—According to the text, Jesus speaks from a conscious knowledge of the crisis of the sickness, effected that moment at a distance by Himself :-‘‘ Thy son is not dead, but liveth | — émior. rt Ad6yp] Thus he now overleaps the limit of faith which supposed Christ’s presence necessary to the working of the cure ; he believed the word, i.e. had confidence in its realization.
Vv. 51-54. Airot xaraB . . . air) see Buttmann, NW. 7. Gr. p. 270 [E. T. p. 815]. — 767] belongs to xaraf., not to izivr. (B. Crusius) : when he was already going down, and now was no longer in Cana, but upon his journey back. — oi dovAo, x.7.A.] to reassure the father, and prevent the now unnec- essary coming of Jesus. — 4] he is not dead, but the sickness has the Opposite issue : he lives ! — xouyérepov] jiner, prettier, as in common life we are wont to say, ‘‘he is pretty well.”* Here itis an ‘‘amoenum verbum” (Bengel) of the father’s heart, which apprehends its good fortune still with feclings of tenderness and anxiety. — éy@é¢] see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 323. — jpav é8déunv] He had therefore been on the way since one o’clock the day before, because we must suppose from ver. 50 that he set out immediately after the assurance of Jesus. This surprises us, even apart from the distance from Cana to Capernaum, not exactly known to us indeed, but hardly three geographical miles. That in his firm faith he travelled ‘‘ non festinans” (Lampe) is unnaturally assumed against the impulse of parental love which would hurry him home ; as also that somewhere on the way, or even at Cana (Ewald assumes the latter, making the seventh hour seven in the evening, according to the Roman reckoning) he spent the night. We may suppose some delay not named, on the journey back, or (with Ieng- stenberg, Briickner, and others) take the to-day in the mind of the Jewish servants as denoting the day which began at six P.M. (sunset). Accord- ing to Baur and Hilgenfeld, this noting of the time is to be attributed, not to the genuineness and originality of the account, but to the subjective aim of the writer, which was to make the miracle as great and pointed as possible (comp. ver. 54, note). —év éx. r. &pa] 8c. agjxev avTov 6 muperdc. Observe, with reference to éxeivoc, that it does not mean tdem, but is the simple relative ile. —x. ériotevoev, x.t.A.] upon Jesus as the Messiah.* Observe how faith here attains its realization as to its object, and further, the importance of this xai 4 oixia abrov (the first household), which now occurs for the first time. Comp. Acts xvi. 14, 15, 34, xvin. 8. — roiro rdAw det- repov, x.t.A.] Referring back to ii. 11. Literally inaccurate, yet true as to
1 Paulus, comp. Ammon. 8 Kadas otv xaOjaro avrov 6 Thy xapdiay 2 Exactly so in Arrian. Zpict. iil. 100f the avrod ywioxnwy Xprords, cimwy OTs day ph sick : coupes éxecs, and its opposite xcaxws onpeia, x.7.A., Euthymius Zigabenus. éxecs. Comp. the Latin belle havere.
CHAP. Iv., 51-54. 169 its import, is the rendering of Luther : ‘‘ This is the second miracle that Jesus did ;” rovro stands by itself, and the following detr. onz. supplies the place of the predicate (this Jesus did as the second miracle), hence no article follows tovro.' IléAc6v, however, must not be overlooked, nor is it to be joined with devrepov (so usually) as a current pleonasm,? for debrepov is not an adverb, but an adjective. It rather belongs to érvinoev, thus affirming that Jesus now again did this as a second miracle (comp. Beza) upon his return from Judea to Galilee (as in ii. 1). Thus the idea of the repeatedly recurring miracle upon His coming out of Judea into Galilee is certainly doubly expressed,—once adverbially with the verb (dd. émoinoev), and then adjectivally with the noun (deirepov on.) ; both are more definitely determined by éAfdv, x.1.A. Schweizer (p. 78) quite arbitrarily considers the reference to the first miracle at Cana unjohannean.
Note.—The Bacrdinée is not the same with the Centurion of Matt. viii. 5 ff.; comp. Luke vii. 2 ff. (Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and most others). On the assumption of their identily,® which attributes the greater originality with some to Matthew and Luke,‘ with others to John,® and to the latter an adjusting purpose,‘ the discrepancies as to place, time, and even as to the sick person, constitute less difficulties than the entirely different char- acter in which the suppliant appears in John and in the two Synoptics. In these latter he is still a heathen, which, according to John,.he cannot be ;7 see ver. 48, which associates him with the Galileans, and thus with Jews; and thus alone establishes the diversity of the two miracles, apart from the fact that there is no more objection against the supposition of two healings wrought at a dis- tance than against one. This is at the same time against Schweizer’s view, that the section in John is an interpolation, Indeed, a single example of heal- ing at a distance, the historical truth of which, moreover, even Ewald maintains, might more easily be resolved by the arbitrariness of criticism into a myth bor- rowed from the history of Nuaman, 2 Kings ix. 5, 9 ff. (Strauss), or explained Away as & misunderstanding of a parable (Weisse), or dissolved into a subjective transposition and development of the synoptical materials on John's part for his own purpose, which would make the belief in miracles pass absolutely beyond the Jewish range of view (Hilgenfeld), and appear in its highest form as a moredecy dia tév Zéyov (Banr, p. 152) ;® although morevew re Adyy, ver. 41, is something quite different from miorederv dia tov Adyov, and the éricrevoev in ver. 53 took place, not dia rév Adyov, but did 7d onpeion.
1 See on fi. 11, and Breml, ad. Lys. Ec. IT. p. 486 f.; Ast, Lex. Plat. IT. 406 ; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. pp. 18 A, 24 B.
3 See on Matt. xxvi. 42; comp. John xxi.
® Gfrdrer, Ewald.
* Weizsiicker.
7 Against Cyril, Jerome, Baur, and Ewald. ®if John had really derived his matter
15, Acts x. 15.
3 Jrenaeus, Eusebius, Semler, Seyffarth, Strauss, Weisse, B. Bauer, Gfrorer, Schwei- zer, Ammon, Baumgarten Cruslus, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Welzsicker.
4 Strauss, B. Bauer, Wolss, Baur, Hilgen- feld.
from the Synoptics, it would be quite incon- conceivable how, according to the design attributed to him by Baur, he could have left unused the statement of Matt. vill. 10, especially if the BacrAccos is taken to bea Gentile. See Hase, Tubingen Schwe, pp. 82, 83.
170 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror,
AAI. ‘ Although Jesus Himself,” etc. Ver. 2.
Although, etc. It seems to me that the construction is interrupted, and re- quires a parenthesis.
As to Meyer's statement that ‘‘ver. 2 does not contain a correction of him- self by the Evangelist,’’ Weiss properly suggests that the Evangelist might be correcting or rather making definite his own previous vague and general state- ment (ch, iii. 22, ‘‘ He remained with them and baptized”), as well as the form of the rumour that had reached the Pharisees (ver. 1).
XXII. ‘‘ For Jesus Himself testified.” Ver, 43.
The difficulty of this verse hes in its assigning a reason for Christ’s return to Galilee, which would seem to be of precisely opposite tendency. It is among the perplexing passages in John, and the solutions have been very various. Four, which distinguish Galilee from ‘‘His own country (1a- tpidc, fatherland),’’ making the lutter respectively either Judea, or Lower Galilee, or Nazareth, or even Capernaum, may, I think, be readily dismissed. According to this view Jesus in going into Galilee avoided His ‘‘own country.” Three find in the lack of esteem for the Lord in Galilee the actual reason for His return to it: 1. That He might find, in the neglect and disesteem which awaited Him, the desired rest and seclusion. 2. That He might, amidst an incredulous and stubborn people, prosecute the struggle for prophetic and Messianic recognition. 3. Akin to this, that in this pre-eminently missionary field, in the ungrateful soil of His peculiarly prejudiced and unbelieving coun- trymen, He might sow the seed and reap the harvest which He had so success- fully sown and reaped in Judea and Samaria (Weiss).
Others find in the verse an anticipative reference to whut follows, By a familiar Greek use of yap explicative, the sentence precedes the thought which it would naturally follow, as if the writer had said, ‘‘He came into Galilee. When therefore He arrived in Galilee the Galileans received Him, having seen, i.e. because they had seen His miracles in Judea ; for Jesus Him- self testified,” etc. This explanation, like that of Meyer, seems harsh and unnatural, nor do I think that given by Weiss can be deemed satisfactory. Is not perhaps the simplest solution one which assumes before the ydp some such ellipsis as, ‘“‘ He came into Galilee [contrary to what might naturally be expected ; or, though He might look for an unfavorable reception] ; for Jesus Himself testified,’ etc., the y¢p with its suppressed ellipsis thus anewering nearly to our although ? The verse becomes thus 4 merely incidental remark, as to Christ’s probable reception in Galilee, suggested partly by what He actnally did subsequently experience in His peculiarly ‘“‘ own country,” Nazareth (L. N. 16-29), and the fact that He there bore in substance precisely this testimony (ver. 23). Ver. 45 then has no connection with ver. 44, but goes back and resumes the narrative of ver. 43, suspended by the parenthetical quotation of ver. 44. Indeed so Weiss constructs it, and, though contrary to the demands of his exegesis, also Meyer. The ellipsis thus assumed with ydp is not especially harsh ; for there is no other particle whose elliptical uses the Greeks treat with
NOTES. 171
the same freedom.—As to airdéc, Weiss observes that it refers to Jesus not in con- trast with ‘‘others’’ testifying of Him, but to Jesus “ Himself’’ testifying, and thus authorizing the Evangelist in saying what he would not have ventured to say without the Lord’s example.—éyvaprvpyce, says Meyer, ‘ then when He re- turned to Galilee.” Probably afterwards at Nazareth (1.. iv. 23), and an inci- dental confirmation of the Synoptical narrative.
192 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
; CHAPTER V.
Ver. 1. fopr7] C. E. F. H. L. M. A. Il. &. Cursives, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Theo- phyl.: 4 éopry. So Tisch. But the witnesses against the article are still stronger (A. B. D. ete. Or.) ; and how easily might the insertion have occurred through the ancient explanation of the feast as that of Easter !— Ver. 2. ézi rj xpofa- Tixg] €v T, xp. is more weakly attested (though sanctioned by A. D. G. L. &.**). Only ®.* Cursives, some Verss. and Fathers have simply zpoBurixy7. A change following another construction (sheep-pool). Unnecessary, and unsupported on critical grounds, is the conjecture of Gersdorf : 7 mpofarin) nodvyjiiSpa h Acyoe pévn 'EBp, ByO. Tisch. following &.* has rd Aeyéuevov instead of # ér:Aeyonévy.— Ver. 3. roAv] wanting in B.C. D. L. &. Cursives, and some verss. Bracketed by Lachmann, deleted by Tisch. A strengthening addition that might*easily pre- sent itself.—The words éxdeyou, tiv Tod bdarog xivyowv, together with the whole of ver. 4, are wanting in B. C.* D. ‘8. 157, 314, Copt. Ms. Sahid. Syre*- Those words are wanting only in A. L. 18 ; the fourth verse only in D, 33, Arm. Mss. Codd. It. Aug., Nonnus (who describes the stirring, but does not mention the angel), and is marked as doubtful in other witnesses by an obelus or asterisks. There is, moreover, great variation in particular words. For xaré@aivev, A. K. Verss. have even ¢Avvero, which Grotius approves. The entire passage from éxdexou. to the end of ver. 4, though recognized by Tertullian (Origen is silent), is a legendary addition (so also Liicke, Olshausen, Baeumlein, and now even Briickner, reject it), though left in the text by Lachmann in conformity with his principles, but deleted by Tisch. ; by de Wette not decidedly rejected ; vindicated on various grounds by B. Crusius, Hahn, Theol. X. T. I. 303, Lange, Reuss, and Hengstenberg ; left doubtful by Luthardt. Had the passage been genuine, its contents would have led more easily to its being retained than omitted ; moreover, the comparatively numerous daft Acyéueva in it make it suspicious, viz. xivgorv, rapayn, dyzore (instead of © d7rore Lachmann has olwdy- motovv), voonua. When itis judged (de Wette) that John would hardly have ended the sentence with énpév, and then have immediately proceeded with 7» dé Tec, etc., this is really arbitrary, for we should miss nothing if nothing had been there; drav rupay6g 76 ddwp, ver. 7, by no means makes a preceding ex- planation ‘‘ almost necessary,’’ but probably states the original form of the popular belief, out of which the,legend soon developed itself and found its way into the text. This also against Hofmann, Schrifibeweis, I. 327 f., whose vindi- cation of ver. 4 is approved by Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 268. Ewald (so also Tho- luck and Godet) rejects ver. 4, but defends the words éxdeyouéruy. . . xivnow in ver. 3 for the sake of ver. 7; Hofmann, in loc., follows an opposite course. But the critical witnesses do not sanction such a separation. — Ver. 5. xai is wanting in the Elz., and is bracketed by Lachmann, but adopted by Tisch., and this upon preponderating evidence. — acfev.] B. C.* D. L. &. Cursives, Codd. It. Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Arm, Cyr. Chrys. append avroi, which Lachmann puts in brackets, and Tisch. receives. Rightly ; between do@evecA and TOY roy
CHAP. Y., l. 173 the superfluous AYTOY might easily escape notice. — Ver. 7. For SdAy Elz. has BaAAy, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 8. fyepe] Elz.: éyecpa:, against the best Codd. See the critical notes on Mark ii. 2. — Ver. 12. rér xpa33. cov is wanting in B. C.* L. ®. Sahid. An addition from vv. 8,11. Deleted by Tisch. — Ver. 13. iaMeic] Tisch., following D. and Codd. of the It., reads ac%evav, ap- parently original, but inappropriate after rq refeparevuévy in ver. 10; to be regarded as a subject added to ver. 7, and besides this too weakly supported. — Ver. 15. dvjyyeiAe] C. L. &. Syr. Byret- Copt. Cyr. read elev; D. K. U. D. Cursives, Chrys. : dr7yy. The latter reading might easily arise by joining avnyy. With a77AGev ; but this makes the testimonies against elzev, which Tisch. adopts, still stronger. — Ver. 16. After ’Iovdaio., Elz. Scholz (bracketed by Lachmann), read xai é{jrovv avrév ¢groxreiva, against decisive witnesses. A sup- plement borrowed from ver. 18. — Ver. 20. Tisch. : Gavydlere, which is far too weakly supported by L. 8. — Ver. 25. ¢7covra:] Lachmann and Tisch. : ¢yoovery, following B. D. L. &. Cursives, Chrys. Rightly ; the more usual form crept in — Ver. 30. After ne Elz. has srarpéc, an addition opposed by decisive witnesses. — Ver. 32. olda] Tisch. ofdare, following only D. 8. Codd. It. Syres- Arm. — Ver. 35. The form ayaAdabjva: (Elz., following B.: ayadAcacGjva:) has pre- ponderating evidence in its favour,
Ver. 1. Meréd ratra] after this stay of Jesus in Galilee ; an approximate statement of time, within the range of which the harmonist has to bring much that is contained in the Synoptics. The distinction made by Liicke between this and yera rovro, which makes the former denote indirect, and the latter immediate sequence, is incapable of proof: serd ravra is the more usual in John ; comp. ver. 14, iii. 22, vi. 1, vil. 1. — éopr) rav 'Iovdaiwn] a feast of the Jews ; John does not describe it more definitely. But what feast is meant appears with certainty from iv. 35 ; comp. vi. 4. For in iv. 85 Jesus spoke in December, and it is clear from vi. 4 that the Passover was still ap- proaching ; it must therefore’ be a feast occurring in the interval between December and the Passorer, and this is no other than the feast of Purim,?* the feast of lots, celebrated on the 14th and 15th of Adar (Esth. ix. 21), con- sequently in March, in commemoration of the nation’s deliverance from the bloody designs of Haman. So Keppler, d’Outrein, Hug, Olshausen, Wiese- ler, Krabbe, Anger, Lange, Maier, Baeumlein, Godet, and most others. So also Holtzmann * and Mircker.* In favour of this interpretation is the fact that, as this feast was by no means a great one, but of less importance and less known to Hellenistic readers, the indefinite mention of it on John's part is thoroughly appropriate ; while he names the greater and well-known feasts,—not only the Passover, but the oxornyia in vii. 2, and the fyxaina in x. 22. To suppose, in explanation of the omission of the name, that he
lif this feast ileelf is taken to be the Pass- over, we are obliged, with the most glaring arbitrariness, to put a spatium cacuum of a year between it and the Passo~>r of vi. 4, of which, however, John (vi. 1-4) has not given the slightest hint. On the contrary, he lets his narrative present the most unin- terrupted sequence. Hengstenberg judges,
indeed, that the gap can appear strange only to those who do not rightly discern the relation in which John stands to the Synop- tics. But this is nothing more than the dictum of harmonistic presuppositions.
7 O° Di} “1D’, Esth. ix. 24 ff., HL 7.
3 Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 874. 4 Uebereinst. d. Matth. u. Joh. 1868, p. 11.
174 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
had forgotten what feast it was (Schweizer), is compatible neither with the accuracy of his recollection in other things, nor with the importance of the miracle wrought at this feast. It is arbitrary, however, to suppose that John did not wish to lay stress upon the name of the feast, but upon the fact that Jesus did not go up to Jerusalem sare on occasion of a feast (Lu- thardt, Lichtenstein) ; indeed, the giving of the name after "Iovaiwv (comp. vii, 2) would in no way have interfered with that imaginary design. It is objected that the feast of Purim, which was not a temple feast, required no journey to Jerusalem ;' and the high esteem in which it is held in Gem. Tier, Megill. i. 8 cannot be shown to refer to the time of Jesus. But micht not Jesus, even without any Iegal obligation, have availed Himself of this feast for His further labours in Jerusalem ? And are we to suppose that the character of the feast—a feast for eating and drinking merely—should hinder Him from going to Jerusalem? The Sabbath (ver. 9), on which ap- parently (but sce Wieseler, p. 219) the feast could never occur, may have been before or after it ; and, lastly, what is related of Jesus (vi. 1 ff.) between this festival and the Passover, only a month afterwards, may easily have occurred within the space of that month. In fine, it can neither have been the Passocer,* nor Pentecost,* nor the feast of Tabernacles,‘ nor the feast of the Dedication (a possible surmise of Keppler and Pctavius) ; nor can we acquiesce in Icaving the feast undeterminable.* Baumgarten, Crusius hesi- tates between Purim and the Passover, yet inclines to the latter.
Vv. 2, 8. "Eor:] is the less opposed to the composition of the Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem, as what is mentioned is a bath, whose surround- ings might very naturally be represented as still existing. According to Ewald, the charitable uses which the building served might have sared it from destruction. Comp. Tobler, Denkblitt. p. 53 ff., who says that the porches were still pointed out in the fifth century. — éi ri rpoBareng] is usu- ally explained by wf2y supplied : hard by the sheep-gate ; see on iv. 6. Con- cerning the {[X¥i3 WV, Neh. iii. 1, 32, xii. 39, so called perhaps because sheep for sacrifice were sold there, or brought in there at the Passover, noth- ing further is known. It lay north-east of the city, and near the temple. Still the word supplied, ‘‘ gate,” cannot be shown to have been in use ; nor could it have been self-evident, especially to Gentile Christian readers, not minutely acquainted with the localities. I prefer, therefore, following Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ammonius, Nonnus, to join xoAru3. with rpofarixg, and, with Elz. 1638 and Wetstein, to read xo21u,3;6pa as a dative (comp. al- ready Castalio): ‘‘ Now there is in Jerusalem, at the sheep-pool, [a place called] Bethesda, so called in the Hebrew tongue.” According to Ammonius, the sheep used for sacrifice were washed in the sheep-pool.— émAcy.] ‘‘ this ad-
1See especially Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 187 f., Lficke, de Wette, Briickner.
2Cod. A., Irenaeus, Eusebius’ Chron., Rupertns, Luther, Calovius, Grotius, Jan- sen, Scaliger, Cornelius & Lapide, Lightfoot, Lampe, Paulus, Kuinoel, Sfisskind, Klee, Neander, Ammon, Hengstenberg.
3 Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthy- mius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Beza, Calvin, Maldonatus, Bengel.
4 Cod. 181, Coccelus, Ebrard, Ewald, Hil- genfeld, Lichtenstein, Krafft, Riggenback.
® Liicke, de Wette, Luthardt, Tholuck. Brickner.
CHAP. V., 5-7. 175 ditional name being given to it.”.1 The pool was called Bethesda, a character- istic surname which had supplanted some other original name. — Byvecda] RION IN3, locus benignitatis, variously written in Codd.,’ not occurring else- where, not even in Josephus ; not house of pillars,” as Delitzsch supposes. It is impossible to decide with certainty which of the present pools * may have been that of Bethesda.‘ To derive, with Eusebius, the healing virtue of the, according to him, red-coloured water, which perhaps was snineral, from the blood of the sacrifices flowing down from the temple, and the name from STWR, effusio® is unwarranted, and contrary to ver. 7. The jive porches served as a shelter for the sick, who are specially described as rug2av, etc., and those afflicted with diseases of the nerves and muscles. On Enpav, ‘* persons with withered and emaciated limbs,” comp. Matt. xii. 10 ; Mark iii. 1:; Luke vi. 6, 8. Whether the sick man of ver. 5 was one of them or of the ywAci¢ is not stated.
Ver. 5. Tptdxovra, x.7.4.] t.6. ‘‘having passed thirty-eight years in his sick- ness,” 80 that Zywv belongs to rp. x. dxrd ér7,* and év r. aod. avr. denotes the state in which he spent the thirty-eight years. Against the connection of Evo with év 7. aod. a. Geing in his sickness thirty-eight years ; so Kuinoel and most others) ver. 6 is decisive, as also against the perversion of Paulus, who puts a comma after éywr (‘‘ thirty-eight years old”). The duration of the sickness makes the miracle all the more striking ; comp. Luke viii. 43. There is no intimation of any reference to the sentence of death pronounced upon Israel in the wilderness (Baumgarten, p. 139 f.; comp. Hengsten- berg).
Ver. 6, 7. Tovrov. . . . éyee] two points which excited the compassion of Jesus, where yvobc, however (as in iv. 1), does not denote a supernatural knowledge of this external (otherwise in ver, 14) and easily known or ascer- tained fact (against Godet and the carly expositors). — éyec] 7.¢. év acdeveig, ver. 5. — détecc, x.r.A.] Wilt thou become whole? The self-evident nature of this desire made the question an appropriate one to rouse the sufferer’s at- tention and expectation, and this was the object Jesus had in view in order to
20On éwAdyeyv, elsewhere usually in the sense of selecting, see Plat. Legg. ili. p. 700 B. 2 Tisch., following &. 83, Bedgadd. 3 Probably it was the present ebbing and flowing “ Fountain of the Virgin Mary,”’ an intermittent spring called by the inhabitants ** Mother of Steps." See Robinson, II. 148f. According to Wieseler, Synopee, p. 260, it may have been the pool ‘AuvySaAov mentioned In Josephus, Andé. v. 11. 4, a8 was already sup- posed by Lampe and several others, to which, however, the difference of name isan objection ; it has noclatm to be recelved on the ground of etymology, but only of simi- larity of sound. Ritter, Erdk. XVI. pp. 3829, 448 ff., describes the pool asnow choked up, while Krafft, in his Zopogr. p. 176, thinks it wasthe Struthion of Josephus. It certainly
was not the ditch, now pointed out by tra- dition as Bethesda, at the north of the tem- ple wall. See also Tobler as before, who doubts the possibility of discovering the pool. As to the meaning of the namo (House of Mercy), it is possible that the arrangement for the purposes of a bath to- gether with the porches was intended as a charitable foundation (Olshausen, Ewald), or that the divine favour, whose effects were here manifested, gave rise to the name. This latter is the more probable, and perhaps gave occasion to the legend of the Angel in the Received Text.
« See Robinson, II. 136 f., 158 f.
®* Calvin, Arctius, Bochart, Michaelis.
* vifl. 57, x1. 17; Josephus, Arch. vil. 11. 1; Krebs, p. 150.
176 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the commencement of His miraculous work. This question was inappro- priate for the purpose of merely beginning a conversation upon the subject (de Wette). Paulus falsely supposes that the man might have been a dishonest beggar, feigning sickness, and that Jesus asks him with reproving emphasis, ‘‘Wilt thou be made whole? art thou in earnest?” So, too, Ammon ; while Lange regards him as simply languid in will, and that Christ again roused his dormant will ; but there is nothing of this in the text, and just as little of Luthardt’s notion, that the question was meant for all the people of whom the sick man is supposed to be the type. This miracle alone fur- nishes an example of an unsolicited interrogation upon Christ’s part (a feature which Weisse urges against it); but in the case of the man born blind, chap. ix., we have also an unsolicited healing.—dv3pwrov ove Eyw] ad morbum accedebat inopia, Grotius ; dv3p. emphatically takes the lead ; the épyoua: iyo that follows answers to it. —iéray rapaydg 1d idwp}] The occasional and in- termittent disturbance of the water is not to be understood as a regular oc- currence, but as something sudden and quickly passing away. Hence the man’s waiting and complaint. — BdAy] throw, denoting a hasty conveyance before the momentary bubbling was over. — épyoua:] he therefore was obliged to help himself along, but slowly. — dA20¢ pd éuov] so that the place where the bubbling appeared was occupied by another. Observe the sing.,; the short bubbling is to be regarded as occurring only in one jized springing-point in the pool, so that one person only could secure its influence. The apocry- phal ver. 4 has perverted this circumstance, in conformity with a popular superstition, which probably reaches as far back as the time of Christ.
Vv. 8, 9. Comp. Matt. ix. 6; Mark ii. 9, 11. — repirdrec] walk, go; hith- erto he had lain down there, ver. 6. The command implies the man’s faith, which had been recognized by Christ. — xai ype] simply and emphatically told in the very words which Jesus had spoken.—Some (Strauss) quite arbi- trarily regard this story as a legendary exaggeration of the healing of the paralytic in the Synoptics (Matt. ix. ; Mark ii.); time, place, circumstances, and what ensues, especially its essential connection with the healing on the Sabbath-day, are all original and independent, as is also the whole account, so full of life and psychologically true, and very different from that in the Synoptics. Notwithstanding, Baur again (p. 243 ff.) would make the story in John a composition out of synoptical materials, appealing especially to Mark ii. 9,10; and Hilgenfeld, Zrang. 269 f., adopts the same course, finding the ‘‘iuner peculiarity” of the narrative in the idea that the om- nipotence of the Logos cannot be controlled by any earthly law or human custom ; whilst Weisse (Zvangelienfr. 268) sees in the man’s lameness the helplessness of one morally sick, and attributes the origin of the entire narrative to what was originally a parable. Thus they themselves complete the fiction, and then pass it off on the ezangelist, while the simplest as well as the most distinctive and characteristic historical features are now inter- woven into his supposed plans. See, on the contrary, Briickner, in loc.
Vv. 10-13. Oi 'Iovdaio:] The Sanhedrim are here meant: sce vv. 15, 33. They never once mention the healing ; with hostile coldness they only watch for their point of attack ; ‘‘Quaerunt non quod mirentur, sed quod calum-
CHAP. Y., 14-17. 177
nientur,” Grotius. — 6 rofoac, etc., and éxeivog are, In the mouth of the man who was healed, an appeal to the authority which, asa matter of fact, his Deliverer must possess ; there is something d¢fant in the words, so natural in the first realization of his wonderful cure. — 6 dvSpwro¢] contemptuous. ' — téévevoev] He withdrew,” i.e. when this encounter with the Jews began. As He wished to avoid the scene which would occur with the crowd who were in the place, He conveyed Himself away (not pluperfect). .
Vv. 14, 15. Mera ravra] whether on the same day does not appear. But it is psychologically probable that the new feeling of restored health led the man at once into the sanctuary. — yuyxér: dudpr.| Jesus therefore knew (by direct intuition) that the sickness of this sufferer had been brought about (see on Matt. ix. 2, 8) by special sin (of what kind does not appear); and this particular form of sin is what He refers to, not generally to the universal connection between sin and physical evil (Neander, following the early expositors), or between sin and sickness (Hengstenberg), which would not be in keeping with the character of this private interview, that sought the good of the man’s soul. The man’s own conscience would necessarily give an individual application to the pexér: duépr. Comp. viii. 11. — yeipov] to be left indefinite ; for if the dvaprdvey recurred, it might bring with it a worse sickness (so Nonnus), and other divine punishment, even the loss of eternal salvation. See generally Matt. xii. 45 ; 2 Pet. ii. 20.— Ver. 15. avhyyede, x.t.A.] The motive was neither malice,* nor gratitude, to bring Jesus into notice and recognition among the Jews,‘ nor obedience to the rulers,*® under the influence of stupidity (Tholuck) or fear (Lange), but, in keeping with ver. 11, and the designation 4 ro:foac avrdv ty (comp. ver. 11): the supplementary vindication of the authority in obedience to which he had acted, though it was the Sabbath (vv. 9, 10), and which he was bound to name to the Jews. This authority is with him decidedly higher than that of the Sanhedrim ; and he not only employs it for his own acquittal, but even defies them with it. Comp. the man born blind, ix. 17, 31 ff. Yet for this purpose how easily could he ascertain the name of Jesus !
Vv. 16, 17. Ad retro] on account of this notice referring to Jesus, and then ér:, because He that is. See on x. 17. — édiwx.] not judicially, through the law,* of which the sequel says nothing, but ina general way: they made Him the object of their persecutions. — ratra] these things, such as the healing of the paralytic. — éroie:] he was doing, not éroincev. — amexpivaro] In reply to the d:éxecy of the Jews, whether this then showed itself in accu- sations, reproaches, machinations, or otherwise in overt acta of hostility. This Aorist occurs in John only here, ver. 19, and xii. 28.—4 warfp pov, x.t.A.] My Father is working up to this moment ; I also work. This expres- sion is not borrowed from PAtlo (Strauss); Jesus alludes to the unresting ac- tivity of God for human salvation’ since the creation was finished, notwith-
' Ast, Lex. Flat. 1. p. 178. mius Zigabenus, Grotius, and many early
3 See Dorvill. ad Char. p. 278; Schleusner, writers; also Maier and Hengstenberg. Thes. IT. 298. ® Bengel, Liicke, de Wette, Luthardt.
8 Schlelermacher, Paulus, comp. Ammon. * Lampe, Rosenmifller, Kuinoel.
« Cyril, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthy- * Jesus acoordingly does not deny that
178 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. standing the divine rest of the Sabbath (Gen. ii. 1-8) after the six days’ work. This distinct reference (not generally ‘‘to the sustaining and gov- ernment of the world”) is presented in the activity of Christ answering to that of God the Father. As the Father, says Jesus, has not ceased from the beginning to work for the world’s salvation, but ever works on even to the present moment,’ so of necessity and right, notwithstanding the law of the Sabbath, does He also, the Son, who as such (by virtue of His essen- tially divine relationship of equality with the Father) cannot in this His activity be subject to the sabbatical law, but is Zord of the Sabbath (comp. Matt. xii. 8 ; Mark ii. 28). Olshausen and de Wette import into the words : ‘*‘ As in God rest and action are united, so in Christ are contemplation and activity.” There is no mention whatever of rest and contemplation. Ac- cording to Godet, Jesus says, ‘‘ Jusqu'’d chaque dernier moment or mon pere agit, j’agis aussi ;” the Son can only cease His work when He sees the Father cease. But in this case we should have simply éw¢ (ix. 4), and not Ewe dprt ; wo Gor: Means nothing more nor less than usgue adhuc (ji. 10, xvi. 24; 1 John ii. 9), limiting the now still more definitely than éu¢ rod viv (Lobeck, ad Phryn. pp. 19, 20). —xayo épydfouar] is not to be again supple- mented by éw¢ dpr:. Jaleo (do not rest, but) work. The relation of the two sentences is not that of imitation (Grotius), or example (Ewald), but of necessary equality of willand procedure. The asyndeton (instead of ‘‘ because my Father,” etc.) makes the statement more striking. See on 1 Cor. x. 17. Ver. 18. Aca rovro] because He said this, and 67 as in ver. 16. ‘‘ Apo- logiam ipsam in majus crimen vertunt,” Bengel. — naAdov] neither potius nor amplius (Bengel : ‘‘ modo persequebantur, nunc amplius quaerunt occi- dere”) ; but, as its position connects with it necessarily é¢{#r., magis, 45 they redoubled their endeavours.” It has a reference to édiwxov in ver. 16, so far as this general expression includes the desire to kill. Comp. for the Cnreiv aroxreiva:, Vii. 1, 19, 25, viii. 87, 40, xi. 58. — warépa Iduoy, x.7.A.] pa- trem proprium. Comp. Rom. viii. 82. They rightly interpreted 6 rarfp pov 48 signifying peculiar and personal fatherhood, and not what is true also
God rested on the seventh day after the six days of creation (against Ammon) ; but ‘He affirms that since then He is ever ac- tive, even on the Sabbath-days, for man's redemption. Nor does He speak of the law concerning the Sabbath as not of divine institution (Baur), as of no obligation, or as abrogated; but He as the Son stands above it, and is as little bound by it as the Father, who ever continues to work, even on the Sabbath. This against Hilgenfeld (ZeArbe- orig, p. 81; Hoang. p. 270; and in his Zéit- echrift 1868, p. 218), who considers that, ac- cording to this Gospel, Jesus, passing by the O. T. representation of God, rises to the absolutely transcendental essence, exalted above all contact with the finite, and man!- fest only to the Son; and that the evange- list, following the Gnostics, refers the his- tory of the creation to the Demiurge, as
distinct from the most high God. This js not the ‘‘eagle height’ of John's theology. 1éws apre carries our view of God's working, which began with the creation, onward to the present moment, the moment wherein Jesus has to defend Himself on ac- count of Sabbath-breaking. In conformity with this redemptive work of God the Father onwards unti] now, and which was interrupted by no rest, He also works. The inference that herein is implied a divine see at a future period, as Luthardt thinks — who regards the day of Christ’s resurreo- tion as the then approaching Sabbath of God's redemptive work,—is quite remote from the text. "Ewes dpr: includes the sur- vey of the entire past down to the moment then present, without any intimation of a change in the future, which, if intended, should appear in the contezt, as in xvi. M4.
CHAP. V., 19. 179
with reference to others, ‘‘sed id misere pro blasphemia habuerunt,” Ben- gel, Comp. x. 88.—ioov éavrdév, x.7r.A.] not an explanation, nor exactly (B. Crusius) a proof of what precedes, which the words themselves of Jesus, 6 warhp pov, supply ; but what Jesus says of God's relation to Him (rarépa id:ov), declares at the same time, as to the other side of the relationship, what He makes Himself out to be in His relation to God. We must trans- late : ‘‘in that He (at the same time) puts Himself on the same level with God,” i.e. by that xayo épyéloua: of ver. 17, wherein He, as the Son, claims for Himself equality of right and freedom with the Father. Comp. also Hof- mann, Schriftbeweis, I. p. 188. The thought of claiming equality of cesence (Phil. ii. 6), however, lies in the background as an indistinct notion in the minds of His opponents.
Ver. 19 ff. Jesus does not deny what the Jews attributed to Him as the capital offence of blasphemous presumption, namely, that He made Himself equal with God; but He puts the whole matter in its true light, and this from a consideration of His whole present and future work, onward to ver. 80 ; whereupon, onwards to ver. 47, He gives vent to an earnest denuncia- tion of the unbelief of the Jews in the divine witness to Himself.
Ver. 19, Ov divara:] denies the possibility, from the point of view of an inner necessity, involved in the relationship of the Son to the Father : by virtue of this it is impossible for Him to act with an individual sel/-assertion independent of the Father, which He could then only do if He were not the Son.' In ag’ éavrodv, as the subject of the reflexive is the Son in His re- lation to the Father, there does not lie an opposition between the human and divine wills (Beyschlag), nor an indistinct and onesided reference to the human element in Christ (de Wette) ; but it is the whole theanthropic sub- ject, the incarnate Logos, in whom the Aseietas agendi, the self-determination of action independently of the Father, cannot find place ; because otherwise He must either be absolutely divine only, and therefore without the subor- dination involved in -the economy of redemption (which is the case also with the mvevua, xvi. 13), or absolutely human ; therefore there is here no contradiction with the prologue (Reuss ; comp. on the other side, Godet). — tay ph tt, «.7.A.] refers simply to roeiv ovdév, and not also to ag’ éavrod, See on Matt. xii. 4 ; Gal. ii. 16. — BAéry r. war. rocovvra] a familiar descrip- tion, borrowed from the attention which children give to the conduct of their father—of the inner and immediate intuition which the Son perpetu- ally has of the Father's work, in the perfect consciousness of fellowship of life with Him. This relation, not merely of moral and religious, but of meta- physical and essential communion, is the necessary and immediate standard of the Son’s working. See on ver. 20. — 4 ydp dv éxeivog, x.7r.A.] Proof of the negative assertion by means of the positive relationship subsisting. — dpolwc] similarly, proportionately, qualifying roi, indicating again the reciprocity or sameness of action already expressed by raira, and thus more strongly confirming the perfect equality of the relationship. It is, logically speak- ing, the pariter (Mark iv. 16 ; John xxi. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 1) of the category mentioned,
1 Comp. Bengel, in Joc., and Fritzsche, nova opuac. p. 297 f.
/ 180 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 20. Moral necessity in God for the aforesaid & ydp ay éxeivoc, etc. Comp. iii. 35. — yép refers to the whole of what follows down to roi, of which xai peiZova, ete., gives the result. — gcAci] ‘‘ qui amat, nil celat,” Ben- gel. The distinction between this and ayar@ (which D., Origen, Chrysos- tom here read), diligit,' is to be retained also in John, though he uses both to denote the same relationship, but with varying definiteness of represen- tation. Comp. iil. 35, xxi. 15. ¢cAeiv is always the proper affection of love.* But this love has its basis in the metaphysical and eternal relation of the Father to the Son, as His povoyerpe vide (i. 14, 18), and does not first begin in time. , Comp. Luthardt. — révra deixyvow] He shows Him all, permits Him to see in immediate self-revelation all that He Himself doeth, that the Son also may do these things after the pattern of the Father. Description of the inner and essential intimacy of the Father with the Son, according to which, and by virtue of His love to the Son, He makes all His own working an object of intuition to the Son for His like working (comp. ver. 17),— the humanly conditioned continuation of what He had seen in His pre- human existence, iii. 11, vi. 46.7 —.xai peifova, x.7r.A.] & new sentence, and an advance in the discourse, the theme of all that follows down to ver. 30 : and greater works than these (the healings of the sick spoken of) will He show Him; He will give Him His example to do them also. —iva] the divine purpose of this,—not in the sense of core (Baeumlein). —tpeic] ye unbelier- ers. Jesus does not say moretyre ; He means the surprise of shame, viz. at the sight ‘ of His works.
Ver. 21. Jesus now specifies these ueifova ipya, namely, the quickening of the dead, and judgment (vv. 21-30) ; goya accordingly is a broader concep- tion than miracle, which, however, is included in the category of the Mes- sianic Zoya. See especially ver. 36.
Ver. 21. He speaks of the operation of His power in judging and raising the dead, first in an ethical sense down to ver. 27, and then, vv. 28, 29, sub- joins the actual and universal awakening of the dead as the completion of His entire life-giving and judicial work as the Messiah. Augustine antici- pated this view (though illogically apprehending ver. 21 in a moral sense, and ver. 22 in a physical), and it is adopted among the older writers, es- pecially by Rupertius, Calvin, Jansen, Calovius, Lampe, and more recently by Lficke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, de Wette, Lange, Hilgenfeld, Lechler,* Weiss, Godet. Others have extended the ethical interpretation even as far as vv. 28, 29,6 which, however, is forbidden by the language and
1 See Tittmann, Synon. p. 50.
2 Comp. xi. 8, 86, xvi. 27, xx. 2, e¢ al.
* This intimate relationship is to be re- garded asone of uninéerrupted continuity, and not to be limited merely to occasional crises in the life of Jesus (Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 287), of which there is not the slightest indication in John's Gospel. Comp. 1. 52. This very continuous consciousness depends upon the continuance of the Logos con- sciousness (viii. 20, 59, xvii. 5, xvi. 82),—a view which is to be maintained against
Weizsicker, who introduces also visions (evang. Geach. p. 485) in explanation of this passage, in the face of the known history of Jesus.
‘For the astonishment connected with the Beacda: is implied in the context. See N&gelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 200, ed. 8.
§ Apost, Zeitalé. p. 2 f.
* So Deysing in the Biv. Brem. 1. 6, Ecker- mann, Ammon, and many others ; recently, Schweizer, B. Crusius, Reuss. ;
CHAP. V., 21. 181
contents of vv. 28, 29 ; see on vv. 28, 29. Further, when Luthardt’ under- stands (woroeiy generally of the impartation of life, he takes doth kinds of quickening as the two sides of the life, which appears, however, irreconcilable with the right understanding of ofc #éAe., and with the distinct separation between the present and the future (the latter from ver. 28 onwards). The Cworneivy of the Messiah during His temporal working concerns the morally dead, of whom He morally quickens whom He will; but at a future day, at the end of all things, He will call forth the physically dead from their graves, etc., vv. 28, 29. The carrying out of the double meaning of (woraeiv onwards to ver. 28 (for vv. 28, 29 even Luthardt himself takes as referring only to the final future) leads to confusion and forced interpretation (see on ol dxoboavres, ver. 25). Further, most of the Fathers,* most of the older ex- positors,® and recently Schott in particular,‘ Kuinocl, Baumeister,’ Weizel,* Kaeuffer,? Baeumlein and Ewald, take the entire passage vv. 21-29 in a lit- eral sense, ag referring to the resurrection and the final judgment. Against this it is decisive : (a) that iva tyusic Oavydsyre in ver. 20 represents the hearers as continuous witnesses of the works referred to, and these works, therefore, as successive developments which they will see along with others ; (b) that ods 0éAec is in keeping only with the ethical reference ; (c) that iva ravrec tiuaot, etc., ver. 28, expresses a continuing result, taking place in the present (in the aidv ovroc), and as divinely intended ; (d) that in ver. 24, éx rou Yavdrov cannot be explained of physical death ; (¢) that in ver. 25, xai viv éotiy and ol dxoboavres are compatible only with a reference to spiritual awakening. To this may be added, (°) that Jesus, where He speaks (vv. 28, 29) of the literally dead, very distinctly marks out the resurrection of these latter from that of the preceding as something greater and as still future, and designates the deed not merely with great definiteness as such (xrdvre¢ ol év roig pvnueiowc), but also makes their avdcracic Guwy#¢ conditional, not, as in ver. 24, upon faith, but, probably seeing that they for the most part would never have heard the gospel, upon having done good,—thus characteristically. distinguishing this quickening of the dead from that spoken of immediately before.— déomep . . . Gworoei] The awakening and reviving of the dead is represented as the essential and peculiar business of the Father ;° accordingly the Present tense is used, because the statement is general. Comp. Rom. iv. 17. Observe, however, that Jesus here speaks of the awakening of the dead, which is peculiar to the Father, still without distinguishing between the spiritual and literal dead ; this separation first appears in the following reference to the Son. The awakening of both springs from the same divine source and basis of life. —éyeipes and Cworoei we might expect in reverse order (as in Eph. ii. 5, 6) ; but the Cworoeiy is the essential and controlling fact, of which the awakening (éyeipev) is popularly conceived as the beginning,
1 Comp. Tholuck on vv. 21-28, and Heng- 4 Opuse. 1. p. 197. stenberg on vv. 21-24, also Brickner on ver. & Wirtemb. Stud. IT. 1. 21. ¢ Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 686. ® Tertullian, Chrysostom and his fol- T De eons aiwy not. p. 115 ff. lowers, Nonnus, and others. ® Deut. xxxil. 30; 1 Sam. ii. 6; Tobit xilf,
3 Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, and 2; Wisd. xvi. 18. many others.
182 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and appearing thus merely as its immediate antecedent, does not recur in the apodosis. [See Note XXIII. p. 195.]—obe déde:] for He will not quicken others because they believe not (ver. 24) ; this, and not an absolute decree (Calvin, Reuss), is the moral condition of His self-determination, just as also His xpioce (ver. 22) is in like manner morally determined. That this spirit- ual resurrection is independent of the descent from Abraham, is evident from the fact of its being spiritual ; but this must not be taken as actually stated in the oi¢ SéAe. Many, who take Cworaei literally, resort to the historical accounts of the raising of individuals from the dead (Lazarus, etc.), for which few cases the ofc 9éAe: is neither appropriate nor adequate. Sce, besides, ver. 25. Ewald takes God as the subject of 3éAe, which is neither logical (on. account of the «ai, which places the two subjects in the same line), nor pos- sible according to the plain words, though it is evident that the Son acts only in the harmony of His will with that of the Father ; comp. ver. 80, vi. 40. — Gworoei] ethically, of the spiritual quickening to the higher moral life, instead of that moral death in which they were held captive in their unconverted state of darkness and sin.’ Without this Cworoizore, their life would remain ethically a fw) a3:o¢,* Bioc aBiwroc.* The Present, for He does it now, and is occupied with this Cworoeiv, that is, by means of his word, which is the life-giving call (vv. 24, 25). The Muture follows in ver. 28.
Ver. 22 does not state the ground of the Son’s call to bestow life (Luthardt, comp. Tholuck and Hengstenberg), but is a justification of the obc 3é2e1,—because the xpiow refers only to those whom He will not raise to life,—in so far as it is implied thut the others, whom the Son will not make alive, will experience in themselves the judgment of rejection (the anticipa- tory analogon of the decisive judgment at the second advent, ver. 29). It is given to no other than the Son to execute this final judgment. The xpivec ovdéva should have prevented the substitution of the idea of separation for that of judgment (comp. iii. 17, 18). —ovde yap 6 x.] for not even the Father, to whom, however, by universal acknowledgment, judgment belongs. ‘ Consequently it depends only upon the Son, and the ob¢ 0&4 has its vindi- cation. Concerning ovdé, which is for the most part neglected by commen- tators, comp. vil. 5, vill. 42, xxi. 25. The antithesis aAAd, x.r.4., tells how Jar, though God is the world’s Judge, the Father docs not judge, etc. — xpivec] the judgment of condemnation (iii. 17, 18, v. 24, 27, 29), whose sentence is the opposite of Cworowiv, the sentence of spiritual death. — rv kpiowv macav] judgment altogether (here also to be understood on its condem- natory side), therefore not only of the last act on the day of judgment (ver. 27), but of its entirety (see on xvi. 13), and consequently in its progress in time, whereby the of¢ 6éAe is decided.
Ver. 28. The divine purpose which is to be attained in the relation of man- kind to this judicial action of the Son. Observe the Present Subjunctive. — xabéc} just as, for in the Son, who judges, we have the appointed representa- tive of the Father, and thus far (therefore always relatively, xiv. 23) He isto
1 See on Luke xv. &; Matt. iv. 16; Eph. 3 Xen. Mem. iv. 8. 8.
v. 14; Rom. vi. 18: Isa. xxvi. 19. 4 Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 185, explains it as if ® Jacubs, ad Anthol. VII. p. 182. it ran: ovde yap xpive: 6 warp, etc.
CHAP. V., 24, 25. 188 be honoured as the Father. Comp. what follows. How utterly opposed to this divine intention was the procedure of the Jews, ver. 18! But it is
incorrect to take xaféc with Baeumlein, as causal (see on xiil. 84, xvii. 2), because the whole context turns upon the equality of the Father and the Son. — ob reg tov raripal t.e. by this very fact, that he does not honour the Son, who is the Sent of the Father.
Ver. 24. The obdc OéAec Cuorovei now receives—and that with increas- ing solemnity of discourse—its more minute explanation, both as to the subjects whom it specifies (6 rdv Adyov pov axotwy, x.r.A.), and the Sworoinars itself (Bye: (wiv). — axotwy is simply heareth, but is closely connect- ed with the following xa? morefuv (comp. Matt. xiii. 19 ff.), and thereby receives its definite reference. For the opposite, see xii. 47. — éye ¢. ai.] The Cworoeiv is accomplished in him ; he has eternal life (iii. 15), i.¢6 the higher spiritual (#4, which, upon his entrance into the Messiah's kingdom, reaches its consummation in glorious Messianic {a4. He has, in that he is become a believer, passed from spiritual death (see on ver. 21) into eternal life (the (wy xar éoxfv), and cometh not into (condemnatory, comp. iii. 18) judgment, because he has already attained unto that Zife.' The result of this is : Odvarov ov pi Dewphoy, Vili. 51. On the Perfect peraBéB., sec iii. 18; 1 John iii. 14.
Ver. 25. Jesus re-affirms what He had already asserted in ver. 24, but in the more concrete form of allegorical expression. — xai viv éorcv] 4.6. in its beginning, since Christ’s entrance upon His life-giving ministry. Comp. iv. 23. The duration of this dpa, however, continues till the second advent ; already had it begun to be present, but, viewed in its completeness, it still belonged to the future. The expositors who take the words to denote the literal resurrection (see ver. 25, also Hengst.), refer xa? viv éorcv to the indi- vidual instances of raising from the dead which Jesus has wrought ;* but this is as inappropriate in general as it is specially un-Johannean, for those individuals were not awaked to (w# in the sense of the context, but only to the earthly life, which was still liable to death. Olshausen, who illogically explains ver. 25 as referring to the resurrection of the body, appeals to Matt. xxvii. 52, 58. —ol vexpoi] the epiritually dead ; Matt. viii. 22; Rev. iii. 1 ; and see on ver. 21. —ri¢ gwrvqy] according to the context, the resurrection summons (ver. 28), which is here really, in the connection of the allegory, the morally life-giving preaching of Christ. The spiritually dead, generally, under the category ol vexpoi, will hear this voice, but all will not awake to its call ; only ol dxobeavrec, which therefore cannot be taken in the same sense a8 dxoboovra:, but must signify : those who will have given ear thereto. Comp. viii. 48, 47. In Latin: ‘‘ Mortui audient . . . et qui audi- entes fuerint,” etc. It is the axobery xa2ovvroc,® al., axobeey rapayyéAAovroc, and
1 Melanchthon: “ Postquam illuxit fides seu fiducia Christi In corde, qua agnosoimus nos vere a Deo recipi, exaudiri, regi, defen- di, sequitur pax et laetitia, quae est incho- atlo vitae aeternae et tegit peccata, quae adhuo in imbeoillitate nostra haerent."’ Baur ls wrong in concluding from such
passages (comp. viil. 51, xi. 3%) that our ovangelist verges closely on the doctrine of the Gnostics, 2 Tim. fi. 18.
*John xi.; Marx vy. 41; Luke vil. 14; Matt. xi. 8.
3? Plat. Sert. 11.
184 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the like, axobecy row mpoordyparoc.’ If we understand the words of bodily awakening, ol dxobcavrec with the article is quite inexplicable. Chrysostom : guric axoboarres éxcrarrobone ; Grotius: ‘simul atque audierint.” All such renderings, as also the vague explanation of Hengstenberg,* would require axobcavres merely without the article ;°? and (40ove.v would, in opposition to the entire context, signify ‘‘to lice” generally, in an indifferent sense. Ols- hausen, indeed, supplements axopcavres—which, nevertheless, must of neces- sity refer to ry¢ gwvxc—by rdv Adyov from ver. 24: ‘they who in this life hear the word of God.” It is just as impossible to hold, with Luthardt (so far as he would include the literal resurrection), that oi axoboavre¢ refers to those ‘‘ who hear the last call of Jesus differently from others, 4.6. joyfully receiving it, and therefore attain to life.” This is an imported meaning, for there is no such modal limitation in the text ; but of axaboavrec alone, in so far as it must differ from the general axotocvra:, can only designate those who give car, and by this the literal resurrection is excluded. For thie double meaning of axotev in one sentence, see Plat. Legg. p. 712 B: Sedov . . . ére- xaldueda’ 6 52 axoborté te kai axovoag (cum exaudiverit) . . . gAdo., and also the proverbial expression axotovra yi) axobvery.
Vv. 26, 27. The life denoted by this Cyocvo.w, seeing the subjects of it were dead, must be something which isin process of being imparted to them,—a life which comes from the Son, the quickener.' But He could not impart it if He had not in Himself a divine and independent fountain of life, like the Father, which the Father, the absolutely living One (vi. 57), gave Him when He sent Him into the world to accomplish His Messianic work ; comp. x. 86. The following éduxev (ver. 27) should itself have prevented the refer- ence to the eternal generation.‘ Besides (therefore ver. 27), if only the axot- cavrec (comp. ob¢ PéAe1, ver. 21) are to live, and the other vexpoi not, the Son must have received from the Father the warrant and power of judging and of deciding who are to live and who not. But this power is given Him by the Father because He is the Son of man; for in His incarnation, i.e. in the fact that the Son of God (incarnate) is a child of man,* consists the essence of His nature as Redeemer, and with this the reason in the history of redemption why the Father has equipped Him for the Messianic function of judgment. Had the Son of God not become a child of man, He could not have been the fulfiller of the Father’s decree of redemption, nor been entrusted with judi- cial power. Luthardt® says incorrectly : ‘‘ for God desired to judge the world by means of a man,” a thought quite too vague for this passage, bor- rowed from Acts xvii. 81. Better de Wette, with whom Brickner concurs (comp. also Reuss) : ‘‘ It denotes the Logos as a human manifestation,’ and in this lies the reason why He judges, for the hidden God could not be judge.” .But this negative and refined definition of the reason given, ‘‘ because He is
1 Polyb. xi. 19. 5.
2 The article is said to indicate the in- separable connection between Aearing and life.
See Eurip. Hec. 2%, 26, and Pflugk there- on. But ot axovcarres with the article ts: quicunque audiverunt.
4 Augustine and many others, also Gess.
® Comp. Phil. il. 7; Gal. tv. 4; Rom. i. 3, viii. 8.
Comp. Hofmann, Schriftdew. IT. 1, p. 78.
7 Or the relative humanity of Him who fs God’s Son. The expression is therefore different from: ‘‘ Jecause He is man.”
CHAP. V., 26, 27. 185 the Son of man,” is inappropriately read between the lines, since it savours of Philonic speculation, and since the view of the Deity as a Judge was current among the Jews. So, following Augustine, Luther, Castalio, Jansen, and most others, B. Crusius (comp. also Wetstein, who adduces Heb. iv. 15): ‘‘ because executing judgment requires direct operation upon man- kind.” * Others :* ‘‘vléc av¥p. is He who is announced in Dan. vii. and in the book of Enoch as the Messiah” (see on Matt. viii. 20), where the thought itself is variously set forth ; Lficke (so also Baeumlein) : ‘‘ because He is the Messiah, and judgment essentially belongs to the work of the Messiah” (comp. Ewald). Tholuck comes nearest to the right sense : ‘‘ because He is become man, i.e. is the Redeemer, but with this redemption itself the xpicic also is given.” Hengstenberg: ‘‘as a reward for taking humanity upon Him.” Against the whole explanation from Dan. vii. 18, however, to which Beyschlag, Christol. p. 29, with his explanation of the ideal man (the per- sonal standard of divine judgment), adheres, it is decisive that in the N. T. throughout, wherever ‘‘ Son of man” is used to designate the Messiah, both words have the article: 6 vido rov avdpdérov :* vide av8pdrov without the ar- ticle‘ occurs in Rev. i. 18, xiv. 14, but it does not denote the Messiah. Thus the prophecy in Daniel does not enter into consideration here ; but ‘¢ son of a@ human being” is correlative to ‘‘ son of God” (of the Father, vv. 25, 26), although it must frankly be acknowledged that the expression does not necessarily presuppose birth from a virgin.* The Peshito, Armenian version, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Paulus, connect the words—rightly taking vlic dvdp. to: mean man—with what follows : ‘‘ Marvel not that He is aman.” This is not in keeping with the context, while rovro witnesses for the ordinary connection. — (uy 2yew tv éavrp] in Himself. ‘‘ Est emphasis in hoc dicto : vitam habere in sese, i.e. alio modo quam creaturae, angeli
et homines,”? Melanchthon.
2 Comp. also Baur in Hilgenfeld’s Zeltschr. f. wies. Theol. 1860, p. 276 ff., and N. 7. Theol. p. 79 ff.; Holtzmann in the same, 1865, p. 24 f. Akin to this interpretation is that of Weiss, p. 24: ‘‘so far as He is a son of man, and can in human form bring near to men the life-giving revelation of God.” Even thus, however, what is sald to be the point of the reason given has to be sup- plied. This holds also against Godet, who " confounds things that differ: “On one side judgment mast proceed from the womb of humanity asan ‘hommage a Dieu,’ and on the other it is entrusted by God's love as a purification of humanity to Him who voluntarily became man.” Groos (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 260) substantially agrees with Beyschlag.
* Grotius, Lampe, Kuinoel, Lticke, Ols. hausen, Mater, Baeumlein, Ewald, and most otbers, now also Tholuck.
3Tn Joon {. 52, iit. 18, 14, vi. 37, 58, 62, vill, 26, xii. 98, 84, xiil. $1.
Comp. i. 4, xiv. 6. The words xa? viv éoriy are
4 Welizsicker (Unters. id. d. evang. Gesch. p. 481) cuts away this objection by the state- ment, without proof, that vids arydp. with- out the article belongs to the explanatory exposition of the fourth Gospel. Baecumlein and Beyschlag, to account for the absence of the article, content themselves with say- ing that vids drdp. is the predicate, and therefore (comp. Holtzmann) the point would turn on the meaning of the con- ception. But the formal and unchanging title, 6 vids rod dvdp., would not agree with that ; and, moreover, in this way the omis- sion only of the first article, and not of the second (rov), would be explained; vids avdpwrov can only mean son af a man, Comp. Barnabas, Zp. xii. (Dressel).
® He who fs Son of God is son of a man— the latter xara odpea, |. 14; the former cara wvevpna ayuectvns, Rom. ix. 5, 1. 8.
* Quite in opposition to the 2» davry, Weilzsiicker, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 179, understands the possession of
186 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
certainly decisive against Gess,’ who ascribes the gift of life by the Father to the Son as referring only to His pre-existent glory and His state of exalta- tion, which he considers to have been ‘‘ suspended” during His earthly life. The prayer at the grave of Lazarus only proves that Christ exercised the power of life, which was bestowed upon Him as His own, in accordance with the Father’s will. See on ver. 21.
Vv. 28-30. Marvel not at this (comp. iii. 7), viz. at what I have asserted concerning my life-giving and judicial power ; for’ the last and greatest stage of this my Messianic quickening’ work (not the work of the Adyoc¢ as the absolute (w7, to whom Baur refers the whole passage, vv. 20 ff. ; see, on the contrary, Briickner) is yet to come, namely, the raising of the actually dead out of their graves, and the final judgment.* Against the interpreta- tion of thig verse (see on ver. 21) in a jigurative sense (comp. Isa. xxvi. 19 ; Ex. xxxvii. 12 ; Dan. xii. 2), it is decisive that oi év roi¢ uynpetore Would have to mean merely the spiritually dead, which would be quite out of keeping with of ra ayada rohoavrec. Jesus Himself intimates by the words ol éy roic pvnpeiorg that He here is passing from the spiritually dead, who thus far have been spoken of, to the literally dead. — dri] argumentum a majori ; the wonder at the less disappears before the greater, which is declared to be that which is one day to be accomplished. We are not to supply, with Luthardt, the condition of a believing estimate of the latter, for the auditors were unbe- lieving and hostile ; but the far more wonderful fact that is told does away with the wonder which the lesser had aroused, transcends, and, as it were, overwhelms it. — épyera: &pa] Observe that no cal viv éoriy, as in ver. 25, could be added here. — rdvreo] Here it is as little said that all shall be raised at the same time, as in ver. 25 that all the spiritually dead shall be quickened simultaneously. The réyuzara, which Paul distinguishes at the resurrection, 1 Cor. xv. 28, 24, and which are in harmony with the teaching of Judaism and of Christ Himself regarding a twofold resurrection (Bertholdt, Christo. pp. 176 ff., 203 ff. ; and sec on Luke xiv. 14), find room likewise in the dpa, which is capable of prophetic extension. — oi ra ayada rohoavrec, x.t.A.] that is, the first resurrection, that of the just, who are regarded by Jesus ina purely ethical aspect, and apart from all national particularism. See on Luke xiv. 14, and comp. John vi. 39. It was far from His object here to dwell upon the necessity of His redemption being appropriated by faith on the part of the dead here spoken of ; He gives expression simply to the abstract moral normal condition (comp. Rom. ii. 7, 18 ; Matt. vii. 21). This neces- sity, however, whereby they must belong to the oi rov Xporov (1 Cor. xv. .
life as brought about ‘dy transference or communication from the Father." Chap. vi. 57 likewise indicates life as an essential pos- session, brought with Him (1. 4) from His pre-existent state in His mission from the Father, and according to the Father’s will and appointment, Col. 1. 19, fi. 10.
1 Pers. Chr. p. 301.
2 Ewald renders én that: ‘Marvel not at this, that (as I said in ver. 1) an Aour ts coming,” etc. But in ver. 2% the thought
and expression are different from our text.
3 It is not right, as is already plain from the text and ver. 27, to say that in John the judgment is always represented as an inner fact (so even Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Chris- tenth. p. 422). The saying, “The world's history is the world’s judgment,” only partially represents John's view; in John the last day is not without the last judg- ment, and this last judgment is with him the world-judgment. See on fil. 18.
CHAP. V., 31, 32. 187 28 ; comp. Matt. xxv. 31 sqq.), implies the descensus Christi ad inferos. — cig avéor. Suge] they will come forth (from their graves) into a resurrection of life (represented locally), i.¢. to a resurrection, the necessary result of which! is life, life in the Messiah’s kingdom.* — xpiceuc] to which judgment pertains, and judgment, according to the context, in a condemnatory sense (to eternal death in Gehenna) ; and accordingly avdoraci¢ Cw7¢ does not exclude an act of judgment, which awards the (a4. — As to the distinction between ro:eiv and rpérrecy, see on iii. 20, 21. Ver. 30 further adds the guarantee of the recti- tude of this xpio, and this expressed in a general way, so that Jesus describes His judgment generally ; hence the Present, denoting continuous action, and the general introductory statement of ver. 19, ov divaza:, ete. — cade axoiw] i.e. from God, who, by virtue of the continual communion and confidence subsisting between Him and Christ, always makes His judgment directly and consciously known to Him, in accordance with which Christ gives His verdict. Christ’s sentence is simply the declaration of God’s judgment con- sequent upon the continuous self-revelation of God in His consciousness, whereby the axove:v from the Father, which He possessed in His pre-existent state, is continued in time. — ar: ov Cyrd, x.t.A.] ‘I cannot therefore deviate from the judging as I hear ; and my judgment, seeing it is not that of an individual, but divine, must be just.” —rov wéuy. pe, «.7.A.] as it conse- quently accords with this my dependence upon God.
Ver. 81. Justification of His witness to Himself from ver. 19 ff., inter- mingled with denunciation of Jewish unbelief (vv. 81-40), which Jesus con- tinues down to ver. 47. — The connection is not that Jesus now passes on to the riu4 which is due to Him (ver. 23), and demands faith as its true form (Luthardt), for the conception of riz does not again become prominent ; but éred) roavra rept éavrov papruphoag Eyvw rove ‘Iovdaiovg évSvpovpévore GurcBeivat nal eireiv’ ort dv ov paprupet¢ mepi ceavrov, } paprupia cov ovK toriv adrdhe" ovdeic yap éaur@ paprupéy afiériorog ev av¥porae de iroiay giAavriac’ apotAaBe xai eitrev 6 &uedAoy eireiv éxeivo:, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Chrys- ostom. Thus at the same time is solved the seeming contradiction with vili. 14. — éyd) emphatic : if there is only my personal witness concerning myself, and with this no attestation from any other. Comp. dAAog, ver. 832.— oun éariv aAn?.| i.e. formally speaking, according to the ordinary rule of law.* In reality, the relation is different in Christ's case, see viii. 18-16 ; but He does not insist upon this here, and we must not therefore understand His words, with Baeumlein, as if He said : ei éyi éuapripow . . . ovm dv qv adndic 9 paprupia pov. Chap. viii. 54, 55 also, and 1 Cor. iv. 15, xiii. 1, Gal. i. 8, are not conceived of in this way.
Ver. 82. Another is He who bears witness of me. This is understood either of John the Baptist‘ or of God.* The latter is the right reference ; for Jesus
1 Comp. Winer, p. 177 [E. T. p. 188].
* Comp. 2 Maco. vil. 14: dvdorace cig (env ; Dan. xii. 2; Rom. v. 18: dexaiwars (wie.
® Chetub. f. 28. 2: “testibus de se ipsis non credunt,”’ and see Wetstein.
4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Nonnus, Ea- thymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Grotlus,
Paulus, Baumgarten Crusius, de Wette, Ewald.
®* Cyril, Augustine, Bede, Rupertius, Beza, Aretius, Cornelius & Lapide, Calovius, Ben- gel, Kuinoel, Licke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg, Brickner, Baeumlein, Godet.
188 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Himself, ver. 84, does not attach importance to John’s witness, but rather lays claim, vv. 36, 87, only to the higher, the divine witness. — xai oida dr, x.7.A.] not a feeble assurance concerning God (de Wette’s objection), but all the weightier from its simplicity, to which the very form of the expression is adapted (# uaprupia, fv yaptupei wepi éuov), and, moreover, far too solemn for the Baptist’s testimony.’
Vv. 38, 84. ‘* That witness, whose testimony you have yourselves elicited, John the Baptist, I do not, since it is a human testimony, accept for myself ; I mention him for your salvation (not for my advantage), because ye have not appreciated him according to his high calling (ver. 85) ; the witness which J have is greater,” etc. Ver. 36. — ipeic] you, on your part. — pepapr. TH add. i. 19 ff. ‘All that he said was testimony in favour of the truth ; for the state of the case (with reference particularly to what he said of the Messiah) was as he testified.” — éyd dé] but I on my part. —z}v paprvpiav] the witness in question, which is to tell forme. This I cannot receive from any man. [See Note XXIV. p. 195.] Jesus will not avail Himself of any human witness in this matter ; He puts it away from Him. Accordingly, AauB. tr. waptupiav, just as in iii. 11, 82, is to be taken of the acceptance, not indeed believing acceptance, but acceptance as proof, conformably with the context. Others, unnecessarily deviating from John's usage, ‘‘I borrow ” (Liicke), ‘‘I strive after, or lay hold of” (B. Crusius, ‘comp. Beza, Grotius), ‘*T snatch” (de Wette). — iva ipeic awdpre] for your advantage, that you on your part (as contrasted with any personal interest) may attain to salva- tion. They should take to heart his recalling of the Baptist’s testimony (raira Aéyw), and thus be roused to faith, and become partakers of the Mes- siah’s redemption ; ‘‘ vestra res agitur,” Bengel.
Ver. 85. What a manifestation he was, yet how lightly ye esteemed him ! — 7 and 732A, point to a manifestation already past. —é Abzvoc] not Td gar, i. 8, but less ; hence ga in the second clause is used only predicatively. The article denotes the appointed lamp which, according to O. T. promise, was to appear, and had appeared in John as the forerunner of the Messiah, whose vocation it was to inform the people of the Messianic salvation (Luke i. 76, 77). The reference tothe man who lights the way for the approaching bridegroom (Luthardt) is too remote. Comp. rather the similar image, though not referred to here, of the mission of Elijah, Ecclus. xlviii. 1. The comparison with a lamp in similar references was very common (2 Sam. xxi. 17; Rev. xxi. 23; 2 Pet. i. 19).* —xacépevog xai gaivwv} is not to be inter- preted of two different properties (burning zeal and light-giving) ; in the nature of things they go together. A lamp burns and shines; this it does of necessity, and thus it is represented. Comp. Luke xii. 85 ; Rev. iv. 5. — tuei¢ dé, x.7.A.] striking description of the frivolous worldliness which would gratify its own short-lived excitement and pleasure in this new and grand manifestation, instead of making use of it to obtain saving knowledge, and allowing its full solemnity to operate upon them. The Jews flocked in
10n paprvpiav paprvpecy, comp. 2Comp. also Strabo, xiv. p. 642, where Ysa. iif. 11, xii. 23; Plato, Zryz. p.899 B; Alexander the rhetorician bears the sur- Dem. 1181. 4. name o Avxvos.
CHAP. Y., 36, 37. 189
great crowds to the Baptist (Matt. iii. 5, xi. 7 ff.), asto the messenger of the approaching glorious kingdomof the Messiah ; but instead of finding what they desired (7792eA4c.), they found all the severity of the spirit of Elijah call- ing to repentance, and how soon was the concourse over! In like manner, the Athenians hoped to find a new and passing divertissement when the Apostle Paul came among them. ‘‘ Johanne ulendum erat, non fruendum,” Bengel.— mpd¢ dpav] rod evnodiay airav decxvivrog tori xal bre taxéug avrov axexidnoav, Chrysostom. Comp. Gal. ii. 5; Philem. 15. The main feature of the perverted desire does not lie in mpd¢ Spay, which more closely marks the ayaAd. in its frivolity, so soon changing into satiety and disgust, but in ayaAa, itself, instead of which perdvoa should have been the object of their pursuit.,— év 76 gurl abrov] in, i.e. encompassed by his light, the radiance which shone forth from him. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 6 ; and for ya/pecy e, see on Phil. i. 18. '
Ver. 86. "Ey dé] Formal antithesis to duei¢ in ver. 35, and referring back to the éys dé of ver, 34.—J have my witness, which is greater (not ‘*‘ the greater witness ;” see Kihner, II. § 498. 1) than John. row "Iwdvvov in the sense of rc row "Iwdy., according to a well-known comparatio compendiaria.' See on Matt. v. 20. On peilw, t.¢. ‘Sof weightier evidence,” comp. Isoc. Archid, § 32 : paprupiay peilw xai cagectépay. — ra épya] not simply the miracles strictly so called, but the Messianic works generally, the several acts of the Messiah's entire work, the épyov of Jesus (iv. 84, xvii. 4). "Epya are always deeds, not word and teachings (word and work are distinct conceptions, not only in Scripture, but elsewhere likewise) ;* but what the word of Jesus ¢/- Jected, spiritual quickening (ver. 20), separation, enlightenment, and so on, and in like manner the resurrection of the dead and judgment (vv. 28, 29), are included tn the fpya, and constitute His épyov as a whole. When miracles properly so called are designated by the more general term épya, it is indi- cated in the context, as in iii, 2, vii. 8, 21, and often. — éduxe] hath given, expressing the divine appointment, and bestowment of power.*® — iva re2. avrdé] Intention of the Father in committing to Him the works : He was to accomplish them (comp. iv. 84, xvii. 4), not to leave them undone or only partially accomplished, but fully to carry out the entire task which the works divinely entrusted to Him involved for the attainment of the goal of Messianic salvation. -—avrd rd Epya} the very works, emphatic repetition,‘ where, moreover, the homoeoteleuton (the five times recurring a) must not be regarded as a dissonance.® — 4 éyd rod] ¢yé with august self-conscious- ness, As to how they witness, see xiv. 11.
Ver. 87. From the works which testified that He was the Sent of God, He now passes to the witness of the Sender Himself ; therefore from the indirect divine testimony, presented in the works, to the direct testimony in the Scriptures, And the Father. who hath sent me, hath Himself borne witness of
? The reading adopted by Lachmann, 873.
peccey (A. B. F. G. M, A., Cursives), is ?Comp. Homer, Ji. ¢. 428: o¥ rot, réevory nothing else than an error of transcription. éudy, 8ddora: woAcuzia épya. Comp. rv. 727. 3 See, Lobeck, Paralip. pp. 64, 65; Ellendt, ¢ Kahbner, IT. § 682.
Lex. Soph. I. p. 072; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. ® Lobeck, Faralip. p. 58.
190 THE GOSPEL OF JONN.
me. The subject, placed at the beginning of the sentence, the indepen- dence (immediateness) expressed by airdéc, and the Perfect pzevapr., unite to prove that there is no longer any reference here to the previous testimony, that of ‘the works, by which God had borne ‘testimony.’ Quite arbitrary, and in opposition to the account of the baptism given by John, is the view which others take, that the divine witness given in the voice at the baptism, Matt. iii. 17 (but see rather John i. 88), is here meant.* While Ewald? includes together both the baptism and the works, and Hengstenberg adds to these two the witness of Scripture, others understand ‘‘the immediate divine witness in the believer's heart, by means of which the indirect testimony of the works is first apprehended”’* the ‘‘drawing” of the Father, vi. 14, comp. vi. 45, viii. 47, but without the slightest indication in the text that an outward, perceptible, concrete, and objective witness is meant ; and even in the face of the following connection (guv7y . . . eidoc). The only true interpretation in harmony with the context is that which takes it to mean the witness which God Himself has given in His word, in the Seript- ures of the O. T.° In the O. T. prophecies, God Himself has lifted up His voice and revealed His form. —obre guvfv, x.r.2.] Reproach of want of aus- ceptibility for this testimony, all the more emphatic through the absence of any antithetic particle. Neither a voice of His have ye ever heard, nor a form Of His have ye ever seen. With respect. to what God has in the O. T. spoken as a testimony to Christ (ueuaprip. ep? iuov), or to His manifesting Himeelf therein, for a like purpose, to spiritual contemplation (He has made known his défa ; comp. yop¢? Seot, Phil. ii. 6),—to the one ye have been spiritually deaf, to the other spiritually blind. As the first cannot, conformably with the context, be taken to mean the revealing voice of God within, vouch- safed to the prophets (de Wette), so neither can the second refer merely to the Theophanies (in particular, to the appearances of the Angel of the Lord, Hengstenberg) and prophetic visions,*® but to the entire "8elf-revelation of God in the O. T. generally, by virtue of which He lets Himself be seen by him who has eyes to see ;—a general and broad interpretation, which corre- sponds with the general nature of the expression, and with its logical rela- tion to peyapr. wr. guov. The Jews could not have heard the voice at the bap- tism, nor could they have seen the form of God as the Logos had seen it, i. 18, iii. 18 ; and for this reason neither the one meaning nor the other can be found in the words (Ewald). Every interpretation, moreover, is incor- rect which finds in them anything but a reproach, because Jesus speaks in the second person, and continues to do so in ver. 88, where the tone of censure is still obvious. We must therefore reject the explanation of B. Crusius ;: ‘‘never hitherto has this immediate revelation of God taken
1 Against Augustine, Grotius, Maldona- tus, Olshausen, Raur, and most others.
? Chrysostom, Rupertius, Jansen, Bengel, Lampe, Paulus, Godet.
3 Johann. Schr. 1. 216.
* De Wette, B. Crusius, Tholuck.
® Cyril, Nonnus, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beda, Calvin, Kuinoel, Licke,
Lange, Maier, Luthardt.
¢ Jesus could not reproach His opponents with not having received prophetic revela- tions, such as Theophanies and Visions, for these were marks of distinction bestowed only on individuals. This also against Weiss, Lehroegr. pp. 104, 108.
CHAP. V., 38—40. 191 place ;” and that of Tholuck : ‘‘ ye have not reccived a still more direct revelation than did Moses and his contemporaries (Num. xii. 8 ; Deut. iv. 15, v. 24), but ye have not accepted within you.the witness of the revelation in the word,’’—an artificial connecting of ver. 37 with ver. 88, which the | words forbid. Paulus and Kuinoel (comp. Euthymius Zigabenus) likewise erroneously say that ‘‘ Jesus here concedes, in some degree, to the Jews what they had themselves wished to urge in objection, viz. that they had heard no divine voice, etc. Comp. Ebrard (in Olshausen), who imports the idea of irony into the passage. .
Ver. 88. After ver. 87 we must place only acomma. John might have continued : obre roy Adyov, x.r.A.3; instead of which he attaches the negation not to the particle, but to the verb (obre . . . xai, see on iv. 11), and thus the new thought comes in more independently: And ye have not His word abiding in you ; ye lack an inner and permanent appropriation of it ; comp. 1 John ii. 14. The Aédyoc Seot is not ‘‘the inner revelation of God in the conscience” (Olshausen, Frommann), but, conformably with the context (vv. 87, 39), what God has spoken in the O. T., and this according to its pur- port. Had they given ear to this as, what it is in truth, the word of God (but they had no ear for God’s voice, ver. 87), had they discerned therein God’s manifestation of Himself (but they had no eye for God’s form, ver. 87), what God had spoken would have penetrated through the spiritual ear and eye into the heart, and become the abiding power in their inner life. — ire bv améorecAev, x.r.A.] demonstration of the fact. He who rejects the sent of God cannot have that word abiding in him, which witnesses to Him who is sent (ver. 87). ‘‘Quomodo mandata regis discet qui legatum excludit ?” Grotius. — rofry tpzeic] observe the emphatic conjunction of the words.
Vv. 89, 40 bring out to view the complete perversity of this unbelief. ‘‘The Scriptures testify of me, as the Mediator of eternal life ; he, therefore, who searches the Scriptures, because in them he thinks he has eternal life, will by that witness be referred to me ; ye search the Scriptures, because, etc., and yet refuse to follow me according to their guidance.” How in- consistent and self-contradictory is this! That épevvare is Indicative,’ and not Imperative,* is thus clear from the context, in which the Imperative would introduce a foreign element, especially out of keeping with the cor- relative xai ov OéAere.* [See Note XXV. p. 196.] The searching of the Script- ures might certainly be attributed to the Jews, comp. vii. 52 (against B. Crusius and Tholuck); but a special significance is wrongly attached to zpev- vire (a study which penetrates into the subject itself, and attains a truly inward possession of the word, Luthardt) ; and the contradiction of ver. 40, which forms such a difficulty, is really nothing but the inconsistency which Jesus wishes to bring out to view. —ineic] emphatic, for you, ye on your part,
1 Cyril, Erasmus, Casaubon, Beza, Ben- gel, and many moderns, also Kutnoel, Liicke, Olshausen, Klee, de Wette, Mailer, Hilgenfeld, Briickner, Godet.
* Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Calvin, Are- tius, Maldonatus, Cornelius A Lapide, Gro-
tius, Calovius, Wolf, Wetstein, Paulus, B. Crasius, Tholuck, Hofmann, Luthardt, Baeumlein, Ewald, Hengstenberg, arguing from Isa. xxxiv. 16.
* Comp. also Lechler in the Stud. u. Krié. 1854, p. 795.
192 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
are the people who think this. Still there lies in doxeire neither blame,' nor (as Ewald maintains, though ver. 45 is different) a delicate sarcastic refer- ence to their exaggerated and scholastic reverence for the letter of Script- ure, but certainly a contrast to the actual éyec:v, which Jesus could not affirm concerning them, because they did not believe in Him who was testified of in the Scriptures as the Mediator of eternal life.* Theoretically, they were right in their thinking ‘(doxeiv), but practically they were wrong, because Christ remained hidden from them in the Scriptures. Comp. as. to the
_ thing itself, 2 Cor, iii. 15, 16; and on éyew Cupvai., iii, 15. — év abraic] The
possession of Messianic life is regarded as contained in the Scriptures, in so far as they contain that by which this possession is brought about, that which is not given outside the Scriptures, but only in them. — xa? éxeiva, x.T.A.] Prominence assigned to the identity of the subject, in order to bring out the contrast more fully : and they, those very Scriptures which ye search, are they which, etc. — cal ov DéAere] xai does not mean and yet, but simply and. This simplicity is all the more striking, more striking and tragic even than the interrogative interpretation (Ewald). On éAvdeiv mpd¢ pe, denoting a believing adherence to Christ, comp. vi. 35. They stood aloof from Him, and this depended on their will, Matt. xxiii. 87. —iva Suny éy.] ‘‘ in order that that doxeiv of yours may become a reality.”
Vv. 41-44. ‘“‘I do not utter these reproaches against you from (disap- pointed) ambition, but because I have perceived what o want of all right feeling towards God lies at the root of your unbelief.” — dégav rapa avdp. | These words go together, and stand emphatically at the beginning of the sentence, because there is presupposed the possibility of an accusation on this very point.* — ov AauB.] i.e. ‘‘I reject it,” as in ver. 34. — éyvoxa dude] ‘‘ cognitos vos habeo,; hoc radio penetrat corda auditorum,” Bengel. — r. ayér. tr. Jeov] If they had love to God in their hearts (this being the summary of their law !), they would have felt sympathy towards the Son, whom the Father (ver. 43) sent, and would have received and recognized Him. The article is generic ; what they lacked was love to God. — ev éavroic] in your own hearts ; it was an excellence foreign to them, of which they themselces were destitute—a mere theory, existing outside the rangeof their inner life. — Ver. 48. Actual result of this deficiency with reference to their relation towards Jesus, who had come in His Father’s name, 7.6. as His appointed representative, and consequently as the true Christ (comp. vii. 28, viii. 42), but who was unbelievingly despised by them, whereas, on the other hand, they would receive a false Messiah. — év rp dvéyate ro idly] tn
1 According to Hilgenfeld, ZLehrbegr. p. 218 (comp. his Evang. p. 272, and Zeitschr. 1868, p. 217), directed against the delusion of the Jews, that they possessed the perfect source of blessedness in the literal sense of the O. T. which proceeded from the Demiurge, and was intended by him. Even Rothe, in the Stud. u. Arit. 1860, p. 6&7, takes Soxeire in the sense of a delusion, viz. that they possessed eternal /ife in a book.
Such explanations are opposed to the high veneration manifested by Jesus towards the Holy Scriptures, especially apparent in John, though here even Weiss, p. 106, ap- proves of the interpretation of an erroneous Soxey,
2 Comp. Hofmann, Schriftbewels, I. 671.
3 Comp. Plato, Phaedr. p. 22 A; see also 1 Thess. il. 6.
CHAP. V., 45-47. 193 his own name, i.e. in his own authority and self-representations, not as one commissioned of God (which He of course is alleged to be), consequently a false Messiah ;? pevrddvoyos avip avridsoc, Nonnus. He will be received, because he satisfies the opposite of the love of God, viz. sel f-love (by promis- ing earthly glory, indulgence towards sin, etc.). Fora definite prophecy of false Messiahs, see Matt. xxiv. 24. To suppose a special reference to Barkochba (Hilgenfeld), is arbitrarily to take for granted the uncritical assumption of the post-apostolic origin of this Gospel. According to Schudt * (in Bengel), sixty-four such deceivers have been counted since the time of Christ. — Ver. 44. The reproach of unbelief now rises to its highest point, for Jesus in a wrathful question denies to the Jews even the ability to believe. — tpeic}] has a deeply emotional emphasis : How is it possible for you people to believe ? And the ground of this impossibility is : because ye receive honour one of another (défav mapa aA. are taken together), because ye reciprocally give and take honour of yourselves. This ungodly desire of honour (comp. xii. 43 ; Matt. xxiii. 5 sqq.), and its necessarily accompany- ing indifference towards the true honour, which comes from God, must so utterly blight and estrange the heart from the divine element of life, that it is not even capable of faith. That divine défa is indeed the true glory of Israel (Luthardt), comp. Rom. ii. 29, but it is not here designated as such, as also the défay rapa aAA. AaB. does not appear as a designation of the ‘‘ spurious-Judaism,” which latter isin general a wider conception (Rom. ii, 17 ff.). — r#v wapd, «.7.A.] for it consists in this, that one knows himself to be recognized and esteemed of God. Comp. as to the thing itself, xii. 48 ; Rom. ii, 29, iii. 28.— rapa rod pdvov Seov] not ‘‘ from God alone,* but from the only (alone, single) God. Cf. xvii. 8; Rom. xvi. 26 ; 1 Tim. vi. 15. The adj. shows the exclusive value of this honour. — ov Cyreire] The transition from the participle to the finite tense gives independence and impressiveness to the second clause.
Vv. 45-47. In concluding, Jesus sweeps away from under their feet the entire ground and foundation upon which they based their hope, by repre- senting Moses, their supposed saviour, as really their accuser, seeing that their unbelief implied unbelief in Moses, and this latter unbelief made it impossible for them to believe in Jesus. This last completely annihilating stroke at the unbelievers is not only in itself, but also in its implied reference to the cause of the hostility of the Jews (ver. 15), ‘‘maxime aptus ad con- clusionem,” Bengel. — 4) doxeire] a8 you might perhaps believe from my previous denunciation. —xaryyopfow] not of the final judgment,‘ where certainly Christ is Judge; but in general, Jesus, by virtue of His permanent intercourse with the Father, might at any time have accused them before Him. — éorw 6 xarny. tu.) The emphatic éorw: there eriste your accuser
1 This reference of the text to false Mes- stahs is not too narrow (Luthardt, Brfick-
Jalse prophets. Many of the Fathers have taken the words to refer to Anfichrist.
ner), because ¢A@p oorresponds to the éAjAvda; and this, as the entire context shows, indicates that the appearance of the Messiah had taken place. This also tells against Tholuck's general reference to
2 Jildische Merkwirdigkett, vi. 27-80.
3 Grotius, de Wette, Godet, and most others, from an erroneous reference to Matt. fv. 4, 10.
4 Ewald and early writers.
194 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Moses—he as the representative of the law (not of the whole of the O. T., as Ewald thinks); therefore not again the future, but the present participle used as asubstantive, expressing continuous accusation. — izeic) has tragic emphasis. — 7Amixate] ye have set your hope, and do hope ; comp. iii. 18, and see on 2 Cor. i. 10. Asa reward for their zeal for the law, and their obedi- ence (Rom. ii. 17 ff., ix. 81 f.), the Jews hoped for the salvation of the Messianic kingdom, towards the attainment of which Moses was accordingly their patron and mediator.
Ver. 46. Proof that Moses was their accuser. Moses wrote of Christ, referring to Deut. xviii. 15, and generally to all the Messianic types (comp. iii. 14) and promises of the Pentateuch, and to its general Messianic import (Luke xxiv. 44 ; Rom. x. 5) ; in this, that they did not believe Christ (i.6. that He spoke the truth), is implied that they rejected the truth of what Moses had written concerning Him. This unbelief is the subject-matter of Moses’ accusation. Well says Bengel: ‘‘Non juvit Judaeos illud : Credi- mus vera esse omnia, quae Moses scripsit. Fide erplicita opus erat.” — Ver. 47. dé] Further conclusion from the unbelief with regard to Moses, pointed out in ver. 46. Thus the discourse ends with a question implying hope- lessness. — The antithesis is not between ypéyyaow and pfyao (as if the writings were easier of belief than the twoords), but between éxeivov and éuoi¢ (faith in him being the necessary condition of faith in Christ) ; while the distinction of Moses having written (comp. ver. 46), and Christ spoken, sim- ply presents the historical relation. Were the antithesis between ypduu. and pau., these words would have taken the lead ; were it between both, in ypau. and pjy., and at the same time in éxeivov and éuoic¢ likewise, this twofold re- lationship must have been shown, thus perhaps : roi¢ ypdypace roic éxeivov
. - » TOG Phuace ToiC Epoic.
Note.—The discourse, vv. 19-47, so fully embodies in its entire progress and contents, allowing for the necessary Johannine colouring in the mode of representation, those essential doctrines which Jesus had to advocate in the face of the unbelieving Jews, and exhibits, in expression and practical appli- cation, so much that is characteristic, great, thoughtful, and striking, that even Strauss himself does not venture to deny that it came substantially from the Lord, though as to its form he attaches suspicious importance to certain resemblances with the first Epistle ; but such asuspicion is all the less weighty, the more we are warranted to regard the Johannine idiosyncrasy as developed and moulded by a vivid recollection of the Lord's words, and as under the guidance of His Spirit, which preserved and transfigured that recollection. The reasons which lead Weisse to see nothing in the discourse but synoptical matter, and B. Bauer to regard the whole as a reflection of the later conscious- ness of the church, while Gfrérer supposes a real discourse, artificially shaped by additions and formal alterations, consist so much of arbitrary judgments and erroneous explanations and assumptions, that sober criticism gains nothing by them, nor can the discourse which is attacked lose anything. Cer- tainly we have in it ‘‘a genuine exposition of Johannine theology” (Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 273), but in such a manner, that it is the theology of Christ Him- self, the miracle of healing at Bethesda being historically the occasion of the
NOTES, 195
utterance in this manner of its main elements. This miracle itself is indeed by Baur regarded as a fictitious pretext, invented for the delivery of the dis- course, 80 much so that ‘every feature in it seems to have been intended for this purpose”’ (p. 159); and this in the face of the fact that no reference what- ever is made (in ver. 19 ff.) to the point in connection with the miracle at which the Jews took offence, viz. the brealcing of the Sabbath (ver. 16). Nothing whatever is specially said concerning miracles (for pya denotes a far wider con- ception), but the whole discourse turns upon that Messianic faith in the person of Jesus which the Jews refused to entertain. The fundamental truths, on this occasion so triumphantly expressed, ‘‘ were never taught by Him so dis- tinctly and definitely as now, when the right opportunity presented itself, at the very time when, after the Baptist’s removal, He came fully forth as the Messiah, and was called upon, quietly and comprehensively, to explain those highest of all relations, the explanation of which was previously demanded.”’ Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 298 f. ; comp. Riis Johann. Schr. I. 206 ff. At this crisis of His great mission and work, the references of his discourse to the Baptist, and the apologetic appeal to his works of spirituul and literal resurrection and the divine witness of Scripture, connect themselves so necessarily with His historical position, that it cannot even remotely suffice to suppose, with Weizsiicker, p. 282, that the discourse was composed simply with an eye to the synoptical statements of Matt. xi.
Notes px AMERICAN Eprror.
XXII. éyeipes xa? (woroei. Ver. 21.
*«The éyeipe: stands first (unlike Eph. ii. 5, 6), because the reference is not to @ making alive that which has not had life, but to an awakening from death— though not so as to require us, with Godet, to connect the object merely with éye(perv and take the (woraeiv absolutely. In the closing clause, therefore, the gwor, stands alone’’ (Weiss).
I conceive, however, that Meyer’s reason for the order holds good, that while the (wororeiv expresses the whole essential fact, yet to the popular conception the ‘‘ awakening ’’ is its precedent condition.
XXIV. “ But Ido not receive,” etc. Ver. 34.
The Common Ver. is here insufficient, in omitting entirely the article with Haprupiay (I do not receive testimony). The Rev. Ver. makes it, perhaps, un- necessarily prominent, and then, with its very emphatic and somewhat un- gainly ‘‘howbeit,” gives undue contrastive force to the following clause. The following seems to me a better and adequate rendering: ‘‘ But J do not receive my testimony from a man; yet I say these things’ (i.e. I appeal to John as voucher for myself and for the truth) ‘‘ that ye may be saved.’’"—It is impossi- ble often to distinguish in English between the stronger and the more slightly adversative Gr. particles dé and 4444. The rendering of the former fluctuates abont equally between and and tut; the latter is commonly given by Wd or yal; it is rarely so strongly adversative as our ‘‘howbeit.”
196 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
XXYV. 'Epevvdre trd¢ ypagds. Ver. 39.
Opinions fluctuate between the Ind. and Imper. constractions of épevvdre. Weiss follows Meyer (with perhaps the majority of interpreters, including the R. V.)in making it Ind., which, in connection with the following clause, seems at first view more probable. To me, however, the Imperative construction (held generally by the Greek interpreters) seems preferable : first, from the position of the verb, which favors the Imperative ; secondly, because it seems more nat- ural that Jesus should have so appealed to the Jews (‘‘ search the Scriptures’) than have declared them as doing that which was at this time probably true of but very few of them ; and thirdly, because of the following iueic, which, follow- ing the Ind. (‘* Ye search the Scriptures because ye think,’’ etc.) seems wholly unaccountable ; but, on the other hand, taking the verb as Imper. and the follow- ing clause as justifying His exhortation, seems entirely in order: ‘‘Search the Scriptures ; and I may well bid you do this, because ye deem that in these ye have eternal life. I may properly refer you to them, as being in your own judg- ment the arbiters of spiritual truth and destiny.’’ Having assigned this justifi- cation of His referring them to their Scriptures, He then declares in two brief sentences the essential reason of the reference— their testimony to Him, and the Jewish inconsistency in nevertheless rejecting Him. Both the following xai’s are pregnantly weighty. The first attaches itself to the preceding clause, ‘‘and (while this is the case) these are they,’’ etc.; the second succeeds to this with nearly the force of and yel—perhaps a very emphatic and. Weiss explains the tpeic (against Meyer) by making it imply the Saviour’s dissent from the Jewish opin- ion that they had in the Scriptures eternal life. But in this he is surely mis- taken. The language does not apply to actual individual posssesion, but to the ideal character of the Scriptures. They were the fountain of eternal life. The Jewish estimate of their character was correct, and on this ground the Saviour presses home the obligation to examine them and accept their testimony. It is unwarrantable to force into His language a reference to their efficacy on the persons whom He was addressing.
CHAP, VI. 19%
CHAPTER VI.
Ver. 2. éspwv] Lachm. and Tisch. : Medpovv, after A. B. D. L. &. Cursives, Cyr. The origin of this reading betrays itself through A., which has éeapuv, judging from which éépwy must have been the original reading. The éeup. was all the more easily received, however, because John invariably uses the Perfect only of dpév.—After this Elz. has atroi, against decisive testimonies. — Ver. 5. dyopdcopev} Scholz, Lachm., Tisch., read dyopéowzev, in favour of which the great majority of the testimonies decide. — Ver. 9. %] is wanting in B. D. L. ¥®. Cursives, Or. Cyr. Chrys, and some Verss. Rejected by Schulz after Gersd., bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But how easily might'it have ‘been overlooked, because superfluous, and coming after the syllable ON !—For é Lachm. and Tisch. read dc, following decisive witnesses ; transcribers were easily led to make changes according to the grammatical gender. — Ver. 11. After dcédwxe Elz, has roi¢ pa€yraic, of 62 pa§nrai, words which are wanting in A. B. L. &.* Cursives, Fathers, and almost all Versions. An enlargement in imitation of Matt. xiv. 19 and parallels. — Ver. 15. Lachm. and Tisch. have rightly deleted avrdv after rojo. ; an addition wanting in A. B. L. &. Cursives, Or, Cyr.— Ver. 17. ovx] B. D. L. 8. Cursives, Versions (not Vulgate), and Fathers read otrw. So Lachm. and Tisch. A gloss introduced for the sake of more minute definition. — Ver. 22. iduv] Lachm reads eldov, after A. B. Chrys. Verss. (L. edov) ; D. 8. Verss. read oldev. The finite tense was introduced to make the construction easier. — After éy Elz. Scholz have éxeivo ei¢ 6 évéByoay ok Hanrai atrov, against very important authorities. An explanatory addition, with many variations in detail. — rAoiov] Elz. : rAotipiov against decisive wit- nesses. Mechanical and careless (vv. 17, 21) repetition borrowed from what precedes. — Ver. 24. uiro/] Elz. xai avroi, against decisive witnesses. — Ver. 36. pe is bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. The authorities against it are insufficient (only A. &. among the Codices), and it might easily have been left out after TE. — Ver. 39. After uve Elz. has rarpéc, the omission of which is over- whelmingly attested. An addition. — Ver. 40. rot rarpdc zov] So also Lachm. and Tisch. The Textus Receptus is rod rézwavrdéc pe. Preponderance of testimony is in favour of the former ; the latter is a repetition from ver. 39, whence also, in- stead of yap, the Received reading dé was inserted. — 19 écx. 7u.] According to A. D. K. L., etc., év r. tox. fu. is to be restored, as in ver. 39, where év, indeed, is wanting in many witnesses ; but that it was the original reading is indicated by the reading avrév (instead of airé). In ver. 64, also, év is sufficiently confirmed, and (against Tisch.) is to be in like manner restored. — Ver, 42. The second ovro¢ has against it B. C, D. L. T. Cursives, Verss. Cyr. Chrys.; bracketed by Lachm. But it might easily have been overlooked.as being unnecessary, and because the similar OTI follows.— Ver. 45, axovca¢] axovwv, which Griesbach received and Scholz adopted, has important authority, but this is outweighed by the testi- monies for the Received reading. It is nevertheless to be preferred ; for, con- sidering the following ya9ev, the Aorist would easily occur to the transcribers
198 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
who did not consider the difference of sense. ovv before é axotuy is to be struck out (with Lachm. and Tisch.) upon sufficient counter testimony, as being a connective addition. In vv. 51, 64, 57, 58, the form (joe: is, upon strong evi- dence, to be uniformly restored. — Concerning the omission of the words, 4» éy® doow in ver. 51, see the exegetical notes. — Ver. 55. For dAndc Lachm. and Tisch. have both times dAn67¢, which is strongly confirmed by B.C. K. L. T. Cursives, Versions (yet not the Vulgate), and Fathers (even Clement and Ori- gen). The genuine a76j¢, as seeming inappropriate, would be glossed and supplanted now by aA76e¢ and now by di7Ocv7 (already in Origen once). — Ver. 58. After rarépec, Elz. Scholz have tov ré udvva, Lachm. simply 1d pdvva, both against very important testimony. An enlargement. — Ver. 63. AeAdAnxa] Elz. Aade, against decisive witnesses. Altered because the reference of the Perfect was not understood. Comp. xiv. 10. — Ver. 69. 6 Xpord¢ 6 vlog r. Geov] The reading 6 dytog r. Geov is confirmed by B. C.* D. L. ®. Nonn. Cosm., and adopt- éd by “Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. The Received reading is from Matt. xvi. 16, whence also came the addition rod (avro¢ in the Elz.— Ver. 71. ’Ioxapistyy] Lachm. and Tisch. read 'Ioxapisrov, after B. C. G. L. 33, and Verss. So, after the same witnesses in part, in xiii. 26. But as in xiv. 22 "Ioxapidrn¢ occurs critically confirmed as the name of Judas himself (not of his father), and as the genitive might easily be introduced as explanatory of the name (amd Kapwwirov, as &, and many Carsives actually read here), the Received reading is to be re- tained. Had John regarded the name as designating the father of Judas, it would not be apparent why he did not use the genitive in xiv. 22 also. See, besides, the exegetical notes.
Ver. 1. The account of the Feeding is the same with that given in Matt. xiv. 18 ff., Mark vi. 80 ff., Luke ix. 10 ff., and serves as the basis of the discourse which follows, though Schweizer denies that vv. 1-26 proceed from John. The discrepancies in matters of detail are immaterial, and bear witness to the independence of John’s account. The author of this narra- tive, according to Baur, must have appropriated synoptical material for the purpose of his own exposition, and of elevating into a higher sphere the miracle itself, which in the Synoptics did not go beyond the supply of tem- poral needs. The historical connection with what precedes is not the same in John and in the Synoptics, and this must be simply acknowledged. To introduce more or less synoptical history into the the space implied in era vavra (Ebrerd, Lange, Lichtenstein, and many), is not requisite in John, and involves much uncertainty in detail, especially as Matthew does not agree with Mark and Luke ; for he puts the mission of the disciples earlier, and does not connect their return with the Miraculous Feeding. To interpolate their mission and return into John’s narrative, inserting the former at chap. v. 1, and the latter at vi. 1, so that the disciples rejoin Jesus at Tiberias, is very hazardous ; for John gives no hint of it, and in their silence con- cerning it Matthew and John agree (against Wieseler and most expositors). According to Ewald, at a very early date, a section, ‘‘ probably a whole sheet,” between chap. v. and vi., was altogether lost. But there is no indi- cation of this in the text, nor does it form a necessary condition of the suc- ceeding portions of the narrative (as vii. 21). — nerd ravra] after these trans- actions at the feast of Purim, chap. v. — ar#Adev] from Jcrusalem ; whither ?
CHAP. VI., 2—4. 199 répav Tr. 9ai., x.7.A., tells us.’ To suppose some place in Galilee, as the start- ing point of the ar7adev,*— Capernaum, for example,—is, after v. 1, quite arbitrary. "ArgjAde mwéipay, «.7.4., rather implies : arodirdv ‘IepoodAvua 7A0e xépav, x.r.A. Comp. x. 40, xviii. 1. — rife T:Bep.] does not imply that He set sail from Tiberias (Paulus), as the genitive of itself might indicate,’ though this use of it does not occur in the N. T. ; it is the chorographical genitive, ‘ more closely describing ri#¢ Satdoo. re Tata. (comp. Vulg. and Beza: ‘(mare Galilaeae, guod est Tiberiadis”). Therefore ‘‘on the other side of the Galilaean lake of Tiberias,” thus denoting the southern half of the lake, on the western shore of which lay the town built by Antipas, and called after ‘the emperor Tiberias. Comp. xxi.1. In Pausan. v. 7. 3, the entire lake is called Aiuvy Ti3epic. In Matthew and Mark we find the name 9ddacca ric Tava. only ; in Luke v. 1 : Aigzvy Tevvnoapér. Had John intended ric Tife- piédoc not as a more exact description of the locality, but only for the sake of JSoreign readers,* it would have been sufficient to omit r#¢ Tadd. (comp. xxi. 1), which indeed is wanting in G. and a few other witnesses.
Vv. 2, ‘3. 'HxodotPe:] on this journey, continuously. — édéper] saw, not had seen (against Schweizer, B. Crusius), but sato. He performed them (éroiez) upon the way. — éxi r. aod.] among the sick.* — eic rd dp0¢] upon the mountain which was there. See on Matt. v. 1. The mountain was certainly on the other side of the lake, but we cannot determine the locality more nearly. The mountain solitude does not contradict Matt. xiv. 18, nor does the eastern side of the lake contradict Luke ix. 10 ff. (see in loc.).
Ver. 4. 'Eyybe] close at hand. See on v. 1. Paulus wrongly renders it not long since past. See, on the contrary, ii. 13, vii. 2, xi. 55. The statement is intended as introductory to ver. 5, explaining how it happened (comp. xi. 55) that Jesus, after He had withdrawn to the mountain, was again at- tended by a great multitude (ver. 5),—a thing which could not have hap- pened had not the Passover been nigh. It was another crowd (not, as is com- monly assumed, that named in ver. 2, which had followed Him in His prog- ress towards the lake), composed of pilgrims to the feast, who therefore were going the opposite way, from the neighbourhood of the lake in the direction of Jerusalem. Thus ver. 4 is not a mere chronological note,” against which the analogy of vii. 2 (with the oiv following, ver. 8) is decisive ; nor docs it, as every more specific hint to that effect is wanting, refer by anticipation*® to the following discourse of Jesus concerning eating His flesh and blood as the antitype of the Passover.* — 4 éopr r. "Iovdatuyv] nar. tEox4v. There is no intimation that Jesus Himself went up to this feast (Liicke). See rather vii. 1.
1 Thac. {. 111. 2, iL 67. 1: wopevdyva wépay tov "EAAnowérrov; Plat. Per. 19; 1 Macc. Ix. $4; and comp. ver. 17.
3 Brickner, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Go- det, and earlier critics.
3 Kfihner, IT. 160.
‘ Kroger, xivil. 5. 5-7.
®§ Licke, Godet, Ewald, and others.
*Dem. 574.8; Plat. Pol. ill, p. 800 A; Bernhardy, p. 246.
7B. Crusius, Mailer, Briickner, Ewald.
® Comp. also Godet: Jesus must have. been in the position “ d’un proecrit,” and could not go to Jerusalem to the Passover: Hie therefore saw in the approaching multitudes a sign from the Father, and thought, “* Et mot aussi, Je célebrerat une paque.”" This is pure invention.
* B. Bauer ; comp. Baur, p. 202, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, and already Lampe.
200 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 5, 6. According to the reading dyopdoupev, whence are we to buy? de- liberative conjunctive. The fact that Jesus thus takes the inétiative (as host,
_ Ewald thinks, but this is not enough), and takes action without the prompt-
ing of any expressed need, however real, is not to be explained merely on the supposition that this is an abridgment (Liicke, Neander, Hengstenberg) of the synoptical account (Matt. xiv. 15) ; it is a diversity, which, however, does not destroy the fact that John was an eye-witness. It is purely arbi- trary on Baur’s part to assume the design to be that of directing attention more directly to the spiritual purpose of the miracle, or, with Hilgenfeld, to regard all here as composed out of synoptical materials to prove the omnipo- tence of the Logos. The most simple and obvious course is to explain the representation given as flowing from the preponderating idea of the Mes- siah’s autonomy.’ See on Matt. xiv. 15. Itisan analogous case when Jesus Himself gave occasion to and introduced the miracle at Bethesda, v. 6. It is a supplement to the narrative in the Synoptics, that Jesus discussed with Philip (i. 44) the question of bread. Why with him? According to Ben- gel, because it fell to him to manage the res alimentaria, which is improb- able, for Judas was treasurer, xiii. 29. Judging from ver. 6, we might say it was because Philip had to be tested in his intellectual capaci- ties (xiv. 8 ff), and convinced of his inability to advise. The mepdlew docs not signify the trial of faith (so usually, also Hengstenberg), but, as aitdc yap pdec Shows, was a test whether he could here suggest any expedient ; and the answer of the disciple (ver. 7) conveys only the impression that he knew of none. This consciousness, however, was intended also to prepare the disciple, who so closely resembled Thomas, and for whom the question, therefore, had an educative purpose, the more readily to feel, by the new and coming miracle, how the power of faith in the divine agency of his Lord transcended all calculations of the intellect. This was too important a matter for Jesus with respect to that disciple, to allow us to suppose that meipazuv avrév is a mere notion of John’s own, which had its origin among the transfiguring recollections of a later time (Ewald). Hide: rv padyrav Tove udhora deoutvouc mAeiovoc didacxadiac, Theodore of Mopsuestia ; in which there is nothing to suggest our attributing to Philip a ‘‘ simplicité naive,” Godet. —avréc] Himself, without having any need to resort to the advice of another.
Vv. 7-9. For 200 denarii (about €0 Rhenish Guldens, nearly £7) we can-: not get bread enough for them, etc. This amount is not named as the con- tents of the purse, but generally as a large sum, which nevertheless was inad- equate for the need. Different in Mark vi. 37. — Vv. 8, 9. A special trait of originality. — eig éx r. uadyr. avrov] may seem strange, for Philip was him- self a disciple, and it is explained by Wassenbach as a gloss, It has, how-
1 Amid such minor circumstances, the who, when she sees the guests coming in idea might certainly supplant the more _ the distance, thinks in the first place of exact Aisforical recollection even ina John. what she can set before them, as Hase We have no right, however, on that ac- (Tviding. Schule, p. 4) very inappropriately count, to compare Jesus, according to has done.
John’s representation, to a housewife,
CHAP. VI., 10-13. 201 ever, this significance ; Philip had been specially asked, and after he had answered so helplessly, another from the circle of the disciples, viz. Andrew, directed a communication to the Lord, which, though made with a like consciousness of helplessness, was made the instrument for the further pro- cedure of Jesus. —a:ddpiov év] who had these victuals for sale as a market boy, not a servant of the company, B. Crusius. It may be read one single tzd (Matt. xi. 16), or even one single young slave.’ Comp. the German ein Birschchen (a lad), as also the manner in which zracdcdv is used (Aristoph. Ran. 87 ; Nub. 181). In which of the two senses it stands here we cannot decide. In neither case can év stand for ri, but év, as well as the diminutive sasiov, helps to describe the meagreness of the resource, the emphasis, how- ever, being on the latter ; and hence & follows, which is not to be taken as an argument against its genuineness (Gersd. p. 420; Liicke, and most others), though in al other places, when John uses ei¢ with a substantive (vii. 21, viii. 41, x. 16, xi. 50, xviii. 14, xx. 7), the numeral has the empha- sis, and therefore takes the lead. But here: ‘‘one single dad,” a mere boy, who can carry little enough !| — dprove xpiDivovg] comp. Xen. Anad. iv. 5. 81; Luc. Macrob. 5. Barley bread was eaten mainly by the poorer classes ; Judg. vii. 18, and Studer, in loc. ; Liv. xxvii. 13 ; Sen. ep. xviii. 8; see also Wetstein and Kypke, I. p. 368. — dwdpiov} generally a small relish, but in particular used, as here (comp. xxi. 9, 18), of fish. It belongs to later Greek. See Wetstein. — cic rocotrovg] for so many. Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 1. 10: ei¢ dtoyeAiove pioddv.
Vv. 10-18. Ol dvdpec}] They were men only who formally sat down to the meal, as may be explained from the subordinate position of the women and children ; but the feeding of these latter, whose presence we must assume from ver. 4, is not, as taking place indirectly, excluded. —rdv apidudv] Ac- cusative of closer definition.” — Ver. 11. eiyap.] The grace before meat said by the host. See on Matt. xiv. 19. There is no indication that it con- tained a special petition (‘‘ that God would let this little portion feed so many,” Luthardt, comp. Tholuck). —d:édwxe] He distributed the bread (by the disciples) collectively to those who were sitting ; and of the fishes as much as they desired.*— Ver. 12. It is not given as a command of Jesus in the synoptical account. As to the miracle itself,‘ and the methods of ex- plaining it away, wholly or in part, see on Matt. xiv. 20, 21, note, and on
1 See Loheck, ad Phryn. p. 240; Schleus- ner, Thes. ITI. p. 160.
*# See Lobeck, Paraiip. p. 528.
* Luther's translation, ‘‘as much as He ewould,’’ reste upon an unsupported reading in Erasmus, edd. 1 and 2.
4 By Ewald (Gesch. Chr. p. 442 sq. ed. 8) apprehended ideally, like the turning of the water into wine at Cana, as a legend, upon the formation of which great influence was excited by the holy feeling of higher satis- faction, which resulted from the participa- tion in the bread of life partaken of by the disciples after Christ’s resurrection. This
is incompatible with the personal recollec- tion and testimony of John, whom Hase, indeed, supposes by some accident to have been absent from the scene. With equally laboured and mistaken logic, Schleter- macher (L. J. 284) endeavours to show that ver. 26 excludes this event from the cate- gory of onucia. Weizsiicker leaves the fact, which is here the symbol of the blessing of Jesus, in perfect uncertainty; buat the description by an eye-witness of the work effected in its miraculous character, which, only leaves the Aow unexplained, does not admit of such an evasion.
202 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Luke ix. 17, and observe besides on ver. 13, that according to John the twelve baskets were filled with fragments of bread only (otherwise in Mark vi, 43). — Luthardt, without sanction from the text, assumes a typical ref- erence in the baskets to the twelve tribes of Israel. Jesus will have nothing wasted, and each apostle fills his travelling wallet with the surplus. John indicates nothing further, not even that the Lord wished to provide iva py} dé&y gavtacia tig Td yevdpuevor,’ that the occurrence might not seema sort of il- lusion.
Vv. 14, 15. ‘0 rpogfrae, x.7.2.] the Prophet who (according to the promise in Deut. xviii. 15) cometh into the world, i.e. the Messiah. — aprdéfev] come and carry him away by force,’ i.e. to Jerusalem, as the seat of the theocracy, whither they were journcying to the feast. —dAw] comp. ver. 3. He had come down from the mountain on account of the feeding, ver. 11. — airi¢ pévoc] a8 in xii. 24.*— The enthusiasm of the people, being of so sensuous a kind, does not contradict ver. 26.—The solitude which Jesus sought was, according to Matt. xiv. 28, Mark vi. 46, that of prayer, and this does not contradict John’s account ; the two accounts supplement cach other.
Vv. 16-21. Comp. Matt. xiv. 22 ff., Mark vi. 45 ff., which do not refer to a different walking on the sea (Chrysostom, Liicke). — d¢ dé opia eyévero] According to ver. 17, the time meant is late in the evening, t.e. the so-called second evening, asin Matt. xiv. 24, from the twelfth hour until the dark- ness, ver. 17. See on Matt. xiv. 15. — eic¢ rd wAciov] into the ship, in which they had crossed over (ver. 1). In it they now return to the western side of the lake. So Luthardt rightly. But it does not follow that Jerusalem could not have been the place of departure in ver. 1; from ver. 1 we rather infer that they had travelled from Jerusalem to the western shore of the lake, and have crossed over from thence. — jpzovro] They were upon their return jour- ney, coming across, but the coming was not yet completed. Lampe and Paulus erroneously speak of their actual arrical, what follows being taken as supplementary. In Mark vi. 45 Bethsaida is named (on the western shore). An immatcrial discrepancy. See on Matt. xiv. 22, 28. —xai oxoria . . . dixyetpero] describing how little they could have expected that Jesus would come after them. — Ver. 19. &¢ oradiovg . . . tpedxovra] indicative of an eye-witness, and nearly agreeing with uécov in Matt. xiv. 24, for the lake was forty stadia or one geographical mile wide.‘ — Sewpovar and é¢of7F. ] Correlatives ; discountenancing the naturalistic interpretation, which makes éxi r. Yad. mean not on the sea, but towards the sea (so Paulus, Gfrérer, and many, even B. Crusius ; but see, on the contrary, note on Matt. xiv. 25). — Ver. 21. #9eAov, «.7.A.] comp. i. 44; but observe the Imperfect here. After Jesus had reassured them by His call, they wish to take Him into the ship, and straightway (while entertaining this é?éAecv) the ship is at the land, i.e. by the wonder-working power of Jesus, both with respect to the dis- tance from the shore, which was still far off, and the fury of the sea, which
1Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, and 3See Toup. ad Longin. p. 526; Welsk.: several others. Heind. ad Charm. p. 62.
2 Acts vill. 80; 2 Cor. xil. 2; 1 Thess. * Josephus, Bell, ill. 10. 7. iv. 17.
CHAP. VI,, 22-24. 203 had just been raging, but was now suddenly calmed. The idea that Jesus, to whom the disciples had stretched out their hands, had just come on board the ship, introduces a foreign element (against Luthardt and Godet), for the sake of bringing the account into harmony with Matthew and Mark. The discrepancy with Matthew and Mark, according to whom Christ was actually received into the ship, must not be explained away, especially as in John a more wonderful point, peculiar to his account, is introduced by the kat evdéwe, etc., which makes the actual reception superfluous (Hengstenberg, following Bengel, regards it as implied). [See Note XXVI. p. 226.) Anun- happy attempt at harmonizing renders it, ‘‘ they willingly received Him,” * which cannot be supported by a supposed contrast of previous unwillingness (Ebrard, Tholuck), but would be admissible only if the text represented the will and the deed as undoubtedly simultaneous.” John would in that case have written é3éAovre¢ obv EAaBov. — elg fv trqyov] to which they were intend- ing by this journey to remove.—The miracle itself cannot be resolved into a natural occurrence,® nor be regarded as a story invented to serve Docetic views (Hilgenfeld) ; sce on Matt. xiv. 24, 25. The latter opinion appears most erroneous, especially in the case of John,‘ not only generally because his Gospel, from i. 14 to its close, excludes all Docetism, but also because he only introduces, with all brevity, the narrative before us by way of transi- tion to what follows, without laying emphasis upon the miraculous, and without adding any remark or comment, and consequently without any special doctrinal purpose ; and thus the attribution to the occurrence of any symbolical design, ¢.g. prophetically to shadow forth the meetings of the risen Lord with His disciples (Luthardt), or the restless sca of the world upon which Christ draws nigh to His people after long delay (Hengstenberg), is utterly remote from a true exegesis. Weizsicker’s narrowing of the event, moreover,—abstracting from the history its miraculous element,—into an intervention of the Lord to render help, does such violence to the text, and to the plain meaning of the evangelist, that the main substance of the nar- rative is explained away. But the purpose assigned to it by Baur, viz. to set forth the greedy importunity of the people, only to experience the cold hand of denial, and bring out the spiritual side of the miracle of the feed- ing, did not require for its realization this miraculous voyage.
Vv. 22-24. The complicated sentence (so rare in John ; comp. xiii. 1 ff., 1 John i. 1 ff.) here proceeds in such a manner that the 4 dyAo¢ standing, without further government, at the head as the subject of tho whole, is resumed * in ver. 24 by Gre obv eldev 6 dyA0¢, while ver. 23 is a parenthesis, preparing the way for the passing over of the people in the following clause.
1 Beza, Grotius, Kuinoel, Ammon, ete. ; see, on the contrary, Winer, p. 486 [E. T. p. 467] ; Buttmann, N. 7. Gk. p. 821 [E. T. p. 875].
* See the passages given in Sturz, Lez. Xen. ; Ast, Lex. Plat. 1. 806.
®* Ewald probably comes to that con- clusion, for he takes Sespote:, ver. 19, to denote a mere vision (phantasmagoria 7),
and éoB4dycar to signify disquietude of conscience: ‘*‘He finds them not pure in spirit.”
* Who, moreover, in the deviations from Matthew and Mark, possesses the deciding authority (against Mircker, p. 14).
® On the usual resumptive od», see Winer, p. 414 [E. T. 444]; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 177.
204 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. The participial clause, idav bre . . . am@adov, is subordinate to the éoryxic népav r. Sad., and explains why the people expected Jesus on the next day still on the east side of the lake. John’s narrative therefore runs thus: ‘* The next day, the people who were on the other side of the lake, because (on the previous evening, ver. 16 f.) they had seen that no other ship was there save only the one, and that Jesus did not enter into the ship with His disciples, but that His disciples sailed away alone [but other ships came from Tiberias near to the place, etc.],—twhen now the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disci- ples,’ finding themselves mistaken in their expectation of mecting Him still on the eastern shore, they themselves embarked in the shins,” etc. [See Note XXVII. p. 227]. As to details, observe further, (1) that répav r. 3ad. in ver. 22 indeed, means the eastern side of the lake in ver. 1, but in ver. 25 the western ; (2) that idév is spoken with reference to the previous day, when the multitude had noticed the departure of the disciples in the evening, so that the conjecture of eidé¢ (Ewald) is unnecessary ; that, on the contrary, dre ovv eidev. ver. 24, indicates that they became aware to-day, —a difference which is the point in the cumbrously constructed sentence that most easily mis- leads the reader ; (3) that the arrival of the ships from Tiberias, ver. 23, occurred while the people were still on the eastern shore, and gave them a convenient opportunity, when undeceived in their expectation, of looking for Jesus on the western shore ; (4) that airo/, ipsi, indicates that, instead of waiting longer for Jesus to comé to them, they themselees set out, and em- braced the opportunity of seeking Jesus on the other side, by embarking in the ships, and sailing across to Capernaum, the well-known place of our Lord’s abode ; (5) that the circumstantial character of the description throughont indicates the vivid communication of an eye-witness, which John had received, and does not permit our taking the transit of the people (which, however, must not be pressed as including the whole 5000) as invented to confirm the story of the walking on the sea (Strauss).
Vv. 25, 26.° Ilépav r. Yatdoo.] in the synagogue at Capernaum, ver. 59. But répay r. 9ad. has importance pragmatically, as showing that it formed a subject of amazement to them to find Him already on the western shore. — aére] when? for it must have been, at the earliest, after the arrival of the disciples (ver. 22) ; and in this lay the incomprehensible how? no other boat having crossed, and the journey round by land being too far. They have a dim impression of something miraculous ; ‘‘quaestio de tempore includit quaestionem de modo,” Bengel. Jesus does not answer their question, nor gratify their curiosity, but immediately charges them with the unspiritual motive that prompted them to seek Him, in order to point them to higher spiritual food. For yéyovac, venisti, see on i. 15.— ody. . . aAA.] not “non tam... quam” (Kuinoel, etc.) ; the dr: eidere ony. is absolutely denied.* In
1 Jesus was not there, because, though they did not think of His going away. He did not show Himself anywhere ; the dis- ciples were not, because they could not have remained unobserved if they had come back again from the other side; and such a return could not have taken place in
the dAAdots wAorapios, for these latter came not from Capernaum, but from Tiberias.
2 See, concerning all the occurrences, ver. 26 ff., Harless, Luther. Zeitechrift, 1867, p. 116 ff.
* Comp. Fritzsche, ad Mare. xc. IL p. 773.
CHAP, VI., 27-29. 205
the miraculous feeding they should have seen a divinely significant reference to the higher Messianic bread of life, and this ought to have led them to seek Jesus ; but it was only the material satisfaction derived from the miraculous feeding that brought them to Him, as they hoped that He would further satisfy their carnal Messianic notions. —onueia] They had seen the outward miracle, the mere event itself, but not its spiritual significance,— that wherein the real essence of the onyeziov, in the true conception of it, con- sisted. The plural is not intended to include the healings of the sick, ver. 2 (Bengel, Liicke, and most others), against which see ver. 4, but refers only to the feeding, as the antithesis aAd’ ore shows, and is to be taken generi- cally, as the plural of category.
Ver. 27. ‘* Strive to obtain, not the food which perisheth, but the food which endureth unto life eternal.” The activity and labour of acquiring implied in épydleabat, laborando sibi comparare,’ consists, when applied to the everlast- ing food, in striving and struggling after it, without which effort Jesus does not bestow it. We must come believingly to Him, must follow Him, must deny ourselves, and so on. Then we receive from Him, -in ever- increasing measure, divine grace and truth, by a spiritual appropriation of Himself ; and this is the abiding food, which forever quickens and feeds the inner man; in substance not essentially different from the tater, which forever quenches thirst (iv. 14).* Under this view, the thought con- veyed in épyéfeofa, as thus contrasted with that of déce on the other side, cannot be regarded as strange (against de Wette) ; the two conceptions are necessary correlatives. Phil. ii. 12, 138. — rv amrodAvuz.] not merely in its power, but in its very nature ; it is digested and ceases to be (Matt. xv. 17; 1 Cor. vi. 18). On the contrast, r. uévous. cic ¢. ai., comp. iv. 14, xii. 25. — éogpay.] sealed, i.c. authenticated (see on iii. 83), namely, as the appointed Giver of this food ; in what way? see vv. 86-39. — é 6ed¢] emphatically added at the end to give greater prominence to the highest authority.
Vv. 28, 29. The people perceive that a moral requirement is signified by tiv Bpaow Tt. pévovoar, etc. ; they do not understand what, but they think that Jesus means works, which God requires to bedone.* Hence the question, ‘© What are we to do, to work the works required by God?” (which thou seemest to mean). ’EpydcecOa épya, ‘‘ to perform works,” very common in the Greek (see on iii. 21) ; épyé¢. here, therefore, is not to be taken as in ver. 27. — Ver. 29. See Luthardt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1852, p. 833 ff. Instead of the many épya @cot which they, agreeably to their legal standing-point, had in view, Jesus mentions only one épyov, in which, however, all that God requires of them is contained—the work (the moral act) of faith. Of this one divinely appointed and all embracing work—the fundamental virtue required by God—the manifold épya rot Geow are only diffcrent manifestations. — In the purpose expressed by rovro . . . iva there liesthe idea : ‘‘ This is the
1 Comp. dpyd¢. ra éwirjdeca, Dem. 1858.12; mos rpody in Philo, de profug. p. 749; Allegor. dpydé. Bpona, Palaeph. xxl. 2; épyd¢. Oncar- p. 92. povs, Theodot. Prov. xxi.6; see especially *épya r. deo, comp. Matt. vi. 83; Rev. Stephan. Thes. Kd. Hase, Ill. p. 1968. fi. 28; Baruch il. 9; Jer. xlvili. 10.
® See on Bpweors, iv. 82, also, and the ovpa-
206 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
work which God wills, ye must believe.” And this fundamental requirement repeatedly recurs in the following discourses, vv. 85, 36, 40, 47, etc.
Vv. 30, 31. Otv] What doest thou, therefore, as a sign? for they knew well enough that by dv aéor. xeivoe He meant Himself, and that, too, as Messiah. Hence also the emphatic of, thou, on thy part. The question itself does not imply that it is asked by those who had not seen the miraculous feeding the day before (Grotius), or by prominent Jews in the synagogue (Kuinoel, Klee). Moreover, this demand for a sign after the miracle of the feeding must not be regarded as contradictory and unhistorical,* nor as proof of the non- Johannine origin (Schweizer), or non-miraculous procedure (Schenkel), in the account of the feeding. For the questioners, in their dvalafyore (Chrysostom), indicate at once (ver. 31), that having been miraculously fed with earthly food, they, in their desire for miracles, require something higher to warrant their putting the required faith in Him, and expect a sign from heacen, heavenly bread, such as God had given by Moses. Thus they explain their own question, which would be strange only if ver. 81 did not immediately
follow. Their eagerness for Messianic miraculous attestation (vv. 14, 15) had °
grown during the night. This also against de Wette, who, with Weisse, concludes that this discourse was not originally connected with the mirac- ulous feeding ; see, on the contrary, Briickner. — ri épyéfy} a pointed retort- ing of the form of the requirement given, vv. 27, 29. Not to be explained as if it were ri od épy. (de Wette), but what (as o7yciov) dost thou perform ? — yeypauz.] a free quotation of Ps. xxviii. 24 ; comp. cv. 40, Ex. xvi. 4, where the subject of 2dwxev is God, but by the medium of Moses, this being taken for granted as known (ver. 82). The Jews regarded the dispensing of the manna as the greatest miracle (see Lampe). As they now regarded Moses as in general a type of Christ,* they also hoped in particular, ‘‘ Redemtor prior descendere fecit pro iis manna ; sic et redemtor posterior descendere faciet manna.” ‘
Vv. 32, 33. Jesus does not mean to deny the miraculous and heavenly origin of the manna in itself (Paulus), nor to argue polemically concerning the O. T. manna (Schenkel), but He denies its origin as heavenly in the higher ideal sense (comp. rdv aAnfivdv). The antithesis is not between the af#p and the xupiwe ovpavdc,® but between the type and the antitype in its full realization.— tiv] your-nation. — éx tov ovpavov] here and in the second half of the verse to be joined to déduxev (and didworv) : ‘It is not Moses who dis- pensed to you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who dispenseth to you from heaven that bread which is the true bread.” In ver. 31, too, &x Tov ovpavod is to be joined with édwxev ; and observe also, that in Ex. xvi. 4 D'DWiI | belongs not to Dn), but to YODD, The expression éx rod oip, is taken from Ex. xvi. 4 ; for, if we follow Ps. lxxviii. 24, cv. 40 (where D'nw is an attribute of dread), we should have dprov ovpavov. Comp. Targ. Jonath. Deut. xxxiv. 6: ‘‘Deus fecit descendere filiis Israel panem de coelo.” —
1Comp. v. 50, xv. 8, 12, xvil. 8; 1 John 4 Midrash Coheleth, f. 8%. 4.
iv. 17, v.38. See on Phil. i. 9. 6 Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, 2 Kern, B. Bauer, Weisse. Grotius, and most others. ® Schoettgen, Zor. II. p. 475.
CHAP. VI., 34. 207
didwotv] continuously ; for Jesus means Himself and His work. — rév aAnfrvdy] corresponding in reality to the idea. See on i. 9.1 This defining word, placed emphatically at the end, explains at the same time the negative state- ment at the beginning of the verse. — Ver. 33. Proof that it is the Father who gives, etc. (ver. 32) ; for it is none other than the bread which is being bestowed by God, that comes down from heaven and giceth lifeto the world. The argument proceeds ab effectu (6 xaraB. . . . xdaup) ad causam (4 aprog rob Beow). — 6 xaraPaiver, x.r.A.] refers to 6 dproc, and states its specific property, both as to its origin and working, both being essentially connected ; it does not refer to Jesus (‘‘ He who cometh down,” etc.), though, in the personal appli- cation of the general affirmation, Jesus, by the bread, represents, and must represent, Himself ; and hence the expression ‘‘ cometh down.”*? The direct reference to Jesus would anticipate the subsequent advance of the discourse (ver. 35), and would require 4 xaraBd¢ (ver. 41 ; comp. ver. 48). See on ver. 50. —Cufv] life. Without this bread, humanity (6 xéoyoc) is dead in the view of Jesus—dead spiritually (ver. 35) and eternally (vv. 39, 40).
Ver. 84 ff. Idvrore] emphatically takes the lead.—The request is like that in iv. 15, but here, too, without irony,* which would have implied unbelief in His power to give such bread. To explain the words as prompted by a dim presentiment concerning the higher gift (Liicke, B. Crusius, and most other expositors), is not in keeping with the stiffnecked antagonism of the Jews in the course of the following conversation. There is no trace of a further development of the supposed presentiment, nor of any approval and encouragement of it on the part of Jesus. The Jews, on the contrary, with their carnal minds, are quite indifferent whether anything supersensu- ous, and if so, what, is meant by that bread. They neither thought of an ‘ outward glory, which they ask for (Luthardt),—for they could only under- stand, from the words of Jesus, something analogous to the manna, though of a higher kind, perhaps ‘‘a magic food or means of life from heaven” (Tholuck),—nor had their thoughts risen to the spiritual nature of this mysterious bread. But, at any rate, they think that the higher manna, of which He speaks, would be a welcome gift to them, which they could always use. And they could easily suppose that He was capable of a still more miraculous distribution, who had even now so miraculously fed them with ordinary bread. Their unbelief (ver. 36) referred to Jesus Himself as that personal bread of life, to whom, indeed, as such, their carnal nature was closed. — Vv. 85, 86. Explanation and censure. — éyo] with powerful emphasis. Comp. iv. 26.—6 dprog tr. Guyjc] Cun didoic rH xdédouy, ver. 83. Comp. ver. 68. — 6 épyéu. mpd¢ pe] of a believing coming (v. 40); comp. vv. 47, 44, 45, 65. For épyéu. and mcretwv, as also their correlatives ov pu?) reer. and ov 7) dib., do not differ as antecedent and conscquent (Weiss), but are only formally kept apart by means of the parallelism. This parallelism of the discourse, now become more excited, has caused the addition of the ov
1"Exeivos yap & dpros rumixds fv, wporuray, sen, Fritzsche in his Novis opuec. p. 221, Go- dnoiv, dud roy avroaAjdaay Gyra, Euthymius det, and others. Zigabenus. » Against Calvin, Bengel, Lampe.
® Against Grotius, Day. Schulz, Olshau-
208 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. pA dephoy, which is out of keeping with the metaphor hitherto employed,
and anticipates the subsequent turn which the discourse takes to the eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood. We must not imagine that this is intended to express a superiority to the manna as being able to satisfy hunger only (Liicke); for both ot us) wecv. and ob pq dip. signify the same thing—the everlasting satisfaction of the higher spiritual need. Comp. Isa. xlix. 10.
GAM eizov tyiv] But I meant to say to you that, etc. Notice, therefore, that bre éwodx., x.7.A., does not refer to a previous declaration, as there is not such a one (Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Hengsten- berg, Baeumlein, Godet, and most others : to ver. 26; Liicke, de Wette :
to vv. 37-40 ; Euthymius Zigabenus : to an unwritten statement ; Ewald :
to one in a supposed fragment, now lost, which preceded chap. vi.; Briick- ner : to a reproof which runs through the whole Gospel); on the contrary,
the statement is itself announced by eisov (dictum velim).’ In like manner xi. 42. In classical Greek, very common in the Tragedians.* — xai éwpdx. pe k. ov tiar.| ye hare also seen me (not simply heard of me, but cven are eye- witnesses of my Messianic activity), and believe not.*
Vv. 37 ff. Through this culpable non-believing, they were quite different from those whom the Father gave Him. How entirely different were all these latter ; and how blessed through me, according to the Father's will, is their lot !— av] Neuter, of persons as in lil. 6, xvili, 2; 1 Cor. i. 27. It designates them as a ‘‘totam quasi massam,” Bengel. — 6 did. poe 6 nat.] viz. by the efficacious influence of His grace (vv. 44, 45), whereby He’ inclines them to come, and draws them to me ; ov 1d ruyov mpaypa 9} riottc 7 cig éué. GA2G THe GvwOev deirac potjc, Chrysostom. Moral self-dctermination (v. 40, vii. 17 ; Matt. xxiii. 87) may obey this influence (ver. 40), and may withstand it ; he who withstands it is not given Him by the Father, Phil. li. 138. ‘*There is implied here a humble, simple, hungering and thirsting soul,” Luther. Explanations resting on dogmatic preconceptions are: of the absolute election of grace (Augustine, Beza, and most others‘), of the natural pietatis studium (Grotius), and others. —mpd¢ éué] afterwards mpé¢ pe. But éué isemphatic. The #ée: is not more (arrivera jusqu’a moi, Godet) than é7cicera:, as ver. 35 already shows ; comp. the following x. 7. épyéuevov, with which 7 is again resumed. — ov pp) ExBddAw éf0] I certainly will not cast
1 See, for this use of the word, Bern- hardy, p. 881; Ktihner, II. § 443. 1.
2 See especially Herm. ad Viger. p. 746.
7On the first «ai, comp. ix. 87, and see generally Kitthner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 3. 1; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 149 ff.
4 See, on the contrary, Weiss, Lehrdegr. p. 142 ff.—Schlefermacher rationalizes the divine gift and drawing into a divine arrangement of circumstances; see L. J. p. 802 ff. Thus it would be resolved into the general government of the world. — According to Beyschlag; p. 162, there would be in this action of the Father, pre- paring the way for a cleaving to Christ
(comp. vv. 44. 45), an opposition to the light-giving action of the Logos (vv. 4, 5, 9), if the Logos be a personality identical with the Son. But the difference in person be- tween the Father and the Son does nut ex- clude the harmonious action of both for each other. Enlightening is not a monop- oly of the Son, excluding the Father ; but the Father draws men to the Son, and the Son is the way to the Father, Weiss has rightly rejected as unjohannean (p. 248 f.) the idea of a hidden God, as absolutely raised above the world, who has no im- mediate connection with the finite.
CHAP. VI., 40—42. 209
him out, é.e. will not exclude him from my kingdom on its establishment ; comp. vv. 39, 40, xv. 6; also Matt. vili. 12, xxii. 18. The negative ex- pression is a loving litotes; Nonnus adds: dAAd vdy yxalpovri dedéfouat. — Vv. 38, 39. ‘‘ How could I cast them out, seeing that I am come only to fulfil the divine will? and this requires of me, not the ‘rejection of any one, but the blessed opposite.” —ovy iva, x.r.4.] Comp. v. 80. — otro dé . . . wéuy. pe] impressive repetition of the same words. — av 6 déduxe, x.t.A.] Nominative absolute, unconnected with the following, and significantly put first. Here the Perfect dédwxe, because spoken from the standing-point of the future. — 9 aoa. é&€ avrov] se. re ; see Fritzsche, Conject. p. 36. The conception of losing (i.e. of letting fall down to eternal death ; see the con- trastive 4444, etc.) is correlative to that of the déduxé vor. Comp. xvii. 12. — dvaor#ow, x.t.A.] of the actual resurrection at the last day (comp. v. 29, xi. 24, xii. 48), which, as a matter of course, includes the transformation of those still living. The designation of the thing is a potiori. It is the jirst resurrection that is meant,* that to the everlasting life of the Messianic kingdom. See on v. 29. Bengel well says: ‘hic finis est, ultra quem pe- riculum nullum.” Comp. the recurrence of this blessed refrain, vv. 40, 44, 54, which, in the face of this solemn recurrence, Scholten regards as a gloss.
Ver. 40. Explanation, and consequently assigning of the reason for the statement of God’s will, ver. 89 ; the words rovro, etc., being an impressive anaphora, and rov marpéc pov taking the place of roi réuy. ye, because Jesus wishes at the close still to describe Himself, with specific defi- niteness, as the Son. —6 @ewp. rov vidv x. mor. cic att.] characterizes those meant by the 4 déduxé wor. There is implied in @ewp. the attenta contemplatio (roig dg9aAuoic rH¢ yux7c, Euthymius Zigabenus), the result of which is faith. Observe the carefully chosen word.’ The Jews have seen Him, and have not believed, ver. 36. One must contemplate Him, and believe. — tyy and avao- thow are both dependent upon iva. There is nothing decisive against the rendering of xai avacr. independently (Vulgate, Luther, Luthardt, Hengsten- berg), but the analogy of ver. 89 does not favour it. Observe the change of tenses. The believer is said to have eternal Messianic life already in its temporal decelopment (see on ili. 15), but its perfect completion‘ at the last day through the resurrection ; therefore avacrfow after the éyev of the 5a) aiév.— tye] from the consciousness of Messianic power. Comp. vv. 44, 54.
Vv. 41, 42. ‘* They murmured, and this per aAAG¢4wv, ver. 48, against Him with reference to what He had said, vie. that,” etc. Upon all the rest they reflect no further, but this assertion of Jesus impresses them all the more of- fensively, and among themselves they give expression half aloud to their dissatisfaction. This last thought is not contained in the word itself (comp.
1 Comp. vill. 88, xv. 2, xvii. 2; and see on * Tittmann, Synon. p. 121; Grotins, én loc. Matt. vil. 24, x. 14, 88, xii. 836; Buttmann, * Nothing is further from John than the N. T. Gr. p. 8% [(E. T. p. 879}. Gnostic opinion, 2 Tim. fi. 18, upon which,
2 8ee on Luke xiv. 14, xx.8; Phil. ill. acoording to Baar, he is said very closely 11; 1 Cor. xv. %. to border.
x10 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
vii, 82, 12 ; according to Pollux, v. 89, it was also used of the cooing of doves), but in the context (ai "Iovdaio:). Weare not therefore, with de Wette, to think of it merely as a whispering. Comp. rather ver. 61; Matt. xx. 11; Luke v. 80; 1 Cor. x. 10; Num. xi. 1, xiv, 27; Ecclus. x. 24; Judith v. 22.'— oi "Iovdaioc] The opposition party among the Jews were therefore among the dyAog (vv. 5, 22, 24). Even in the congregation of the synagogue itself (ver. 59), though it included many followers of Jesus (ver. 60), there may have been present members of the spiritual aristocracy (see on i. 19). The assumption that the dyAoc itself is here called ol Iovdaio., on account of its refusal to recognize Jesus,” is more far-fetched, for hitherto the éy/0c had shown itself sensuously eager indeed after miracles, but not hostile. — éy® ete 6 aptoc x.t.A.] compiled from vv. 83, 85, 88. — otroc}] on both occa- sions, contemptuously. — #ueic] we on our part. — oidayev r. rar. x. rT. pn7.] This human descent which they knew (comp. Matt. xiii. 55) seemed to them in contradiction with that assertion, and to exclude the possibility of its truth. Heb. vii. 3 (amdérwp augrop) does not apply here, because it is not a question of the Messiahship of Jesus, but of His coming down from heaven. — Tov raripa x. tiv ynt.| The words, on the face of them, convey the impres- sion that both were still alive ; the usual opinion that Joseph (whom subse- quent tradition represents as already an old man at the time of his espousal with Mary)* was already dead, cannot, to say the least, be certainly proved, * though in John also he is entirely withdrawn from the history.
Vv. 48, 44. Jesus does not enter upon a solution of this difficulty, but ad- monishes them not to trouble themselves with it; they should not dwell upon such questions, but upon something far higher; the ‘‘ drawing” of the Father is the condition of participating in His salvation. — The éAxiecy is not simply a strengthening of the didévac in vv. 87, 88, but specifies the method of it, an inner drawing and leading to Christ through the working of divine grace (comp. LXX. Jer. xxxi. 8), which, however, does not annul human freedom, but which, by means of the enlightening, animating, and impelling influence, and of the instruction appropriated by the man, wins him over. Comp. xii. 82. ‘EAxbecv (ver. 45) includes the Father's teaching by His witness to Christ (Weiss), but this is not all that it comprehends ; it denotes rather the whole of that divine influence whcreby hearts are won to the Son. In the consciousness of those who are thus won, this represents itself as a holy necessity, to which they have yielded. Comp. Wisd. xix. 4, where the opposite, the attraction of evil, appears as a necessity which draws them along, yet without destroying freedom.* Augustine already compares from the Latin the ‘‘ trahit sua quemque voluptas” of Virgil. The word ° in itself may denote what involces force, and is involuntary,” which is always ex-
1 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 838.
2? De Wette, Tholuck, Baur, Brfickner, Hengstenherg, Godet, and most others.
® See Philo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 361.
“Comp. also Keim, Gesch. J. I. 426.
® See Grimm, Handb. p. 292f. Comp. also the classical €Axoya Frop (Pind. Nem. iv. 56), éAxeu 70 THS PiTews BapBapoy (Dem. 5638, 14),
and the like.
The Attics also prefer the Aorist form of éAcve to that of éaAcw, but they form tho future éAgw rather than éAcvow (xil. 82). See Lobeck, Paral. p. 85 f.
7 Acts xvi. 19; 8 Macc. iv. 7; 4 Macc. xi. 9: Homer, Z. xi. 26; xxiv. 52, 417; Soph. O. C. 982; Aristoph. Zg. 710; Plato,
OHAP. VI., 40, 46. 211 pressed in ofpey ;? but the context itself shows that this is not meant here (in the classics it may even stand for invitare).* Accordingly it is not, as Calvin judges, false and impious to say: ‘‘non nisi volentes trahi ;” and Beza’s ‘* Volumus, quia datum est, ut velimus,” is true and pious only in the sense of Phil. ii. 18. Comp. Augustine: ‘‘non ut homines, quod fieri non potest, nolentes credant, sed ut volentes ex nolentibus fiant.” — 6 rény. we] a specific relation with which the saving act of the éAxtew essentially corresponds. — xa? ty avacrfow, x.r.A.] the same solemn promise which we have already, vv. 39, 40, but with the ¢yé of Messianic authority and power, as in ver. 54.
Vv. 48, 46 serve more fully to explain éAxbecv. — év roig rpog.] tn columine prophetarum, Acta vii. 42, xiii. 40 ; Rom. ix. 24. The passage is Isa. liv. 13 (a free quotation from the LXX.), which treats of the divine and univer- sal enlightenment of Israel in the time of the Messiah (comp. Joel iii. 1 ff. ; Jer, xxxi. 88, 84): ‘‘and they shall be wholly taught of God.” The main idea does not lie in révrec, which, moreover, in the connection of the pas- sage refers to all believers, but in d:daxroi Ocov,* which denotes the divine drawing viewed as enlightening and influencing. The d:daxrdv Oeow elva: is the state of him who hears and has learned of the Father ; see what follows. —mnac 6 axotuy, x.r.A.] The spurious ody rightly indicates the connection (against Olshausen) ; for it follows from that promise, that every one tho hears and is taught of the Father comes to the Son, and no others ; because, were it not so, the community of believers would not be unmixedly the Sidaxroi Geov. ’Axobervy tapa rov warpéc is the spiritual perception of divine in- struction ; the subject-matter of which, as the whole context clearly shows, is the Son and His work. The communication of this revelation is, however, continuous (hence axobuv), and the ‘‘ having learned” is its actual result, by the attainment of which through personal exertion the épyeraz mpée pe is con- ‘ ditioned. One hears and has learned of the Father ; in no other way is one in the condition which internally necessitates a believing union with the Son. Comp. Matt. xi. 25 ff. — Ver. 46. By this hearing and having learned of the Father, I do not mean an immediate and intuitice fellowship with Him, which, indeed, would render the coming to the Son unnecessary ; no ; no one save the Son only has had the vision of God (comp. i. 18, iii. 18, viii. 88) ; therefore all they who are didaxroi ect have to find in the Son alone all further initiation into God’s grace and truth. —ov« dr:] ov« épa, bri.‘ It serves to obviate a misunderstanding. — «i u4, «.7.A.] except He whois from God, He hath seen the Father (that is, in His pre-existent state). Comp.
Rep. iv. p. 589 B, and often; see Ast, Ler. Flat. I. p. 682.
and consequently the agreement of Christ's witness to Himself with the view taken by
1 Comp. Tittm. Syn. p. 56 ff.
3 Bee Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX 142.
% A Deo edocti ; as to the genitive, see on 1 Cor. ff. 18, and Kihner, IT. § 516, 8.
“See Hartung, II. 154: Buttmann, ¥. 7 @r. p. 818 ff. [E. T. p. 872).
* This clear and direct reference to His pre-human state In God (comp. vv. 41, 48),
the evangelist, should not have been re- garded as doubtful by Wetzsicker. The divine life which was manifested in Christ upon earth was the personal life of His pre-existent state, as the prologue teaches, otherwise John had not given the original sense of the declaration of the Lord re- garding Himself (to which oonclaston
212 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Gal. i. 7. — 6 dv rapa r. 6.] for He is come from the Father, with whom He was (1. 1). See oni. 14, viii. 42, vii. 29, xvi. 27.
Vv. 47, 48. Jesus had given His answer to the murmurings of the Jews in vv. 48-46. He now returns to the subject which He had left, and first re- peats in solemn asseveration what He had said in ver. 40 ; then He again brings forward the metaphor of the bread of life, which sets forth the same thought.
Vv. 49, 50. Of warépec, «.7.A.] ‘“‘regeruntur Judaeis verba ipsorum ver. 31,” Bengel. —aréfavov . . . arofévy]| a diversity in the reference which is full of meaning : loss of earthly life, loss of eternal life, whose development, already begun in time (see on iii. 15), the death of the body does not inter- rupt (xi. 25). —obrée éorev 6 dprog, x.7.A.] of this nature is the bread which cometh down from heaven : one (ric) must eat thereof, and (in consequence of this eating) not die. This representation is contained in ovrog. . . iva 3 see on ver. 29. The expression, however, is not conditional (éé» ric), because the telic reference (iva) does not belong to the last part merely. The present participle shows that Jesus does not mean by otvroc His own concrete Person- ality, which is not named till ver. 51, but intends to set forth and exhibit the true bread from heaven generally, according to its real nature (comp. ver. 58).'
Ver. 51. Continuation of the exposition concerning the bread of life, which He is. ‘‘I am not only the life-giving bread (6 dpro¢ r. Cage, ver. 48); I am also the diving bread ; he who eats thereof shall live forever,” because the life of this bread is imparted to the partaker of it. Comp. v. 26, xiv. 19. Observe the threefold advance: (1) 6 dproo r. Cwie, ver. 48, and 6 dproc 6 Cav, ver. 51 ; (2) the continuous xaraBaivwr, ver. 50, and the his- torically concrete xaraBdc, ver. 51 ; (3) the negative pu aro8avy, ver. 50, and the positive Cjoerat cig rov aiava, ver. 51. —xai 6 dproc d2 bv éy® déow] Christ as the bread, and He will also give it (consequently give Himself’); how this is to take place, He now explains. The advance lies in &v éy@ déow ; hence also the cai dé which carries on the discourse, and the emphatic repetition of the thought, #v éya déou. Translate: ‘‘and the bread also which I (J on my part, éyé) will give [instead now of saying : is myself, He expresses what He
Weizsicker comes in the Jahrv. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 674), which, however, is inconcciv- able in so great and ever-recurring a lead- ing point. Itisthe transcendent recollec- tion in His temporal self-consciousness of that earlier divine condition, which makes itself known in such declarations (comp. lii. 11). See on viil. 88, xvil. 5. His certi- tude concerning the perfect revelation does not first begin with the baptism, but stretches back with its roots into His pre-human existence See, against Weiz- sicker, Beyschlag also, p. 79 ff., who, however (comp. p. 97 f.), In referring it to the sinless hirth, and further to the pre- existent state of Jesus, as the very image
of God, ig not just to the Johannean view in the prologue, and in the firat epistle, as well as here, and in the analogous testi- monies of Jesus regarding Himself. See on ver. 62. Beyschlag renders: ‘‘ decause He is of God, He has seen God in His historical existence.” The far-fetched thought Is here brought in, that only the pure in heart can see God. Comp. rather I. 18, fil. 18, 31, 32, vill. 26, 38. See, against this view of the continuous historical intimacy with God, Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1866, p. 247 ff. ; Scholten, p. 116 ff.
1On tis, one, comp. Dem. Phil. 1. 8, and Bremi, p. 118; Ellendt, Zex. Soph. IT. 888; Nagelsbach on the Jliad, p. 299, ed. 3
CHAP. VI., 51. 213 means more definitely] is my jilesh,” etc.’ It often introduces, as in this case, something specially important.? Observe, moreover, that what Christ promises to give is not external to His own Person.’ — ij odp& pob tory] He promises to give His flesh, t.e. by His bloody death, to which He here, as already in ii. 19, and to Nicodemus, iil. 14, 15, prophetically points. <dpé is the living corporeal substance ; this His living corporcity Christ will give, give up, that it may be slain (fv éyo ddow), in order that thereby, as by the of- fering of the propitiatory sacrifice,‘ He may be the means of procuring eter- nal life for mankind, ¢.¢. iz (for the sake, on behalf of) rH rot xdapov Cure; comp. 1 John iv. 10, 14. But as the atoning efficacy which this giving up of His flesh has, must be inwardly appropriated by faith, Christ’s cdpé, according to the figure of the bread of life, inasmuch as He means to give it up to death, appears as the bread which He will give to be partaken of (v ty déow). In the repeated give there lies the voluntariness of the surrender (Euthymius Zigabenus). But observe the differing reference, that of the first décw to the giving up for eating, and that of the second to the giving up to death.® This eating is the spiritual manducatio,* the inward, real appropriation of Christ which, by means of an ever-continuing faith that brings about this appropriation, and makes our life the life of Christ within us (Gal. ii. 20; Eph. iii. 17), takes place with regard to all the benefits which Christ ‘‘ carne sua pro nobis in mortem tradita et sanguine suo pro nobis effuso promeruit.” Forma Concordiae, p. 744. On the idea of the life of Christ in believers, see on Phil. i. 8. On odpé, so far as it was put to death in Christ by His crucifixion, comp. 1 Pet. iii. 18; Eph. ii. 14; Col. i. 20 ff; Heb. x. 20. This explanation, which refers the words to Christ's propitiatory death, is
1 Concerning «ai...&8¢, afque etiam, nai being and, and 84 on the other hand, see in particular Kriiger, and Kfithner, ad Xen. Mem. 1.1.8; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 149.
® See Rreml, ad Dem. Ol. II. p. 173.
® Against Kling in the Stud. u. Arid. 1836, p. 142 f.
«Not that by the death of Jesus the barrier of the independent Individuality existing between the Logos and the human being is destroyed. See against this ex- planation (Kdstiin, Reuss), so foreign to Jobn, Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 65 ff.
®The words hr éye 4c are wanting inBC DLTR&, a few cursives, several versions (following Vulg. It.), and Fathers (even Origen twice), and are rejected by Lachm., Ewald, Tisch., Baeumlein, Harless. The preponderance of testimony is cer- tainly against them ; and in omitting them we should not, with Kling, take 4 capt pov as in apposition with 4 adpros (see, on the con- trary, Rickert, Abendsn. p. 259), but simply render it: ‘‘ the bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world" (the former is the latter for the life of the world). But this short pregnant mode of expression is £0 little like John, and the repetition of fy»
eyo Séce Is so completely Johannean, that I feel compelled to retain the words as genuine, and to regard their omission as a very early error, occasioned by the occurrence of the same words a little be- fore. Following &, Tischendorf now reads, after «. d dpr. &@ dv éyw 8ucw Urip rH rou eégpmou Gwe, nodp é nov eoriv, This is manifestly an arrangement resorted to in order to assign to the words vm. +. 7. «. gwys the place which, in the absence of hv éyw dwow, seemed to belong to them. Baeumlein supposes that ums. r. 7. x. guns is an ancient gloss.
* Hence the expression ‘‘ resurrection of the flesh” cannot be justified from John vi., as Delitesch, Psychol. p.460 [E. T. p. 341], supposes. If it cannot be justified by any- thing in St. Paul, which Delitzsch admits, itcan least of all by anything in St. John. When, indeed, Delitzsch says (p. 889), “ The fiesh of Christ becomes in us a fincture of immortatily, which, in aptte of corruption, sustains the essence of our flesh, in order one day at the resurrection to aserimilaie also His mantfestation to tteelf,"’ we can only oppose to such fancies, ‘Ne ultra quod ecriptum est."
w14 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
that of Augustine, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, Grotius, Calovius, Wetstein, Lampe, and most others, also of Kuinoel; Liicke, Tholuck, Ammon, Neander, J. Miller,’ Lange, Ebrard,* Keim,’ Weiss ; comp. also Ewald, Kahnis,* Godet.® Others, following Clement of Alex- undria, Origen, Basil, have understood by ‘‘ flesh” the entire human manifesta- tion of the Logos, which He offered up for the world’s salvation, including therein His death.* Not only is the future wil give opposed to this view, but the drinking of the blood in ver. 58 still more distinctly points to_ Christ’s death as exclusively meant ; because it is not apparent why Jesus, had He intended generally that collective dedication of Himself, should have used expressions to describe the appropriation of it, which necessarily and directly point to and presuppose His death. That general consecra- tion was already affirmed in éyo eiye 6 dprog, x.7r.A.; the advance from being and giving now demands something else, a concrete act, viz. His atoning death and the shedding of His blood. This tells also against the pro- founder development of the self-communication of Jesus supposed to be meant here, and adopted by Hengstenberg and Hofmann,’ following Luther ;° viz. that faith in the human nature of Jesus eats and drinks the life of God, or that His life-giving power is bound up in His flesh, #.¢. in His actual human manifestation (Briickner). Others, again, have explained it of the Lord's Supper; viz. Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, most of the Fathers (among the Latin Fathers, Cyprian, Hilary, perhaps also Augustine, etc.) and Catholic writers, also Klee and Maier, further, Calixtus too, strongly opposed by Calovius ; and among moderns, Scheibel, Olshausen, Kling,’ Lindner, Késtlin, Delitzsch in Rudelbach’s Zeitschrift, 1845, ii. p. 29; Kaeuffer,” Kahnis, Abendm. p. 104 ff.; Lu- thardt ; Richter ;" further, while also calling in question the genuineness of the discourse, Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and many others. Thus, as iii. 5 refers to baptism, we have now, it is said, a refer- ence to the second sacrament. This explanation ™ has already this against
1 Diss. 1889.
% Dogma v. Abendm. I. p. 78 ff.
3 Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1859, p. 109 ff.
4 Dozmai. I. p. 624.
6’ Who, however, attaches great impor- tance to the corporeal side of the real fel- lowship of bellevers with Christ, by virtue of which they will become at the resurrec- tion the reproduction of the glorified Christ, referring to Eph. v. 30. The eating and drinking alone are figurative, while the not merely spiritual, but also bodily appro- priation, must, according to him, be taken literally. This, however, is not required by the avacricw avroy, «.7.A., ver. 54, which we already had in ver. 88,and is not even ad- missible by ver. 68.
© So in modern times, in particular, Pau- las, D. Schulz, Zehre vom Abendm., B. Cru- sius, Frommann, de Wette, Baeumlein;
comp. Schleiermacher, iL. J. p. 45, and Reuss.
7 Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 245 ff.
8“*Therefore one eats and drinks the Godhead in His human nature.—This flesh does not carnalize, but will deify thee, i.e. give the divine power, virtue, and work, and will take away sins,” and so on (Pred. Dom. Oculi).
® Stud. u. Krié. 1886, p. 140 ff. ;
10 Sachs. Stud. 1846, p. 70 ff.
4! Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 250.
12 A view which Luther decidedly oppos- ed previous to the controversy regarding the Lord's Supper. In the heading or gloss he says: “This chapter does not speak of the sacrament of the bread and wine, but of spiritual eating, f.e. of the belief that Christ, both God and man, hath shed His blood for us.”
CHAP. VI., 51. 215
\ it, that the eating and drinking is regarded as continuous (ver. 56); and, moreover, it can be maintained only by surrendering the authenticity of John. But if this be assumed, and the discourse be regarded as historical, Jesus could not Himself speak, as He speaks in this passage, of the Lord’s Supper. Had this been His reference, He would have spoken inap- propriately, and in terms which differ essentially from His own mode of ex- pression at the institution of the holy meal, irrespectively of the fact that a discourse upon the Lord’s Supper at this time would have been utterly in- comprehensible to His hearers, especially to the ‘Ivvdaioi¢e who were ad- dressed. Moreover, there nowhere occurs in the Gospels a hint given be- forehand of the Supper which was to be instituted ; and therefore, that this institution was not now already in the thoughts of Jesus (as Godet, follow- ing Bengel and others, maintains), but was the product of the hour of the Supper itself, appears all the more likely, seeing how utterly groundless is the assumption based on ver. 4, that Jesus, in the feeding of the multitude, improvised a paschal feast. To this it must be added, that the promise of life which is attached to the eating and drinking could apply only to the case of those who worthily partake. We should therefore have to assume that the reporter John ' put this discourse concerning the Lord’s Supper into the mouth of Christ ; and against this it tells in general, that thus there would be on John’s part a misconception, or rather an arbitrariness, which, grant- ing the genuineness of the Gospel, cannot be attributed to this most trusted clisciple and his vivid recollections ; and in particular, that the drinking of the blood, if it were, as in the Lord’s Supper, a special and essential part, would not have been left unmentioned precisely at the end of the discourse, vv. 57, 58 ; and that, again, the evangelist would make Jesus speak of the Lord’s Supper in terms which lie quite beyond the range of the N. T., and which belong to the mode of representation and language of the apostolic Fathers and still Jater times.* This is specially true of the word flesh, for which all passages in the N. T. referring to the Lord’s Supper,*® have body ; so that here accordingly there ought to have been stated the identity, not of the bread and the jlesh (which Baur in particular urges), but of the bread and the body ; while with reference to the blood, the identical element (the wine) ought also to have been mentioned. Further, the passage thus taken would speak of the literal ‘‘ eating and drinking” of the flesh and blood, which is a much later materializing of the N. T. xomwvia in the Lord's Supper ; and lastly, the absolute necessity of this ordinance,* which ver. 58 ff. would thus assert, is not once mentioned thus directly by the Fathers of the first centuries ; while the N. T., and John in particular, make faith alone the absolutely necessary condition of salvation. Had John been
1 See especially Kaeuffer, i.c.; comp. also Weisse, B. Crusius, Késtlin, etc.
2 See the passages In Kaeuffer, p. 77 ff. ; Rickert, p. 274 f.; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 278. Hilgenfeld calls the passages in Justin, Apol. i. 66; Ignatius, ad Smyrn. 7. ad Rom. 7, an admirable commentary upon our text. They would, Indeed, be so if our
evangelist himself were a post-apostolioc writer belonging to the second century.
®§ Matt. xxvi. 26ff.; Mark xiv. 92 ff.; Luke xxiv. 24 ff.; 1 Cor. xi. 28 ff.
{Its limitation to the Contemtus sacra- menti (Richter) is a dogmatic subterfuge which has no foundation in the text.
216 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
speaking of the Lord's Supper, he must have spoken in harmony with the N. T. view and mode of expression, and must have\made Jesus speak of it in the same way. But the discourse, as it lies before us, if taken as referring » to the Lord’s Supper, would be an unexampled and utterly inconceivable iorepov mpérepov ; and therefore even the assumption that at least the same tdea which lay at the root of the Lord’s Supper, and out of which it sprang, is here expressed,’ is admissible only so far as the appropriation of Christ’s life, brought about by faith in His death, which here is enjoined with such concrete vividness as absolutely necessary,’ likewise constitutes the sacred and fundamental basis presupposed in the institution of the Supper, and forms the condition of its blessedness; and therefore the application of the passage to the Lord’s Supper (but at the same time to baptism and to the efficacy of the word) justly, nay necessarily, arises. Comp. the admirable remarks of Harless, p. 180 ff. — According to Riickert,’ the discourse is not intended by Jesus to refer to the Supper, but is so in- tended by John, through whose erroneous and crude method of apprehen- sion the readers are to be taught, whether they themselves have believed in an actual eating of the flesh and drinking of the blood, or whether this has been a stumbling-block to them. An interpretation this which is neither indicated by the text nor has any historical basis. — Upon the history of the interpretation of our text, see Liicke, ed. 2, App. 2; Lindner, com Abendm. p. 241 ff.; Tischendorf, De Christo pane vitae, 1839, p. 15 ff.; Mack, Quartalschr. 1832, I. p. 52 ff.; Kahnis, p. 114 ff.; Riickert, p. 273 ff. The exposition which takes it to refer to faith in the atoning death forms the basis of Zwingle’s doctrine of the Eucharist.‘
Vv. 52, 58. The Jews rightly add gayeiv, borrowing it from the preceding context ; but the meaning and reference of the expression, which they cer- tainly recognized as somehow to be taken figuratively, are to them so indis- tinct, that they fall into a dispute with each other (‘‘non jam solum mur- murabant uti ver. 41,” Bengel) upon the question : ‘‘ How can this man give us his flesh (ri odpxa also without the airov, a glossin Lachm.) toeat?” Not as if they had missed hearing something (Luthardt : ‘‘ the futurity expressed in ver. 51°): they have not understood the enigmatical statement. In- stead now of explaining the how of their question, Jesus sets before them the absolute necessity of their partaking, and pushes to an extreme the seem- ingly paradoxical requirement; for He nows adds the drinking of His blood, in order thus to bring more prominently into view the reference to His death, and its life-giving power to be experienced by believing appropriation. — tov viov r. avfp.| This prophetic and Messianic self-designation (i. 52, iii. 18, 14), which could now less easily escape the notice of His hearers than in ver. 27, serves asa still more solemn expression in place of pov, without,
2 Olshausen, Kling, Lange, Tholuck, ete.; of anything that was not before their eyes ; comp. Kahnis, Keim, Luthardt, Hengsten- but that He was speaking of Himself.”°— berg, Ewald, Godet. LUTHER.
2‘*He makes it so that it could not be 3 Abendm. p. 201 f. plainer, in order that they might not think. 4 See Dieckhoff, evanged. Adbendmalislehre, that he was speaking of something else, or _iI. p. 440,
CHAP. VI., 54-57. 21%
however, affecting the meaning of the eating and drinking. — ov« Eyere Cunv by éavr.| ‘‘ ye have have not life in yourselves,” ‘‘life is foreign to and remote from your own inner nature,”—death is the power that ye have in you, spirit- ual and eternal death ; life must first, by that eating and drinking, be inward- ly united with your own selves. In that appropriation of the flesh and blood of Jesus, this life flows forth from Hie life (vv. 56, 57, v. 26) ; and it is at- tached to faith only, not to the use of any outward element (comp. Harless, p. 124).
Vv. 54, 55. He now more fully explains Himself, onwards to ver. 58, with regard to the saving efficacy of this spiritual eating and drinking: ‘‘ He who eateth my flesh,” etc. — 6 rpdywv] Previously the word was ¢dyyre, but the change implies no special intention to use a stronger term (to chew, to crunch), as the repetition of rivwy shows.’ — (uv aidv.] Fuller definition of the general {uf which precedes ; it signifies the eternal Messianic life, but the development of this in time as spiritual life is included in the thought ; therefore Zye: (ili. 15), and the result of the possession of this life : avacrfou, x.t.A. Comp. ver. 40. — Ver. 55. Proof of the assertion éyec . . . upg ; for if the flesh of Jesus were not true food (something which in very deed has nourishing power), etc., the effect named in ver. 54 could not ensue. It is self-evident that food for the inner man is meant ; but aAnffe (sec the criti- cal notes) is not the same as aArfivg (this would mean genuine food, food that realizes its own ideal). It denotes the opposite of that which is merely apparent or so called, and therefore expresses the actual fact (1 John ii. 27 ; Acts xii. 9), which the Jews could not understand, since they asked sic Otvaraz, x.T.A., ver. 52.
Vv. 56, 57. A statement parallel with what precedes, concerning him ‘‘ who eats,” etc., and explaining how that comes to pass which is said of him in ver. 54. —éy éuol pévec xayo év avr@] an expression distinctively Johan- nean of abiding, inner, and mutual fellowship (xv. 4 ff., xvil., 23 ; 1 John ili. 24, iv. 16), by virtue of which we live and move continually in Christ, and Christ works and rules in our minds, so that thus Christ's life is the centre and circumference, ¢.¢. the all-determining power of our life. — Ver. 57. Consequence of this spiritua] union: life, i.e. true imperishable life, as pro- ceeding from the Father to the Son, so from the Son to believers. Observe (1) that the consequent clause does not begin with xayé (Chrysostom and his followers); but, as ver. 56 requires, with «. 6 rpdy. ye, 80 aleo he that eat- eth me; (2) that in the antecedent clause the emphasis is on (av and fa (therefore arécre:Ae does not introduce any strange or unnatural thought, as Rickert supposes), while in the consequent it is upon the subject, which accordingly is made prominent by xaxetvoc, he also. — 4 Civ rarfp] the living Father ; (comp. ver. 26), the Living One absolutely, in whose nature there is no element of death, but all is life. — «ayo (6 dia r. war.] and I—by virtue of my community of essence with the Father—am alive because of the Father. dca with the accus. does not denote the cause,’ per patrem; nor for the
1 Comp. Dem. 402 21: rpoyer xai wivey. * Castalio, Beza, de Wette, Gess, Rickert,
Piut. Mor. p. 618 B; Polyb. xxxii. 9. 9. and several. Comp. also xill. 18; Matt. xxiv. 38.
218 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Father ;’ but, according to the context, the reason: because of the Father, i.e. because my Father is the Living One.?— 6 rpdyev pe} This sufficed to denote the relation, and is in keeping with the transition to ver. 58 ; whereas, if the discourse referred to the Lord's Supper, the eating and drinking of the flesh and blood should again have been mentioned, as in vv. 53-56. Note ulso that 6 tpwyuv pe expresses a permanent, continuous relation, not one taking place from time to time, as in the Lord’s Supper. — (40«:] in contrast with spiritual and eternal death. — d¢ zué] on account of me, because he thus takes up my life into himeelf.
Vv. 58, 59. A concluding summary, repeating the figure from which the whole discourse arose, ver. 82. — octro¢] of this nature, as explained in vv. 32-57. Comp. ver. 50; not: ‘‘this, which gives life to him who partakes of it” (Liicke) ; nor: this, t.e. my jlesh and blood” (de Wette) ; what follows requires in ovrog the idea of modality. — ov xafd¢, x.r.A.] It is the bread that came down from heaven, but not in the same way and manner that the fathers did eat heavenly bread. It is quite different in the case of this bread. — Ver. 59 is simply an historical observation, without any further significance (Chrysostom : in order to impress us with the great guilt of the people of Capernaum). That ravra means simply the discourse from ver. 41 onwards, and that what precedes down to ver. 40 was not spoken in the synagogue, but elsewhere, upon the first meeting with the people, vv. 24, 25 (Ewald), would need to have been more distinctly indicated. Taking John’s words as they stand, év cvvaywyy, etc., isa more definite (according to Schenkel, indeed, mistaken) supplémentary explanation of the vague wépav t. Oaddoone of ver. 25. — év cvvaywyg, without the Art. as in xviii. 20: in a synagogue ; then follows the still more detailed designation of the locality, ‘‘ while teaching in Capernaum.”
Ver. 60. IWoAAot otv] Many therefore, for in Capernaum He had many adherents (a@yrai is here used in the wider sense, not of the apostles ; see ver. 67). — oxAnpé¢] hard, harsh, the opposite of paAaxée ;* — in a moral sense, Matt. xxv. 24 ; Ecclus. iii. 24 ; 8 Esdr. il. 27; ‘—of speeches,® Gen. xlii. 7, xxi. 11, Aq. ; Prov. xv. 1. It here denotes what causes offence (oxavdadricer, ver. 61), does not comply with preconceived views, but is directly antag- onistic, the relation in which the assurances and demands of Jesus from ver. 51 stood to the wishes and hopes of His disciples.° He had, indeed, from ver. 51 onwards, required that they should eat His flesh (which was to be slain), and drink His blood (which was to be shed), in order to have life. By this—whether they rightly understood it or not—they felt sorely per- plexed and wounded. The bloody death, which was certainly the condition
1 Paulus, Lange. * Not asif they had understood the eat- 2See on xv. 8; Plat. Cone. p. 2008 E: ingand drinking of the flesh and blood in avafuocnera. 8a Thy Tou watpds dicw; and a literal and material sense (hence the ex-
see Nagelsbach, Jiias, p. 39 ff. ed. 8. pression ‘‘manducatio Capernaitica’), and 2 Plat. Legg. x. p. 892 B; Prot. p. 881 D. so nonsensical an affirmation had provoked “Soph. Oecd. R. 36, Aj. 1840; Plat. Loer.p. them (Augustine, Grotius, Licke, Keim, 104 C, and often. and many others). The speakers are pady-
5 Comp. Soph. Oed. C. 778: cadnpad padGa- rai; but not even the ‘Iovéaio, ver. 52, 50 aus Adywy, grossly misunderstood Jesus.
CHAP. VI., 61, 62. 219
of the eating and drinking, was an offence to them, just as in that lay the lasting offence of the Jews afterwards, xii. 84; 1 Cor. i. 23; Gal. v. 11; comp. also Matt. xvi. 21 ff. The explanation ‘‘ difficult to be understood” (Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Olshausen) lies neither in the word nor in the context, for rig dvara:, «.r.A. affirms: ‘‘ it is @ thing not to be borne, to listen to the discourse,” such insuperable offence does it excite. Tholuck, following early writers, finds the-offence to be that Jesus seemed arrogant in making life dependent upon participation in His flesh and blood. But it was not the arrogant, it was the lowly and suffering, Messiah that Was & oxadvdadov to the Jew. As little did the offence consist in the require- ment that Christ ‘‘ would be all, and they were to be nothing” (Hengstenberg), which, indeed, is only an abstract inference subsequently drawn from His discourse.
Vv. 61, 62. 'Ev éavr@] In Himself, without communication ; airéparoc, . Nonnus. — yoyyif.] as in ver. 41. — epi robrov] concerning this harshness of His discourse. — rovro tu. oxavd.] Question of astonishment : this, namely, which you have found so hard in my discourse (Jesus knew what it was), dues this offend you? Are youso mistaken in your opinion and feclings towardsme ? Comp. ver. 66. — av obv Oewpyre, x.7.A.] af, then, ye behold, etc. A posiopesis, which, especially ‘‘in tam infausta re” (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p- 862), is entirely in place. See on Luke xix. 41; Acts xxiii. 9; Rom. ix. 22. The completion of it must be derived solely from the context, and therefore is not ri épeire or the like (Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, and many) ; but rotro tude ob roAAQ padAov oxavdadice :? ‘* Will not this impending sight offend you still more?” By avaBaivew brov qv Td mpérepov Jesus indicates His death ; and, indeed, as He—in whom Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of man was to be fulfilled (comp. xii. 23 ; Matt. xxvi. 24)—contemplated it in the consciousness of His heavenly origin and descent (iii. 18), of which He had already spoken in ver. 58,— His death, therefore, so far as it would be to Him, by means of the resur- rection and ascension therewith connected, a return tothe défa which He had before His incarnation. Comp. xvii. 5, and the tywbyvar éx rig yijc. xli. 82. To the spectators, who only saw the humiliating and shameful outward spectacle of His death, it served only to give the deepest offence. The concluding argument a minori ad majus which lies in oty, is like that in iii, 12. The interpretation of the ancient Church, which referred the words to the corporeal ascension in and by itself,” would require us of logical necessity to supply, not the supposed increase of offence (Bacumlein), but a question expressing doubt or denial: ‘‘would ye still take offence then ?” Comp. viii. 28. But this import of the aposiopesis, which also Ewald and Briickner adopt, though not explaining the words merely of the ascension, has the ody itself decidedly against it, instead of which 4444 would be logi- cally required ; and the reference to the ascension as such, as an event by itself, is totally without analogy in the discourses of Jesus, and quite un-
Comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. p. 600]; Ebrard, Kahnis, p. 120, Hilgenfeld, Hof-
Fritzsche, Conject. pp. 22, 81. mann, Hengstenberg, Baecumlein, Godet, So also Olshausen, Lindner, Mailer, Harless.
220 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Johannean.’ §So also the @ewp7re, in particular, is against this view ; for, with the Present participle avafaivovra, it would describe the ascension expressly as a visible event (in answer to Luthardt’s observations, who explains it of the ascension, but with Tholuck regards its visibility as a matter of indifference, so far as the present passage is concerned), though its visible occurrence is attested by no apostle, while in the non-apostolic accounts (Mark xvi. 19 ; Luke xxiv. 51 ; Acts i. 9) only the disciples in the narrower sense, the twelve, who are just those not meant by the ‘‘ ye” in our text, are represented as the eye-witnesses. On the other hand, the opinion that there lies in fewp. only the possibility of those present being eye-witnesses (Kahnis, Hofmann)’ is nothing more than a subtle evasion, unsupported by the édy (comp. xii. 82, xiv. 3, xvi. 7), and no better than Hengstenberg’s assertion (comp. Tholuck) : ‘‘ those who were present at the ascension were the repre- " sentatives of the collective body of the disciples.” Parallel with avaBatvery is the designation of the death of Jesus as a going to God, vii. 88, xiii. 3, xiv. 12, 28, xvi. 5, 28, xvii. 11,18. That He, in our passage, describes His death not in its humble and painful phase, but according to the essence of its triumphant consummation as present to His own consciousness, is there- fore quite Johannean ; comp. also xvii. 5, xii. 23. The reference to the gift of the Sptrit, the exaltation being intended as the medium of effecting this (Lange), is remote from the context, and is not indicated by any word in the sentence ; for nothing is spoken of but the seeing with the eyes the future departure. — Upon ré mpérepov, see on Gal. iv. 13. It refers to the period preceding His present form of being, when as to the divine part of His nature, i.e. as the Logos, He was in heaven ;* comp. xvii. 5, 24, vill. 58.
1 Appeal is made, but unreasonably, not dictory of %&éfga. The glorified body of
only to iii. 18, but likewise to xx. 17 (see es- pecially Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 1, 517, and Godet). Jesus there is speaking after His death, when that blessed end was still future, in reference to which Jdfore His death he was wont to describe that event as a departure and an ascension to the Father. There, accordingly, He could not avold mentioning the ascension alone.
2 ‘* For they would certainly see Him die,
but they would see Him ascend only if they |
remained His disciples,”.» Hofmann. The former is as incorrect as the latter. For Jesus is speaking to His Galilean disciples, and, indeed, to His disciples in the wider sense (ver. 67), of whom therefore we can- not say that they would certainly be pres- ent at His death in Jerusalem; while the witnesses of the ascension were not those who remained faithful to Him generally, but the aposties. According to Harless, Christ means to say that they must not think of His flesh and blood in His state of humiliation, but of both in His state of glory. But flosh and blood is the contra-
Christ in the form of flesh and blood is incon- ceirable (1 Cor. xv. 49, 50).
3The meaning fs not that *‘ we immediately substitute another subject” (Beyschiag, Chris- tol. p. 29); but, in harmony with the witness of Jesus regarding Himself elsewhere in John, we have given us a more definite men- tion of the state wherein the Son of man had His pre-exfstence in heaven. That He had this as the Son of man, aa Beyschlag, p. 85, explains (understanding it of the eternal divine image, whose temporal realization Jesus, by an intuition given Him on earth, knew Himself to be), the text does not say; it says: ‘‘the Son of man. #.e. the Messiah, will ascend up where He was before.” There can be no doubt, if we will follow John, in what form of existence He previously was in heaven. Neither is there any doubt if we ask Paul, who speaks of the pre-ex- istence of Jesus év popd7 Seov. See on Phil ik 6; comp. 2 Cor. viii. 8,9. He does not there mean that He pre-existed as Jesus, but as the vids 7. deov. For the rest, comp. ver. 46, vili. 58, xvil. 5,4. 18 If it be true, as
CHAP. VI, 63, 64. R21
Vv. 68, 64. Instead of appending to the foregoing protasis its mournful apodosis (see on ver. 62), Jesus at once discloses to His disciples with lively emotion (hence also the asyndeton) the groundlessness of the offence that was taken. It is not His bodily form, the approaching surrender of which for spiritual food (ver. 51) was so offensive’ to them, but His spirit that gives life ; His corporeal nature was of no use towards giving life. But it was pre- cisely His bodily nature to which they ascribed all the value, and on which they built all their hope, instead of His life-giving Divine Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit given Him in all fulness by the Father (iii. 34), who works in believers the birth from above (iii. 6), and with it eternal life (comp. Rom. viii. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 6). Hence His death, through which His jlesh as such would disappear, was to them so offensive a oxdvdadov. Observe further, that He does not say rd mrveiud pov and 7 cép& pov, but expresses the above thought in a general statement, the personal application of which is to be to Himself.* Note once again that 7 cdpf ox ageAei ov'dév does not contradict what was previously said of the life-giving participation in the flesh of Jesus ; for this can take place only by the appropriating of the spirit of Christ through faith, and apart from this it cannot take place at all. Rom. viii. 2, 6, 9, 11; 1Cor. vi. 17%. Comp. 1 Johniii. 24. The flesh, therefore, which “ profiteth nothing,” is the flesh without the Spirit ; the Spirit which ‘¢ quickeneth” is the Spirit whose dwelling-place is the flesh, ¢.¢. the corporeal manifestation of Christ, the corporeity which must be offered up in His atoning death (ver. 51), in order that believers might experience the full power of the quickening Spirit (vii. 89). When Harless, following Luther, understands indeed by the flesh which profiteth nothing, the odpé of Christ in His humiliation, but by the quickening Spirit, ‘‘ the spirit which perfectly controls the flesh of the glorified Son of man,” he imports the essential point in his interpretation, and this in opposition to the N. T., in which the con- ception of odpé is utterly alien to the odua ri¢ déEn¢ Of the Lord, Phil. iii. 21; see 1 Cor. xv. 44-50 ; so that the caua mvevparixdy cannot possibly be regarded as flesh pervaded by spirit (comp. 2 Cor. iii. 18). In no form is flesh ever ascribed to the evalted Lord. The antithesis here is not between carnal flesh and glorified flesh, but simply between flesh and spirit. Ac- cording to others, rd mvevyua is the human soul, which makes the body to have life (Beza, Fritzsche in his Nov. Opusc. p. 239). But (woroody must, accord- ing to the import of the preceding discourse, be taken in the Messianic sense. Others say : rd rvetua is the spiritual participation, 4 cdpf the ma- terial ;> but thus again the peculiar element in the exposition, viz. the par- taking of the Lord’s Supper, is foisted in.‘ Others, interpolating in like
Kelm says (Geschicht. Chr. p. 108, ed. 3), that “ not one particle of the self-consclous- ness of Jesus reaches back beyond His tem- poral existence,” the fundamental Chris- tological view not only of the fourth Gospel but of Paul also, Is based upon a great il- lusion. As to the Synoptics, see on Matt. xi. 97, vill. 20.
1 Godet, according to his rendering of
ver. 62; “which you will see to vanish at my ascension."’
2 Comp. Hofmann, II. 2, p. 2652.
* Tertullian, Augustine, Rupertius, Cal- vin, Grotius, and most others; also Ols- hausen, comp. Kling and Richter,
¢Kahnis (Abendm. p. 122) has explained the passage in this sense seemingly in ao munner most in keeping with the words:
222 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
manner, interpret rd rveiva as the spiritual, and 7} odpé as the unspiritual, sensuous understanding; 1 comp. Tholuck. Others differently still.* ‘‘ Quan- topere sit hic locus variis expositionibus exagitatus, vix credibile est,” Beza. —ré phuata & éyd, «.t.A.) This does not mean that we are to hold to His words instead of to His corporeal jlesh (Riickert, Keim), His words which remain as a compensation to us after His death (Liicke, de Wette, B. Crusius). It stands (seeing that odpf has already its full antithesis in what precedes) in close connection with the following 442’ eiciv && tua revec of ov mor., and therefore a comma only is to be placed after (wh tore. ‘‘ The words which I have spoken unto you” (meaning the discourse in the synagogue just ended *), ‘go far from containing any real ground for oxdévdatov, are rather spirit and life, t.e. containing and revealing the divine spirit in me, and the Messianic life brought about by me ; but the real guilt of the offence lies with you, Jor among you are many who believe not.” He, namely, who does not believe in Him as the true Messiah who secures by His death the life of the world, but expects Messianic salvation by His corporeal manifestation alone, as that which is not to die, but to triumph and reign—to him who is such a pafyrfe¢ of Jesus the discourse concerning feeding upon His flesh and blood can only be a stumbling-block and an offence. And of such rivéc there were roAAoi, ver. 60. — éyé and é£ judy stand in emphatic antithesis, — rveind éore xai Cwh éoriv] The two predicates are thus impressively kept apart, and the des- ignation by the sudstantice is fuller and more exhaustive (comp. iii. 6 ; Rom. viii. 10) than would be that by the adjective.‘— dec ydp, x,7.2.] an expla- nation added by John himself of the preceding words, aA’ eisiv, x.r.?., which imply a higher knowledge ; comp. li. 24, 25. — of ov mioretovory] result of their wavering ; for they are yafyrai; who, from an imperfect and incon- stant faith, have at last come to surrender faith altogether. They had been mpéoxatpo. (Matt. xiii. 21). Here we have ov with the relative, then u4 with the participle accompanied by the article (iii. 18), both quite regular. — é& apyfc] neither ‘‘from the jiret beginning” (Theophylact, Rupertius) ; nor ‘‘before this discourse, and not for the first time after the murmur-
“What imparts the power of everlasting life to them who feed upon my flesh, is not the flesh as such, but the spirit which per- vades it.” According to this View, the glorified flesh of Christ, which is eaten in the Supper, would be described as the vehicle of the Holy Spirit, and the latter, not the flesh itself, as that which gives life. Comp. also Luthardt. But it is self-evident that the thought of glorified flesh has to be imported from without.
1 Chrysustom, Theophyiact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Mosheim, Lampe, Klee, Ammon, etc. So also Luther: ‘Ye must indeed have the Spirit Iikewise, or obtain a spirit- ual understanding, because it is too high and inconceivable for the flesh.”* See the striking remarks of Calovius against this interpretation.
2 Wieseler, on Gal. p. 446, takes ocdpf in the sense of original sin; sinful human nature can do nothing for man's salvation ; the Spirit of God produces this. But odpf must take its stricter definition from the Soregoing discourse, and if it were intended as in ili. 6, otm wdeAet ovdéry would be far too little to say of it. This also tells against the similar interpretation of Hengstenberg : “The sxvevua is the Spirit represented through Christ, and incarnate in Him, and the cdpf humanity destitute of the Spirit.”
* The usual but arbitrarily general ren- dering brought with it the reading AaaAo. Tholuck and Ebrard have the right refer- ence. Comp. etpyxa, ver. 65.
4 wpevparuca cai Gwypd, Ruthymius Zigabe- nus.
CHAP. VI., 65-69. 223 ing ;”? nor again ‘‘ from the beginning of the then existing acquaintance” (Grotius, de Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Hengstenberg, etc. ; comp. Tholuck, ‘‘from the very time of their call’); but, as the context shows (see especially xa? rig éoriv, x.7.4.), from the beginning, when He began to gather disciples around Him (comp. i. 48, 48, ii. 24), consequently from the commencement of His Messianic ministry. Comp. xvi. 4, xv. 27. From His first coming forth in public, and onwards, He knew which of those who attached themselves to Him as pafyrai did not believe, and in particu- lar who should be His future betrayer. On this last point, see the note fol- lowing ver. 70. Were we, with Lange and Weiss, to render: ‘‘from the beginning of their unbelief,” this would apply only to disciples in constant intercourse with Him, whom He always could observe with heart-searching eye,—a limitation, however, not justified by the text, which rather by the very example of Judas, as the sole unbeliever in the immediate circle of His disciples, indicates a range beyond that inner circle.
Ver. 65. See on vv. 37, 44. — dia rovro] because many of you believe not ; and therefore, though there is in them the outward appearance of disciple- ship, they lack the inward divine preparation. — ix rot mazp. p.] from my Father.”
Vv. 66, 67. 'Ex robrov] not : ‘from this time forwards,” * for a gradual go- ing away is not described ; but (so Nonnus, Luthardt) : on this account, because of these words of Jesus, ver. 61 ff., which so thoroughly undeceived them as regarded their earthly Messianic hopes. So also xix. 12.‘ — ei¢ ra ériow] they went away, and went back, so that they no longer accompanied Him, but returned to the place whence, they had come to Him.* — roi¢ dédexa] who and what they were, John takes for granted as well known. — pe Kai dpeic, x.7.A.] ye too do not wish to go away? Jesus knows His twelve too well (comp. xiit. 18) to put the question to them otherwise than with the presupposition of a negative answer (at the same time He knew that He must except one). But He wishes for their avowal, and therein lay His com- fort. This rendering of the question with yf is no ‘‘ pedanterie grammat- icale” (Godet, who wrongly renders ‘‘ vous ne roulez pas ?”), but is alone lin- guistically correct. According to Godet, the thought underlying the question is, ‘‘ Jf you wish, you can,” which is a pure invention.
Vv. 68, 69. Peter, according to the position, for which the foundation is already laid in i. 43, makes the confession, and with a resolution how deep and conscious | — aredevodueba] Future, af any time. ‘‘ Da nobis alterum Te,” Augustine. — Sfuara (whe, «.7.A.] Twofold reason for stedfastness : (1)
? Chrysostom,
Maldonatus, Jansenius, cerning the é of cause or occasion, Mat-
Benge), etc.
*See Bernhardy, p, 227 f; comp. Plat. Lys. p. 104 B : rovro 8¢ pot wws dx Seod &éSorat, Soph. Phlloct. 1801: ras pew é< Ceav rdyxas 8odeicas. Xen. Anab. i. 1.6; LHellen. iil. 1. 6.
2 So usually, also Lficke, de Wette, Heng- stenberg.
4 Xen. Anad.il. 6. 4, ill. 8. 5, vil. 6. 18. Comp. é€ ob, guapropter, and seo generally, con-
thiae, II. 1834; Eliendt, Zex. Soph. i. 851, who justly remarks: “ His etiam subest /fondis, unde aliquid exoriatur, notlo.”
®Comp. xvill. 6, xx. 14; 1 Macc. !x. 47; Prov. xxv. 9; Gen. xix. 17; Luke xvii. 31; Plato, Phaedr. p. %4 B; Menez. p. 246 B; Polyb. {. 51. &
* Baeumlein, Partik. p. 808 f.
224 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
pipata . . . &xec, and (2) nat gueic, «.r.A. Thou hast words of everlasting life (Cwizv aidvov mpofevovvta, Euthymius Zigabenus ; more literally : ‘‘ whose specific power it is to secure eternal life”) ; an echo of ver. 68. The jfyara which proceed from the Teacher are represented as belonging to Him, a pos- session which He has at His disposal. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26.—kxal syeic] and we for our part, as contrasted with those who had fallen away. — remor. x. éyvon.] ‘‘ the faith and the knowledge to which we hare attained, and which we possess, 18 that,” etc. (Perfect). Conversely, xvii. 8; 1 John iv. 16. Practical conviction may precede (Phil. iii. 10) and follow (comp. viii. 32) the insight which is the product of reason. The former quite corresponds to the immediate and overpowering impressions by which the apostles had been won over to Jesus, chap. i. Both, therefore, are conformable with experience, and mutually include, and do not exclude, each other. — 6 ay:o¢ tov Geov (see the critical notes) : He who is consecrated of God to be the Mes- siah through the fulness of the Spirit and salvation vouchsafed Him. See on x. 86 ; 1 Johnii. 20 ; comp. Marki. 24; Luke iv. 34; Acts iv. 27; Rev. iii. 7. — The similar confession, Matt. xvi. 16, is so different in its occasion, connection, and circumstances, that the assumption that our passage is only another version of the synoptical account (Weisse and others) is unwarrant- able. Who can take exception to the repetition of a confession (of which the apostles’ hearts were so full) upon every occasion which presented itself ? But it is certainly, according to John (see already i. 42 ff., ii. 19), untenable to suppose that In our passage, according to the right reading (see the critical notes), we have not yet a complete and unhesitating confession of the Messiah (Ewald) ; or that the disciples had only now attained a full faith in Him (Weizsicker). We should have to assume in the earlier passages of (chap. 1.) a very awkard icrepoy rpérepov on the part of the evangelist, —a view in which Holtzmann acquiesces.* (See Note XXVIla., p. 228.]
Vv. 70, 71. Not a justification of the question in ver. 67, nor in general any utterance of reflection, but an outburst of grief at the sad catastrophe which He foresaw (ver. 64), in the face of that joyous confession which the fiery Peter thought himself warranted in giving in the name of them all.— The question extends only as far as égeArf. ; then comes with the simple xai the mournful contrast which damps the ardour of the confessing disciple. Comp. vii. 19.—Observe the arrangement of the words, éyé and é& tuév impres- sively taking the lead : Have not I (even J, and no other) chosen you the twelve to myself? And of you (these chosen by myself) one is a devil! not the devil, but of devilish kind and nature. Comp. 6eé¢, 1. 1. In what an awful contrast the two stand to each other ! ‘The addition of roig ddédexa to tyag heightens the contrast, laying stress upon the great significance of the election, which nevertheless was to have in the case of one so contradictory a result. — did Bodog} not an informer,’ not an adcersary or betrayer,* but, in keeping with . the deep emotion (comp. Matt. xvi. 23), and the invariable usage of the N. T. in all places where 6:é8. is a substantive (in John viii. 44, xiii. 2; 1
1 Judenth. u, Christenth. p. 876. § Kuinoel, Liicke, B. Crusius, and earlier 2 Theophylact, de Wette, Baeumlein. writers.
CHAP. VI., 70, 71. 225
John iii, 8, 10) : devil, by which antagonism to Christ is set forth in its strongest manner, because in accordance with its demoniacal nature. That John would have written vide, or réxvoy diaBddov (vili. 44 ; 1 John iii. 10), is an arbitrary objection, and does not adequately estimate the strength of the emotion, which the expression employed, never forgotten by John, fully does. — Ver. 71. dAcye dé rév, x.1.A.] He spoke of, like ix. 19 ; Mark xiv. 71.? As to the name ’Ioxap.,* man of Karith, see on Matt. x. 4. Observe the sad and solemn emphasis of the full name ‘loédav Zivwvoc "Ioxapioryy, as in xiii. 22. ‘Ioxapiorzy itself is used quite as a name, as forming with "Ioid. Lipuvog one expression. Bengel, therefore, without reason desiderates the article rév before ’Ioxap., and prefers on that account the reading "Ioxap:drov (see the critical notes). — jueAdev, x.7.A.] traditurus erat, not as if he was already revolving it in his mind (see, on the contrary, xiii. 2), but suggesting the idea of the divine destiny. Comp. vii. 89, xi. 51, xii. 4, 33, xviii. 32 ; Wisd. xviii. 4 : d¢ dy quedre . . . didooac ; Judith x. 12. Kern has errone- ously lowered the expression to the idea of possibility. — sig dvd, x.7.A.] although he, etc. Still dy is critically doubtful (omitted by Lachmann), and without it the tragic contrast is all the stronger.
Note 1.—With respect to the psychological difficulty of Jesus having chosen and retained Judas as an apostle, we may remark: 1. That we cannot get rid of the difficulty by saying that Jesus did not make or intend a definite election of disciples (Schleiermacher, LD. J. p. 370 ff.), for this would be at variance with ‘all the Gospels, and in particular with ver. 70. 2. Jesus cannot have received Judas into the company of the apostles with the foreknowledge that He was choosing His betrayer (Hengstenberg ; comp. Augustine in Ps, lv.: electi undecim ad opus probationis, electus unus ad opus tentationis) ; this would be psychologically and morally inconceivable. He must have had confidence that each one of the twelve, when He selected them according to the variety of their gifts, temperaments, characters, etc., would become under His influence an effective supporter of His work ; and, at any rate, the remark in ver. 64 is only a retrospective inference from the inconceivableness of so hideous an act in the case of one selected by the Lord Himself. The view in question also goes too far in this respect, that it attributes the crime not to the dangerous disposition of Judas, but to the knowledge of Christ from the outset, which would logically lead to the outrageous and inadmissible thought of Daub, that He purposely chose Judas, in order that he might betray Him. Comp. Neander, Liicke, Kern, Ullmann (Siindlosigk.), Tholuck, de Wette, Ewald, and many others. 3. Although the bent of the man, and his inclination towards an unhallowed development,— which, however, did not lead to a complete rupture until late (xiii. 2),—-must have been known to Christ, the reader of all hearts, yet it may have been accompanied with the hope that this tendency might be overcome by the presence of some other apostolic quali- fication possessed by Judas, perhaps a very special gift for external adminis- tration (xii. 6, xiii. 28). 4. As it became gradually evident that this hope was
3 See Stallb. ad Flat. Rep. p. 368 B. xix.5; the Greek form Itself already for * Not equivalent to DS PY W's, manof bids this. des, as Hengstenberg tains, after Prov. * Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 72.
226 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to be disappointed when the care of the money affairs became a special temp- tation tothe unhappy man, it was the consciousness of the divine destiny herein manifesting itself (vv. 70, 71; Acts iv. 28) which prevented Jesus from dismissing Judas, and so disturbing the further progress of the divine pur- pose ; while on the part of the Lord, we must, in conformity with His calling, suppose a continual moral influence bearing upon Judas, though this to the last remained without effect, and turned out to his condemnation,—a tragic destiny truly, whose details, finally, in the want of sufficient historical infoy- mation concerning him before the commission of his bloody deed, are too far withdrawn from our critical judgment to lend any support to the difficulties arising from them as to the genuineness of vv. 70, 71 (Weisse, Strauss, B. Bauer), or to warrant the assumption of any modification of the statement, which John, in accordance with his later view, might have given to it (Liicke, Ullmann, and others).
yole 2.—The aim of Jesus in the discourse vv. 26 ff. was to set before the people, who came to Him under the influence of a carnal belief in His mira- cles, the duty of seeking a true and saving faith instead, which would secure a deep living reception of and fellowship with Christ's personal life, and that with a decision which, with an ever-advancing fulness, lays open this true work of faith in the appropriation of Himself to the innermost depth and the highest point of its contents and necessity. Baur's opinion, that the discourse sets forth the critical process of the self-dissolution of a merely apparent faith, so that the latter must acknowledge itself as unbelief, has no such confession in the text to support it, especially as the d6x7A0¢ and the Iovdaioz: are not iden- tical. See, besides, Brickner, p. 143 ff. Regarding the difficulty of understand- ing this discourse, which Strauss urges, it may partly be attributed to the Johan- nean idiosyncrasy in reproducing and elaborating his abundant recollections of the words of Jesus. The difficulty, however, is partly exaggerated (see Hauff in the Stud. u. Krit. 1846, p. 595 ff.) ; and partly it is overlooked that Jesus, in all references to His death and its design, had to reckon on the light which the fulure would impart to these utterances, and sowing, as He generally did, for the future in the bosom of the present, He was obliged to give expression to much that was mysterious, but which wonld furnish material for, and sup- port to, the further development and purification of faith and knowledge. The wisdom thus displayed in His teaching is justified by the history.
Nores spy AMERICAN Eprror.
XXXVI. "H@eAov ody AaBeiv. Ver. 21.
Whether or not Jesus actually came on board the ship, John’s language seems to leave undecided. If it intends to affirm that he did not, we might expect HOcAov pév ovv AaBetv . . . evhéwe dé tyévero (they wished indeed, therefore— but immediately), or less classically 74eAov ody AaBeiv . . . add’ eivféwe, or some- thing similar. For the other view we might expect é0é2ovrec, or dopevos ovv éAapPor, or the like. Still, the more natural inference from the entire passage seems to be, even apart from the Synoptics, that he was taken into the ship, and that in consequence of, or at least upon this reception, the ship came immediately by miracle to its destination. The verb seems specially chosen. It is not éreIiyovy, or ¢BovAovro (expressing mere desire), but 7/%eAor, willed, would, which often makes
NOTES. Q27
the willing and doing coincident : a usage that seems rather a favourite with John (John i. 44, vii. 17, viii. 44; Rev. ii. 21, all which passages imply the doing, and emphasize the willing). Thus, ‘‘ they willed to, would receive him, and,’” as @ consequence, ‘‘ were immediately,’’ etc. Buttmann admits the pos- sibility of the construction, but objects that the ¢0éAovre¢ is inconsistent with égoBnOnoav. But it is just as inconsistent, if they did not suceed, as if they did. De W. also declares it in itself admissible, but inconsistent with the context. It is difficult to see why: the following xai suggests and almost re- quires it,
Such being the state of the question in our Gospel, the Synoptical narra- tive, it should seem, must decide it. That declares positively that Jesus was received on board ; and this fact must have been an integral part of the narra- tive and of the current tradition. Matthew and Murk affirm the reception ; John does not expressly affirm, or clearly imply, the contrary. The affirmative view, then, is not ‘‘an unhappy attempt at harmonizing,’’ but a legitimate application of the principle which explains the uncertain from the certain, and avoids forcing into reputable writers unnecessary discrepancies. Further, the different accounts supplement each other. The Synoptics record the incident with Peter, and the lulling of the wind ; John records the sudden coming of the ship to land.
XXVII. ‘ The next day, when the people,’’ etc, Vv. 22-24.
The main difficulty of this somewhat cumbrous passage is occasioned, I think, by the substitution of eldev or eldov of the leading uncials (&, A B) for the parti- ciple idov of the Received text. True, eldev (or eldov) gives a more regular con- struction, is at first view seemingly easier, and is, therefore, such a change as would commend itself to a superficial copyist. On the other hand, it obscures the thought, introducing as main objects of their seeing what would naturally be mentioned incidentally, and that as actually seen on the morrow which had oc- curred the day before. With Meyer, I think iddv to be decidedly preferable ; and though the consent of the three great uncials is weighty, yet they sometimes concur in readings admitted by all to be erroneous. The resumption (ver. 24) of idav by ore ovv eldov, though apparently, is not really, difficult. The verb which would have been awkward above becomes now natural as it presents the added feature of the present situation; and the construction, seemingly so harsh, makes rather an elegant anacolouthon, by no means out of harmony with the easy carelessness of Greek construction, and is really among the many proofs which this Gospel furnishes of the freedom which the Apostle’s Ephesian resi- dence had given him in his use of the Greek language. The 7 and ecic7AGev of ver. 22 must with either reading (iddy or eldev) be rendered as Plup. (which with the participle it very easily can be, and with the verb, possibly). To the render- ing of the Revised Ver., ‘‘On the morrow they saw—that Jesus entered not with His disciples,” etc., it is difficult to attach any intelligible meaning. They surely had seen it on the day before. We may render iddv either seeing or having seen, and render the following verbs accordingly. The passage will run about as follows : ‘*QOn the morrow the multitude, who were standing on the other side of the sea, seeing that there was no other ship there except one, and that Jesus had not entered into the ship with His disciples, but that His disciples had gone away alone—but there came ships from Tiberias near to the place where they ate the
228 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
bread after the Lord had given thanks—when therefore the multitude saw that Jesus was not there, nor His disciples, they themselves entered into the ships, and came into Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.”’
We may add (after Weiss) that the fact of the multitude seeking for Jesus at Capernaum harmonizes incidentally with the Synoptical statement that He had made Capernaum His residence, and makes it probable (against Meyer) that the drjASev (He went away) of vi. 1 has its point of departure not from Jerusa- lem, but from Capernaum, in connection with which the expression is far more natural. From the starting point of Jerusalem the words ‘‘ went away beyond the sea of Galilee” seem unnatural and abrupt.
XXVIa. ‘ Thou art the Holy One of God.” Ver. 69.
Weiss (ed. Meyer) maintains that the usual opinion held by Meyer, Ewald, etc., that this confession of Peter is a different one from that recorded by Matt. xxi. 16, Mark viii. 29, is entirely untenable, and that in all probability the two must be considered identical. No argument, he urges, can be drawn against this identification from difference of place, for to the scene of this confession John assigns no locality. There is no certainty, nor scarcely proba- bility, that it was in Capernaum, where the previously recorded conversation had taken place ; for the defection which followed that conversation he holds (against Meyer) to have been gradual, and our Lord had in the mean time probably left Capernaum, and may now have been in the neighbourhood of Hermon. In time, too, the confessions substantially coincide, as they both follow on the miraculous feeding and the demand of the Jews for a sign; and in both: cases they are partly fcllowed, partly preceded, by thuse open disclosures of Christ's impending death which He had hitherto made only by obscure intima- tions. Whether there is ground for a confident decision on the point may be doubtful. Certainly the essence of the two confessions is the same ; they agree nearly enough in time and place ; while yet the different attending circum- stances and the difference of colouring may well justify doubt. And if Nathanael, so early as in John i., could make the declaration there recorded, it could not surprise us if, at this later period, the ardent spirit of Peter should prompt him to more than one such utterance as the Evangelists have recorded.
CHAP. VII. 229
CHAPTER VII.
Ver. 1. pera ratra] B. C. D. G. K. L. X &. Cursives, Verss. Cyr. Chrys. have these words before zepier. So Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Considering the pre- ponderance of testimonies, this arrangement is to be preferred. Were it an alteration in imitation of iii. 12, v. 1, vi. 1, the ca? deleted by Tisch. would be omitted to a greater extent, but it is wanting only in C.** D. &. and a few Cursives and Versions. — Ver. 8. The first ravrny is wanting in B, D. K. L. T. X. *.** Cursives, Verss. Cyr. Chrys. Rejected by Schulz and Rink, deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. ; a mechanical addition, in imitation of what follows. — ob«] Elz. Lachm. tead ots, according to the preponderance of Codd. indeed (only D. K. M. &. and three Cursives have otx), but against the preponderance of Versions (even Vuilg. It.), most of which have ov«. Of the Fathers, Epiph. Cyr. Chrys. Augustine, Jerome have ov«. Porphyry, in Jerome, c. Pelag. ii. 17, al- ready found otx, and inferred from it the accusation of vacillation. Just on account of this objection, ofrw was introduced. — Ver. 9. avroics] Tisch. avréc, following D.* K. L. T. X. &. Cursives, Cyr. Augustine, and several Versions. Testimony preponderates in favour of the Received Text, and this all the more, that atré¢ might have been easily written on the margin as a gloss from ver. 10. — Ver. 12. After dAAo, Elz. Lachm, have dé, which has many important wit- ness against it, and is an interpolation. —- Ver. 15. Instead of xai e@adpal. we must, with Lachm. and Tisch., read é6atiz. odv, and still more decisively is o » confirmed after azexp., ver. 16 (which Elz. has not). — Ver. 26. After éori Elz. has again aAnIoc, against decisive testimony. An interpolation (which dis- placed the first é479. in some witnesses) ; comp. iv. 42, vi. 14, vii. 40. — Ver. 31. The arrangement éx rod dyAov dé roAAol ex. is, with Lachm., to be prefer- red. Tisch., following D. &%., has woAA, d2 ix, éx tr. 6, — 671] wanting indeed in B.D. L. T. U. X. &. Cursives, Verss. Cyr., and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But it was greatly exposed to the danger of being overlooked between ON and O, as well as because it was unnecessary.—For pyri we must, with Lachm. Tisch., following decisive testimonies, read x7. In like manner, rovrey after onu. is, with Lachm. Tisch., to be deleted. An addition to explain the geni- tive Gv. For éxoinoev, rocet (Tisch.) is too weakly attested. — Vor. 33. After ov» Elz. has avroic¢, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 39. m:orevovrec] Lachm. zic- revoavrec, upon too weak and (in part) doubtful authority.—After mvedua, Elz. Scholz have dy:ov, Lachm. dedouévoy (B. and a few Verss. and Fathers). Both additions are glosses ; instead of dedouz. there occur also dofév or acceptum, or én’ avrove or én’ avroic. — Ver. 40. moddot odv ex rt. byAon] Lachm. Tisch.: é« rob byAov ody, following B. D. L. T. X. &®. Verss. Origen. Rightly ; the Received reading is an interpretation. — rdv Adyov] Lachm. Tisch.: rov Adyor rotrav, ac- cording to preponderating witnesses. The genitive and plural were certainly more strange to the transcribers. — Ver. 41. dAdo: dz] Lachm. oi dé, following B. L. T. X. Cursives, Verss. Origen, Cyril ; Tisch. also, following weighty wit- nesses (even D. E. &.): dAdo: The original reading is of dé, instead of which
230 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. éAAo. was mechanically repeated from what precedes, sometimes with, some- times without dé.— Ver. 46. otrwc éAdA. avOp. d¢ otrog 6 yp.) Lachm. has merely : dAaA. otruc dvOp., following B. L. T. two Cursives, Copt. Origen, Cyr. Chrys. Aug. But how superfluous would have been the addition, and how easily might their omission have occurred in looking from the first dv@p. at once to the second !. The order, however, éAaA, ofrwc (Tisch.), is attested by preponderating evidence. — Ver. 49. écxaruparo:] Lachm. Tisch. : érdparox, after B. T. &. 1, 33, Or. Cyr. Chrys. Rightly ; the Received text is from the familiar passage, Gal. iii. 10, 13. — Ver. 50. 6 £26. vuxréc¢ mpdg abr.) Lachm.: 6 €AG. mr. a. wpérepov (after B. L. T. &. al.). Nuxrd¢ is certainly an explanatory addition (comp. xix. 39), which also has various positions in the Codd.; but apérepov is so decisively attested, and so necessary, that Lachmann’s reading is to be regarded as the original one, although the whole 6 éA9. . . . avrév is not to be deleted, with Tisch. (so &.*). — Ver. 52. &>7yepta:] Lachm. Tisch. : éyeipera, following B. D. K. 8. (in the margin) T. Tr. A. ®. Cursives, Vulg. It. Syr. Goth. Aeth. Or. An early emendation of the historical error. Copt. Sahid. have the Fidure. — Ver. 53, see on viii. 1.
Vv. 1, 2.? Meré ratra] after these transactions, chap. vi. — ot yap #ledev iv tr. 'Iovd. wepit.] whither He would already have gone for the approaching Passover (vi. 4), but for this consideration (comp. v. 16, 18). We must not assume from this, with B. Crusius, that John regards Judea as the proper seat of the ministry of Jesus; nor, with Schweizer, make use of the passage to impugn the genuineness of vi. 1-26 ; nor, with Briick- ner, say that John here resumes the theme of the hostility of the Jews, because this had not been dropped in what precedes (vi. 11, 52), where so late as in vv. 60, 61 even, a division among the disciples is mentioned, and does not immediately become prominent in what follows.—To this sojourn in Galilee, to describe which was beyond the plan of John’s Gospel, most of the narrative in Matt. xiv. 84-xviii. belongs. It lasted from a little before the Passover (vi. 4), which Jesus did not attend in Jerusalem, onward to the next feast of Tabernacles (ver. 2) ; hence also the Imperfects. — dé] passing over to what, nevertheless, afterwards induced Him to go to Jerusalem. — 4 oxyvoryyia] M300 AN, beginning on the 15th Tisri (in Octo- ber), and observed with special sacredness and rejoicing. *
Ver. 3. The brothers (ii. 12 ; their names are given, Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3) were still unbelievers (ver. 5), because biassed by the prevailing Messi- anic views ;* yet, allowing to themselves, because of the miracles, the possi-
1 As to Baur's assaults on the historical character of the contents of chap. vii., see Hanuff in the Stud. u. Arit. 1849, p. 124 ff. According to Baur, the object of chap. vil. is to show how the reasoning on which un- belief ventures to enter only becomes its own logical refutation.
3 Lev. xxili. 33; Josephus, Anté. fil. 10. 4, al.; Platarch, Symp. iv.6. 2; Ewald, Aderth. p. 481 f.; Keil, Archaeol. I. § 8.
3 Hengstenberg is not deterred even by this passage from recognizing in these
brothers of Jesus His cousins (the sons, he thinks, of Cleopas and Mary; but see on xix. 26), and from maintaining, with all the arbitrariness and violence of exegetical impossibilities, that three of them, James, Simon, and Judas, were apostles, in spite of vy. 8, 5, 7 (comp. xv. 19). Against every attempt to explain away the literal broth- ers and sisters of Jesus, see on Matt. {. 25, xii. 46; 1 Cor. ix.5; also Laurentius, WY. 7. Stud. p. 158 ff. ; comp. Pressensé, Jesus Chr. p. 287.
CHAP. VII., 4. 231
bility of His being the Messiah, they are anxious—partly, perhaps, for the sake of their own family—for the decision of the matter, which they thought might most appropriately take place at the great joyous feast of the nation, and which certainly must occur, if at all, in Jerusalem, the seat of the the- ocracy. A malicious and treachcrous intention ' is imputed to them without foundation. They are of cold Jewish natures, and-the higher nature belonging to their Brother is as yet hidden from them. The light of faith seems not to have dawned upon them until after His resurrection, and by means of that event (1 Cor. xv. 7; Actsi. 14). This long-continued unbe- lief of His own earthly brothers (comp. Mark iii. 21) is important in esti- mating the genuineness of the accounts given in Matthew and Luke of the miraculous birth and early childhood of Jesus. — xa? of nadzrai cov] This ex- pression entirely corresponds with the position of the brothers as outside the fellowship of Jesus. It does not say, ‘‘thy disciples there also” (so usually ; even Baur, who takes it to refer to those who are first to be won over in Judea), for the word there docs not occur, nor ‘‘ thy disciples collectively,” but simply, ‘‘thy disciples also.” They would be gathered together from all parts at the feast in Jerusalem, and He should let Himself and His works be seen by them also. It does not, indecd, clearly appear from this that coldness began to be exhibited towards Him within the circle of His disci- ples (Weizsicker), but rather perhaps that Jesus had gone about in Galilec and worked miracles very much in secret, without attracting observation, and not attended by any great following, but perhaps only by the trusted twelve, which silent manner of working He was perhaps led to adopt by the lying in wait of the Jews (ver. 1). Comp. ver. 4: év xpunrg. According to B. Crusius, the brothers speak as if nothing miraculous had been done by Him in Galilee. Contrary to the narrative ; and therefore 4 roeig cannot mean ‘‘what thou art reported to have done” (B. Crusius), but ‘‘ what thou doest,” i.e. during thy present sojourn in Galilee, although éy xpurrq, ver. 4. According to Briickner (comp. Ebrard, and substantially also Godet), the brothers express themselves as if Jesus had made and retained no disciples in Galilee, and, indeed, with malicious and ironical allusion to the fact stated vi. 66, and to the report (iv. 1) which they did not believe. But, considering the long interval which elapsed between chap. vi. and vii. 2, such allusions, without more precise indication of them in the text, are not to be assumed. Luthardt attributes to the brothers the notion that in Galilee it was only the multitudes that followed Him, and that there was no such personal adherence to Him as had taken place in Judea (in conse- quence of His baptizing). But it is incredible that they should entertain a notion so obviously erroneous, because the events which they were contin- ually witnessing in Galilee, as well as those which they witnessed in Judea on occasion of their journeys to the feast, must have been better known to them.
Ver. 4. ‘‘ For no one does anything in secret, and along with this secka to be personally of bold and open disposition ; i.e. no one withdraws himself with
1 tye dvapedp wapa rey dyrovvrey dwoareiva: auréy, Eathymius Zigabenus, also Luther,
232 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
his works into silence and seclusion, and yet strives frankly to assert his personal position (as thou must doif thou art the Messiah). The two things are, indeed, contradictory ! On év rappyo. comp. xi. 54 ; Wisd. v. 1; and Grimm, Hzeg. Handb. p. 110 f. ; Eph. vi. 19; Phil. i. 20; Col. ii. 15. The word does not signify ‘‘ manifest” or ‘‘ known” (de Wette, Godet, and most others), but it means the opposite of a shy and timid nature which shrinks from playing the part of a fearless and frank character. [See Note XXVIII. p. 253.] — ri] is the simple aliquid, not magnum quid (Kuinoel and others) ; and «ai does not stand for &, making airé¢ superfluous (Grotius, Kuinoel), but is the simple ‘‘ and,” while airéc’ is ipse, thus putting the person attributively over-against the work* and not merely resuming the sub- ject (Liicke, Tholuck), as also it must not be taken in Matt. xii. 50.— As to civa: év, versari in,* thus designating the adverbial predicate as permanent, see Buttmann, WV. 7. Gr. p. 284 [E. T. p. 880]. — ei ravra rouic] answers to the ra épya oov & roceic, ver. 8, and to ovdelc . . . rovei, ver. 4, and therefore, according to the context (comp. also the consequent clause, which corre- sponds with xa? (yrei abréc, «.r.4.), refers to the miracles which Jesus did in Galilee. Tatra has the emphasis : ‘‘If thou doest these things, i.e. if thy work consists in such wonderful deeds as thou art performing here in Galilee, do not foolishly confine thyself with such works within so narrow and obscure a range, but present thyself openly before the world, as thou must do in Judea, which during the feast is the theatrum mundi.” <eavrév, like the preceding airés, gives prominence to His person, as opposed to His work. But thee: is not expressive of doubt,‘ as if we were to supply, if it be really as we hear ; comp. also Brickner, who considers that it is intended to inti- mate in a disagreeable manner that the fact was doubtful), it is logical ; the brothers know that His works are of an extraordinary kind, as was evident to them in Galilee ;* and they consider it absurd that He should withdraw Himself personally from the place whither all the world was flocking.
Vv. 5, 6. For not even His brothers, whom we might have expected to have been foremost, etc.; otherwise they would not have urged Him to the test of a public appearance. They urged this upon Him all the-more, because He had absented Himself from the previous Passover at Jerusalem,—a fact which could not have been unknown to them. — émicr. ei¢ avr.] in the ordi- nary sense ; they did not believe in Him as the Messiah. To take the words to mean only the perfect self-surrender of faith, which they had not yet attained to (Lange, Hengstenberg), is an inference necessitated by the mis- taken notion that these brothers were no? literally brothers.* Nonnusadmir-
1The reading avré (Lachm. following B. D.*) is only an error in transcription. Ebrard, who maintains its genuineness, yet marvellously renders: “* dué he strives, that it may take place openly.”” Kai, meaning ‘‘ dut,” is said to be Johannean ; it is really neither Johannean nor Greek at all, but simply wrong. The frequent Greek use of it in John in the sense of “and yet’’ is something quite different ; see on ver. 29.
* Herm. ad Vig. p. 785; Fritzsche ad Rom. Il. p. 7
3 Bernharday, p. 210.
4 Euthymius Zigabenus: « ratra oypeta woweis cai ov darvrdges; Licke, de Wette, and most.
Swzoets denotes a permanent course of action ; Bernhardy, p. 370.
® See on Matt. xii. 46; Acts 1.14; Mark li. 81; 1 Cor. ix. 5.
CHAP. VII., 7, 8. 233 ably says: dmeBéec oldrep dAAoL, Kpiorod waupedlovros adeAperoi rep edvreg. See ver. 7. — 6 xatpoc 6 éuéc] cannot mean the time to make the journey to the feast ; ? the antithesis 6 xa:pdc 6 tn. demands a deeper reference. It is, according to the context, the time to manifest myself to the world, ver. 4, by which Jesus certainly understood the divinely appointed yet still expected moment of public decision concerning Him (comp. ii. 4), which did come historically at the very next Passover, but which He now felt in a general way was not yet come. Thus the explanation of Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Lampe, and most others, who refer the words to the time of His passion, is not wrong, only that this is not actually expressed, but was historically the JSulfilment of what is here said. The corresponding 6 xa:pdc 6 iuérepog in like manner means the time for showing themselves openly to the world, which the brothers might do at any time, because they stood in no a to the world (ver. 7, xv. 19).
Vv. 7, 8. Ob dévarac] ‘* psychologically i¢ cannot, because you arc in perfect “accord with it.” ‘‘One knave agrees with another, for one crow does not scratch out the eye of another crow,” Luther.* — 6 xécyo¢e] not as in ver. 4, but with a moral significance (the unbelieving world). Comp. here 1 John v. 19. —éyo ox avaBaivo, x.t.4.] not an indefinite answer, leaving the matter spoken of uncertain (Hengstenberg), but, as the Present shows, a direct and categorical refusal: I, for my part, do not go up. [See Note XXIX. p. 253.] Afterward He changed (ver. 10) His ititention not to go up to the feast, and went up to it after all, though as secretly as possible. Porphyry’s reproach (in Jerome) of inconstantia is based upon a correct interpretation, but is not in itself just ; for Jesus might alter His intention without being fickle, es- pecially as the particular motive that prompted the change does not appear. In the case of the Canaanitish woman also, Matt. xv. 26 ff., He changed His intention. The result of this change was that once more, and for some length of time before the last decision, He prosecuted His work by way of refutation and instruction at the great capital of the theocracy. The attempt to put into oix the sense of ofmw, or to find this sense in the context, is as unnecessary as it iserroneous. Either the Present avaZ. has been emphasized, . and a viv introduced,’ or avaZ. has been taken to denote‘ the manner of travelling, viz. with the caravan of pilgrims, or the like ; or the meaning of éoptfy has been narrowed,‘ as, besides Hofmann, Weissag. u. Hrf. II. p. 118, and Lange,* Ebrard’s expedient of understanding the feast ‘‘in the legally prescribed sense” does ; or ovx has been regarded as limited by the following obra (de Wette, Maier, and many), which is quite wrong, for obrw dtnies the
1 Luther, Jansen, Cornelius a Lapide,and He ” As if one had only to folst in
most expositors.
87d Spoor re dnoly dvdyxy dei didow elvat, Pilato, Lys. p.214B; comp. Gorg. p. 510 B.
® Chrysostom, Bengel, Storr, Lficke, Ols- hausen, Tholuck.
*Comp. Bengel, Luthardt (who would supply “ as ye think’), Baumgarten, p. 228; Raeumlein; in like manner Godet, who explains dvafaivw, ‘‘I go not up as King
such interpolations !
S Apol.: ov werd iAapéryros; Cyril: ovx ovTus¢ doprdgwr.
* See his Leben Jesu, II. 927: He did not actually visit the /east, but He went up in the second half of the week of the feast, and not before. Jesus never resorted to any such subtleties.
234 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fulfilment of the xarpéc in the present generally (including the whole time of the feast). So little does the true interpretation of the oix justify the objec- tion of modern criticism against the evangelist (B. Bauer: ‘‘ Jesuitism ;” Baur : ‘‘ the seeming independence of Jesus is supposed thus to be preserved ;” comp. also Hilgenfeld), that, on the contrary, it brings into view a striking trait of originality in the history. — Observe in the second half of the verse the simple and emphatic repetition of the same words, into which tavt7v, however, is introduced (see the critical notes), because Jesus has in view a visit to a future feast. Observe also the repetition of the reason already given in ver. 6, in which, instead of rdpecriv, occurs the weightier TETAnpUT AL,
Ver. 10. ‘Q¢ 62 avéf.] Aor. pluperfect.'— d¢ év xputrg] He went not openly,? but so to speak secretly (incognito), not in the company of a caravan of pilgrims, or in any other way with outward observation, but so that His journey to that feast is represented as made in secrecy, and consequently quite differently from His last entry at the feast of the Passover.* The context does not intimate whether Jesus took a different road (through Samaria, for instance, as Hengstenberg with Wieseler, according to Luke ix. 51 ff., supposes), de Wette, Krabbe, and early writers, but shows only that He was without companions (except His disciples, ix. 2). Baur (also Hilgenfeld (finds in ov gav., add’ dc év xpurr@, something Docetic, or at least ‘ bordering upon Gnosticism (besides viii. 59, x. 89, vi. 16), which it is easy enough to find anywhere if such:texts are supposed to be indications. See, on the contrary, Briickner. — This journey finally takes Jesus away from Galilee (i.e. until after His death), and thus far it is parallel with that in Matt. xix. 1, but only thus far. In other respects it occurs in quite a differ- ent historical connection, and is undertaken with a different object (the Passover). The journey, again mentioned in Luke ix. 51 ff., is in other respects quite different. The assumption that Jesus returned to Galilee between the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of the Dedication (Ammon, Lange ; see on x. 22), is the result of a forced attempt at harmonizing, which exceeds its limits in every attempt which it makes to reconcile the Johannean and the synoptic accounts of the last journey from Galilee to Judea.* ‘
Vv. 11, 12. Oi] For He did not come with the Galilean travellers. — oi "Iovdatos] not all the people (Hengstenberg, Baeumlein), but the opposing hierarchy ; vi. 41, 52, vii. 18, 15. Their search is prompted by malice, not by aimless curiosity (Luthardt) ; see vv. 1, 18. On éxeivoc, which means the well-known absent one, Luther well remarks: ‘‘ Thus contemptuously can they speak of the man, that they almost would not name Him.” The people's judgment of Him was a divided one, not frank and free, but timid, and uttered half in a whisper (yoyyvouds, murmuring, ver. 82). — Observe the
2 Winer, p. 288 [E. T. p. 541]. (against B. Crusius). 2davepws; comp. Xen. Anad. v. 4 888: 4N. 7. Theol. p. 867.
éudaves, instead of which év 5xAw follows. 5 Comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 491, ? On ws, comp. Bernhardy, p. 279; Ellendt, _ed. 8.
Lex. Soph. Il. p. 1004. Otherwise in i. 14
CHAP. VII., 13-15. 235
change of number : év roi¢ 5x20«¢ : among the multitudes (the plural here only in John) ; rdv dydov: the people. — ayaféc] upright, a man of honour, no demagogue, seeking to make the people believe falsely that He was the Messiah. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 63.
Ver. 18 is usually, after Augustine, only referred to the party who judged favourably.!. The more arbitrarily, because this was first mentioned, and because the general expression é14Ae wepi avrod is quite against any such lim- itation ; ovdeic onwards to airov can only be taken as corresponding to the yoyyvopoc év roi¢ 6yAog, ver. 12, which refers to both parties. Both mistrusted the hierarchy ; even those hostile in their judgment were afraid, so long as they had not given an official decision, that their verdict might be reversed. A trustworthy indication of an utterly jesuitical domination of the people. — dia rdv g6Bov] on account of the fear that prevailed.
Ver. 14. T7¢ éopr. pec.] when the feast was half way advanced, jyow rq terdpry yuépa (or nearly) : érra yap suépac (yet see on ver. 37), éépralov avr, Euthymius Zigabenus. Jesus was already, before this, in the city (ver. 10), but in concealment ; now He goes up into the temple. The text does not say that He had only now come into Jerusalem. pecovv (comp. Ex. xii. 29; Judith xii. 5 ; 8 Macc. v. 14) only here in the N. T., but very common in the classics. That the day was precisely the Sabbath of the feast? is uncer- tain, as pecotone is only an approximate expression. For the rest, the dis- courses which follow, and the discussions onward to chap. x., are not (with Weizsicker) to be ranked as parallel with the synoptical accounts of pro- ceedings in Jerusalem, but are wholly independent of them, and must be at- tributed to the vivid recollections of the evangelist himself regarding a time unnoticed by the Synoptics. Over and above this, we must, as an historical necessity, expect to find many points of resemblance in the several en- counters of Jesus with His Jewish opponents.
Ver. 15. Of 'Iovdaios] as in vv. 11, 18. The teaching of Jesus produces a feeling of astonishment even in the hierarchy ; but how? Not through the power of His truth, but because He is learned without having studied. And with a question upon this point, they engage in conversation with Him, without touching upon what He had taught. The admission, indeed, which is contained in their question, and that, too, face to face with the people, is only to be explained from the real impression produced upon their learned conceit, so that they ask not in the spirit of shrewd calculation, but from actual amazement. — ypézpyara] not the O. T. Scriptures (Luther, Grotius, and many), but Jiteras, (theological) knowledge, which, however, consisted in scriptural erudition. Jesus had doubtless exhibited this knowledge in His discourse by His interpretations of Scripture.* — pu) wepad.|] though he has not learned them,* perhaps in a Rabbinical school as Paul did from Gamaliel.
180 also Lfcke, de Wette, Ewald, D: oie: atrove amelpovs ypanpdrer elva, and Baeumlein ; not B. Crusius, Brickner, Tho- _ the citations in Wetstein. Upon &ddcxcew
luck, Hengstenberg, Godet. yedupara, used of teaciiers, seo Dissen, ad *Harduin, Bengel, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Dem. decor. p. 209. Aynopse, pp. 809, 829. *Buttmanon, NV. 7. Gk. p. 801 [E. T. p.
? Comp. Acts xxvil. 24; Plato, Apol. p.% 850f.].
236 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The members of the Sanhedrim do not thus speak in conformity with the author’s representation of the Logos (Scholten) ; they know, doubtless, from information obtuined concerning the course of His life, that Jesus had not studied ; He was reckoned by them among the aypdéyparo: and idiéra, Acts iv. 13. This tells powerfully against all attempts, ancient and modern, to trace back the wisdom of Jesus to some school of human culture. Well says Bengel: ‘‘non usus erat schola ; character Messiae.” This autodidactic character does not necessarily exclude the supposition that during His childhood and youth He made use of the ordinary popular, and in particular, of the synagogal instruction (Luke ii. 45).?
Ver. 16. Jesus at once solves for them the riddle. ‘‘The contradictory relation : that of learning in the case of one who had been uninstructed, would be found in my teaching only if it were mine,” etc. — } éuf and otc é. uf are used in different senses: ‘‘the teaching which I give,” and ‘‘it is not my possession, but God's ;” how far, see ver. 17, comp. v. 19, 80. — row wéuw. ye} acarefully-chosen designation, because the Sender has communi- cated to His messenger, and continually communicates what He is to say in His name.* —oix. . . @AAd] here also not : non tam. . . quam, but abso- lutely excluding human individuality. Comp. viii. 28, xiv. 24.
Ver. 17. The condition of knowing this is that one be willing—have it as the moral aim of his self-determination—to do the will of God. He who is want- ing in this, who Jacks fundamentally the moral determination of his mind towards God, and to whom, therefore, Christ's teaching is something strange, for the recognition of which as divine there is in the ungodly bias of his will no point of contact or of sympathy ; this knowledge is to him a moral impossibility. On the contrary, the bias towards the fulfilling of God’s will is the subjective factor necessary to the recognition of divine doctrine as such ; for this doctrine produces the immediate conviction that it is certainly divine by virtue of the moral duordry¢ and duoordbera of its nature with the man’s own nature.* See also oniii. 21 and xv. 19. It is only in form, not in substance, that the ry aydmyy r. Oeov Exew év éaurg, Vv. 42, differs from the OéAecv rd OéAnjua rT. Oeot moeiv here, for this latter is the moral praxis of the love of God. Accordingly, we certainly have in this passage the testimonium internum, but not in the ordinary theological sense, as a thing for those who already believe, but for those who do not yet believe, and to whom the divine teaching of the Lord presents itself for the first time. — The @éAy is not superfluous (Wolf, Loesner, and most), but is the very nerve of the relation ; note the ‘‘suavis harmonia” (Bengel) between 6Ay and GéAnua. The OéAyua abrov, however, must not be limitcd either to a definite form of the revelation of it,‘ to any one particular requirement (that
1Comp. Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 120 f., and in- particular Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 427 ff.
* Bengel (in Wachter in the Bet(r. 2. Beng. Schrifterkidr. 1865, p. 125). “If we may speak after the manner of men, the heavenly Father gives him a collegium privatissimum, and that upon no author.”
This relation, however, does not justify such one-sided exaggerations as those of Delitzsch, Jesus u. Hillel, 1866.
Comp. Aristotle, Zh. ix. 8, Ul. 1: 7d Spotov rov duoiou edierat,
4 The O. T., Chrysostom, Euthymius Ziga- benus, Bengel, Hengstenberg, Weiss, and most.
=e
CHAP. VII., 18, 19. 23%
of faith in Christ),’ which would contradict the fact that the axiom is stated without any limitation ; it must be taken in its full breadth and com- prehensiveness—‘‘ that which God wills,” whatever, how, and wherever this will may require. Also the natural moral law within (Rom. i. 20 ff., ii. 14, 15) is not excluded, though those who heard the words spoken must have referred the general statement to the revelation given to them in the law and the prophets. Finally, it is clear from vi. 44, 45, viii. 47, that willingness to do God’s will must be attributed to the gift and drawing of the Father as its source. — epi rj¢ did.] concerning the teaching now in question, ver. 16. —éyo an’ éuavrov] I of myself, strongly marking the oppo- site of éx rov Geov. Comp. v. 80. The classical expression wérepoy. . . 7 occurs only here in the N. T.
Ver. 18. Here is the characteristic proof and token, given almost in syllogis- tic form, that He spoke not from Himself. — riv°d6é. r. id. Syr.] that is, among others. Comp. v. 41. —6é dé Cyrév, x.t.A.] minor premiss and (ovroc, x.t.A.) conclusion, in which, instead of the negative, ‘‘ He speaks not from Himself,” we have the positive, ‘‘the same is true,” etc. But this positive conclusion is logically correct, both in itself, because ag’ éavrod Aadciv is throughout the context regarded as something untrue and immoral (Grotius : ‘‘sua cogitata proferens, cum Dei mandatum prae se ferat’’), and with reference to the hierarchy, and some of the people, who took Jesus to be a deceiver. Observe further, that 6 d2 (yrév, «.r.2., is in the form of a general proposition, corre- sponding with the opposite proposition, 6 ag’ éavrot AaAév, x.7.A. ; but it is derived exclusively from the relation of Jesus, and is descriptive therefore of no other than He. — adixia] improbitas, immorality of nature, a deeper con- trast to Gan6yc than weidoc, for witich rivéc in Euthymius Zigabenus, Grotius, Bengel, B. Crusius, Maier, and many take it,—a view which cannot be jus- tified by the inexact LXX. translation of Job xxxvi. 4 (Ps. lii. 4 ; Theod. Mic. vi. 12). ’Adxiais the inner (év air) moral basis of the weidoc. For the contrast between a270e:a and adixia, see Rom. i. 18, ii. 8; 1 Cor. xiii. 6 ; 2 Thess. ii. 12 ; see also on viii. 46. An allusion to the charge of breaking the Sabbath (Godet) is not indicated, and anticipates what follows, ver. 21.
Ver. 19. There is no ground for supposing that some unrecorded words on the part of the Jews (Kuinoel and many others), or some act (Olshausen), intervened between vv. 18 and 19. The chain of thought is this : Jesus in vv. 16-18 completely answered the question of the Jews, ver. 15. But now He Himself assumes the offensive, putting before them the real and malicious ground of all their assaults and oppression, namely, their purpose to bring about His death ; and He shows them how utterly unjustifiable, on their part, this purpose is.— The note of interrogation ought to be placed (so also Lachm. Tisch.) after the first rav véuov ; and then the declaration of their contradictory behaviour is emphatically introduced by the simple «ai. In like manner vi. 70. — ov Mwio7c, x.r.4.] The emphasis is upon Mwic. as the great and highly esteemed authority, which had so strong a claim on their
1 Augustine, Luther, Erasmus, Lampe, Augustine, right in itself, initellectus est Ernesti, Storr, Tittmann, Weber, Opuec., merces fidel. and most expositors; comp. the saying of
238 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
obedience. — rév véuov] without limitation ; therefore neither the command- ment forbidding murder merely (Nonnus, Storr, Paulus), nor that against Sabbath-breaking simply (Kuinoel, Klee. §8o once Luther also, but in his Commentary he refers to Rom. viii.: ‘‘ what the law could not do,” etc., which, indeed, has no bearing here), which, according to Godet, Jesus must have already in view. — xai ovdeic tu. roel r. vépov] so that you, all of you, are liable to the condemnation of the law ; and should, instead of seek- ing to destroy me as a law-breaker, confess yourselves to be guilty. — r/] Why ? i.e. with what right ? The emphasis cannot be upon the enclitic pe (against Godet).
Ver. 20. This interruption, no notice of which, seemingly (but see on ver. 21), is taken by Jesus in His subsequent words, is a characteristic indication of the genuineness of the narrative. — 6 dyAorc] the multitude (not the samo as the ‘Iovdaior, see ver. 12), unprejudiced, and unacquainted with the designs of the hierarchy, at least so far as they referred to the death of Christ, con- sisting for the most part, probably, of pilgrims to the feast. — da:uéy0v] causing in thee such perverted and wicked suspicions, Comp. viii. 48, x. 20. An expression not of ill-will (Hengstenberg and early writers), but of amazement, that a man who taught so admirably should imagine what they deem to be a moral impossibility and a dark delusion. It must, they thought, be a fixed idea put into his mind by some daemon, a xaxoda:povay.
Vv. 21, 22. "Arexpi67] The reply of Jesus, not to the 'Iovdaio. (Ebrard), but to the dyAo¢ (for it is in reality addressed tothem, not in appearance merely, and through an inaccurate account of the matter on John’s part, as Tholuck unnecessarily assumes), contains, indeed, no direct answer to the question, but is intended to make the people feel that all had a guilty part in the murderous designs against Him, and that none of them are excepted, because that one work which He had done among them was unacceptable to them all, and had excited their unrighteous wrath. Thus He deprives the people of that assurance of their own innocence which had prompted them to put the question to Him ; ‘‘ ostendit se profundius eos nésse ct hoc radio eos pene- trat,” Bengel. — fv épyor] t.e. the healing on the Sabbath, v. 2 ff., the only miraculous work which He had donein Jerusalem (against Weisse *) (not, in- deed, the only work at all, see ii. 23, comp. also x. 82, but the only one during the last visit), for the remembrance of which the fact of its being so striking an instance of Sabbath-breaking would suffice. —xai wévre¢ @avyd- Gere] wévrec is correlative with é, ‘‘ and ye all wonder” (Acts ili. 12), 7.6. how I could have done it as a Sabbath work (v. 16); it is the object of your universal astonishment ! An exclamation ; taken as a question (Ewald), the expression of disapprobation which it contains would be lessemphatic. To put into @avydvere the idea of alarm (Chrysostom), of blame (Nonnus), of displeasure (Grotius), or the like, would be to anticipate ; the bitterness of tone does not appear till ver. 23.—dia rovro] connected with O6avudlere by
1 How does he make out the é épyov? asaSabbath healing; this the evangelist It is the one miracle which Christ came to _has taken fora single miraculous act. See accomplish (Matt. xii. 28, xvi.18sqq.; Luke Zvangelien/r. p. 249.
xi. 20ff.), described by Him metaphorically
CHAP, VII., 21, 22. 239 Theophylact, and most moderns ;' but Syr. Goth. Codd. It., Cyril, Chrysos- tom, Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Luther, Castalio, Erasmus, Aretius, Grotius, Cornelius & Lapide, Jansen, Bengel, Wetstein, and several others, also Luthardt, and most of the Codices, with true perception, place the words at the beginning of ver. 22 (so also Elzevir); for, joined with éavud- Cere, they are cumbrous and superfluous,* and contrary to John’s method elsewhere of beginning, not ending, with d:¢ rovro.* Only we must not take them either as superfluous (Euthymius Zigabenus) or as elliptical: ‘‘ there- fore hear,” or ‘‘know ;”‘ the former is inadmissible, the latter is neither Johannean nor in keeping with what follows, which does not contain a declaration, but a deduction of a logical kind. We ought rather, with Bengel (‘‘ propterea, hoc mox declaratur per oy dr, nempe non quia”) and Luthardt, following Cyril, to regard them as standing in connection with the following ovy érx. With this anticipatory did roiro, Jesus begins to diminish the astonishment which His healing on the Sabbath had awa- kened, showing it to be unreasonable, and this by the analogy of cireum- cision, which is performed also on the Sabbath. Instead of simply say- ing, ‘‘ because it comes from the fathers,” He puts the main statement, already introduced by da rovro, and so important in the argument, both negatively and positively, and says, ‘‘ Therefore Moses gave you circum- cision, not because it originated with Moses, but (because it originated) with the fathers, and so ye circumcise” (xaf consecutive), etc.; that is, this ovx ott, On to rarépwr, serves to show that circumcision, though divinely commanded by Moses in the law, and thus given to the Jews as a ritualistic observance, was not Mosaic in its origin, but was an old patriarchal institu- tion dating back even from Abraham. The basis of its historic claim to validity lies in the fact that the law of circumcision precedes the law of the Sabbath, and consequently the enjoined rest of the Sabbath must give way to circumcision.’ Even the Rabbins had this axiom : ‘‘ Circumcisio pellit sabbatum,” and based it upon the fact that it was ‘‘traditio patrum.” See Wetstein on ver. 28. The anger of the people on account of the healing on the Sabbath rested on a false estimate of the Sabbath ; comp. Matt. xii. 5. From this explanation it is at the same time clear that ovy or: . . . rarépwv is not of the nature of a parenthesis (so usually, also Lachmann), Of those
1 Also Licke, Tholuck, Olshausen, de Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Lange, Lach- mann, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Baeumlein, Ebrard, Godet ; among earlier expositors, Beza, Casaubon, Homberg, Maldonatus, Wolf, Mill, Kypke, etc. ; see on Mark vi. 6.
2 This accounts forthe omission of &a rovro in N*. Tisch. deletes It, and with N* reads 6 Mwic. (with the article).
?'V. 16, 18, vi. 68, vill. 47, x. 17, al. 7 see Schulz on Criesbach, p. 543.
4 Grotius, Jansen, also Winer, p. 58 [E. T. p. 59].
5 The patriarchal period was indeed that of promise, but this is not made prominent
here, and we cannot therefore say with Luthardt : ‘“‘ Jesus puts the law and the promise over against one another, like Paul in Gal. fil. 17.°° There is no hint of this in the text. Judging from the text, there rather lies in ovx or, x.7.r., the proof that, in the case of acollision between the two laws, that of circumcision and that of the Sabbath, the former must have the prece- dence, because, though enjoined by Moses, it already had a patriarchal origin, and on ac- count of this older sanctity it must suffer no infringement through the law of the Sabbath. Nonnus well describes the argu- mentation by the words apxeyéry rivi Jeong.
240 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. who so regard it, some rightly recognize in the words the authority of circumcision as outweighing that of the Sabbath ; while others, against the context, infer from them its lesser sanctity as being a traditional institu- tion (Paulus, B. Crusius, Ewald, Godet). Others, again, take them as an (objectless) correction (de Wette, Baeumlein), or as an historical observation (equally superfluous) of Jesus (Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and earlier exposi- tors) orof John (Liicke, cf. Ebrard). Above all, it would have been very strange and paltry to suppose (with Hengstenberg) that Jesus by this re- mark was endeavouring, with reference to ver. 15, todo away with the appearance of ignorance. — Muivoy¢] Lev. xii. 3. — oby Src] not as in vi. 46, but as in xii. 6. — éx rob Mwioéuc) Instead of saying é& avrod, Jesus repeats the name, thus giving more emphasis to the thought. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 1, ad Anab. i. 0. 11. — & rév xarépwv] Gen. xvii. 10, xxi. 4; Acts vii. 8 ; Rom. iv. 11. — év Laff. Jif it bethe eighth day. Comp. the Rabbini- cal quotations in Lightfoot. Being emphatic, it takes the lead.
Ver, 23. Ieperopty] Circumeision, without the article, but placed emphat- ically first, corresponding with 42ov dvfpwrov in the apodosis. — iva pi Aviy, x.7.A.] in order that so the law of Moses be not broken (by the postponement of the rite), sccing that it prescribes circumcision upon the eighth day. Jansen, Bengel, Semler, Paulus, Kuinoel, Klee, Baeumlein, wrongly render iva py ‘‘ without,” and take 6 véu. Mic. to mean the law of the Sabbath. — ipoi yzorare] towards me how unjust! Xodav, denoting bitter, violent anger (only here in the N. T.)?— re dAov dvOp. by. éx. év oa83.] The emphasis of the antithesis is on dAoyv dvOp., in contrast with the single member in the case of circumcision. We must not, therefore, with Kling,* find here the anti- thesis between wounding and making whole; nor, with B. Crusius, that between an act for the sake of the law, on account of which circumcision was performed, and one for the sake of the man himself; similarly Grotius. In ty. éoinoa, further, there must necessarily be expressed an analogy with what is done in circumcision, which is therefore equally regarded as a cure and a healing, not with reference to the subsequent healing of the wound (Cyril, Lampe), for zepcr. is circumcision itself, not its healing ; nor with reference to the supposed medical olyect of circumcision,’ no trace of which was contained either in the law or in the religious ideas of the people ; but with reference to the purification and sanctification wrought upon the member by the removal of the foreskin.‘ In this theocratic sense, a single member was made whole by circumcision ; but Christ, by healing the paralytic, had made an entire man whole, i.e. the whole body of aman. The argument in justification, accordingly, is one a minori ad majus; if it wasright not to omit the lesser work on the Sabbath, how much more the greater and more
this view, which regards the foreskin as impure,—a view which does nat appear till
1 Comp. 8 Macc. fil. 1; Artemid.i. 4; Beck, Anecd. p. 116.
2 Stud. u. Arit. 1836, p. 157 f.,
? Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Licke, Lange; comp. Philo, de Circumeis. IT. 210 f.; see, on the contrary, Keil, Archaeol. I. 309 f.
Comp. Bammidbar, R. xii. f. 208. 2: **praeputium est vitium in corpore.”” With
a late date (Ewald, Allerth. p. 129 f.),—cor- responds the idea of the circumcision of the heart, which we find in Lev. xxvi. 41, Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6, and often in the prophets and the N. T., Rom. ii. 29, Col. il. 11, Acts vil. 51,
CHAP. VII., 24-29. 241
important! To take édov dvfp., with Euthymius Zigabenus 2, Beza, Cornelius & Lapide, Bengel, and Olshausen, as signifying body and soul, in contrast with the odpf, on which circumcision was performed, is alien to the connection, which shows that the Sabbath question had to do only with the bodily healing, and to the account of the miracle itself, according to which Jesus only warned the man who had been made whole, v. 14.
Ver. 24. This closing admonition is general, applicable to every case that might arise, but drawn by way of ‘deduction from the special one in point. According to the outward appearance, that act was certainly, in the Jewish judgment, a breach of the Sabbath ; but the righteous judgment was that to which Jesus had now conducted them.' It does not here mean visage, as in xi. 44, and as Hengstenberg makes it, who introduces the contrast between Christ *‘ without form or comeliness,” and the shining countenance of Moszs.*
Vv. 25-27. Ovv] in consequence of this bold vindication. These 'Iepooo- Avuiras, aS distinct from the uninitiated éyAo¢ of ver. 20, as inhabitants of the Holy City, have better knowledge of the mind of the hierarchical opposi- ' tion ; they wonder that the Sanhedrim should let Him speak so boldly and freely, and they ask, ‘‘The rulers have not perchance really ascertained, have they, that this,” etc. ? This, however, is only a momentary thought which strikes them, and thcy at once answer it themselves, —dé0ev éoriv] does not denote the birthplace, which was known both in the case of Jesus (ver. 41) and of the Messiah (ver. 42), but the descent ; not, indeed, the more remote, which in the case of the Messiah was undoubted as being Davidic, but (comp. vi. 42) the nearer — father, mother, family (Matt. xiii. 55). — 6 dé Xpc.] is in antithesis with rovrov, and it therefore takes the lead. The popular belief that the immediate ancestry of the Messiah would be unknown when He came, cannot further be historically proved, but is credible, partly from the belief in His divine origin,‘ and partly from the obscurity into which the Davidic family had sunk, and was supported, probably, by the import of many O. T. passages, such as Isa. liii. 2, 8, Mic. v. 2, and perhaps also by the sudden appearance of the Son of man related in Dan. vii. (Tholuck), and is strongly confirmed by the description in the book of Enoch of the heavenly Messiah appearing from heaven (Ewald). The passages which Liicke and de Wette quote from Justin ° are inapplicable, as they do not speak of an unknown descent of the Messiah, but intimate that, previous to His anointing by Elijah, His Messiahship was unknown to Himself and others. The beginning of Marcion's Gospel (see Philo, p. 408), and the Rabbinical passages in Lightfoot and Wetstein, are equally inapplicable.
Vv. 28, 29. The statement in ver. 27, which showed how utterly Christ's higher nature and work were misunderstood by these people in consequence of the entirely outward character of their judgments, roused the emotion of
1 Upon dyes id quod sub visum cadti, resin 8 ov adda olda, wéden ydvos evxera elvac; conspicuo postia, see Lobeck, Paralip. p.512. Soph. Track. 1006; Eur. Bhes. 702; Heliod. 7On xplvecy «cpio bcxavayv, comp. iv. 16, vil. 14 Tobit ill. 2; Susannah 58; Zech. vil. 9. ‘ Bertholdt, Chrisfol. p. 86. ?Vomp. xix. 9; Homer, Od. p. 878: avrdy 5 ¢, Tryph. pp. 226, 268, 836, ed. Col.
242 THE GOSPEL OF JONN.
Jesus, 80 that He raised His voice, crying aloud,' and thus uttered the solemn conclusion of this colloquy, while He taught in the temple, and said : «ay cidare, «.7.4. The rv ro iepo d:dacxey is in itself unneeded (see ver. 14), but serves the more tizidly to describe the solemn moment of the ixpesev, and is an indication of the original genuineness of the narrative. — xauéi oidare, «.>.2. ] i.e., ‘‘ ye know not only my person, but ye aleo know my origin.” As the people really had this knowledge (vi. 42), and as the divine mission of Jesus was independent of His human nature and origin, while He himself denies only their knowledge of His divine mission (sce what follows ; comp. viii. 19), there is nothing in the connection to sanction an interrogatory interpretation,* nor an ironical one,? nor the paraphrase : ‘‘ Ye think that ye know” (Heng- stenberz). Least of all can we read it asa reproach, that they knew His divine nature and origin, yet maliciously concealed it. No ; Jesus alluws that they have that outward knowledge of Him which they had avowed in ver. 27, but He further—in the words «ai az’ éipavroi, x.r.2.—sets before them the higher relationship, which is here the main point, and which was unknown to them. — xai am’ eu. ov« &242.] and—though ye think that, on ac- count of this knowledge of yours, ye must conclude that I am not the Mes- siah, but have come by self-appointment merely—of myself (airoxi7rvoroc, Nonnus) am I not come; comp. viii. 42. This «ai, which must not be re- garded as the same with the two preceding, as if it stood for xai ov: (Bacum- lein), often in John connects, like atgue, a contrasted thought, and yet.’ We may pronounce the and with emphasis, and imagine a pause after it.‘— GA2’ ior aArfivdc] but it is a real one tho hath sent me, whom ye (ye people °) know not." ‘AZ nfivés is not ceraz,* but, according to the invariable usage of John (see on i. 9), a real, genuine one, in whom the idea is realized. The substantive belonging to this adjective is not tarjp, which Grotius gets out of rilev ; but, according to the immediate context, it is to be taken from 6 wéuwag pe, namely riutwr, a real sender, a sender in the highest and fullest sense. We cannot take a0. by itself as absolutely denoting the true essential God (Olshausen, Lange, Hengstenberg ; comp. Kling: ‘‘one who whose essence and action is pure truth”), because aAayivéc in the Johannean sense is not an independent conception, but receives its definite meaning from the substantive of which it is predicated. — Ver. 29. J (untithesis to tpeic) know
1 expafer, comp. {. 15, vil. 37, xil. 44, Rom. 1x. 27; «pegeew never means anything but fo ery out; ‘*clamores, quos edidit, magnas habuere causas,’’ Bengel.
2 Grotius, Lampe, Semler, Storr, Paulus, Kulnoel, Lutbardt, Ewald.
§ Luther, Calvin, Beza, and many others ; Mkewise Lticke, Tholuck, Olshausen, B. Cra- sius, Lange, and Godet who considers the words “ égérement tronique,"’ and that they have “ certainement {4 une lournure inter- rogative."’
4 Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Eu- thymius Zigabenus, Maldonatus, and most.
6 Sce Hartung, P..9t:hell. I. 147.
¢ Comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 2 B; Wolf, ad Leptin. p. 238.
7 Of course In a relative sense, as in iv. 2. If they had possessed the true and full knowledge of God, they would then have recognized the Interpreter of God, and not have rejected Him for such a reason as that in ver. 27. Comp. viii. 54, 55; Matt. xi. 2. ® Chrysostom, Euthymius Zigabenus, Lu- ther, Stolz, Kuinoel, Klee, B. Crusius, Ewald, and most.
* Comp. Matthiae, p. 1538; Kfahner, IT. 602.
Nw td
CHAP. VII., 30-34. 243
Him, for Iam from Him, have come forth from Him (as in vi. 46) ; and no other than He (from whom I am) hath sent me. This weighty, and there- fore independent xaxeivég pe aréor., not to be taken as dependent upon Sri, comprehends the full explanation of the rééev ciui in its higher sense, which was not known to the ‘IepoooAvuuiraic, and, with the éyo vida. . . eiui, bears the seal of immediate certainty. Comp. viii. 14.
Ver. 80. Otv] Because He had so decidedly asserted His divine origin and mission, which His adversaries regarded as blasphemy (comp. v. 18).— The subject of é{7rovy is ‘Iovdaior, the hierarchy, as is self-evident from the words and from the contrasted statement of ver. 31. ——xa/] asin ver. 28. — bre obrrw, x.t.A.] because the hour appointed for Him (by God—the hour when He was to fall under the power of His enemies) was not yet come; comp. viii. 20. The reason here assigned is that higher religious apprehension of the history, which does not, however, contradict or exclude the immediate historical cause, viz. that through fear—not of conscience (Hengstenberg,
. Godet), but of the party who were favourably inclined to Christ, ver. 31—
they dared not yet lay hands on Him. But John knows that the threads upon which the outward history of Jesus runs, and by which it is guided, unite in the counsels of God. Comp. Luthardt, I. 160.
Ver. 31. According to the reading éx rov dyAov d2 roA20i (see the critical notes), 5720¢ stands emphatically opposed to the subjects of é{j7ovv in ver. 80. Aé after three words, on account of their close conncction ; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 878 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 897. —érior. cig avr.] not only as a prophet (Tholuck), or as one sent of God (Grotius), but conformably with the fixed sense of the absolute expression (comp. ver. 5), as the Messiah. What follows does not contradict this, but rather sustains their avowal that they see realized in Jesus their Ideal-Miraculous of the promised Messiah ; and, accordingly, 6 Xproré¢ brav 27M does not imply any doubt on their part as to the Messiahship of Jesus, but refers to the doubt of the opposite party. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus 2 : @auev, érepov elvat rov Xpiordv, o¢ ol dpyxovrec Zéyovoww, etc. —ére] might be regarded as giving the reason for their faith (Nonnus : «4? yap Xprorés, x.t.A4.), but more simply as recitative. — yh] ‘‘he will not do more signs, will he? = will he do more signs? To the one miracle wrought in Jerusalem (ver. 21) they added the numerous Galilean miracles, which they, being in part perhaps pilgrims to the feast from Galilee, had seen and heard.
Vv. 82-84. The Pharisees present hear how favourable are the murmured remarks of the people concerning Jesus, and they straightway obtain an edict of the Sanhedrim (ol dapio. x. ol apxtep.,—ol dapic. first, for they had been the first to moot the matter ; otherwise in ver. 45), appointing officers to lay hands on Him. The Sanhedrim must have been immediately as- sembled. Thus rapidly did the ¢(frow of ver. 80 ripen into an actual decree of the council. The thing does not escape the notice of Jesus ; He naturally recognizes in the officers seeking Him, who were only waiting for a suitable opportunity to arrest Him, their designs against Him ; and He therefore (otv) says what we have in vv. 83, 84 in clear and calm foresight of the near- ness of His death,—a death which He describes as a going away to God
244 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(comp. on vi. 62). — ze? iner] Jesus speaks to the whole assembly, but has here the hierarchy chiefly in his eye ; comp. ver. 35. — rpag rév téppavrd uz] These words are, with Paulus, to be regarded not as original, but as a Johannean addition ; because, according to vv. 35, 36, Jesus cannot have definitely indicated the goal of His going away, but must have left it enig- matical, as perhaps in viii. 22 ; comp. xiii. 33. Had He said xp. r. riny., His enemies could not have failed, after vv. 16, 17, 28, 29, to recognize the words as referring to God, and could not have thought of an unknown roi (against Liicke, de Wette, Godet), There is no room even for the pretence ‘that they acted as if they could not undesstand the words of Jesus,” after so clear a statement as poe r. réivy. pe (against Luthardt). — Cyrpeeré ue, x.T.2.] not of a hostile seeking, against which is xiii. 33 ; nor the seeking of the penitent (Augustine, Beza, Jansen, and most), which would not har- monize (against Olshausen) with the absolute denial of any finding, unless we brought in the doctrine of a peremptory limitation of grace, which has no foundation in Holy Scripture (also not in Heb. xii. 17 ; sce Liinemann, in loc.), and which could only refer to individuals ; but a seeking for help and deliverance.‘ This refers tothe time of the divine judgments in the destruc- tion of Jerusalem (Luke xx. 16 ff., xix. 43, al.), which were to ensue as the result of their rejection of Jesus. Then, Jesus would say, the tables will be turned ; after they had persecuted and killed Him who now was present, they then would anxiously long, but in vain, for Him, the absent One,* as the wonder-working helper, who alone could save them from the dire calam- ity. Comp. Prov. i. 28. The prophecy of misfortune involved in (yrqceré pe, x.7.A. is not expressly declared ; but it lies in the thought of retribution which the words contain,—like an enigma which history was to solve ; comp. vill. 21. Theodoret, Heracleon (7), Maldonatus, Grotius, Liicke, de Wette, take the whole simply as descriptive of entire separation, so that nothing more is said than : Christum de terris sublatum iri, ita ut inter viros reperiri non possit,” Maldonatus. The poetical passages, Ps. x. 15, xxxvii. 10, Isa. xli. 12, are appealed to. But even in these the seeking and finding is not a mere figure of speech ; and here such a weakening of the significa- tion is all the more inadmissible, because it is not annihilation, as in those passages, which is here depicted, and because the following words, xai éxov eiul éy’, «.T.A., describe a longing which was not to be satisfied. Luke xvii. 22 is analogous. — xa? brrov eiui, x.T.A.] still more clearly describes the tragic ovx eupho. : ‘‘and where J (then) am, thither ye cannot come,” 7.¢. in order to find me as a deliverer, or to flee tome. Rightly says Euthymius Ziaga- benus : dyAoi 62 tiv él rob obpavod év defta Tov matpoc xaBédpav. The elue (I go), not found in the N. T., is not the reading here.* Comp. xiv. 8, xvii. 24.
1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Calvin, Aretius, - Hengstenberg; comp. Luthardt, Ewald, Brockner.
* They would long for Him in His own person, for Jesus the rejected one, and not for the Afessiah generally (Flacius, Lampe, Kuinoel, Neander, Ebrard), whom they had
rejected in the person of Jesus (comp. also Tholuck and Godet),—an explanation which would empty the words of all their tragio nerve and force.
? Against Nonnus, H. Stephens, Casau- bon, Pearson, Bengel, Wakefield, Michaelis, and most.
CHAP. VII., 35-37. 245
Vv. 85, 86. An insolent and scornful conjecture, which they themselves, however, do not deem probable (therefore the question is asked with ,#), regarding the meaning of words to them so utterly enigmatical. The bolder mode of teaching adopted by Jesus, His universalistic declarations, His partial non-observance of the law of the Sabbath, would lead them, perhaps, to associate with the unintelligible statement a mocking thought like this, and all the more because much interest was felt among the heathen, partly of an earnest kind, and partly (comp. St. Paul in Athens) arising from curi- osity merely, regarding the oriental religions, especially Judaism.’ — mpo¢ éavrovc] the same as mpdc GAAfAouc, yet so that the conversation was confined to one party among the people, to the exclusion of the others.* — otro¢] con- temptuously, this man! — ri] not to be arbitrarily supplemented by a sup- posed Aéyuy put before it, or in some other way ;*° but the simple because : ‘‘ Where will this man go, because, or seeing, that we are not (according to his words) to find him ?” It states the reason why the roi is unknown. — tic t. diaow. T. ‘EAA.] to the dispersion among the Greeks.‘ The subjects of the dia- oropé are the Jews,* who lived beyond Palestine dispersed among the heathen, and these latter are denoted by the genitive ray ‘EAAg7v. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 1, and Steiger and Huther thereon. Differently in 2 Macc. i. 27 ; LXX. Ps. cxlvi. 2. The abstract d:acropa is simply the sum-total of the concretes, like mepcroum and other words. See 2 Macc. i. 27. °EAAnvec in the N. T. invari- ably means the heathen, Gentiles, not the Hellenists (Grecian Jews), so also in xii. 20; it is wrong, therefore, to understand ray ‘EAAjy. of the lat- ter, and take these words as the subject of the d:agropd (Scaliger, Light- foot, Hammond, B. Crusius, Ammon), and render diddox. r. ‘E2A. : ‘‘ teach the Hellenists.” The thought is rather : ‘‘ Will Jesus go to the Jews scat- tered among the Gentiles, to unite there with the Gentiles, and become their teacher ?” This was really the course of the subsequent labourt of. the apostles. — Ver. 86. rfc éorcv] Their scornful conjecture does not even satisfy themselves ; for that they should seek Him, and not be able to come to Him— they know not what the assertion can mean (rig éoriy, x.1.2.).
Ver. 87. As the eighth day (the 22d Tisri) was reckoned along with the seven feast days proper, according to Lev. xxiii. 35, 36, 89, Num. xxix. 35, Neh. vili. 18, as also according to Suceah, f. 48. 1, the last day of the feast is the eighth, it is clear that John meant this day, and not the seventh, * espe- cially as in later times it was usual to speak of the eight days’ feast of Taber- nacles.’ In keeping with this is the very free translation ¢¢éé:ov (termination of the feast), which the LXX. give for the name of the eighth day, N}¥)) (Lev. xxiii. 36 ; Num. xxix. 35 ; Neh. viii. 18), i.e. ‘‘ assembly.” ® —1ry ueydAy] the
1 See Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 110f. ed 3 atus, Hengstenberg, and most). Against
2 See Kfihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 20. this Beza well says: “ Vix convenirct ipsis
* Buttmann, XN. 7. Gr. p. 805 [E. T. p. 858]. indigenis populis nomen é:acropas.”’
Comp. Winer, p. 176 [E. T. p. 187) ; and * Theophylact, Buxtorf, Bengel, Reland, upor the thing referred to, Sochneckenbur- Paulus, Ammon.
ger, N. 7. Zetigesch. p. 94 ff. 72 Maco. x. 6; Josephus, Anét. ill. 10. 4; * Not the Aeathen, as if 4 Stacw. 7. “BAA. Gem. Eruvin. 40.2: Midr. Cohel. 118. 8. were the same as Disperei. Grarci (Chrysos- ®* Comp. Ewald, Alterth. p. 481.
tom and his followers, Rupertius, Maldon-
246 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(pre-eminently) great, solemn. Comp. xix. 31. The superlative is implicd in the attribute thus given to this day above the other feast days. Wherein consisted the special distinction attaching to this day? It was simply the great closing day of the feast, appointed for the solemn return from the booths into the temple,’ and, according to Lev. xxiii. 35, 36, was kept holy asa Sabbath. The explanation of é£éd:ov in Philo,? as denoting the end of the yearly feasts collectively, has as little to do with the matter (for rj weyé?.n has reference only to the feast of Tabernacles) as has the designation 2}0 Dv in the Tr. Succah, for this means nothing more than ‘‘ feast day.” This day had, indeed, according to Tr. Succah,* special services, sacrifices, songs, yct no more was required than to honour it ‘‘sicut reliquos dies festi.” Its peyaddérnc consisted just in this, that it brought the great feast as a whole to asacred termination. — The express designation of the day as r@ peydAy is in keeping with the solemn coming forth of Jesus with the great word of invi- tation and promise, vv. 37, 88. The solemnity of this coming forth is also intimated in elorfxe: (He stood there) and in éxpage (see on ver. 28). — édv tic diya, «.7.2.] denoting spiritual need ‘ and spiritual satisfaction, as in iv. 15, in the conversation with the Samaritan woman, and in vi. 35 ; Matt. v. 6. We are not told what led Jesus here to this metaphorical expression. There needed nothing special to prompt Him to do so, least of all at a feast so joyous, according to Plutarch, Symp. iv. 6. 2, even so bacchanalian in its banquetings. A reason for the expression has been usually found in the daily libations which were offered on the seven feast days (but also on the eighth, according to R. Juda, in Succah iv. 9), at the time of the morning sacrifice, when a priest fetched water in a golden pitcher containing three logs from the spring of Siloam, and poured this, together with wine, on the west side of the altar into two perforated vessels, amidst hymns of praise and music.* Some reference to this libation may be supposed, because it was one of the peculiarities of the feast, even on the hypothesis that it did not take place upon the eighth day, whether springing from the old idea of libations with water ;* or, according to the Rabbis (so also Hengstenberg), from Isa. xii. 3, a passage which contains the words sung by the people during the libation. But any connection of the words of Jesus with this libation is doubtful, because He speaks of drinking, and this is the essential element of His declaration. Godet arbitrarily interpolates : ‘‘ He compares Himeelf with the water from the rock in the wilderness, and represents Himself as this true rock” (comp. 1 Cor. x. 4).
Ver. 38. The zivew is brought about by faith ; hence the continued statement - 6 miorebuv, x.t.A. — xaBiog elrrev 4 yp.] is simply the formula of quotation, and cannot belong to 6 micrebuv eic éué, as if denoting a faith conformable to Scripture ;" 6 mor., on the contrary, is the nominative absolute
1 Ewald, Alterth. p. 481.
3 de Septenario, IT. p. 298.
3 See Lightfoot, p. 1082 f.
‘Yuther: ‘‘a heartfelt longing, yea, a troubled, sad. awakened, stricken con- science, a despairing, trembling heart, that
would know how it can be with God.”
§ See Dachs, Succah, p. 368.
* 1 Sam. vii. 6; Hom. Od. u. 862, al., so de Wette.
7 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Calovius, and most.
CHAP. VII., 38. 247 (see on vi. 39), and xafiédc eixev, x.7.4., belongs to the following: rorapof, etc., the words which are described as a declaration of Scripture. There is no ex- actly corresponding passage, indeed, in Scripture ; it is simply a free quota- tion harmonizing in thought with parts of various passages, especially Isa. xliv. 8, lv. 1, lviii. 11.' Godet refers to the account of the rock in the wilderness, Ex. xvii. 6, Num. xx. 11 ; but this answers neither to the thing itself (for the subject is the person drinking) nor to the words. To think in particular of those passages which make mention of a stream flowing from the temple mount, the believer being represented as a living temple (Olshausen), is a gloss unwarranted by the context, and presents an inap- propriate comparison (xocAiac). This last is also in answer to Gieseler,? whom Lange follows. To imagine some apocryphal or lost canonical say- ing,* or, with Ewald, a fragment of Proverbs no longer extant, or of some similar book. is bold and unnecessary, considering the freedom with which passages of Scripture are quoted and combined, and the absence of any other certain trace in the discourses of Jesus of extra-canonical quotations, or of canonical quotations not now found in the O. T. ; although, indeed, the characteristic é« rac Kotdiag avrow itself occurs in none of the above-named places, which is certainly surprising, and not to be explained by an inap- propriate reference to Cant. vii. 3 (Hengstenberg). But the expression, ‘out of his body,” considering the connection of the metaphor, is very natural ; the water which he drinks becomes in his body a spring from which streams of living water flow, 4.6. the divine grace and truth which the believer has received out of Christ's fulness into his inner life, does not rempin shut up within, but will communicate itself in abundant measure as a life-giving stream to others, and thus the new divine life overflows from one individual on to others. As represented in the metaphor, these zorayoi take their rise from the water which has been drunk, and is in the xoAia, and flow forth from it in an oral effusion ;° for the effect referred to takes place in an outward direction by an inspired oral communication of one’s own ex- perience of God's grace and truth. The mutual and inspired intercourse of Christians from Pentecost downwards, the speaking in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, the mutual edification in Christian assemblies by means of the charismata even to the speaking with tongues, the entire work of the apostles, of a Stephen and so on, furnish an abundant historical com- mentary upon this text. It is clear, accordingly, that xo:Aia does not, as is asually supposed, denote the inner man, man’s heart,” but must be left in its literal meaning ‘‘ belly,” in conformity with the metaphor which determines the expression.* The flowing forth of the water, moreover, is not to be un-
1 Comp. also Ezek. xlvil. 1, 12, Zech. xiff. 1, xiv. 8; Joel fli. 1,28; but not Cant. iv. 12, 15.
3 Stud. u. Krit. 1820, p. 188 f.
* 2. J. 1. p. 945.
‘Whiston, Semler, Paulus; comp. also Weizsicker, p. 518; Bleek, p. 284, and in the S'ud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 381
® Comp. epevfoua:, Matt. xill. 85.
6 miorevopuer, 81d xai AaAovper, 3 Cor. iv. 13.
1 Prov. xx. 27; Ecclus. xix. 12, li. 21; LXX. Ps. x1. 9, following A.; comp. the Latin véecera.
® Already Chrysostom and his followers took cowias as equivalent to «apdias; a confounding of the metaphor with its im- port. Hofmann's objection (Schri/tbev, Il. 2, p. 18), “that the water here meant
248 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
derstood as something operating upon the sudject himself only (B. Crusius : ‘his whole soul, from its very depth, shall have a continual quickening and satisfaction,” comp. Maier), but, as shown by éx +. xocd., as describing an efficacy in an outward direction, and therefore is not the same as the kindred utterance, chap. iv. 14. If we join 6 mor. ei¢ éué with mevéru, avrov must re- fer to Christ ; and this is the meaning that we get : ‘‘ He that thirsteth, let him come to me ; and he that believeth in me, let him drink of me : for to me refers what the Scripture hath said concerning a river which shall flow forth from Jehovah in the time of the Messiah.” ’? But against this it is de- cisive, first, that he who believes on Jesus fag already drunk of Him (vi. 35), and the call to come and drink must apply not to the believer, but to the thirsty ; and secondly, that the expression é« r7¢ xo:Aiag avrov Would be un- necessary and unmeaning, if it referred to Jesus, and net to him who has performed the mivérw.? — idwp Cav, a8 in iv. 10 ; Cavrog dé, Fyouw ael evepyovvroc detxvfrov, Euthymius Zigabenus.—Observe further the zorajoi emphatically taking the lead and standing apart ; ‘‘not in spoonfuls, nor with a pipe and tap, but in full streams,” Luther.
Ver. 39. Not aninterpolated gloss (Scholten), but an observation by John in explanation of this saying. He shows that Jcsus meant that the out- ward effect of which He spoke, the flowing forth, was not at once to occur, but was to commence upon the reception of the Spirit after His glorification. He,—evidently, and, according to the ov éue4sov, undoubtedly meaning the Holy Spirit,—He it was who would cause the streams of living water to flow forth from them. John’s explanation, as proceeding from inmost experience, is correct, because the principle of Christian activity in the church, especially in its outward workings, is none other than the Holy Spirit Himself ; and He was not given until after the Ascension, when through Him the believers spoke with tongues and prophesied, the apostles preached, and soon. Such overflowings of faith’s power in its outward working did not previously take place. The objection urged against the accuracy of John’s explanation, that jeicovery is a relative future only, and does not refer to that outpouring of the Spirit which was first to take place at a future time (de Wette), disappears if we consider the strong expression wotauol, x.T.A., ver. 88, to which John gives due weight, inasmuch as he
does not go into the belly at all,”’ rests solely upon the same confusion of the figure with its meaning. According to the figure, it comes into the coAia because it is drunk, and this drinking isin like manner Jgurative. When Hofmann finds indicated in the word even a epringing place of the Holy Spirit within the body, he cannot get rid of the idea of something within the body as being implied in xoAia, because the text itself presents this figure as being in harmony with that of the drinking ; unless, indeed, the concrete expression is to give way to an exegetical prudery foreign to the text itself, and is to
be blotted out at pleasure. «ora in no passage of the N. T. means anything else than body, delly.—Strangely out of keeping with the unity of the figure, Lange, follow- ing Bengel (comp. also Weizsicker), now finds In co:Ata an allusion to the belly of the golden pitcher (see on ver. 87), and Godet to the inne hollow of the rock whence the water flowed, so that ex 1. cod. avrov cor- responds with 33)’. Ex. xvii. 6. So invent- ive is the longing after types!
1So Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. 1. p. 229 f., and Gess, Pere Chr. p. 166.
2 Nonnus, &a yaorpds exeivou,
mA
CHAP. VII., 39. 249
takes it to refer not simply to the power of one’s own individual faith upon others, so far as that was possible previous to the outpouring of the Spirit, but to something far greater and mightier—to those streams of new life which flowed forth from the lips of believers, and which were originated and drawn forth by the Holy Ghost. The strength and importance of the ex-— pression (xorayoi, x.r.A.) thus renders it unnecessary to supply zoré or the like after petcovor (in answer to Liicke) ; and when Liicke calls John’s explanation eperegetically right, but eregetically incorrect, he overlooks the fact that John does not take the living water itself to be the Holy Ghost, but simply says, regarding Christ’s declaration as a whole, that Jesus meant it of the Holy Spirit, leaving it to the Christian consciousness to think of the Spirit as the Agens, the divine charismatic motive power of the streams of living water. — It remains to be remarked that the libation at the feast of Tabernacles was in- terpreted by the Rabbis as a symbol of the outpouring of the Spirit (see Light- foot) ; but this is scarcely to be connected with the words of Jesus and their interpretation, as it is by no means certain that there is any reference in the words to that libation ; see on ver. 87. — obrw yap 7 rvevua] nondum enim aderat (i. 9), furnishing the reason for the ot éueAAov Aau Pavey as the state- ment of what was still future. [See Note XXX. p. 254.] The mr, ‘‘ He was present” (upon earth), is appropriately explained by dedouévov (Lachmann; see on Acts xix. 2) ; Jesus alone possessed Him in His entire fulness (iii. 84). The absolute expression otzw qv is not, therefore (with Hengst. and Briickner), to be weakened, as if it were relative (referring to an increase which put out of consideration all former outpourings), but, ‘‘ at the time when Christ preached He promised the Holy Spirit, and therefore the Holy Spirit was not yet there,” Luther.’ For the rest, the statement does not conflict with the action of the Spirit in the O. T.,” or upon the prophets in particular ;* for here the Spirit is spoken of as the principle of the epecijyically Christian life. In this characteristic definiteness, wherein He is distinctively the rveipa X proved, the nv. The erayyeAtac (Eph. i. 18), ra¢ vloBeciag (Rom. viii. 15), r#¢ ydperoc (Heb. x. 29), the appaBav ric xAnpovouiac (Eph. i. 14), the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead (Rom. viii. 11), and according to promise was to be given after Christ's eraltation (Acts ii. 83), He was not yet present ; just as also, accord- ing to i. 17, grace and truth first came into avistence through Christ. The veason of the obra wv is: ‘‘because Jesus was not yet glorified.” He must through death return to hearen, and begin His heavenly rule, in order, as cin$povoc with the Father, and Lord over all (xvii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 25), as Lord also of the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18), to send the Spirit from heaven, xvi. 7. This sending was the condition of the subsequent eiva: (adesse). ‘* The outpouring of the Spirit was the proof that He had entered upon His supra- mundane state; ” ‘ and so also the office of the Spirit to glorify Christ (xvi. 14) presupposes, as the condition of its operation, the commencement of the dééga of Christ. Till then believers were dependent upon the personal
1 Comp. Flactus, Clav. II. p. 826: “se pro- 2 Ps. Ii. 18; 1 Sam. xvi. 12, 18 palam daius. Videtur negari substantia, ?2 Pet. 1. 21; Acts xxvilff. 25, 1. 16, cum tamen accidens negetur.” See also ‘Hofmann, Schrifthewets, I. p. 196. Calvin.
200 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
manifestation of Jesus ; He was the possessor of that Spirit who, though given in His fulness to Christ Himself (iii. 84), and though operating through Him in His people (iii. 6, vi. 68 ; Luke ix. 55), was not, until aftcr Christ’s return to glory (Eph. iv. 7, 8), to be given to the faithful as the Paraclete and representative of Christ for the carrying on of His work. Sce chap. xiv.-xvi. Chap. xx. 21, 22 does not contradict this ; seein loc. The thought of an identity’ of the glorified Christ with the Holy Spirit might easily present itself here.* But we must not, with de Wette, seek for the reason of the statement in the receptivity of the disciples, who did not attain to a pure and independent development of the germ of spirit within them until the departure of Jesus ; the text is against this. As little can we re- gard the jlesh of Christ as a limitation of the Spirit (Luthardt), or introduce the atonement wrought through His death os an intervening event ;* because the point lies in the glorifying of Christ,‘ not in His previous death, nor in the subjective preparation secured by faith. This also tells against Baeumlein, who understands here not the Holy Spirit objectively, but the Spirit formed in believers by Him, which 1rd zvevya never denotes, and as shown by AauBdverv, cannot be the meaning here.
Vv. 40-43. ‘Ex rov dy20u ob axotoavres tév 2é6ywv robruv (see the critical notes), «.7.2.. Now, at the close of all Christ's discourses delivered at the feast (vv. 14-39), these verses set before us the various impressions which they produced upon the people with reference to their estimate of Christ’s person. ‘‘ From among the people, many, after they had heard these words, now said,” etc. With éx rov dyAov we must supply revéc, as in xvi. 17.° By 6 mpophrnc, a8 in i. 21, is meant the prophet promised Deut. xviii. 15, not as being himself the Messiah, but a prophet preceding Him, a more minute description of whom is not given. — pu? yap éx tr. Tad., «.7.4.] ‘* Why, does the Messiah come out of Galilee?” Tép refersto the assertion of the 6420, and as- signs the reason for the contradiction of it which ol d2 éAeyov indicates.* [See Note XXXI. p. 254.] Christ's birth at Bethlehem was unknown to the multitude. John, however, records all the various opinions in a purely objective man- ner ; and wemust not suppose, from the absence of any correction on his part, that the birth at Bethlehem was unknown @o the ecangelist himself." Baur (p. 169) employs this passage and ver. 52 in order to deny to the author any historical purpose in the composition of his work. This would be to con- clude too much, for every reader could of himself and from his own know!l-
1Tholuck: ‘the Spirit communicated to the faithful, as the Son of man Himself ¢lori- Aled into Spirit.” Phil. ffl. 21 itself speaks decisively enough against such a view. Worner, Verhdlin. d. Geistes, p. 57, speaks in a similar way of ‘‘the elevation of Christ’s flesh into the form of the Spirit itself,” etc. Baur, on the contrary, V. 7. Theol. p. 385, says: “ Not until His death was the Spirit, hitherto identical with Him, separated from His person in order that it might operate as an independent principle.”
2 See on 2 Cor. iii. 17; and likewise Geas, Pers. Chr. p. 138.
3 Messner, Lehre d. Ap. p. 342; Hengsten- berg and early writers.
‘Comp. Godet and Welss, Leirvegr. Pp. 286 f.
§ Buttmann, NV 7. Gr. p. 188 (E. T. p. 159] ; Xen. Mem. iv. 5.22; and Bornem. in loc.
6 See Hartung, Partixell. I. 475; Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 78.
7 De Wette, Weisse, Kelm ; comp. Schol- ten.
CHAP. ViI., 44-49. 201
edge supply the correction. — } ypag4] Mic. v. 1 ; Isa. xi. 1 3 Jer. xxiii. 5. “_— Srov qv A.) where David was. He was born at Bethichem, and passed his youth there asa shepherd, 1 Sam. xvi.— A division therefore (éxéorov pépove giAoverxovvtoc, Euthymius Zigabenus) took place among the people con- cerning Him.’
Ver. 44. ’E£ airéy] Those, of course, who adopted the opinion last named. The contest had aroused them. T.vés, standing first and apart, has a spc- cial emphasis, ‘‘ Some there were among the people, who were disposed,” etc. —4AA’ ovdeic, x.7.4.] according to ver. 80, through divine prevention.’ On émBdaa. tr. zeip., see on Acts xii. 1.— According to de Wette (see also Luthardt), the meaning should be that they would have supported the timid officers, or would have acted for them. A gloss ; according to John, they were inclined to an act of popular justice, independently of the offi- cers, but it was not carried into effect.
Vv. 45, 46. Oiv] therefore, secing that no one, not even they themselves, had ventured to lay hands on Jesus. — oi trypérac] In accordance with the orders they had received (ver. 32), they had kept close to Jesus, in order to apprehend Him. But the divine power and majesty of His words, which doubtless hindered the rvéc¢ in ver. 44 from laying hands on Him, made it morally impossible for the officers of justice to carry out their orders, or even to find any pretext or justification for so doing ; they were overpowered. Schleiermacher, therefore, was wrong in inferring that they had received no official orders to take Him. — rove apxiep. x. bap.] by the non-repetition of the article, construed as one category, i.e. as the Sanhedrim, who must be supposed to have been assembled in session. When first mentioned, ver. 82, both divisions are distinguished with logical emphasis.* — éxeivo:] the Gpxep. x. dapic.; of the nearest subject, though remote to the writer.‘ — Ver. 46. There is a solemnity in the words o¢ otro 6 GvOp., in themselves unnec- essary. ‘‘Itis a weighty statement, a strong word, that they thus meetly use,” Luther. ‘‘ Character veritatis etiam idiotas convincentis prae dominis eorum,” Bengel. It is evident that Jesus must have said more after ver. 32 than John has recorded.
Vv. 47-49. The answer comes from the Pharisees in the Sanhedrim, as from that section of the council who were most zealous in watching over the in- terests of orthodoxy and the hicrarchy. — pq xal tyeic] are ye also—oflicers of sacred justice, who should act only in strict loyalty to your superiors. Hence the following questions : ‘‘ Hare any of the Sanhedrim believed in him, or of the Pharisees?” The latter are specially named as the class of orthodox and most respected theologians, who were supposed to be patterns of ortho- doxy, apart from the fact that some of them were members of the Sanhe- drim, —aAidé] but, breaking off, and passing suddenly to the following counter exclamation.*°—6 dyA0¢ ovroc}] this multitude, uttered with the
1Comp. ix. 16, x.19; 1Cor. 1.10; Acts benus. xlv. 4, xxfll. 7; Herod. vii. 219: «cal eden ® See Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 878 f.
éoxifovro ai yywpar. Xen. Sympoe. iv. 59; ¢ Winer. p. 148 [E. T. p. 157], and Ast, ad Herod. vi. 109; Eur. Z/ec. 119; and Pflugk, Pfa/. Po'it. p.417: Zev. Plat. pp. 658, 639. tn loc. ® Bacuimlein, Parlik. p. 15; Ellendt, Lez.
2 éxexduevos aoparws, Euthymius Ziga- Soh. I. p. 78.
252 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN.
greatest scorn, The people adhering to Jesus, ‘‘this mod,” as they regard them, are before their eyes. It is evident, further, that the speakers do not include their own official servants in the 3yAoc, but, on the other hand, prudently separate them with their knowledge from the 8yAoc. — 6 pu }évaox, T. vduov] because they regarded such a transgressor of the law as the Prophet, or the Messiah, vv. 40, 41.— émdparoi cio] they are cursed, the divine wrath is upon them! The plural is justified by the collective 6 3yAoc, comp. ver. 44. The exclamation is to be regarded merely as a blindly pas- sionate utterance’ (Ewald) ; as a haughty outbreak of the rabies theologica, and by no means a deerce (Kuinoel and others), as if the Sanhedrim had now come to a resolution, or at least had immediately, in keeping with the infor- mal words, put in regular form (Luthardt) what is mentioned in ix. 29. Such an excommunication of the dxAo¢ en masse would have been prcposter- ous. Upon the unbounded scorn entertained by Jewish pride of learning towards the unlettered multitude (/ 8 DY’), see Wetstein and Lampe in loc.? — érdparuc| (see the critical notes), not elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the LXX. and Apocrypha ; it is, however, classical.
Vv. 50, 51. The Pharisees in the Sanhedrim had expressed themselves as decisively and angrily against Jesus, as if His guilt had already been estab- lished. But Nicodemus, who had secretly been inclined towards Jesus since his interview with Him by night, now raises a protest, in which he calmly, plainly, and rightly points the excited doctors to the law itself.*? — mpd¢ avroic| to the Pharisees, ver. 47. — 6 éAfov .. . avrav] who had before come to Jesus, although he was one of them (i.e. of the Pharisees), ili. 1. — ny 6 vdpog, x.7.A. |} The emphasis is on 6 véyoc : ‘‘ surely, our law does not judge ?” etc. They had just denied that the people knew the daz, and yet they were themsclves acting contrary to the law. — rav avip.] the man ; the article denotes the per- son referred to in the given case ; see onil. 25. Weare not to supply 6 xpirre to axobay (Deut. i. 16, 17) and yv¢, for the identity of the subject is essential to the thought ; but the laze ttse’f is regarded and personified as (through the judge) examining and discerning the facts of the case.* — ri roiet] what he doeth, what the nature of his conduct is.
Ver. 52. Thou art not surely (like Jesus) also from Galilee, so that thy sympa- thy with Him is that of a fellow-countryman ? — bri xpoghrns, x.t.A. @ prophet ; not: ‘‘no very distinguished prophet, nor any great number of prophets” (Hengstenberg) ; nor again : ‘‘a prophet has not appeared in Galilee in the person of Jesus” (Godct) ; but the appearance of any prophet out of Galilce is, in a@ general way, denied as a matter of history ; hence also the Perfect. The plain words can have no other meaning. To Godet’s altogether groundless objection, that John must in this case have written ovdeic rpod., the reference to iv. 44 is itself a sufficient answer. Inconsiderate zeal Icd the members of the Sanhedrim into historical error ; for, apart from the
1 Not of an argumentative character, asif p. 180, and Jahrb. d. Hetls, I. p. 240 f. they had inferred their disobedience from 3 See Ex xxifi.1; Deut. 1. 16,17; xix. 13. their unacquaintance with the law (Ewald). ‘ For a like personification, see Plato, de Their frame of mind was not so reflective. Rep. vii. p. 588 D. Comp. véuos warrwy 2Gfr6rer in the 7b. Zeilschr. 1888, I. BaccAcv’s from Pindar in Herod. ill. 88.
NOTES. 230
unknown birthplaces of many prophets, Jonah at least, according to 2 Kings xiv. 25, was of Galilee.’ This error cannot be removed by any expedient either critical * or exegetical ; yct it furnishes no argument against the gen- uineness of the Gospel (Bretschneider), for it needed no correction sipce it did not apply to Jesus, who was not from Galilee. This also tells against Baur, p. 169. The argument in dre rpod., x.7.4., 18 from the general to the particular (‘‘ to say nothing of the Messiah /”), and is a conclusion from a negative induction.
Ver. 53. Belonging to the spurious section concerning the adulteress. ‘* And every one went” —every one, that is, of those assembled in the temple —to his own house; relating the end of the scene described in ver. 87 f. Chap. viii. 1 is against the view which undcrstands it of the mem- bers of the Sanhedrim, who separated without attaining their object (against Grotius, Lampe, etc., also Maier and Lange). Chap. viii. 2 forbids our taking it as referring to the pilgrims at the feast returning to their homes (Paulus),
Notes spy Amernican Eprror.
XXVIII. sufpyoia. Ver. 3.
‘* Tladpnoia can hardly denote here the frank and bold, in contrast with the timid and shrinking, nature, with which the {nrei (seeks for, as something out- ward), does not harmonize. It marks rather the publicity of his position (Lek. : ‘Cin ore hominum versari)’’ (Weiss). Weiss, therefore, renders: ‘‘ for no man with- draws himself with his works into silence and seclusion, and yet endeavours to maintain for his person a position of publicity (as thou must do, if thou art the Messiah).’’
XXIX. “Igo not up to this feast.’" Ver. 8.
Weiss disapproves Meyer's view that Christ ‘‘ changed his intention,” alleging that in this case Porphyry's charge of inconstancy would hardly have been en- tirely undeserved.’’ It was, he says, ‘rather from the divine intimation which came to Him, bidding Him no longer shun the conflict which at vv. 6, 7 He still wished to avoid. The signal came to Him as at ii. 4, but in this case sooner than He expected. And it now bade Him go to Jerusalem, not to bring on the final crisis, but that, under the divine protection, He might yet once and |. for a longer time resume His work in the way of instruction and refutation, at the great seat of the Theocracy. . . . John recounts (this incident regarding
‘Not Ziljah also, whose Thisbe lay in Gilead (see Thenius on t Kings xvil. 1; Fritzsche on Tobit 1.2; Kurtz, in Herzoq's Eneyld. Til. p. 734). It is very doubtful, further, whether the Elkosh, whenco Nahum came, was in Galilee or anywhero in Palestine, and not rather in Assyria (Michaelis, Elchborn, Ewald, and most). Tlosea came from the northern kingdom of Israel (Samaria) ; see Hos. vil. 1, 5.
7 By giving preference, namely, to the
reading ¢yeiperas, according to which only the presen¢é appearance of a prophet in Galilee is denied (so also Tiele, Spec. contin. annotationem in loc. nonnull. ev. Joh., Am- sterdam 1833). This ¢yecperas would have its support and meaning only in the ex- perience of history, because spo¢yrys, with- out the article, is quite general, and cannot mean the Measiah. This also in answer to Dacumlcin.
Q5 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Christ’s brethren], to prove how Jesus had not Himself sought the inevitable conflict in Jerusalem, and had even wished to shun it ; and to point to the reader that if He who could of Himself do nothing (ver. 19) now still went to the feast, it could only be at the special will and summons of God, who, therefore, brought Him off unharmed and victorious from the perils and conflicts to which the visit subjected him.”
XXX. ‘' The Spirit was not yet (present).” Ver. 39.
‘ The absolute expression ov7w 7» is not to be weakened into a relative absence, as compared with subsequent higher manifestations ; or by appended modify- ing clauses (as ‘in abiding and controlling agency,’ de W.; or ‘dwelling in humanity,’ Godet). Nor is it exegetically defensible to refer the statement (with Meyer) to the Spirit in His specifically New Test. form, or to the Spirit in His characteristic definiteness, as a principle of the Christian life. Certainly we are to understand in it no denial of the existence of the Spirit in Christ (comp. i. 32, iii. 34), or of his agency in the Old Test. ; for it is with design that the expression is not simply rd zvevua. The single and sole denial is, that of such a Spirit as believers were to receive for the possible realization of the phenomena depicted ver. 38, there was as yet any presence whatever’ (Weiss. )
XXXI. Tép, elliptical; why? Ver. 40.
‘‘T ao refers to the assertion of the 4240, and assigns the reason for the con- tradiction of it which the oi dé fAeyov, others said, indicates.”’
This elliptical use of ydép is frequent in the classics. It is here ignored in the Common Version, and its force is fairly given in the Revision by what? Per- haps why would represent it somewhat more exactly, being a little less emphat- ic. Tap and why are nearly equivalent, as they represent the same ellipsis. Thus in English, ‘‘Why do you say that? Does the Messiah come out of Gal- ilee?’’ Elliptically, ‘‘ Why, does the Messiah come out of Galilee?’’ So in Greek, Aid ri toito Aéyecc ; or something similar) yy yap 6 Xocoré¢ x.t.A. Ellip- tically : Mi yap 6 Xpioréc, x.t.A.; The English indicates the preceding denial by retaining the why, the Greek by retaining the yap. The combination ,) ydp (the interrogative uy indicating a negative answer, being very frequent with John) is among the elegances which, with all its simplicity, yet characterize our Gospel.
Gr
CHAP. VIIL. 2)
CHAPTER VIII.
The section treating of the woman taken in adultery, vv. 1-11, together with vii. 53, is a document by some unknown author belonging to the apostolic age, which, after circulating in various forms of text, was inserted in John's Gospel, probably by the second, or, at latest, by the third century (the Constitutt. Apost. ii. 24. 4, already disclose ita presence in the canon), the remark in vii. 53 being added to connect it with what precedes. That the interpolation of this very ancient fragment of gospel history was derived from the Evang: sec. Hebraeos cannot, as several of the early critics think (comp. also Liicke and Bleek), be proved from Papias, in Euseb. H. EF. 3. 39; for in the words éxrééerrat (Papias) d2 «ai dAAnv loropiav wept yuvacds iri woAAaic dpapria dtaBAnfeionc él Tov xupiov, fv 70 xaG’ 'EBpatove ebayyéAuw reptéye:, the general expression tm woAAaic duapriace and the mere word é:afA79. are not favourable to that identity between the two which Rufinus already assumed. It is, however, only its high antiquity, and the very early insertion of the section in the Johan- nean text, which explain the fact that it is found in most Codices of the Itala, in the Vulgate, and other versions ; that Jerome, adv. Pelag. ii. 17, could vouch for its existence ‘‘in multis ef Graecis e¢ Latinis Codd. ;'’ and that, finally, upwards of a hundred Codices still extant, including D. F. G. H. K. U., contain it. Its infernal character, moreover, speaks in favour of its having originated in the early Christian age; for, although it is, indeed, quite alien to the Johan. nean style of thought and expression, and hence not for a moment to be referred to an oral Johannean source (Luthardt), it is entirely in keeping with the tone of the synoptical Gospels, and does not betray the slightest trace of being a la- ter invention to favour either a dogmatic or ecclesiastical purpose. Comp. Calvin: ‘‘ Nihil apostolico spiritu indignum continet.” The occurrence re- luted bears, moreover, so strong a stamp of originality, and is so evidently not compiled in imitation of any other of the Gospel narratives, that it cannot be regarded as a later legendary story, especially as its infernal truthfulness will be vindicated in the course of the exposition itself, in opposition to the manifold doubts that have been raised against it. But the narrative does not proceed from John. [See Note XXXII. p. 294.] Of this we are assured by the remarkable and manifestly interpolated link, vii. 53, which connects it with what precedes ; by the strange interruption with which it breaks up the unity of the account continued in viii. 14 ff.; by its tone and character, so closely re- sembling that of the synoptic history, to which, in particular, belongs the pro- pounding of a question of law, in order to tempt Christ,—a thing which does not occur in John; by the going out of Jesus to the Mount of Olives, and His return to the temple, by which we are transported to the Lord’s last sojourn in Jerusalem (Luke xxi.); by the entire absence of the Johan- nean otv, and in its stead the constant recurrence of dé ; and, lastly, by the non Johannean expressions dpfpov, mdc 6 Aadc, xabloag éd:dacxey avrovc, ol ypapmar, x, ol dupio., Eryslvery, dvaptprytos, xataAelrecOa and aaraxpivey, rAiv
256 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
also, in ver. 10 (Elz.). With these various internal reasons many very weighty external arguments are conjoined, which show that the section was by no
means received into all copies of John’s Gospel; but, on the contrary, —
from the third and fourth centuries was tacitly or expressly excluded from the canonical text. For Origen, Apollinarius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Tertullian, and other Fathers (except Je- rome, Ambrose, Augustine, Sedulius, Leo, Chrysologus, Cassiodorus), as well as the Catenae, are altogether silent about this section ; Euthymius Zigabenus, however, has it, and explains it, indeed, but passes this judgment upon it: Xp) d2 yevodonecv, Ste ta svrevOev (vii. 53) Gype rove wdAcy obv EAGANCeY, x.1.A. (viii, 12) rapa roig axpeBéowy avrcypdgos f ovy ebpytat, # OBEAoTaL, Ald gulvovTas mwaptyypanra cal mpooOnxn’ Kat Tovrov rexunpior, Td nde Tov Xpvodotopov bAuwc pvnpovevoa avtav. Of the versions, the Syr. (in Codd., also of the Nestorians, and in the first edd.), Syr. p. Copt. (in most mas.) Ar. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Vero. Brix. have not the section. It is also wanting in very old and important Codices, viz. A. B. C. L. T. X. A. &., of which, however, A. and C. are here defec- tive (but according to Tisch., C. never had it; sce his edition of Codex C., Proleg. p. 31), while T.. and A. leave an empty space ; other Codices mark it as suspicious by asterisks or an obelus, or expressly so describe it in Scholia (see especially Scholz and Tisch.). Beyond a doubt, this apocryphal interpolation would have seemed less surprising to early criticism had it found a place, not in John's Gospel, but in one of the Synoptics. But wherefore just here? If we decline to attribute this enigma to some accidental], unknown cause and thus to leave it unsolved, then its position here may be accounted for in this way : that as an abortive plan of the Sanhedrim against Jesus had just before been narrated, it appeared to be an appropriate place for relating a new, though again unsuccessful, attempt to trip Him ; and this particular narrative may have been inserted, all the more, because the saying about judging and not judging, in ver. 15, might find in it an historical explanation ; while, perhaps, an old uncritical tradition, that John was the author of the fragment, may have removed all difficulty. But even on this view the attempts of criticism to correct the text very soon appear. For the Codd. i. 19, 20 e al. transfer the section as a doubtful appendix to the end of the Gospel ; others (13, 69, 124, 346) insert it after Luke xxi. 38. where, especially considering vv. 1 and _ 2, it would appropriately fit in with the historical connection ; and possibly also it might have had a place in one of the sources made use of by Luke. How various the recensions were in which it was circulated, is proved by the re- markable number of varions readings, which for the most part bear the im- press, not of chance or arbitrariness, but of varying originality. D., in particular, presents a peculiar form of text ; the section in it runs thus: "Ine. d2 tn. etg tr. Sp. 7. éA, "Opp. S2 w. wapaylverar eic rt. lep. w. ©. 6A. Hox. mpde avr, "Ay. d2 ol yp. x. ol &, éwi duaptig yur, etAnupévgy, x. oT. abr. év pw. A, adr@ Exreipdlav- tec atrov ol lepeic, va Exwot Karnyoplay abrov: 6d., abt. 4 y. KaTeiAnntat Ew. pory. Mwtone J2 tv 1. vduw ExbAevoe rag rovudr. Aalewv od d2 viv Ti Aéyetc ; ‘O d2 "Ine. x, x. T. 6. karéypagev eic tr. y. ‘Qo d2 ew. épur., avéxnupe nai eltev abroic: 6 dv tu ap. éx’ airy Baddétrw AiBov. K. x. xaraxipac r@ daxriAw xartypadgev ei¢ Tt. y. "Exaoroc d2 tév ’lovdaluy éfgpxeto, apEdzevoc ded tiv npeoButépwy, Sore navrac b&eABeiv, x. nated. dv. kK. y yuvy tv uw. odoa. ’Avax, dé 6 Ino, el. ty yuvacal: rob eiow 3 obdelg oe xarexp. ; Kaxeivy elev att: ovdeic, wip. ‘O dé elev: ovde ey. 0. x. "Yaaye, dro Tov viv pnxice Gudptave, — The Johannean authorship was denied by
2 Bar
—y
CHAP. VIII, . PH¥
Erasmus, Calvin (?), Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Semler, Morus, Haenlein, Weg- scheider, Paulus, Tittmann (Mele. p. 318 ff.), Knapp, Seyffarth, Liicke, Credner, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, B. Crusius, Bleek, Weisse, Liicke, de Wette, Guericke, Reuss, Briickner, Luthardt, Ewald, Baeumlein, Hengsten- berg (who regards the section as a forgery made for a particular purpose), Schenkel, Godet, Scholten, and most critics ; Lachmann and Tischendorf also have removed the section from the text. Bretschneider, p. 72 ff., attributing it to the Pseudo-Johannes, endeavours to establish its spuriousness, and so uses it as an argument against the genuineness of the Gospel ; Strauss and Bauer deal with it in the same way, while Hitzig (on John Mark, p. 205 ff.) regards the-evangelist Mark as the author, in whose Gospel it is said to have stood after xii. 17 (according to Holtzmann, in the primary Mark). Its authenticity, on the contrary, was defended in early times especially by Augustine (de conjug. aduli, 2. 7),! whose subjective judgment is, that the story had been rejected by persons of weak faith, or by enemies of the true faith, who feared ‘' peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis ;’’"—in modern times by Mill, Whitby, Fabricius, Wolf, Lampe, Bengel, Heumann, Michaelis, Storr, Dettmers ( Vin- diciae avevriac textus Gr. peric. Joh. vii. 53 ff., Francof. ad Viadr. p. 1, 1793) ; Stéudlin (in two Dissert., Gott. 1806). Hug (de conjugii Christ. vinculo indis- solub., Frib. 1816, p. 22 ff.) ; Kuinoel, Miller (neue Ansichten, p. 313 ff.) ; Scholz (Erklar. der Evang. p. 396 ff., and N. T. I. p. 383); Klee and many others, in particular, also Maier. i. p. 24 f.; Ebrard, Horne, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., ed. Tregelles, p. 465; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 284 ff., and again in his Zeilschrift, 1863, p. 317, Lange. Schulthess, in Winer and Enbel- hardt krit. Journ. v. 3, pp. 257-317, declares himself in favour of the genuine- ness of a text purified by the free nse of various readings. — Ver. 14. 9 row trdyw) Elz. Lachm.: xat nod br. But B. D. K. T. U. X. A. Curs. and many Vas. have 7; and «ai might easily have been repeated from what precedes, while there was nothing to occasion the change of cai into 7. — Ver. 16. aAnO7¢) Lachm. and Tisch. : dAnfvy, after B. D. L. T. X. 33. Or. Rightly ; aanOic¢ was introduced from the context (vv. 14, 17). — Ver. 20. After éAd?n0ev Elz. has é *Inoovc, against decisive witnesses. — Ver. 26. Aéyw] Lachm. Tisch. ; Aa, follow- ing important witnesses ; but from vv, 25, 28. — Ver. 28. 6 rary] Elz. Scholz : 6 watip pov. But ov is wanting in D. L. T. X. &. 13, 69, 122, al. Slav. Vulg. It. Eus. Cyr. Hilar. Faustin., and is a later addition, intended to mark the peculiar relation of the 6 raryp. — Ver. 29. After udvov Elz. Scholz have 6 rari. A gloss which 253, 259 have inserted before uévov. — Ver .34. rij¢ auaptiac] wanting only in D. Cant. Ver. Clem. Faustin., witnesses which are too weak to justify our condemning it as a gloss. It was left out on account of the following general expression é dé dovAoc. — Ver. 38. d hxovoare rapa row ratpoc tudv] Elz. Scholz: 6 éwpdxare rapa tw warp) tuov. But B. C. D. K. X. &. Curss. Or. have a; B.C. K. L. X. &.** Curss. and some Vss. and Fathers, even Or., read #xovcare and row tazpé¢, The received text, of which Tisch. has inconsistently retained éwpdx., is a mechanical imitation of the first half of the verse. The pronouns ov und juov must, with Luchm. and Tisch., following very important witnesses, be deleted as clumsy additions inserted for the purpose of marking
1 Nikon, in the 18th century, attributed multitude. See Cotelerius, Pair. Apos?. 1. the omission to solicitude lest the contents 2365. should have an injurious effect upon the
258 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the distinction. Finally, é also in the first half has almost entirely the same witnesses in its favour as the second d, so that with Lachm. and Tisch. wa must read ¢ in both places. — Ver. 39. 7re] B. D. L. 8. Vulg. Codd. It. Or. Aug. : gore. So Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. ; rightly defended by Buttmann inthe Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 474 ff. The seemingly illogical relation of the protasis and apodosis caused tore to be changed into fre, and éxaeire into moeire (Vulg. Or. Aug.). — After éroceire, Elz. Lachm. bave dv, which is wanting in important witnesses, and is an unnecessary grammatical addition. — Ver. 51. rdv Ady. rav éuév] Lachm. Tisch. : tov éudv Adyov, which is preponderatingly attested, and therefore to be adopted. — Ver. 52. Instead of yevonra: Elz. has yetoera:, against conclusive testimony. — Ver. 53. After ceauréy Elz. has ov, which the best Codd. unanimously exclude. — Ver. 54. dof4{w] Lachm. Tisch. : doféau, after B. C.* D. %. Curs. Cant. Verc. Corb. Rd. Colb. Or. Chrys. Ambr. Rightly ; the present (comp. the following dof4¢wv) would involuntarily present itself to the copyists. — For jusv (so also Tisch.) Elz. has tudv (as also Lachm.). The testimonies are divided between the two; but jucv might easily have been changed into tuoy, after the preceding dueic, through not observing the direct construction. — Ver. 57. The reading reocapdxovra, which Chrysostom has, and Euthymius Zigabenus found in mss., is still in A. and three Curs., but is nothing save an historical relouche. — Ver. 59. After iepvi Elz. Scholz have: dreAfdv did uécov atrav, kai wapiyev odtwc, words which are wanting in B. D. &.* Vulg. It. al. Or. Cyr. Arnob. An addition after Luke iv. 30, whence also éxopevero has been in- terpolated after avray in several witnesses.
Vv. 1-3. ’Exop.] down from the temple. — tic r. bp. r. £A.] where He passed the night ; comp. Luke xxi. 37. Displays the synoptic stamp in its cir- cumstantiality of description and in the use of words ; instead of dp6pov (Luke xxiv. 1), John uses zput (xviii. 28, xx. 1 ; comp. wpwia, xxi. 4) ; for mac 6 Aaédc John uses 6 dyAo¢ and oi dx20 ; Kavdicac édid. avt. is synoptical ; on édidacxev, however, without mention of the topic, comp. vii. 14 ; the ypau- parei¢ never appear in John ; nor does he anywhere name the Mount of Olives. — The crowd of people, after the conclusion of the feast, would not be surprising, considering the great sensation which Jesus had caused at the feast. — The expression ‘‘ Seribes and Pharisees” is the designation in the synoptic narrative for His regular opponents, answering to the Johannean oi "lovdaior. They do not appear here as Zealots (Wetstein, Kuinoel, Staeudlin), whose character would not correspond either with their questioning of Jesus or with their subsequent slinking away ; nor even as a Deputation from the Sanhedrim, which certainly would not have condescended to this, and whose delegates would not have dared to let the woman slip. It is rather a non- official tentative attack, like several that are narrated by the Synoptics ; the woman has just been taken in the very act ; has, asa preliminary step, been handed over to the Scribes and Pharisees for further proceedings ; has not yet, however, been brought before the Sanhedrim, but is first made use of by them for this attempt against Jesus.
Vv. 4, 5. Observe especially here and in vv. 5, 6 the thoroughly synoptical diffuseness of the account. —xare:Afpody] with the augment of eiAnga, see Winer, p. 60(E. T. p. 72]. On the expression, comp. xareiAyrro porxéc, Arrian.
od
CHAP. VIII., 6. 259
Epict. 2. 4. — én abrogdpw] inthe very act. Herod. 6. 72,187 ; Plato, Pol. 2, p. 359 C ; Xen. Symp. 8. 13 ; Dem. 378. 12 ; Soph. Ané. 51 ; Eur. Jon, 1214. Comp. Philo, p. 785 A : poryeia: avrégupo. On AauBavew evi, of taking in adultery, see Toup. Opp. Crit. I. p. 101. — The adulterer, who in like manner was liable to death (Lev. xx. 10 ; Deut. xxii. 24), may have fled. — A.0f0A- eio0a:] This word cannot be called un-Johannean (in John x. 81 ff. A0dCerv is used) because of its being taken from Deut. 7.c. According to Deut. xxii. 23, 24 the law expressly appoints stoning for the particular case, when a betrothed maiden allows herself to be seduced by a man in the city, where she could have summoned help. The woman here taken must therefore necessarily be regarded as such an one, because the AdoBorcioba is expressly referred to a command contained in the Mosaic law. From Deut. l.c., where the betrothed, in reference to the seducer, is termed 117] NW, it is clear that the crime in question was regarded as a modijied form of adultery, as it is also called elfo¢ pocyeiag by Philo, de legg. special. ii. p. 311. The rarity of such a case as this made it all the more a fit topic for a tempting question in casuistry. Accordingly, rac ro:abrac is to be understood as denoting the class of adulteresses of this particular kind, to whom refers that law of Moses appointing the punishment of stoning: ‘‘ adulteresses of this kind.” That Moses, in Deut. t.c., does not use the expression 8) (Liicke's objection) is immaterial, because he has not this word at all in the connection, nor even in the other cases, but designates the thing in another way. Usually the woman is regarded as a married woman ; and as in Lev. xx. 10 and Deut. xxii. 22, not stoning specifically, but death generally is the punishment adjudged to adulteresses of this class, some either infer the internal falso- hood of the whole story (Wetstein, Semler, Morus, Paulus, Liicke, de Wette, Baur, and many others ; comp. also Hengstenberg and Godet), or assume that the punishment of death, which is not more precisely defined by the law (‘‘to die the death”), must mean stoning (Michaelis, MMos. R. § 262 ; Tholuck, B. Crusius, Ebrard, Keil, Arch@ol. § 153, 1; Ewald, Briickner hesitatingly, Luthardt, Baeumlein). As to the last view, judging from the text in Deut. U.c., and also according to Rabbinical tradition, it is certainly an unsafe assumption ; comp. Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 571. Here, however, where the Ac@oBodeicfaz is distinctly cited as a positive provision of the law, we have neither reason nor right to assume a reference to any other precept save that in which stoning is expressly named as the punishment, viz. Deut. xxii. 24 (LXX.: AGoPoAgcovrar év AiGo1c), with which also the Talmud agrees, Sanhedr. f. 51, 2: ‘‘ Filia Israelitae, si adultera, cum nupta, strangulanda,' cum desponsata, lapidanda.” The supposition of Grotius, that the severer punishment of stoning for adultery was introduced after the time of Ezekiel, cannot be proved by Ezek. xvi. 88, 40 ; Sus. 45 ; the Mwioie évereiAaro more- over, is decidedly against all such suppositions.
Ver. 0. Mecpdfovreg avrév] denoting, not a good-natured questioning
? According to the Talmudio rule: ‘‘Om- rule (Michaelis, /.c.) is a matter of no oon- nis mors, cujus et mentio in lege sim- sequence, so far as the present passage is pliciter, non alia est quam strangulatio,” concerned.
Banhedr. t.c. The inoorrectness of this
260 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(Olshausen), but, agreeably to the standing synoptical representation of the relation of those men to Jesus, and in kceping with what immediately fol- lows, malicious tempting. The insidious feature of the plan consisted in this: ‘‘Tf He decides with Moses for the stoning, He will be accused before the Roman authorities ; for, according to the Roman criminal law, adultery was not punishable with death, and stoning in particular was generally repudi- ated by the Romans (see Staeudlin and Hug). But if He decides against Moses and against stoning, He will then be prosecuted before the Sanhe- drim as an opposer of the law.” That they expected and wished for the Sormer result, is shown by the prejudicial way in which they introduce the question, by quoting the express punishment prescribed by Moses.’ Their plan here is similar in design to that of the question touching the tribute money in Matt. xxii. It is objected that the Romans in the provinces did not administer justice strictly in accordance with theirown laws ; but amid the general immorality of the times they certainly did not conform to the rigour of the Mosaic punishment for adultery ; and how casy would it have been before the Roman magistrates to give a revolutionary aspect to the hoped-for decision of Jesus in favour of Moses, even if He had in some way reserved the competency of the Roman authorities! If it be said that Jesus needed only to declare Himself in favour of execution, and not ex- actly for stoning, it is overlooked that here was the cery case for which ston- ing was expressly appointed. If it be urged, lastly, that when Jesus was required to assume the position of a judge, He needed only to refer His questioners to the Sanhedrim, and to tell them to take the woman thither (Ebrard), that would have amounted to a declining to answer, which would, indeed, have been the surest way of escape from the dilemma, but inappro- priate enough to the intellectual temperament of Jesus in such cases. Other explanations of weipacsecv—(1) They would either have accused him to the Romans imminutae majestatis, because they then possessed the jus vitae et necis, or to the Jews imminutae libertatis (Grotius), and as a false Messiah (Godet). But that prerogative of the Romans was not infringed by the pronouncing of a sentence of condemnation ; it was still reserved to them through their having to confirm and carry out the sentence. Accordingly, B. Crusius gives this turn to the question : ‘‘ Would Jesus decide for the popular erecution of the law. . . or would He peradventure even take upon Himself to pass such a judgment” (so, substantially, Hitzig also on Joh. Markus, p. 205 ff., and Luthardt), where (with Wetstein and Schulthess) the law of the Zealots is called in by way of help ? But in that case the in- terrogators, who intended to make use of a negative answer against Him as an overturning of the law, and an affirmative reply as an interference with the functions of the authorities, would then have put no question at all relat- ing to the thing which they really wanted (¢.¢. the erecution, and that im- mediate and tumultuous). (2) As the punishment of death for adultery had at that time already fallen into disuse, the drift of their question was
1 Observe also, in reference to this, the way for an answer in agreement with evry in ver. 5, which logically paves the Moses.
CHAP. VIII., 6. 261 simply whether or not legal proceedings should be instituted at all (Ebrard, fol- lowing Michaelis). The words themselves, and the design expressed in the xarnyopeiv, which could not take place before the people, but before the com- petent judges, as in Matt. xii. 10, are quite opposed to this explanation. (8) Dieck, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1882, p. 791, says: As the punishment of death for adultery presupposes liberty of divorcement, and as Jesus had Him- self repudiated divorce, He would, by pronouncing in facour of that punish- ment, have contradicted Himself ; while, by pronouncing against it, He would have appeared as a despiser of the law. But apart from the improb- ability of any such logical calculation on the part of His questioners as to the first alternative,—a calculation which is indicated by nothing in the text,—the iva Zy. xarzy. air. is decisive against this explanation ; for a want of logical consistency would have furnished no ground for accusation.’ (4) The same argument tells against Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Jansen, Cornelius & Lapide, Baumgarten, and many other exposi- tors: according to whom an affirmative reply would have been inconsistent with the general mildness of His teaching ; a negative answer would have been a decision against Moses. (5) Euthymius Zigabepus, Bengel, and many others, Neander also, Tholuck, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg (who sees here an unhistorical mingling of law and gospel), are nearer the mark in regarding the plan of attack as based upon the assumption, which they regarded as certain, that in accordance with His usual gentleness He would give anega- tive answer : yivdoxovtes yap avrov éAehuova x. ovurady, mpocedéxur, drt geiceras aizac, Kai Aowrov éEnvet KaTyyopiav Kat’ avTov, we wapavéuuc gecdouévov THE ard TOU véuou AcSalouévnc, Euthymius Zigabenus. But this explanation also must be rejected, partly even on @ priori grounds, because an ensnaring casuistic question may naturally be supposed to involve a dilemma ; partly and mainly because in this case the introduction of the question by év 62 r@ véuy would have been a very unwise method of preparing the way for a negative answer. This latter argument tells against Ewald, who holds that Christ, by the ac- quittal which they deemed it probable He would pronounce, would have offended against the Mosaic law ; while by condemning, He would have violated as well the milder practice then in vogue as His own more gentle principles. Liicke, de Wette, Briickner, Baur,* and many other cxpositors
1 What they really wished was to accuse Him, on the ground of the answer He would give. Hilgenfeld therefore is in error when he thinks they sought to force Him to give a decisive utterance as the obligation of the Mosaic lai. By an affirma- tlve reply (he says) Christ would have recognized this obligation, and by His non- observance of the law (v. 18 vil. 2) He would have been self-condemned; by a negative answer He would have been guilty of an express rejection of the law. Viewing the matter thus, they could not, indeed, have accused Him on account of His answer if affirmative ; they could only have charg- ed Him with logical inconsistency. This
tells substantially also against Lange's view, viz. that they wished to see whether He would venture, in the strength of His Measianic authority, to set up a new law. If in this case He had decided in farour of Moses, they could not have accused Him (to the Sanhedrim).
2 According to Raur (p. 170 aq.), there is nothing historical whatever in the story; it has a purely ideal import. The main idea he holds to be the consciousness of one’s own sinfulneas breaking the power of every sin, in opposition to the accusation brought against Jesus by the Pharisees, that He associated with sinners, and thus was so ready to forgive.
262 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
renounce the attempt to give any satisfactory solution of the difficulty. — r¢ daxrbAw éypagev ei¢ r. yqv] as & sign that He was not considering their ques- tion, brep eidDact roAAdnes roceiv of pp SéAovree GroxpiverSa: pode Tove épwrovrac Gxaipa xai avagia. Trove yap avtav riv unxaviy, rpooeroteiro ypddet ei¢ Tr. yqv, Kai 7) mpook xe ol¢ EAcyov, Euthymius Zigabenus, For instances of behaviour like this on the part of one who turns away from those around him, and becomes absorbed in himself, giving himself up to his own thoughts or im- aginings, see from Greek writers Aristoph. Acharn. 81, and Schol. Diog. Laert. 2. 127, and from the Rabbins, in Wetstein. Isa. xvii. 18 does not here serve for elucidation. What Jesus wrote is not a subject even of inquiry ; nor are we to ask whether, by the act, He was symbolizing any, and if so what, answer (Michaelis: the answer ‘as it is written”). There is much marvellous conjecture among the older expositors. See Wolf and Lampe, also Fabricius, Cod. Apoer. p. 315, who thinks that Jesus wrote the answer given in ver. 7 (after Bede ; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 480, ed. 8, and Godet). Suffice it to say, the strange manner in which Jesus silently declines to give a decisive reply (acting, no doubt, according to His principle of not interfering with the sphere of the magistracy (here a matter of crim- inal law), Matt. xxii. ; Luke xii. 13, 14),’ bears the stamp of genuineness and not of invention, though Hengstenberg deems this procedure unworthy of Jesus ; the tempters deserved the contempt which this implied, ver. 9.— Observe in éypagev the descriptive imperfect. The reader sees Him writing with His finger. The additions in some Codd. xai rpoorocotyevoc, and (more strongly attested) 7?) zpoorootip., are glosses of different kinds, meaning “though He only pretended (simulans) to write ;” and, ‘‘ without troubling Timself about them” (dissimulans, Ev. 32 adds airotc). See Matthaei, ed. min. in loc,
Ver. 7. ’Avaydptnroc) faultless, here only in the N. T., very often in the Classics. Whether it means freedom from the possibility of fault (of error or sin), a8 in Plato, Pol. I. p. 839 B, or freedom from actual sin (comp. yvv7 avaudpryroc, Herod. v. 89),—whether, again, it is to be understood generally (2 Macc. viii. 4), or with reference to any definite category or species of duap- ria (2 Macc. xii. 42 ; Deut. xxix. 19), is a matter which can be decided by the contert alone. Here it must signify actual freedom from the sin, not indeed of adultery specially, for Jesus could not presuppose this of the hie- rarchy as a whole, even with all its corruption of morals. but probably of un- chastity, simply because a woman who was a sinner of this category was here in question, and stood before the eyes of them all as the living opposite of Gvaudprytoc. Comp. duaptwAdc, Luke vii. 87 ; duapravev, Jacobs, ad Anthol.
1 According to Luthardt, to show that the malice of the question did not deserve an answer. But the numerous testing ques- tions proposed to Him, according to the Synoptics, by His opponents, were all of them malicious; yet Jesus did not refuse to reply to them. According to Lange's fancy, Jesus assumed the gesture of a calm majesty, which, in its play/fd ease, refused
to be disturbed by any street scandal. Me- lanchthon well says: “ Initio, cum accusatur mulier, nihil respondit Christus, tanguam tn aliam rem intentus, videlicel proraus @ sese rejiciens hanc quaestionem pertinentem ad cog- nilionem magistratus politici. Postea, cum urgetur, respondet non de muliere, sed de ipsorum peccatis, qui ipsam accusabant."*
CHAP VIII., 8, 9. 263
x. p. 111; in chap. v. 14, also, a special kind of sinning is intended by unxéte dudéptave ; and the same command, in ver. 11, addressed to the adul- teress, authenticates the sense in which avaudpryro¢c is used. The men tempt- ing Him knew how to avoid, in outward appearance rather than in reality, the unchastity which they condemned. Taking the words to mean freedom Srom sin generally,’ we make Jesus propose an impracticable condition in the given case, quite unfitted to disarm His opponents through their own con- sciences ; for it would have been a purely ideal condition, a standard im- possible to man. If we take avaudépryroc, however, in the concrete sense above expluined, the condition named becomes quite appropriate to baffle the purpose of the tempting questioners ; for the prescription of the Mosaic law is, on the one hand, fully recognized ;* while, on the other, its ful- filment is made dependent on a condition which would effectually banish from the mind of His questioners, into whose consciences Jesus was looking, all thought of making His answer a ground of accusation to the authorities. —Observe, further, how the general moral maxim to be deduced from the text condemns generally in the Christian community, viewed as it ought to exist conformably to its ideal, the personal condemnation of the sins of others (comp. Matt. vii. 1; Gal. vi. 5), and puts in its place brotherly ad- monition, conciliation, forgiveness—in a word, love, as the rAfpwore of the law. — rov Aivov] the stone which He would cast at her in obedience to the law. — én’ avrg] upon her.* — Baiétw] not mere permission, but command, and therefore all the more telling. The place of stoning must be conceived as lying outside the city (Lev. xxiv. 14; Acts vii. 56). We must further observe that Jesus does not say the jirst stone, but let the jirst (i.e. of you, tpov) cast the stone, which does not exclude that casting of the first, which was obligatory on the witnesses (Deut. xvii. 7 ; Acts vii. 58).
Vv. 8, 9. Idd, x.7.4.] To indicate that He has nothing further to do with the case. According to Jerome‘ and Euthymius Zigabenus, ‘in order to give space to the questioners to take themselves away ;” but this is not in keeping with ver. 6.—é£fpyovro] descriptive imperfect. —eig nad’ etic] Mark xiv. 19. — éue r. éoxaz7.] is to be connected with cic cad" cic, apé. ard Tt. xpeos. being an intervening clause, See on Matt. xx. 8.—The zpeo- Boizepoe are the eldera in years, not the elders of the people ; for there would be no apparent reason why the latter should be the first who should have chosen to go away ; besides, the elders of the people are not named along with the others in ver. 8. Those more advanced in years, on the other hand. were also thoughtful and prudent enough to go away first, instead of stop- ping to compromise themselves further. — éuc rav éoydr.] attested as genuine by preponderating evidence. It does not refer to rank, the least (so most modern expositors, also Liicke, B. Crusius, de Wette, Maier, Lange),
1 Baur, who draws from the passage a testimony of Jesus against capital punish- an erroneous doctrinal meaning, Luthardt, ment. Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet, following 3 See Berhardy, p. 249; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. early expositors. i. p. 467.
2 The section cannot therefore be used, * According to whom Christ wrote the as Mittermayer uses it (¢@. Todesstr. 1862), as sins of His accusers and of all mortals!
264 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
which the context does not sanction ; the context (see el¢ xad’ etc) leads us rather to render it unto the last, viz. who went out, i.e. until all were gone. ‘The feature that the eldest (who probably stood nearest to Jesus) were the first to go out, is characteristic and original ; but that the going away took place in the order of rank, is a meaning imported into the words by the ex- positors. After axvic. the received text has xai td rig ovverdjoeuc éAey ysuevor, a gloss opposed to very important witnesses ; but as to the matter of fact, right enough. — pévoc ¢’Inc., x.7.A.] Augustine well says: ‘'Relicta sunt duo, miseria et misericordia.” But it does not exclude the presence of the disciples and the crowds of lookers-on at a distance.
Vv. 10, 11. Ol xarfy.] who have accused thee to me, as if I were to be judge. —ovdeic] is emphatic : Has no one condemned thee? Has no one declared that thou art to be stoned? Were it not so, they would not have left the woman to go free, and all of them gone away. The xaréxpivev here designates the sententia damnatoria, not as a judicial sentence (for the ypaz- parei¢ and Pharisees had come merely as asking a question concerning a matter of law or right), but simply as the judgment of an individual. — ovd? ty® oe xaraxp.: I also do not condemn thee. This is not the declaration of the JSorgiveness of sin, as in Matt. ix. 2, Luke vii. 48, and cannot therefore justly be urged against the historical genuineness of the narrative (see, in particu- lar, Hengstenberg) ; nor is it a mere declinature of judicial competency, which would be out of keeping with the preceding question, and with the admoni- tion that follows : on the contrary, it is a refusal to condemn, spoken in the consciousness of His Messianic calling, according to which He had not come to condemn, but to seck and save the lost (iii. 17, xii. 46; Matt. xviii. 11) ; not to cast out sinners ; ‘‘not to quench the smoking flax,” etc. He accordingly does in this case what by His office He is called to do, namely, to awaken and give room for repentance’ in the sinner, instead of condemn- ing ; for He dismisses her with the admonition pysérc dudprave. Augustine well says: ‘‘Ergo et Dominus damnavit, sed peccatum, non hominem.” How striking the force of the negative declaration and the positive admoni- tion ! ;
Ver. 12. The interpolated section, vii. 58—viii. 11, being deleted, we must look for some connection with vii. 52. This may be found simply as follows. As the Sanhedrim had not been able to carry out their design of apprehend- ing Jesus, and had, moreover, become divided among themsclves (as is recorded in vii. 45-52), He was able, in consequence of this miscarriage in their plans against Him (otv), to come forth afresh and address the assembled people in the temple (airoic, comp. ver. 20). This renewed coming forward to address them is not, however, to be placed on the last day of the feast, but is so definitely marked off by ver. 20 as a special act, and so clearly dis- tinguished from the preceding, that it must be assigned toone of the follow- ing days ; just as in ver. 21 the similar transition and the recurring rédv mtroduce again a new discourse spoken on another day. Others take a
3 In connection with the marriage law, it . guilty party makes the continuance of the ts clear from this passage that,inthe case marriage allowable. of adultery, repentance on the part of the
Va”
~
CHAP, VIII., 12. 265
different view, putting the discourses in vv. 12-20, and even that also in ver. 21 ff., on the day named in chap. vii. 37 ; but against this is not only the rad of ver. 12 and ver. 21, but the otv, which in both places bears an evident reference to some preceding Aistorical observation. Though Liicke’s difficulty, that a single day would be too short for so many discourses and replies, can have no weight, there is yet no sufficient ground for de Wette’s supposition, that John did not know how to hold securely the thread of the history. — Iam the light of the world, i.e. (comp. on i. 4) the possessor and bearer of the divine truth of salvation (r. ¢. rig Cwge), from whom this saving truth goes forth to all mankind (xécpoc¢), who without Christ are dark and dead. The light is not identical with the salvation (Hengstenberg), but sal- vation is the necessary emanation thercfrom ; without the light there is no salvation. So also Isa. xlix. 6 ; comp. xlii. 6. To regard the figure which Christ here employs, in witnessing to Himself, as suggested by some out- ward object—for example, by the two colossal golden candlesticks which were lighted at the feast of Tabernacles (but certainly only on the first day ; see Succah v. 2) in the forecourt of the women, where also was the ) alogvad- nov, ver. 20, on either side of the altar of burnt-offering (Wetstcin, Paulus, Olshausen),—is a precarious supposition, as the feast was now over ; at the most, we can only associate the words with the sight of the candelabra, as Hug and Lange do—the latter intermingling further references to spiritual darkness from the history of the adulteress. But the figure, corresponding as it essentially does with the thing signified, had been given long before, and was quite a familiar one in the prophetic view of the idea of the Messiah (Isa. ix. 1, xlii. 6 ; Mal. iv. 2). Comp. also Matt. iv. 15, 16 ; Luke ii. 32 ; and the Rabbinical references in Lightfoot, p. 1041. There is really no need to suppose any special suggesting cause, not even the reading of Isa. xlii.; for though the Scriptures were read in the synagogues, we have no proof that they were read in the temple. To find also a reference to the pillar of fire in the wilderness (Godet), according to which the 6 daxodAoviar, x.7.A., has reference to Israel’s wanderings, is quite arbitrary ; no better, indeed, than the reference of vii. 37 to the rock in the wilderness. — ov yA mepirathoe.] The strongly attested, though not decisively confirmed, sub- junctive mep:rarjoy (So Lachmann, Tischendorf) would be the most usual word in the N. T. after ob 44, and might therefore all the more easily have displaced the future, which could hardly have been introduced through the following ée:, seeing that the latter word has no connection with ot nf. Upon ov uf, with the more definitely assuring future, see on Matt. xxvi. 35 ; Mark xiv. 81. —é£e. rd ga¢ r. Cupc] As the antithesis of the divine aA#fen, the cxoria, is the causative element of death, so is the light the cause of life, i.e. of the true eternal Messianic life, not only in its consummation after the Parousia, but already in its temporal development (comp. iii. 15). é&ee, ¢¢ will not be wanting to him, he will be in possession of it, for it necessarily com- municates itself to him direct from its personal source, which he follows in virtue of his fellowship with Christ (‘‘lux enim praeferri solet,” Grotius). The axodovéeiv takes place through faith; but in the believer, who as such walks no more in darkness (xi. 46 ; Eph. v. 8 ; Col. i. 18), Christ Him-
266 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
self lives (the Johannean ‘‘I in you,” and the Pauline Gal. ii. 20 ; see on vi. 51), and therefore he has that light of life which proceeds from Christ as a real and inward possession (Nonnus, éudé¢octov év avrg) ; he is vide gwrd¢ (xii. 36), and himself ‘‘light in the Lord” (Eph. v. 8). This explanation, not merely the having Christ with him (Weiss), is required by the context ; because f&e, x«.7.A., is the result of the dxoAovfeiv, and therefore of faith (comp. iii. 15, 36, v. 24, vi. 47), and accordingly rie wy is added.
Vv. 18, 14. This great declaration the Pharisees present (oi dapic.) can- not leave unchallenged ; they, however, cleverly enough, while avoiding dealing with its real substance, bring against it a formal objection ; comp. v. 31. Jesus replies, that the rule of law referred to does not apply to Tis witness regarding Himself, as He testified concerning Himself, not in His own human individuality, but in the conscious certainty of His having been sent from, and being about to return to, heaven—a relation which ig, of course, unknown to His opponents, who therefore reject His testimony. The refutation lies in the fact that God is able, without any departure from truth, to testify concerning Himsclf. —xav é)6 papz., x.7.2.] not: if also I (Licke), nor : although J, etc. (B. Crusius), for both would require éay cai ; but : even tf, i.e. even in case (adeo tum, si), if I for my part (é)<), etc.' — rov izdyw] through death, vii. 83. — épyouac] 7200v was previously used of the historical point of the past ; here, however, the Praes., in using which Jesus means His continuous coming forward as the ambassador of God. Comp. iii. 31. The latter represents it more as a matter of the present. — 7] not again xai, because the two points are conceived, not as before copula- ticely, but alternatively (‘‘ whether IF speak of the one or the other, you do not know it’’).?. The latter is more expressive, because it is disjunctive.
Vv. 14, 16. The course of thought repeated with some minutencss (Tholuck), but similarly to vii. 24. The rejection of His testimony by the Pharisees in ver. 18, was an act of judgment on their part which, unacquaint- ed as they were with His higher position as an ambassador of God, had been determined merely by His outward sensuous appearance, by His sercant’s form,*® as to which He seemed to them to be an ordinary man. This Jesus tells them, and adds, how very diffcrently He proceeds in this respect.‘ Kpivery reccives through the context the condemnatory sense, and xara rv cdpxa is not to be understood of the subjective norm (Chrysostom : a7d av pw- xivnc dtavoiag . . . adixug : de Wette: in a carnal, selfish manner ; comp. B. Crusius), but of the objectice norm.* — é}0 ov xpivw ovdéva] I condemn no one. There is no need, however, for supplying in thought xara r. odpxa, as even Augustine proposed, and after Cyril’s example many modern writers (also Kuinoel, Paulus) ; to the same thing comes Liicke’s supplement : as
1 See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519; Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. p. 82 A; Baeumlein, Parttk. p. 151.
2 Comp. 1 Cor. xi. 27.
3 cicopdwrytes euny Bporoadéa popdyyv, Non- nus.
. 4{Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 286, ought there-
fore not to have concluded that the words, ‘I judge no man,”’ presuppose the history of the woman taken in adultery.
6 Comp. car’ oynv, vil. 24; Euth. Zigabenus, mpos udvov Td davdnevoy BA€movtes, kat undev UymAdrepov Kai mrvevparixoy evvoourres. Comp. 2 Cor. v. 16.
CHAP. VIII, 17, 18. 267 you do. This is decidedly to be rejected, partly for the general reason that the proper point would have to be supplied in thought, and -partly because, in ver. 16, xai Zav xpivw cannot be taken otherwise than absolutely, and with- out supplement. For these reasons every kind of supplement must be re- jected, whether by the insertion of viv, which would point to the future judgment,’ or of pévo¢g (Storr, Godet), as though John had written avric éyd. Jesus rather gives utterance to His mazim in the consciousness of having come, not to judge, but to save and bless (comp. on ver. 11), which is what He carried out principaliter ; but this principle was, that He refrained from all condemnation of others, knowing as He did that xpivecy was neither the end (Briickner) nor the sphere of His life (Hengstenberg). This principle, how- ever, did not exclude necessary cases of an opposite kind ; and of such cases ver. 16 supplies the necessary explanation. Luther aptly remarks: ‘‘He herewith clothes Himself with His office; but an antithesis to teaching
-(Calvin, Beza) is foreign to the verse ; and the interpretation : I have no pleasure in judging (de Wette), imports into the words what they do not contain.? — Ver. 16. xai éav xpivw d? éyd] xai dé here and in ver. 17, atque etiam, see on vi. 51. The thought is: and even if a@ xpivew on my part should take place, etc. Notwithstanding His maxim, not to judge, such cases had act- ually occurred in the exercise of His vocation, and, indeed, just for the purpose of attaining its higher object—as was, moreover, inevitable with His antagonism to sin and the xéoyoc. Comp. Luther: ‘‘If thou wilt not have our Lord God, then keep the devil ; and the office which otherwise is not set for judgment, but for help and consolation, is compelled to assume the function of condemnation.” Luthardt : ‘‘ But my witness becomes a judg- ment through unbelief.” This, however, is not in the passage ; and Jesus was often enough forced into actual, dircct judging, ver. 26. — dé] occupies the fourth place, because the preceding words are connected with each other, as in ver. 17, vi. 51; 1 Johni. 3; Matt. x. 18, ad.—According to the reading aAnfvf (see the critical notes), the meaning of the second clause is : my judgment is a genuine one, answering to the idea, as it ought to be— not equivalent to aa73% (B. Crusius). Comp. on vii. 28. Reason : For tt 4s not (like an ordinary human personality, restricted to myself) Z alone (who judge), but I and the Father that hath sent mse (are the xpivovrecs), which fellowship* naturally excludes everything that could prevent the xpioie from being aAn3.v4. Comp. v. 80.
Vv. 17, 18. After the jirst reason in answer to the Pharisaic rejection of His self-witness (namely, that He gave it in the consciousness of His divine mission, ver. 14), and after administering a reproof to His antagonists, in connection therewith, for their judging (vv. 15, 16), there follows a second reason, namely, that His witness to Himself is no violation of the Jewish law,
1 Augustine, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabe- nus, Erasmus, eto.
rejection (but merely the caricature which man has made of his own nature by sin).
2 Among the meanings imported Into the passage may be reckoned Lange's fanciful notion (Z. J. II. p. 958) that Jesus can never regard the real essence of man as worthy of
Where {fs there anything in the passage about the real essence of man ?
2 Swep ¢ym xpivw, rouro cai 6 warp, Euth. Zigabenus.
268 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
but has more than the amount of truth thereby required.—kxat . . . dé] atque etiam, as above in ver. 16. — r¢ tuer.] emphatically, from the point of view of His opponents (comp. x. 34, xv. 25), who took their stand thereon, and regarded Jesus as a law-breaker, and even in ver. 18 had had in view a well- known prescription of the law. The words of Christ are therefore no doubt anti-Judaic, but not in themselves antinomian,'’ or belonging to a later Christian point of view ;* nor must they be taken to mean : for Christ and believers the law exists no longer,*® though, no doubt, they expressed His con- sciousness of being exalted above the Jewish law as it then was, and in the strange and hostile form in which it met Him. Keim ‘ is therefore mistaken in saying : ‘‘In this way neither could Jesus speak nor John write—not even Paul.” Bee v. 45-47, vil. 19, 22 f., v. 39, x. 85. xix. 86. — The passage itself frém the law is quoted with considerable freedom (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15), av0porwv being uttered with intentional emphasis, as Jesus draws a conclusion a minoriad majus. If the law demands two human witnesses, in my witness there is still more ; for the witnesses whose declaration is contained therein are (1) my own individuality ; and (2) the Father who has sent me ; as His representative and interpreter, therefore, I testify, so that my witness is also His. That which took place, as to substance, in the living and inseparable unity of the divine-human consciousness, to wit, His witnessing, and God’s witnessing, Jesus discriminates here only formally, for the sake of being able to apply the passage of the law in question, from which He argues xar’ év3pwrov ; but not incorrectly (Schenkel): hence, also, there is no need for supplying in thought to iyi: ‘‘ Asa human knower of myself, as an honest man” (Paulus), and the like ; or even, ‘‘as the Son of God” (Olshausen, who also brings in the Holy Ghost).
Ver. 19. The question of the Pharisees, who only pretend not to under- stand what Jesus means by the words 6 réypag pe sarhp, between which and ver. 27 there is no inconsistency, is frivolous mockery. ‘‘ Where is, then, this second witness, thy Father ?” He has no actual existence !_ He ought, surcly, to be here on the spot, if, as thou hast said, He were a witness with thee on thy behalf ! To regard their question as the expression of a reri- table material understanding on their part, that He referred to a physical Jather,* some also having found in it a blasphemous allusion to bastardy (Cyril, Ammon), is irreconcilable with the circumstance that Jesus had already so frequently and unmistakably pointed to God as His Father ; the questioners themselves also betray their dissimulation by the word zoi ; they do not ask ric. Totally different is the relation of the question put by Philip in xiv. 8. — The reply of Jesus unveils to them with clear composure whence it arose that they put so wicked a question. To take the words obre éué as far as wou as a question is less appropriate (Ewald), as it is scarcely
1 Schweizer, Baur, Reuss.
2 De Wette, B. Crusius, Tholuck.:
3? Messner, Lehre der Apostel. p. 845.
“ See his Geschichilich. Christ. p. 14, ed. 8. Note, on the contrary, that it is John him- self who stands Aigher than Paul. But not
even the Johannean Jesus has broken with the law, or treated it as antiquated. See especially vv. 45-47. His relation to the law is also that of fidfiment.
5 Augustine, Bede, etc.; de Wette, Ols- hausen, Brfickner, and, doubtfully, Liicke.
CHAP. VIII., 20-22. 269
likely that Jesus was taken by surprise. The ei tue gdere, etc., rests on the fact that the Father reveals Himself in Him. Comp. xiv. 9, xvi. 3.
Ver. 20. Taira ra pyyara] Vv. 12, 18. Godet arbitrarily imports into the text ‘‘ words so important.” Comp. vi. 50. — évr@ yafogud.] At the treasury. On év, as denoting immediate neighbourhood, sce Ktihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 22; Ast, Lev. Plat. I. p. 700; Winer, p. 360 [E. T. p. 385], who, however, is of opinion—though it cannot be substantiated—that the place itself where the treasury stood was called yafogua.; so also Tholuck, Briick-
er. Respecting the yafogvAdxcov, which consisted of thirteen brazen chests destined to receive the taxes and charitable offerings in the temple, see on Mark xii. 41. In a place so much frequented in the forecourt of the women did Jesus thus speak,—and no one laid hands on Him. —xa? ovdeic, etc. ] Historical refrain, constituting a kind of triumphal (comp. vii. 80) close to the delivery of this discourse.
Ver. 21. A new scene here opens, as in ver. 12, and is therefore, after the analogy of ver. 12, to be placed in one of the following days (so also Ewald ; and in opposition to Origen and the common supposition). — The connect- ing word, with which the further discussion on this occasion (it is different in ver.12) takes its rise, is a word of grave threatening, more severely punitive than even vii. 84.—oiv] As noone had laid hands on Him, comp. ver. 12.— médcy, a8 in ver. 12, indicating the delivery of a second discourse, not a repe- tition of vii. 34. — avroic] to the Jews who were present in the temple, vv 20, 22. —Cnrfoeré pe] namely, as a deliverer from the misfortunes that are coming upon you, as in vii. 34. But instead of the clause there added, Kai ovx eiphoere, here we have the far more tragical and positive declaration, x. év tr. duapr. ty. arod. and (not reconciled and sanctified, but) in your sin (still laden with it and your unatoned guilt, “ix. 84; 1 Cor. xv. 17) ye shall die, namely, in the universal misfortunes amid which you will lose your lives. Accordingly, év isthe state wherein, and not the cause whereby (Heng- stenberg) they dic. The text does not require us to understand eternal death, although that is the consequence of dying in this state. ‘Ev ri duaprig tuav, however, is to be taken in a collective sense (see ver. 24, i. 29, ix. 41), and not as merely referring to the sin of unbelief ; though being itself sin (xvi. 9), it is the ground of the non-extinction and increase of their sin. Between Cyrqceré ye, finally, and the dying in sin, there is no contradiction ; for the seeking in question is not the seeking of faith, but that seeking of desperation whose object is merely deliverance from external afflictions. The Jutility of that search, so fearfully expressed by the words xal—arovav., is further explained by ézov ty imdyu, etc., for they cannot ascend into hearen, in order to find Jesus as a deliverer, and to bring Him down (to this view xiii. 83 is not opposed). Accordingly, these words are to be taken quite as in vii. 84, not as referring to hell into which they would come through death ; for Jesus speaks, not of their condition after, but up to, their death.
Ver. 22. It did not escape the notice of the Jews that in using ixéyw He meant a toluntary departure. But that they should not be able to come whither He goeth away, excites in them, not fear and concern on His ac- count (Ewald), but impious mockery ; and they ask : He will not perchance
270 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
kill himself, in that he saith, etc. ? In this case, indeed, we shall not be able to reach him! The emphasis rests on aroxvevei, as the mode in which they scornfully conceive the irdyecv to take place. — Gehenna being the dzov which would follow on such a departure (Joseph. Beil. iii. 8. 5, and sec Wetstein and Ewald, Alterth. p. 282). The scorn (which Hengstenberg also groundlessly denies) is similar to that in vii. 85, only much more mali- cious.
Vv. 28, 24. Without further noticing their venomous scorn, Jcsus simply holds up before them, with firm and elevated calmness, fheir own low nature, which made them capable of thus mocking Him, because they did not un- derstand Him, the heavenly One. — éx rav xdzw] from the lower regions, 1.¢. éx The yuo (comp. Acts il. 19), the opposite of ra dvu, the heavenly regions ; évw being used of heavenly relations in solemn discourse (Col. iii. 1, 2 ; Gal. iv. 26 ; Phil. ili. 14) ; comp. on dvufev, ili. 31. ’Ex designates derivation ,; you spring from the earth, I from the heaven. To understand xérw as de- noting the lower world (Origen, Nonnus, Lange), a meaning which Godet also considers as included in it, would correspond, indeed, to the current classical usage, but is opposed by the parallel of the second half of the verse. — ov« eiul éx t. xédouov tobrov] I do not spring from this (pre-Messianic, comp. alavutroc) world ; negative expression of His supramundane, heavenly derivation.’ Comp. xviii. 36. Both halves of the verse contain the same thought ; and the clauses éx rév xdrw éoré and éx rod xéopov Tobrov éoré imply, in their pregnant meaning, that those men are also of such a character and disposition as correspond to their low extraction, without higher wisdom and divine life. Comp. iii. 81. Therefore had Jesus said to them—He refers them again to His words in ver. 24—they would die in their sins ; and now He adds the reason : éav ydp, etc. ; for only faith can help to the higher divine life in time and eternity (i. 12, iii, 15 f., vi. 40 ff, xvii. 8, al.), those who are éx ray xérw and éx Tov xéopuov robrov, and as such, are born flesh of flesh.—Notice, that in this repetition of the minatory words the em- phasis, which in ver. 20 rested on év r. du. ty., is laid on adrofav. ; and that thus prominence is given to the perishing itself, which could be averted only by conversion to faith. — 6r: éyé eis] namely, the Messiah, the great name which every one understood without explanation, which concentrated in itself the highest hopes of all Israel on the basis of the old prophecies, and which was the most present thought both to Jesus and the Jews, especially in all their discussions—to Jesus, in the form, ‘‘I am the Messiah ;” to the Jews, in the form of either, ‘‘Is He the Messiah ?” or, ‘‘ This is not the Messiah, but another, who is yet to come.” Comp. ver. 28, xiii. 19. In opposition to the notion of there: being another, Jesus uses the emphatic ty. The non-mention of the name, which was taken for granted (it had
1 Not merely of the heavenly direction of human, supra-mundane existence (in the His spirit (Weizsicker), which must be consciousness of the Logos), xvii. 5, and taken for granted in the Christ who springs _lays claim to a transcendent relation of His from above (comp. iii.81). WhereverChrist essential nature. Comp. Welss, Lehrbegr. speaks of His heavenly descent, He speaks pp. 215f. Nonnus: fetvos éduy cdapoto. in the consciousness of having had a pre-
CHAP, VIII., 25. a7v1 been mentioned in iv. 25, 26), confers on it a quiet majesty that makes an irresistible impression on the minds of the hearers while Christ gives utter- ance to the brief words, ér: éyé eizz. As God comprehended the sum of the Old Testament faith in ®1 °)8,' so Christ that of the New Testament in dre éyé eiue.? The definite confession of this faith is given in xvi. 8, vi. 68, 69 ; 1 John iv. 2.
Ver. 25. The Jews understand the dr: éyé eize well enough, but refuse to recognize it, and therefore ask pertly and contemptuously : ov ric el ; tu quis es? oi being emphasized to express disdain ; comp. Acts xix. 15. Jesus replies with a counter-question of surprise at so great obduracy on their part ; but then at once after ver. 26 discontinues any further utterance re- garding them, His opponents. His counter-question is : riv apy 4, rt xal Aadro ipiv? What I from the very beginning also say to you? namely, do you ask that? Who I am (to wit, the Messiah, vv. 24, 29), that is, the very thing which, from the very beginning, since I have been among you, and have spoken to you, has formed the matter of my discourse ;* and can you still ask about that, as though you had not yet heard it from me? They ought to have known long ago, and to have recognized, what they just now asked with their wicked question od ri¢ el. This view is not complicated, as Wincr objects, but corresponds simply to the words and to the situation. On apy as used frequently in an adverbial sense, both among the Greeks and by the LXX., with and without the article, to denote time, abd initio, JSrom the very beginning, see Schweighatiser, Lev. Herod. I. p. 104 f. ; Lennep ad Phalar. p. 82 ff. It precedes the relative, because it is the point which makes the obduracy of the Jews so very perceptible.‘ — 4, r:] interroga- tively, in relation to a question with rfc immediately preceding,—as fre- quently in the Classics, so that some such words as thou askest must be sup- plied in thought.* — xai] also, expresses the corresponding relation (Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 152), in this case, of speech to being: what from the very beginning, as I am it, so also, I say it to you. —Aada] speak, not: say. Comp. on vv. 26, 43; and see on Rom. iii. 19. He does not use AcAdAnxa, because it is a continuous speaking ; the sound of it is, in fact, still ringing in their ears from. vv. 23, 24. — The passage is also taken inferrogatively by Matthaci, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Liicke. The latter * renders: Why,
1 Deut. xxxil. 89; Isa. xii. 13, xliff. 10. * Comp. Hofmann, Schrif(sew. I. p. 68 f.
voblecum loquor? cur frustra vobiscum dis- putof’ See ed. min. I. p. 573. With this
® According to John, at His very first ap- pearanoe in the temple, Il. 19.
‘Comp. iv. 18; Buttmann, .Veut. Gram. p. 888 d. (E. T. p. 889].
®§ Sec Kfthner, IT. § 837, note 1; Bernhardy p. 448; Kriiger, § 51. 17. 8.
* 80, without doubt, Chrysostom also, who gives as the meaning: rou GAs axovew Toy Aéyur tov wap cuod dvafgro’ éore, mire ye xai padeiv Sori eyw ciue. Comp. Cyril and Theophylact, also Euth. Zigabenus. Matthael explains the words in exact ac- cordance with Licke: ‘* Cur cero omnino
also is In substantial agreement the view of Ewald, who, however, regards the words rather as the expression of righteous indig- nation than as a question: * That I should, indeed, speak to you af a’ It would bo more correct to say: ‘* That I should at all even (still) speak to yous’ But how greatly is the af ali thus in the way! “Ore, too, would then neod a supplement, which is not furnished by the text. Besides, the following words, especially if introduced without an aAAd or pévro: (Indicating that Jesus had collected Himself again, and
aie THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
indeed, do I still speak to you at all? ‘With this view, it is true, riv apyfy is quite compatible ; for it is confessedly often used in the Classics for ab initio, in the sense of omnino,’ though only in negative propositions, or such whose signification really amounts to a negation,? which latter, how- ever, might be the case here ;°* it is also allowable to take 6, r: in the sense of why.‘ But the thought itself has so little meaning in it, and is so little natural, expressing, besides, a reflection, which is at the bottom so empty, and, at ‘the same time, through tv apyfv, 80 expanded and destitute of feeling, that we should scarcely expect it at the lips of the Johannean Jesus, especially in circumstances so lively and significant as the present. Further thus understood, the saying would have no connection whatever with what follows, and the logical connection assumed by Liicke would require the insertion of some such words as epi éuod. The words would thus likewise stand in no relation to the question od ric el, whereas John’s general manner would lead us to expect an answer which had reference in some significant way or other to the question which had been put. The following are non-interrogativre views :— (1) ‘‘ What I hare already said to-you at the beginning, that am I!” §$o Tholuck after Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Clericus, TIeumann, and several others; also B. Crusius. Jesus would thus be announcing that He had already, from the very be- ginning in His discourses, made known His higher personality. The Praes. Aad, as expressing that which still continues to be in the present, would not be opposed to this view ; but it does not harmonize with the arrange- ment of the words ; and logically, at all events, xai ought to stand before rv apyfv (comp. Syriac). (2) ‘‘ From the very first (before all things), Iam what I also speak to you.” So de Wette ; comp. Luther (‘‘I am your preacher ; if you first believe that, you will then learn what I am, and not otherwise’), Melanchthon, Aretius, and several ; also Maier, who, however, takes r7v apyfv incorrectly as thoroughly (nothing else). On this view Jesus, instead of answering directly : ‘‘I am the Messiah,” would have said that He was to be known above all things from His discourses. But ri apzqv
suppressed His indignation), would not be appropriate. In the Theol. Quartalschr. 1855, p. 592 ff., Nirschl renders: ‘* To what purpose shall I speak further to you of the origin, i.e. of God, and my own derivation from Him?” But on this view Christ ought, at the very least, to have said rihv apxyy Ov. 1 Raphel, Jerod. in loc.; Wermann, ad Viger. p. 723; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 287; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Oec. if. 12.
2 See especially Lennep, ic. and p. %; Brickner on the passage.
* As in Plat. Demod. p. 881 D; Philo, de Abr. p. 866 C.
4See on Mark ix. 11; Buttmann, neu. Gram. p. 218 [E. T. p. 258].
§ Comp. Winer, p. 4382 [E. T. p. 464], who gives asthe meaning: ‘*J am entirely that
which I represent myself as being in my ais- courses.” So also Godet: ‘‘ Absolument ce que je vous dis; ni plus ni moins que ce que renferme ma parole.” But 17. apxyyo is used in the sense of completely, entirely, only in connection with negations (usually, too, withoul the article): not at all, not in the least; ‘‘cum negatione praefracte ne- gando servit,’”’ Ellendt, Lex. Soph. l.c.
* Under this head belongs also the view taken by Grotius (which is substantially
' adopted by Lange): ‘‘ Primum (in the first
instance) hoc sum, quod et dico vobis, hoc {ipsum quod me hoc fpso tempore esse dix!, i.e. lux mundi."’ As though we read ; speror pev 6, Te eat Aéyw vuty. In the same way as Grotius, has Calov. also explained it, taking, however, thy dapx7v in the sense of omnino, plane (consequently like Winer).
CHAP. VIIL., 25. 273 docs not mean “ above all things,” cither in Xen. Cyr. i. 2, 8 (rdv apxq pe? rovovrat, at the very outset not such, i.e. not such at all, omnino non tales), or in Terod. i. 9, where also, as frequently in Herodotus, it denotes omnino.' And how entirely without any reference would be the words ante omnia(surely some sort of posterius would need to be supplied in thought). Briickner has rightly, therefore, rejected the ‘‘ above all things” in de Wette’s rendering, though regarding it otherwise as the correct one, and keeping to the interpre- tation ‘‘ from the very first” in its temporal sense. One cannot, however, scc what is really intended by the words ‘‘/rom the very jirst, I am, etc.,” es- pecially as placed in such an emphatic position at the commencement of the clause. For Jesus had neithcr occasion nor ground for giving the assurance that He had been from Ilis carliest appearance, and still was, such as He declared Himself to be in His discourses, and thus perchance had not since become different. (38) ‘‘ Undoubtedly (nothing else) am J what I also say to you.” So Kuinoel ;—a view which assigns an incorrect mean- ing to ri apzi, and confounds Aa2d with Aéyw ; objections which affect also the similar interpretation of Ebrard : ‘‘ J am altogether that which I also say to you (that Iam He).” (4) ‘‘ At the cery outset I uttered of myself what I also declare to you, or what I also now say.” So Starck, Not. sel. p. 106 ; Bretschneider. But the supplying of AcAdAyxa from the following 2aAo? would be suggested only if we read 4, rc nal viv 2040 iuiv. (5) Fritzsche,’ whom Hengstenberg follows, takes the view : ‘‘ Sum a@ rerum primordiis (i. 1) e@ natura quam me esse vtobis cliam profiteor.” Jesus would thus have designated Himself as the primal Logos. Quite unintelligibly for IIis hearers, who had no occasion for taking rj apyfv in the absolute sense, as though reminded of the angel of the Lord in Mal. iii. and Zech. xi., nor for understanding 4, rz x. 2. tu. as Fritzsche does ; at all events, as far as the latter is concerned, 2éyw ought to have been used instead of Aaia. (6) Some connect 77 apy7v with moAAd exw, etc., ver. 26, and after 2045 tui» place merely a comma. So already Codd., Nonnus, Scaliger, Clarius, Knatchbull, Raphel, Bengel, and, more recently, Olshausen, Hofmann, Schrifew. I. p. 65, II. p. 178, and Baeumlein. In taking the words thus, 0, re is either written br, because, with Scaliger and Raphel (so also Bengel : ‘‘ principio, quum etiam loquor vobis [Dativus commodi : ‘ ut credatis et sal- remini’| multa habeo de vobia loqui, etc.” ‘), or is taken as a pronoun, id quod. In the latter way, Olshausen explains it, following Clarius : ‘‘ In the jirst place, as Ialso plainly say to you, I have much to blame and punish in you ; I
1Comp. Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 278.
* Comp. Dissen, Dem. de Cor. p. 859.
3 Lit. Bl. 2. alig. Kirchenz. 1848, p. 613, and de conform. Lachmann, p. 58.
Comp. Hofmann: “ At first, namely for the present, because this is the time, when Ile speaks to them, He has much to speak and to judge about them in words.” Tay» apxy%y is alleged to be used in opposition to a 7d tédos, j.¢. to atime when that which He now speaks will be proved by deeds, ver, 2%. In this way meaning and connec-
tion are imported Into the passage, and yet the xai (with an appeal to Hartung, Partik. I. p. 129) is completely negiected, or rather transferred from the relative to the prin- cipal clause. How the passages adduced by Hartung may be explained without any transference, see in Klotz, ad Devar. p. 635 ff. In particular, there is no ground for supposing the existence of a (frajection of the «ai in the ¥. 7. Hofmann explains, as though John had written: ry apxiv, ore vor Aads bpiv, cai WOAAG Exe, etc,
274 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
am therefore your serious admonisher.” Baeumlcin, however, renders: ‘‘ I have undoubtedly—as I also do—much to speak and to judge concerning you.” But on this view of the words Jesus would have given no answer at all to the question ci ri¢ ei ; according to Olshausen, rj apy would have to be transformed into sporov, in the first place ; and the middle clause, according to Olshausen and Baeumlein, would give a quite superfluous sense ; while, according to the view of Bengel and Hofmann, it would be forced and un- natural. (7) Exegetically impossible is the interpretation of Augustine : ‘* Principium (the very beginning of all things) me credite, quia (art) et loguor cobis, i.e. guia humilis propter vos factus ad ista terba descendi ;” comp. Gothic, Ambrose, Bede, Ruperti, and several others. Calvin rightly rejects this interpretation, but himsclf gives one that is impossible. (8) Obscure, and far-fetched, is Luthardt’s view (é7:, that: ‘‘ from the beginning am I, that I may also speak to you”), that Jesus describes the act of His speaking, the cx- istence of His word, as His presence for the Jews ; that from His first ap- pearance He who was then present as the Word of God on the earth had been always used to give Himself a presence for menin the Word. If, according to this view, as it would scem, rj apy irs denotes: ‘from the beginning it ia my manner, that,” this cannot possibly be in the simple eiui, which has to be supplied in thought ; besides, how much is forced into the mere 2a46 iyviv! [See Note XXXII. p. 295.]
Ver. 26. The question in ver. 25 was a reproach. To this (not to ver. 24, as Godet maintains) refers the word o0A4é, which is placed with full em- phasis at the beginning of the verse ; the antithetical a2/’, however, and the excluding word ravra, inform us that He does not say the many things which He has to speak and judge of them (and which He has in readiness, in store) ; but only that which He has heard from Him who sent Him. Comp. xvi. 12; 2 John 12. Similarly Euth. Zigabenus, after Chrysostom and B. Crusius. After the question in ver. 25, we must imagine a reproving pause. To be paraphrased : ‘‘I have very much to speak concerning you, and especially to blame ; but I refrain therefrom, and restrict myself to my immediate task, which is to uttcr forth to the world that which I have heard from God the True, who has sent me (namely, what I heard during my ecx- istence with God, before my mission ; comp. on ver. 28)—in other words, to the communication of divine truth to the world.” For divergent views of the course of thought, see Schott, Opuse. I. p. 94 ff. After the example of older writers, Liicke and de Wette take the view that Jesus meant to say : But, however much I have to judge concerning you, my judgment is still true ; for I speak to the world only what I have heard from my Father, whoistrue.” Comp. also Tholuck. In this way, however, the antithesis has to be artificially formed, whilst the erpressed antithesis between that which Jesus has to speak (yw Aadeiv) and that which He actually says (Aéyw) is neglected. This is in answer to Ewald also, who imports into 44’ the meaning : ‘‘ Yct I will not therefore be afraid, like a man ;” and against Hengst., who, after
1 So also vv. 88, 40. Not as Beyschlag maintains: immediately before my public appear- ance. Comp. on vi. 46.
CHAP. VIII., 27-29. 2°49
moAAa . .. xplvecv, supplies in thought : ‘‘ This is the reason why you will not accept my utterances in relation to my person.” —xayo] and I, for my part, in contrast to God ; the word is connected with raira, etc. — ratra] this and nothing else. As to the main point, Chrysostom aptly says: ra apo¢ owrnpiav, ov Ta mpdc EAeyyov. —eic 7. xéou.] See on Mark i. 39.’ Not again Aadé (Lachmann, Tischendorf), but Aéyw, because the notion has become by antithesis more definite : what He has heard, ¢hat it is which He says ; He has something else to say to the world than to speak of the worthlessness of His opponents. The former He does, the latter, much occasion as He has for doing it, He leaves undone.
Ver. 27. "2 rig ayvoiag | ov deéAurev avroic rept avrod dtadeydpevoc, Kai ovx éyivwoxov, Chrysostom ; and Euth. Zigabenus calls them ¢pevofAaBeic. But the surprising, nay more, the very improbable clement (de Wette) which has been found in this non-understanding, disappears when it is remem- bered that at ver. 21 a new section of the discourse commenced, and that we are not obliged to suppose that precisely the same hearers were present in both cases (vv. 16, 17). The less, therefore, is it allowable to convert non-understanding into the idea of non-recognition (Liicke) ; or to regard it as equivalent to obduracy (Tholuck, Briickner) ; or to explain dr: as in which sense (Hofmann, l.c. p. 180) ; or with Luthardt, to press airvic, and to give as the meaning of the simple words: ‘‘ that in bearing witness to Him- sclf He bears witness to them that the God who sends Him is the Father ;” or with Ebrard, to find in djeyev : ‘‘ that it is his vocation” to proclaim to them ; or, with Hengstenberg, to understand éywwoar, etc., of the true knotl- edge, namely, of the deity of Christ. For such interpretations as these there is no foundation in the passage ; it simply denotes : they knew not (comp. ver, 28) that in these words (6 réupac pe, etc.) He spoke to them of the Father. ?
Vv. 28, 29. Od»] not merely ‘‘ continuing the narration” (de Wette), but : therefore, in reference to this non-understanding, as is confirmed by the words rére yvdceote, which refer to ov tyvwcayv in ver. 27, and, indeed, considered as to its matter, logically correct, seeing that if the Jews had recognized the Messiahship of Jesus, they would also have understood what He said to them of His Father. — brav torre, etc.] when ye shall have lifted wp, namely, upon the cross. Comp. on iii. 14, vi. 62. The crucifixion is treated as an act of the Jews, who brought it about, as alsoin Acts iii. 14 f. — rére yvéo.| Comp. xii. 32, vi. 62. Then will the result follow, which till then you reject, that you will know, etc. Reason : because the death of Jesus is the condition of His glory, and of the mighty manifestations thereof (the outpouring of the Spirit ; miraculous works of the apostles; building up of the Church ; punishment of the Jews ; second coming to judgment). Then shal) your eyes be opened, which will take place partly with your own will, and still in time (as in Acts ii. 86 ff., iv. 4, vi. 7; Rom. xi. 11 ff.) ; partly against your will, and too late (comp. on Matt. xxiii. 89 ; Luke
1 Comp. Sopb. 27. 506: «xipyood mp’ cie of Aad. wepi, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apolog.
dwayras. p. 283A; Phaed. p.79C. Comp. on i. 18 20On Adyar, with the accus. in the sense
276 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
xiil. 84 f.). Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘ cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex verbo non creditis."’ — xai az’ guavrov, etc.] still dependent on dr, and, indeed, as far as yer’ éuov gore ; 80 that to the universal wod, the special AaAé and the general yer’ éuov éorcv (is my helper and support) together correspond. Hence there is no brevity of discourse requiring to be completed by supplying in thought 4cA6 to rae, and wrod along with Aade.' Nonnus already took the correct view (he begins ver. 29 with drr: «ai, etc.); and the objection * that ovx aggjxe, etc. would then stand too disconnected, has no force, since it is precisely in John that the asyndetic continuation of a discourse is very com- mon, and, in fact, would also be the case here if xaf 6 wéuy. etc. were not dependent on ére. — ravra] is arbitrarily and without precedent (Matt. ix. 83 cannot be adduced as one) explained as equivalent to oirwc, from a com- mingling of two notions. By the demonstrative ravra Jesus means His doc- trine generally (comp. ver. 26), with whose presentation He was now occupied. But of this He discoursed in harmony with the instructions received from the Father, z.¢. in harmony with the instructions derived from His direct intuition of divine truth with the Father prior to His incarnation. Comp. ver. 38, i. 18, iii. 13, vi. 46, vii. 16 f. — obx agyxe, etc.] Independent corrob- oration of the last thought, negatively expressed on account of His appar- ent abandonment in the face of many and powerful enemies. The Praet. refers to the experience felt in every case, during the course of His entire min- astry, until now (comp. afterwards zayvrore), not to the point of time when He was sent ; the reason afterwards assigned would not be appropriate to this latter reference. Comp. also xvi. 82. — drz éyé, etc.] because I, etc. Reason assigned for the ove agjxe, etc. How could He ever leave me alone, as I am He who, etc. ? (¢y4 with emphasis). Comp. xv. 10. Olshausen regards ovx age, etc. as the expression of equality of essence, and dr: as assigning the ground of His knowledge. The former idea is erroneous, as the meaning of ovx agjxe, etc. is identical with that of per’ éuov gory ; and the latter would be an inadequate reason, because it relates merely to moral agreement.
Vv. 30-32. The opening of a new section in the discourse, but not first on the following day (Godet), which must then have been indicated as in vv. 12, 21. — Notice the separation of the persons In question. The zoAAoi -are many among His hearers in general ; among these many there were also Jewish hierarchs, and because He knew how fleeting and impure was their momentary faith,* Jesus addresses to them the words in vv. 31, 32, which at once had the effect of converting them into opponents ; hence there is no inconsistency in His treatment of His hearers. — emer. avr@] previously érior. ei¢ avtév. The latter was the consequence of their having believed Fim, i.e. His words. — édv tyeic, etc.] if you on your part, etc. ; for they were mixed up with the unbelieving crowd, and by means of iyei¢ are se- lected from it as the persons to whom the admonition and promise are ad- dressed. They are to abide in the word of Jesus, as in the permanent ele-
1 De Wette, after Bengel. der Ap. p. 89) assumes in reference to * Lficke, de Wette, and others. this passage. Also not in vi. 60, or 1 John 3 Mere susceptibility to salvation is not _ iv. 16.
termed Faith by John, as Messner (Lehre
CHAP. VIII., 33. | 27%
ment of their inner and outer life. For another form of the conception, see ver, 88, xv. 7, xii. 47. Comp. 2 John 9. — adnfac]) really, not merely in appearance, after being momentarily carried away. — j;voceove r. aayd.] for divine truth is the substance of the Adyoc of Christ, Christ Himself is its posses- sor and vehicle ; and the knowledge of it commences when a man believes, inasmuch as the knowledge is the inwardly experienced, living, and moral intelligence of faith (xvii. 17 ; 1 John i. 8 ff.). — édevdep.] from the slavery, i.e. from the determining power, of sin. Sce ver. 84; Rom. vi. 18 ff. ‘Ea libertas est, quae pectus purum et firmum gestitat” (Ennius, fr. 840). Divine truth is conccived as the causa medians of that regencration and’ sanctifica- tion which makes him morally free who is justified by faith. Comp. Rom. viii. 2; Jas. i. 20, ii, 12.
Ver. 88. 'Arexpi3qoav] No others can be the subject, but the remoreuxdére¢ avr®@ ’Iovdaioc, ver. 81. So correctly, Melanchthon (‘ offensi resiliunt’’), Mal- donatus, Bengel, Olshausen, Kling, B. Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ewald, and several others, after Chrysostom, who aptly observes : xarézecev evdéu¢ avrav 1 didvota’ tovto d2 ytyovey ard Tov mpd¢ Ta Kooutxa éExrojo3da. John him- self has precluded us from supposing any other to be intended, by expressly referring (ver. 31) to those Jews among the many (ver. 80) who had be- lieved, and emphatically marking them as the persons who conduct the fol- lowing conversation. Tothem the last word of Jesus proved at once a stone of stumbling. Hence we must not suppose that Jews are referred to who had remained unbelieving and hostile,’ and different from those who were mentioned in ver. 31 (arexp. they, indef.) ; nor do the words Cyreiré pe aroxr. in ver. 37 necessitate this supposition, inasmuch as those temorevxéree might have at once veered round and returned again to the ranks of the opposition, owing to the offence given to their national pride by the words in ver. 82. There is no warrant therefore for saying with Luthardt that the reply came primarily from opponents, but that some of those who believed chimed in from want of understanding. The text speaks ezclusicely of wemcoreuxéres. — ontppa ’ABp. éoz.] to which, as being destined to become a blessing to, and have do- minion over, the world,’ a state of bondage is something completely foreign. As every Hebrew servant was a son of Abraham, this major premiss of their argument shows that they had in view, not their individual or civil (Grotius, Liicke, Godet), but their national liberty. At the same time, in their pas- sion they leave out of consideration the Egyptian and Babylonian history of their nation, and look solely at the present generation, which the Romans had, in accordance with their prudent policy, left in possession of the sem- blance of political independence (Joseph. Bell. vi. 6. 2). This, according to circumstances, as in the present case, they were able to class at all events in the category of non-bondage. Hence there is no need even for the distinc- tion between dominion de facto and de jure, the latter of which the Jews deny (Lange, Tholuck). Selden had already distinguished between servitus extrinseca, and tntrinseca (the latter of which would be denied by the Jews).
1 As do Augustine, Calvin, Lampe, Kul- Hengstenberg. noel, de Wette, Tholuck, Licke, Maier, 2 Comp. Gen. xxil. 17 f., xvil. 16,
248 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
On the passionate ' pride taken by the Jews in their freedom, and the ruin- ous consequences it brought upon them, see Lightfoot, p. 1045. According to Luthardt. they protest against spiritual dependence, not indeed as regards the disposition (B. Crusius), but as regards their religious position, in virtue of which all other nations are dependent on them, the privileged people of God, for their attainment of redemption. But the coarser misunderstanding of national freedom is more in keeping with other misapprehensions of the more spiritual meaning of Jesus found in John (comp. Nicodemus, the Woman of Samaria, the discourse about the Bread of Life) ; and what was likely to be more readily suggested to the proud minds of these sons of Abraham than the thought of the «Axpovopia tov xdouov (comp. Rom. iv. 18), which in their imaginations excluded every sort of national bondage ? Because they were Abraham’s seed, they felt themselves as aia gépovres adéo- sorov (Nonnus).
Ver. 34. Acixyvory (and that with solemn asseveration), Src dovAciav evégyvev averépw tiv & duapriag, ob tiv éx duvacteiag av8pdrov, Euth. Ziagabenus. — é roto] instead of keeping himself free from it. — dovAo¢} as to His moral per- sonality or Hgo, comp. as to the figure and subject-matter, Rom. vi. 17 ff., vii. 14 ff.? |
Vv. 35, 36. But what prospect is there before the slave of sin? Exclu- sion from the kingdom of the Messiah! This threat Jesus clothes in the general principle of civil life, that a slave has no permanent place in the house ; he must allow himself to be sold, exchanged, or cast out. Comp. Gen. xxi. 10; Gal. iv. 80. The application intended to be made of this gencral prin- ciple is this: ‘‘ The servant of sin does not remain eternally in the theoc- racy, but is cast out of the midst of the people of God at the establishment of the kingdom of Messiah.” There is nothing to indicate that the slave is intended to refer to Ishmael as a type of the bastard sons of Abraham, and the son to Isaacas a type of Christ ;* such a view rather is out of accord with this general expression in its Present tense form, which simply marks an universally existing legal relation between the different positions of the slare and the Son of the house. — ei¢ rov aléva] for ever, an expression to be understood in harmony with the relation which has been figuratively repre- sented. After aidéva a full stop should be inserted, with Lachmann and Kling, because édv otv, etc., is a consequence deduced simply from 6 vld¢ p. ei¢ T. ai., not from what precedes, and because 6 vidc, etc., begins a new sec- tion in the logical progress of the discourse. The course of thought is this: (1) Whoever commits sin is the bondsman of sin, and is excluded from the Messianic people of God. (2) Quite different from the lot of the bondsman, who must quit the house, is that of the Son (the Master of the housc) ; hence it is this latter who procures for you actual freedom. — é vid¢ uéve ei¢ r. aiava] namely, év rg oixig,—also a general prop- osition or principle, but with an intentional application of the general ex- pression 6 vid¢ to Christ, who, as the Son of God, retains for ever His
1 Analogous examples from the Classicsin Wetstein ; from Philo in Loesner, p. 149. 3 Ebrard.
en |
CHAP. VIIL, 37. 29
position and power in the house of God, é.¢. in the theocracy ;" comp. Heb. iii. 5,6. From this pévec cic r. aidva it follows (ctv) that if He frees from the state of a bondsman, a real and not merely an apparent freedom commences, sccing that, on account of the perpetual continuance of His domestic rights in the theocracy, the emancipation effected by Him must have a real and finally valid result. This would not necessarily be the case if He remained merely for a time in the house ; for as both His right and éfovoia would then lack certainty and permanence, so the freedom He procured would lack the guarantee of reality. This line of argumentation presupposes, moreover, that the Father does not Himself directly act in the theocracy ; He has en- trusted to the Son the power and control. — The reference of the slave to Moses* is foreign and opposed to the text, see ver. 84. Grotius, however, aptly remarks: ‘“‘tribuitur hic jilio quod modo veritati, quia eam profert filius. —dvrwe] in reality ; every other freedom is mere appearance (comp. ver. 88), not corresponding to its truc nature ; no other is 9 mavreAje xal ard racov apzav tdevlepia,® which alone is that gained through Christ, 1 Cor. iii. 22 ; Rom. viii. 35, 36 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, 5.
Ver. 87. Now also He denies that they are children of Abraham, although hitherto they had boastfully relied on the fact as the premiss of their free- dom, ver. 83. — aAAa Cyreire] How opposed to a true, spiritual descent from Abraham! But the reproach had its justification, because these Jews had already turned round again, and the death of Jesus was the goal of the hierarchical opposition. — ob ywpet év ipiv] has no progress in you, in your heart. This view of the meaning, which is philologically correct,‘ thoroughly applies to the persons concerned ; because whilst the word of Christ had penetrated their heart and made them for the time believers (vv. 30, 31), it had had no further development, it had made no advance ; on the contrary, they had, after believing for a moment, again gone back. Hence, also, it is not allowable to take év iyiv as equivalent to inter vos (Liicke, Hengst). Others interpret : It finds no place in you.® Without any warrant from usage. ° Others again render : It finds no entrance into you ; so that év iyiv would be used pregnantly, indicating the persistence that follows upon movement.’
‘If the man who 1s morally free be sup- i 42, v.89; Xen. Gee. 1. 11; Polyb. 28. 15,
posed to be the object of the intended ap- = 12, 10. 15, 4; Aristoph. Paz, 472; Ran. 472; plication of 6 vids—the man, namely, who 2 Macc. ill. 40.
** holds not merely an historical relation to God, but one that fs essential, because ethically conditioned” (Luthardt, comp. de Wette)—we should have to take the second 6 vids in the sensu eminenti (of Chrish. The text, however, especially as ver. 36 is con- nected with ver. 35 by od», offers no ground for this distinction, Hence, also, it Is wrong to apply o vids in ver. 85 to those who are liberated by Christ along with Christ (Hengstenberg). These first come under consideration in ver. 86.
3 Euth. Zigabenus, after Chrysostom.
3 Plat. Legg. ill. p. 696 A.
‘Plat. Legg. ill. p. 654 E; Zryz. p. 3083; ji €uedrAaw & Adyos xupjoerOa avTy ; Merod.
® Vulgate: non capié in vobis ; so Origen? Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Casta- lio, Beza, Aretius, Maldonatus, Corn. 4 Lap- ide, Jansen, and several others; also B. Crusius, Ewald, and Baeumlein.
* Arist. 7. A. ix. 40, is not relevant; xepet there is impersonal, and the words mean: if there ts no advance in their work.—The sense: It has no place in you, ought to have been expressed rdy Adyow od ywpetre dy Upiv, Comp. xxi. 2%, and see on 2 Cor. vii. 23. [But see Alciphr. Epp. fit. 7 (cited by Field, Ot. Norv. fil. p. 67), where é¢xwpyce means had place, room.—K.]
7 So Nonnus, Grotius, Kuinoel, de Wetto, Maicr, Tholuck, Luthardt.
280 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
The expression would have to be referred back to the meaning—move for- ward, stretch forward (Wisdom vii. 28; 2 Pet. iii. 9, and frequently in clas- sical writers). But this explanation is neither indicated by the text (for the words are not ei¢ iuac), nor is it even appropriate to the sense, seeing that the word of Christ had actually stirred those men to momentary faith. But this explanation is forced on those who refuse to regard the wemorevxérec in ver. 31 as those who answer in ver. 88.
Ver. 88. That my word has thus failed to produce any effect in you, is due to the fundamentally different origin of my discourse on the one hand, and of your doings on the other. — édpaxa r. +. warpi] by which Jesus means the intuition of the divine truth which He derived from His prehuman state (comp. on ver. 28), not from His intercourse with God in time (Godet, Beyschlag), as though this latter were involved in the parallel «ai ipeic, whereas the difference in the analogous relation is betrayed by the very dif- ference of expression (jxotcare and mapa tov marpéc). —xai tueic obv]) you also therefore, following my example of dependence on the Father. There is a stinging irony in the word otv. — qxobcare] i.e. what your father has commanded you. Note the distinction between the Perf. and Aor. Who their father is, Jesus leaves as yet unsaid ; He means, however, the devil, whose children, ethically considered, they are ; whereas He is the Son of God in the essential, metaphysical sense. — rroveire] habitual doing (vii. 51), including, but not exclusively referring to, their wish to kill Him (ver. 37). It is indicatire, and no longer imperative (Hengstenberg, after Matt. xxiii. 82) than in ver. 41.
Vv. 89, 40. The Jews observe that He means another father than Abra- ham. — Jesus proves to them from their non-Abrahamic mode of action that they are no children of Abraham. —réxva and épya are correlates ; the former is used in an ethical sense, so that here (comp. ver. 37) a distinction is drawn, as in Rom. ix. 8, between the fleshly orépua and the moral réxva. —In the reading éore (see the critical notes) there is a change in the view of the relationship, as in Luke xvii. 5 f. Sce remarks on the passage. On the non-employment of év, see Buttmann in Studien u. Kritiken for 1858, p. 485, and his Neutest. Gramm. p. 195 [E. T. p. 224]. — viv dé] but as it is, but as the case stands, nune autem. — avipwrov in reference to mapa r. Oeoi. The AcAdAnxa following in the jirst person is regular.’ — rovro] viz. seeking to take the life of a man who speaks the truth which he has heard of God— this Abraham did not do!* The words are far from referring to Abraham’s conduct towards the angel of the Lord, Gen. xviii. (Hengstenberg, after Lampe) ; nor is such a reference involved in ver. 56. — rapa rot feov] when I was in my prehuman state, rapa r@ rarpi pov, ver. 88. To this view dvfpe- cov isnot opposed (Beyschlag), for Jesus must needs describe Himself in this general human manner, if there were to be congruity between the category of His self-description and the example of Abraham.
Ver. 41. You do what your father practices,—result of vv. 89, 40, though
1 8ee Buttm. Neut. Gramm. p.241 [E.T. like of this the God-feartng epirit of the patri- p. 396]. arch was far removed"), but all the more 2 The expression is a Litotes (‘“‘ From the fitted to put them to shame.
CHAP. VIII, 41. 281 still without specifying who this father is. ‘‘ Paulatim procedit castigatio” (Grotius).—As the Jews are not to look upon Abraham as their father, they imagine that some other human father must be meant. In this case, however, they would be bastards, born of fornication (the fornication of Sarah with another man) ; and they would have two fathers, an actual one (from whom they descend éx« sropveiac) and a putative one (Abraham). But inasmuch as their descent is certainly not an adulterous one,’ and still Abraham is not to be regarded as their father, there remains in op- position to the assertion of Jesus, so they think, only God as the one Father; to whom, therefore, they assign this position : ‘‘ We are not born of fornica- tion,” as thou seemest to assume, in that thou refusest to allow that Abra- bam is our father ; one father only (not two, as is the case with such as are born of adultery) have we, and that God, if our descent from Abraham is not to be taken into consideration. For God was not merely the creator (Mal. ii. 10) and theocratic Father of the people (Isa. Ixiii. 16, xiv. 8); but His Fatherhood was further and specially grounded in the power of His promise made at the conception of Isaac (Rom. iv. 19; Gal. iv. 23). The supposi- tion that they implicitly drew a contrast between themselves and Ishmael (Euth. Zigabenus, who thinks that there is an allusion tothe birth of Jesus, Ruperti, Wetstcin, Tittmann) is erroneous, inasmuch as Ishmael was not born é« ropveiac. We must reject also the common explanation of the pas- sage as a denial of the charge of idolatry ;* ‘‘our filial relationship to God has not been polluted by idolatry,”* as opposed to the context, since the starting-point is not the idea of a superhuman Father, nor are the Jews reproached at all with idolatry ; but the charge is brought against them, that Abraham is not their father. Hence also the supposition of an anti- thesis to a combined Jewish and heathen descent,‘ such as was the case with the Samaritans (Paulus), is inadmissible. Ewald also takes the same simple and correct view ;° comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. Bengel, however, aptly char-
1°Ex wopveiag implies one mother, but several fathers. Who is the one mother, follows from the dental of the paternity of Abraham, consequently Sarah, the ances- tress of the: theocratic people. Hence the inadmissibility of Luthardt’s explanation based on the idea, “ Israel is Jehovah's spouse ;” according to which the thought of the Jews would have been: they were not sprung from a marriage covenant of Israel with another, so that Jehovah would thus be merely nominally their father, in reality, however, another; and they would thus have several fathers. Moreover, a marriage covenant between Israel and another would be a contradiction, this other must needs also be concelved as a true God, consequently as a strange God, a notion which Luthardt justly rejects. It is surprising how B. Crusius could adduce Deut. xxiii. 2 for the purpose of represent- ing the Jews as affirming their theocratic
equality of birth.
2 Hos. j. 2, il.4; Ezek. xx. 30; Isa, lvil. 8.
? De Wette; comp. Grotlus, Lampe, Kul- noel, Locke, Tholuck, Lange, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, and several others.
* Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Godet.
* Although characterized by Ebrard as absurd. He regards ¢x wropvecas ov yey. as merely a “ caricatured form" of the accusa- tion that they are not Abraham's children, and in this way, of course, gets rid of the need of explaining the words. He then takes éva wardpa é¢xouer in the sense of we and thou hare one common Father, which is in- compatible with the word queis, which also belongs to éxyouey, and is, besides, alto- gether opposed to the context; for the entire dialogue is constituted by the an- tithesia of we and thou, I and ye. Ebrard’s view is an unfortunate ovasion of a des perate kind.
282 TUE GOSPEL OF JOHN. acterizes the entire objection raised by the Jews as a “‘novus importunitatis Judaicae paroxysmus.” — #uzic] spoken with the emphasis of pride.
Ver. 42 f. God is not your Father, else would ye lore me, because ye would be of like descent with me.’ This yyarare av éué would be ‘the cthical test” (Luthardt) of the like paternity ; the fact of its non-existence, although it might have eristed, is evidence to the contrary. — éyi] spoken with a feeling of divine assurance. — é{7AGov] the proceeding forth from that essential pre-human fellowship with God, which was His as the Son of God, and which took place through the incarnation (xiii. 3, xvi. 27, 28, 30, xvii. 8). The idea of a mere sending would not be in harmony with the context, the proper subject of which isthe Fatherhood of God ; comp. vi. 62, xvii. 5. —xai jxw| Result of the é&746ov : and am here, it belongs, along with the rest, also to ix. Tr. Qeov. — ovd? yap am’ évavrov, etc.] Confirmation of ix r. Geod, etc. ; for neither of my own self-determination, etc. If Jesus, namely, had not manifested Himself as proceeding from God, He might have come either from a third person, or, at all events, ag’ éavrov ; on the contrary, not even (ovdé) was this latter the case.— Ver. 43. After having shown them that they were the children neither of Abraham nor of God, before positively de- claring whose children they actually are, Iie discloses to them the ground of their not understanding His discourse ; for everything that they had ad- vanced from ver. 33 onwards had been in fact such a non-understanding. The form of expression here used, namely, question and answer (éri because ; comp. Rom. ix. 82 ; 2 Cor. xi. 11), is an outflow of the growing excite- ment.” De Wette (comp. Luther, Beza, Calvin) takes dr: as equivalent to cig Exeivo Sts (See on ii. 18) : ‘‘I say this with reference to the circumstance that.” Illogical, as the clauses must then have stood in the reverse order (Scart ot divacfe ... bre tyv Aaddv, etc.), because the words ov yivd- oxere Genote the relation which is clear from what has preceded. — In the question and in the answer, that on which the emphasis rests is thrown to the end. His discourse was unintelligible to them, because its substance, to wit, His word, was inaccessible to their apprehension, because they had no ears for it. For the cause of this ethical ov dtvacfe, see ver. 47. Aadid, which in classical Greek denoted talk, chatter (see on iv. 42), signifies in later wri- ters,* and in the LXX. and Apocrypha, also Discourse, Sermo,‘ without any contemptuous meaning.*® So here ; and, indeed, thus differing from 4 Aédyoc, that whilst this last mentioned term denotes the doctrinal substance ex- pressed ‘by the 4a4:4,—the doctrine, the substance of that which is delivered, °
1 évdg yeyawra toxhos appaydos piAins dAvTe fuvacare Geox, Nonnus.
2 Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 186, 347.
3 ¥.g. Polyb. 82. 9,4; Joseph Be’. il. 8 5.
4On AdAcos in bonam partem, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. vi. p. 99, vil. p. 140.
®* Comp. Matt. xxvi. 73.
® Comp. Weizsicker in d@. Jahrb. fir deut- sche Theol. 1857, p. 196 f. But in the Gospel it ls always the verbum vocals, and it should not be confounded with the Acyos of tho
prologue, which is the verbum sudstantiale ; hence, also, it furnishes no evidence of a deviation from the doctrine of the Logos. The consciousness Jesus possessed of speaking, keeping, doing, etc., the Adyos of God, rested on His consciousness of His being that which is denoted by the Logos of the prologue. Now this consciousness is not the abstract divine, but that of the theanthropic Ego, corresponding to the b Adyos capt éydvero,
CHAP. VIII., 44. 283
—Aaié denotes the utterunce itself, by which expression is given to the doctrine.’
Ver. 44. After the negative statement in vv. 42, 43 comes now the posi- tive: Ye (ipueic, with decided emphasis—ye people, who deem your- selves children of God !) are children of the devil, in the sense, namely, of ethical genesis (comp. 1 John iii. 8, 12), which is further explained from éxeivog onward. The expression must therefore not be regarded as teaching an original difference in the natures of men (Eilgenfeld, comp. on iii. 6). — ix row xarp. t. diaB.] of the father who is the devil, not of your father, etc. (de Wette, Liicke), which is inappropriate after the emphatic tyeic, or ought to have been specially marked as emphatic (sei éx rod vucv rarpéc, etc.). Nonnus well indicates the qualitative character of the expression ;: éyei¢ dita téxva dvoavtéoc tor? roxjoc. Hilgenfeld’s view, which is adopted by Volkmar : ‘‘ Ye descend from the father of the devil,” which father is the (Gnostic) God of the Jews, is not only generally unbibical, but thoroughly un-Johannine, and here opposed to the context. John could have written simply éx rov d:a3., if the connection had not required that prominence should be given to the idea of father. But in the entire connection there is nothing that would call for a possible father of the devil ,; the question is solely of the devil himself, as the father of those Jews. Erroneously also Grotius, who explains the passage asthough it ran,—rov rarp. ray diaBbaur. — Kai tag éxcOvuiac, etc.) The conscious will of the child of the devil is to ac- complish that after which its father, whose organ it is, lusts. This is rooted in the similarity of their moral nature. The desire to kill is not exclusively re- ferred to, though, as even the plural ex:Bvylac shows, it is included. — exeivog, etc. ] for murder and lying were precisely the two devilish lusts which they were minded to carry out against Jesus. — avflpwroxrévoc fv an’ apxic| from the begin- ning of the human race. This more exact determination of the meaning is dc- rivable from avOpwroxrévoc, inasmuch as it was through his seduction that the Jall was brought about, in whose train death entered into the world (Rom. v. 12). [See Note XXXIIIa. p. 296.] So Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Theophylact, and the majority of commentators ; also Kuinoel, Schleier- macher, Tholuck, Olshausen, Klee, Maier, Lange (referring it, however, after the example of Euth. Zigabenus, also to Cain), Luthardt, Ewald, Godet, Hof- mann,’ Miller,‘ Lechler,* Hahn,* Messner,’ Philippi.* This view is alone ap-
1 Comp. xzil. 48: 6 Adyos by éAdAnoa; Phil. p. 898) deduces from this passage that,
i, 14; Heb. xii. 7.
3In his Leden Jesu (p. 838 ff.), Schieler- macher groundiessly advances the opinion that Jesus had here no intention of teaching any doctrine regarding the devil, but wished merely to add forve to His reproach by referring to the generally-adopted inter- pretation of the narrative of the fall. On the contrary, by His reproach, he not mere- ly laye down the doctrine, but also further intentionally and explicitly expounds It, ea- pecially by assigning the ground. dre ovx «omy, otc. Baur (still in his Neut. Theol.
according to John, Jesus had little sym- pathy for the Jews. He is speaking, however, not at all against the Jeews in general, but merely against the party thal was hostile to Him.
3 Schriftbeweis, 1. pp. 418, 478.
4 Lehre v. d. Sdnde, Il. p. Sif. ed. 5.
® Stud u. Kritik. 1854, p. 814 £.
* Theol. d. N. 7.1. p. 855.
Y Lehre d. Apostel, p. 332.
© Glaubenslehre, ITI. p. 272, see especially Hengstenberg on the passage, and his Christal. 1. p. 8 ff.; Weiss, LeArdegr. p. 183 f.
284 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. propriate to the expression az’ apyfc, which the design of the context requires to be taken exactly,’ as it must. also be understood in 1 John iii. 8.* Others re- ferto Cain's murder of his brother,* which is not, however, rendered necessary by 1 John iii. 12, and would, without any warrant, exclude an earlier com- mencement ; would be opposed to the national and New Testament view ‘ of the fall and the connection of the present passage ; and would finally lack any allusion to Gen. iv. ; while on the contrary, the antithesis between truth and falsehood, which follows afterwards, points unmistakably to Gen. iii. Finally, inasmuch as az’ dpyq¢ must signify some definite histori- . cal starting-point, it is incorrect, with B Crusius, to deny a reference either to the fall or to Cain’s murder of his brother, and to take av@pwroxr. an’ apzq¢ a8 simply a general designation.—Briickner also treats the refer- ence to a definite fact as unnecessary. — 7] that is, during the entire past, an’ apxi¢ Onwards. —x. év TH GAO. ovx Eornxev] does not refer tothe fall of the devil,’ as Augustine, Nonnus, and most Catholics maintain,‘ as though elorfxee (Vulg. : stetit) had been employed, but is his constant characteristic :" and he does not abide in the truth, tupéver, avarabera:, Euth. Zigabenus. The truth is the domain in which he has not his footing ; to him it is a foreign, heterogencous sphere of life : the truth is the opposite of the lie, both in formal and material significance. The die is the sphere in which he holds his place ; in it he is in the clement proper and peculiar to him ; in it he has his life’s standing. — dre ob« fore aAgO. év ait] the inner ground of the pre- ceding statement. The determining cause of this inner ground, however, is expressed by the words év avr@, which are emphatically placed at the end. As truth is not found in him, as it is lacking to his inner essence and life, it cannot possibly constitute the sphere of his objective life. Without truth in the inward parts—truth regarded, namely, as a subjective qualification, temper, tendency—that is, without truth in the character, a man must nec- essarily be foreign to, and far from, the domain of objective truth, and can- not have his life and activity therein. Without truth in the inward parts, a man deals in life with lies, deception, cunning, and all adixia. Note that
Compare the corresponding parallels, Wisd. fi. 24; Apoc. xii. 9, xx.2; also Ev. Nicod. 23, where the devil is termed 7 rov Gavdrovu apxy, 7 piga THS Gpaprias; see also Grimm on Wisd. i. 1.
1 YURI ited Lightfoot, p. 1045.
2 Comp. Joseph. Antig. I. 1, 4.
* Cyril, Nitzsch in the Bert. theol. Zeitschr. III. p. 52 ff., Schulthess, Lficke, Kling, de Wette, Reuss, Beitr. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Baeumlein, Grimm.
* See on 2Cor. xi. 3.
§ 2 Pet. fi. 4; Jude 6.
*Comp. also Martensen’s Dogmatics, § 105. Delitzsch, too (see Psychol. p. 62), explains the passage as though ¢ionjxe: were used: the devil, instead of “taking his stand in the truth,’’ revolted, as the god of the world, selfishly against God; for which reason the world has been “ degraded and
materialized” by God to a 1733) IW, eto. In this way a new creation of the world is made out of the creation in Gen. 1, and out of the fret act in the history of the world, & Fecond.
7 At the same time, we do not mean herewith to deny to John the idea of a Jali of the devil, or, in other words, to rep- resent him as believing the devil to have been originally evil. The passage under consideration treats merely of the evil con- stitution of the devil as if te, without giving any hint as to its origin. This in answer to Frommann, p. 380, Reuss, and Hilgenfeld. In relation to the doctrine of the f/aZ of the devil nothing is here taught. Comp. Hofmann, Schrifibewelse, passim; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 819. Such a fall is, however, necessarily presupposed by this passage.
CHAP. VIII., 45, 46. 285
aAfd. is used first with, and then without, the article. —éx rév idiuy] out of that which is his own, which constitutes the proper ground or essence of his inner man,—out of that which is most peculiarly his ethical nature. Comp.
Matt. xii. 84. —x. 6 warp abrov] namely, of the liar ; he, generically consid- ered, to wit, the liar as such in general, is the devil's child. The character- ization of the devil thus aptly concludes with a declaration which at the same time confirms the reproach, iyei¢ éx r. marpdc rov d:a,3. éoré. The less to be approved, therefore, is the common explanation of avrov, as standing for rov petdouc, which is to be derived from weborgs (mendacii auctor, after Gen.
iii. 4 f.) ; although, linguistically considered, it is in itself admissible.’ The correct view has been taken also by B. Crusius, Luthardt, Tholuck, Heng- stenberg. and as early as Bengel. The old heretical explanation, ‘‘as his Sather,” * or, ‘' also his father, referring avrov to the devil, and 6 rarfp to the demiurge, whose lie is the pretending to be the most high God,* must be re- jected ; for, on the one hand, John should at the very least, to avoid being completely misunderstood, have written ér: airdc yp. é. x. 6. 7. a; * while, on the other hand, he did not in the remotest degree cntertain the monstrous, wholly unbiblical notion of a father of the devil. Nor would a father of this kind at all harmonize with the context. Even a writer as early as Photius,
Quaest. Amphiloch. 88, takes the opposite view ; as also Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 198 f. It was in the highest degree unnecessary that Lachmann,’ to avoid referring avrov to the devil, should approve the reading qui, or d¢ av, instead of érav, which is supported by the fecblest evidence : ‘‘ qui loquitur men- dacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia patrem quoque mendacem habet.” ([Sce Note XXXIV. p. 296. ]
Ver. 45. Because I, on the contrary, speak the truth, ye believe me not. —éya éé] for the sake of strong emphasis, in opposition to the devil, placed at the beginning ; and the causative 5r,, a thoroughly tragical because, has its ground in the alien character of the relation between that which Jesus speaks and their devilish nature, to which latter a lie alone corresponds. Euth. Ziagbenus aptly remarks : ei pév 2Aeyov peidoc, éxiorebaaré pot dv, be 7d idov Tov tarpo¢ tuav Afyovrt. To take the sentence asa question (Ewald) would weaken its tragical force.
Ver. 46. Groundlessness of this unbelief. Ei yu, didre rv GAjAecav Aéyo, amoreiré pot, eimare, tig é& tow éAfyyer pe mepl duapriag bn’ éuov pevouévyc, iva OéEnre dt txeivav amioreiv ; Euth. Zigabenus. ‘Auapria, fault, is not to be taken in the intellectual sense, as untruth, error,® but, as employed without excep- tion in the N. T., as equivalent to sin. Jesus boldly urges against His op- ponents His unassailable moral purity—and how lofty a position of superi- ority does He thus assume above the saints of the Old Testament !—the fact that against Him can be brought dyapriac dvecdog ovdév,’ as a guarantee that
Winer, p. 181 f. [E. T. p. 145); Butt- pev8spovos éx yereripos. mann, p. 93 [E. T. p. 106). ® Praef. WI. p. 7.
® Hence, also, the readings ow¢ and cadws * Origen, Cyril, Melanchthon, Calvin, wel, instead of «ai, which, though early Beza, Bengel, Kypke, Tittmann, Kuinoel, in date, are supported by feeble testimony. Klee, and others.
* Hilgenfeld, Volkmar. 7 Soph. 0. C. 971.
*Comp. Nunnus: pevorms attds edu,
286 THE GOSPEL OF JOHX,
IIe speaks the truth ; justly too, for according to ver. 44 4A##ea must be re- garded as the opposite of petdoc, whereas a lie falls unde: the category of duapria (comp. ddixia, vii. 18). The conclusion is from the genus to the species ; hence also it is inadmissible to take cuapria in the special sense of ‘* fraus” (‘‘ qua divinam veritatem in mendacium converterim”)? ‘‘ wieked de- ception” (B. Crusius), ‘‘ sin of word,”* ‘‘ false doctrine,” * and so forth. Even in classical usage duapria, in and by itself, would denote neither error nor de- ception, but only acquire this specific meaning through an addition more precisely determining its force.‘ Considered in itself it denotes fault, per- cersity, the opposite of dpAdéryc.* Remark further, in connection with this important passage : (1) The argument is based, not upon the position that ‘* the sinless one is the purest and surest organ of the knowledge and communica- tion of the truth” (Liicke) ; or that ‘‘ the knowledge of the truth is grounded in the purity of the will” (de Wette, comp. Ullmann) ; for this would presup- pose in the consciousness in which the words are spoken, to wit, in the con- sciousness of Jesus, a knowledge of the truth obtained mediately, or, at all events, acquired first in His Auman state ; whereas, on the contrary, especially according to John’s view, the knowledge of the truth pos- sessed by Jesus was an intuitive onc, one possessed by Him in His pre-human state, and preserved and continued during His human state by means of the constant intercourse between Himself and God. The reasoning proceeds rather in this way: Am I really without sin,—and none of you is able to convict me of the contrary,—then am I also without perdoc ; but am I without ysidoc, then do I speak the truth, and you, on your part (ieic), have no reason for not believing me. This reasoning, however, is
abbreviated, in that Jesus passes at once from the denial of the possibility °
of charging Him with dyapria, to the positive, special contrary which fol- lows therefrom,—leaving out the middle link, that consequently: no weido¢ can be attributed to Him,—and then continues = e aa. Afyw.£ Further, (2) _ the proof of the sinlessness of Jesus furnished by this passage is purely sub- jective, so far as it rests on the decided expression of His own moral con- sciousness in the presence of His enemies ; but, at the same time, it is as such all the more striking in that the confirmation of His own testimony (comp. xiv. 30) is added to the testimony of others, and to the necessity of His sinlessness for the work of redemption and for the function of judge. This self-witness of Jesus, on the one hand, bears on itself the seal of imme- diate truth (otherwise, namely, Jesus would have been chargeable with a xavyaoba of self-righteousness or self-deception, which is inconceivable in Him) ; whilst, on the other hand, it is saved from the weakness attaching to other self-witnessings, both by the whole evangelical history, and by the
‘Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Qpuse. p. 99.
2 Hofmann, Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 38 f.
’ Melanchthon, Calvin.
* Polyb. 16. 20, 6, is, without reason, ad- cuced by Tholuck against this view. In the passage referred to, azapriac are Sauilte, coings wrong in general. The sentencc {s
a general maxim.
5 Plat. Legg. 1. p. 627 D, il. p. 668C. Comp. &ééns auapria, Thuc. 1. 82.4; vduwr apapria, Plat. Legg. i. p. 627 D; yvouns apaprnua, Thue. ft. 65. 7. '
* Lachmann and Tischendorf correctly without 84.
i nr ee ee eer -me:
=r +—+—_— at -4
CHAP, VIII, 47. 287
fact of the work of reconciliation. (8) The sinlessness itself, to which Jesus here lays claim, isin so far relative, as it is not absolutely divine, but both is and must be dizine-human, and was based on the human develop- ment of the Son of God.' He was actually tempted, and might have sinned ; this abstract possibility, however, never became a reality. On the contrary, at every moment of His life it was raised into a practical impossibility.? Thus He learned obedience (Heb. v. 8). Hence the sinlessness of Jesus, being the result of a normal development which, at every stage of His earthly cx- istence, was in perfect conformity with the God-united ground of His inner life (comp. Luke ii. 40, 52), must always be regarded as conditioned, so far as the human manifestation of Jesus is concerned, by the entrance of the Logos into the relation of growth ; whilst the unconditioned correlate there- to, namely, perfection, and accordingly absolute moral goodness—goodness which is absolutely complete and above temptation at the very outset— belongs alone, nay, belongs necessarily to God. In this way the apparent contradiction between this passage and Mark x. 18 may be resolved. For the rest, the notion of sin as a necessary transitional point in human devel- opment is shown to be groundless by the historic fact of the sinlessness of Jcsus,*
Ver. 47. Answer to the question in ver. 46,—a syllogism whose minor premiss, however, needs not to be supplied in thought (de Wette : ‘‘ Now I speak the words of God”), seeing that it is contained in (ipeic) ex rod Bead ovx éoré. That Jesus speaks the words of God is here taken for granted. The major premiss is grounded on the necessary sympathy between God and him who springs from God; he who hears the words of God, that is, as such, he has an car for them. The words, éx rod Geot eiva:, in the sense of being spiritually constituted by God, do not refer to Christian regencration and to sonship,—for this begins through faith,—but merely to a preliminary stage thereof, to wit, the state of the man whom God draws to Christ by the operation of His grace (vi. 44), and who is thus prepared for His divine preaching, and is given to Him as His (vi. 37). Compare xvii. 6. — dd rovro—br:] asin v. 16,18. See on x. 17.— Note in conncction with ver. 47, compared with ver. 44, that the moral dualism which is characteristic, not merely of John’s Gospel, but of the gospel generally, here so far reveals its metaphysical basis, that it is traced back to the genetic relation, either to the devil or to God—two opposed states of dependence, which give risc to the most opposite moral conditions, with their respective unsusceptibility or susceptibility to divine truth. The assertion by Jesus of this dualism was not grounded on historical reflection and a conclusion ab effectu ad causam, but on the immediate certitude which belonged to Him as knowing the heart of man. At the same time, it is incorrect to suppose that He as-
Comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 212. At the p. 100 ff., ed. 8, also p. 189 f. game time, the sinless development of * Any moral stain fn Christ would have Jesus is not to be subsumed under the been a negation of His consciousness of conception of sanctification. See also Dor- being the Redeemer and Judge. ner’s Sinless Perfection of Jesus, and the 3Sce Ernesti, Uraprung der Siinde, I. p. striking remarks of Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. 197 ff.
288 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
sumes the existence of two classes of human nature differing radically from each other at the very outsct.' On the contrary, the moral self-determina- tion by which a man surrenders himself either to the one or the other prin- ciple, is no more excluded than the personal guilt attaching to the children of the devil (vv. 24, 34); though their freedom is the more completely lost, the more completely their hearts become hardened (ver. 43). The problem of the metaphysical relation between human freedom and the superhuman power referred tu, remains, however, necessarily unsolved, and, indeed, not merely in this passage, but in the whole of the New Testament (even in Rom, ix.—-xi.); comp. also 1 John iii. 12, iv. 4. But the freedom itself, in face of that power, and the moral imputation and responsibility remain intact, comp. Hi. 19-21.
Vv. 48, 49. In ver. 42 ff. Jesus had denied that His opponents were sons of God, and had stamped them as children of the devil. This procedure they regard only as a confirmation of the accusation which they bring against Him (Aéyouev) of being a Samaritan, i.e. an heretical antagonist of the pure people of God (for in this light did they vicw that despised people of mixed race), and possessed with a devil (vii. 20). So paradoxical, not mercly presumptuous (as Luthardt explains Layap.), and so crazed did the discourse of Jesus appear to them. No reference whatcver was intended to iv. 5 ff. (Briickner, Ewald). On xatéc, aptly, comp. iv. 17, xii. 13. — Ver. 49. éyd datudy. ove éyu, etc.] The emphatic éyé does not contain a retort by which the demoniacal element would be ascribed to His opponents,*—a reference which would require to be indicated by arranging the words oix ty dau. Exv,—but stands simply in opposition to the following xai iyeic. With quict carnestness, leaving unnoticed the reproach of being a Samari- tan, Jesus replies : I for my part am not possessed, but honour (by discourses which you consider demoniacal, but by which I in reality preserve and pro- mote the glory of God) my Father; and you, on your part, what is it that you do? You dishonour me! Thus does He unveil to them the unrighteous- ness Of their abusive language.
Vv. 50, 51. J, however, in contrast to this unrighteousness by which you wound my honour, seek not the honour which belongs to me—éorw 6 Cyr. x. xpivwy, there is one (comp. v. 45) who seeks tt (‘‘ qui me honore afficere velit,” Grotius), and pronounces judgment, that is, as a matter of fact, between me and my revilers, The expression xa? xpivey includes a reference, on the one hand, to the glurification of Jesus, by which He was to be justified (xvi. 10 ; comp. the dd, Phil. ii. 9); and, on the other, as regards His opponents, a hint at their just punishment (with eternal death, ver. 51). Hence He adds in ver. 51 a solemn assurance concerning that which is necessary to the obtain- ing of eternal life, instead of this punitive xpioc, to wit, the keeping of His word ; thus deciding that the exclusion of His opponents from eternal life was inevitable as long as they did not return to repentance ; but also point- ing out the only way to salvation which was still remaining open to them. Quite arbitrarily some have treated ver. 51 as not forming part of His dis-
2 Baur, Oilgenfeld. 2 Cyril, Liicke.
CHAP. VIII, 62-55. 289
course to His enemies.’ After a pause, Jesus turns again to those who believed on Him, in the sense of ver. 81. Liicke maintains, indeed, that the discourse is addressed to His opponents, but regards it rather as the conclusion of the line of thought begun at ver. 31 f. than a direct continu- ation of ver. 50. The connection with ver. 50 is in this way likewise sur- rendered. The discourse is a direct continuation of the import of xa? xpivuy, for the result of this xpiverv to the opponents of Jesus is death. — édy ric, etc. ] Note the emphasis which is given to the pronoun by the arrangement of the words ray éuav Adyov. It is the word of Christ, whose keeping has so great an effect. rypeiv is not merely keeping in the heart,* but, as always, when united with rév Adyov, rag évroAdc, etc., keeping by fulfilling them (ver. 55, xiv. 15, 21, 23 f., xv. 20, xvii. 6). This fulfilment includes even the faith itself demanded by Jesus (iii. 86 ; comp. the conception of taxon siorewc), as also the accomplishment of all the duties of life which He enjoins as the fruit and test of faith. — @d4varov oi py? Oewp. eig Tr. ai.] not: he will not die for ever,* but : he will never die, i.e. he will live eternally.‘ Death is here the antithesis to the Messianic life, which the believer possesses even in its temporal development, and which he will never lose. —On @ewp. comp. Pa. Ixxxix. 44 ; Luke ii. 25; see also on iii. 86. The article is not necessary to Oavaroc.®
Vv. 52, 53. The Jews understood Him to speak of natural death, and thus found a confirmation of their charge that He was mad in consequence of being possessed with a devil. It is in their view a senseless self-exal- tation for Jesus to ascribe to His word, and therefore to IIimself, greater power of life than was possessed by Abraham and the prophets, who had not been able to escape death. — viv éyvéx.] “ antea cum dubitatione aliqua locuti erant,” in ver. 48, Bengel. — yeboyrac] a different and stronger desig- nation, not intentionally selected, but the result of excitement. The image employed, probably not derived from a death-cup,—a supposition which is not favoured by the very common use of the expression in other connec- tions,—serves to sect forth to the senses the mixpéryc, the bitterness of expe- riencing death.” The kind of experience denoted by jectecAa is always specificd in the context. — Ver. 53. Surely thou are not greater (furnished with greater power against death), and so forth ; of isemphatic. Comp. iv. 12. — boric] quippe qui, whoin sooth ; assigning the ground. — riva ceavr. roteig] What sort of one dost thou make thyself? (v. 18, x. 88, xix. 7), ‘‘quem te venditas ?”’ (Grotius), that thy word should produce such an effect ?
Vv. 54, 55. Justification against the charge of self-exaltation contained in the words riva ceavr. roic. Jesus gives this justification a general form, and then proceeds to make a special decluration regarding Abraham, which
1 Calvin and De Wette. Wetstein; Leon. Alex. 41: yeverOa: acrépyev
® Tholuck. Cavdrov.
® Kaeuffer, de (wis aiwy., not. p. 114. 7 Comp. the classical expressions, yeveo@eu
«Comp. ver. 52, xi. 25 ff., v. 25, vi. 50. wévOovs, Eur. Alc. 1072; 46xOwv, Soph. Track.
§ xi. 4, and very frequently in the N.T.; 1001; «axa», Luo. Nigr. 2; wovey, Pind. see Eliendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 24. Nem, 6. 41; wevins, Maced. 8; d&crot, Hom.
® Comp. on the expression Matt. xvi. 28, Od. $, 98, xecpeov v, 181. and the Rabbis as quoted by Schoettgen and
290 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. makes it clear that He is really greater than Abraham. — ¢yi—éuavrév] em- phatic designation of self (comp. v. 80, 81, vii. 17) ; dofécw, however, is not the future [see the critical notes] (although édy with the indicative is not absolutely to be condemned ; sce on Luké xix. 40; Matt. xviii. 19), but, according to regular usage, the Conj. Aor.: in case I shall have glorified myself. — éctiv 6 xathp pov, etc.) My Father is the one who glorifies me, He is my glorifier. The Partic. Praes. with the article has a substantival force, and denotes habitual, continuous doing ; hence it refers not merely to a par- ticular mode and act of dofdéfecv exclusively, but to its whole course (in the works wrought, in the divine testimonies, and in His final glorification). — bv tyeic Aéyere, etc.] On the construction see x. 86. Comp. on v. 27, ix. 19; Acts xxi. 29. Jesvs unfolds to them why this activity of God, by which He is honoured, is hidden from them ; notwithstanding, namely, their theocratic fancy, ‘‘ i is our God,” they have not known God.’ Jesus, on the contrary, is certain that He knows Him,* and keeps His word. — Suaog dna peboryc] a liar like unto you. ‘‘ Mendazest qui vel affirmat neganda vel negat arffimanda,” Bengel. The charge points back to ver. 44.* — aad] but, far from being such a liar. —rdv Ady. abr. rypo) exactly as in ver. 51. The entire life and work of Christ were in truth one continuous surrender to the counsel of God, and obedience (Phil. ii. 8 ; Rom. v. 19; Heb. v. 8) to the divine will, whose injunctions He constantly discerned in His fellow- ship with the Father, iv. 34. Comp. as to the subject-matter, ver. 29. Ver. 58. Eira xaraoxevafec wal bre peilwv écrit tov ’ABp., Euth. Zigabenus, and, indeed, in such a manner, that He, at the same time, puts the hostile children of Abraham to shame. — é raryp ipév] with a reproving glance back to ver. 39. — 7yaAAdoaro, iva Idy] he exrulted to see ; the object of his ex- ultation is conceived as the goal to whoee attainment the joyous movement of the heart is directed. He rejoiced in the anticipation of seeing my day, 1.6. of witnessing the day of my appearance on earth.‘ As to its historical date,
2 Not because they held another divine ¢yvwxa (although considered in itself He
being, their own national god, to be the highest (Hilgenfeld) ; but because they had formed false: conceptions of the one true God, who had manifested Himself in the Old Test., aud had not understood His highest revelation in Christ, in consequence of their blindness and hardness of heart. Comp. ver. 19, and see Weiss, Lehriegr. p.60f. In Hilgenfeld’s view, indeed, John teaches that the Jewish religion, as to its substance, was the work of the Demiurge, and it was only without his knowledge that the Logos hid in it the germs of the highest religion |! By the same exegesis by which this doctrine is derived from John, one might very casily show it to be taught by Paul, especially in the sharp antagonism he assumes between véuos and xapis,—if one desired, f.¢. if one were willing to bring down this apostle to the period of transition from the Valentin- jan tothe Marcionite Gnosis.
2 Regarding Himself, Jesus does not say
might have said it, comp. xvii. 25), because He here speaks in the consciousness of His immedtate, essential knowledge of the Father. — According to Ewald, the words, ** Itisour God,” contain an allusion to well- known songs and prayers which were con- stantly repeated. But the frequent occur- rence of ‘‘our God” in the O. T. is quite sufficient to explain their import.
3 Suoos with the Gen. as in Theophr. ZH. pi. ix.11, also Xen. Anad. iv.1.17; see Bor- nemann, ad &. 0.
4 nudpa 7 duy expressly denotes (hence not Tas nuepas Tas éuds, comp. Luke xvil. 2) the exact, particular day af the appearance of Christ on earth, f.¢, the day of Hisdirth (Job iii. 1; Diog. L. 4. 41), from the Johannine point of view, the day on which the 6 Adyos capt ¢yévero was accomplished. This was the great epoch in the history of redemp- tion which Abraham was to behold.
CHAP. VIII., 56. 291
hyaaziéoaro does not refer to an event in the paradisaical life of Abraham ; but, as Abraham was the recipient of the Messianic promise, which desig- nated the Messiah as His own orépya, but himself, as the founder and vehicle of the entire redemptive Messianic development for all nations, the allusion is to the time in his earthly life when the promise was made to him. His faith in this promise (Gen. xv. 6) and the certainty of the Messianic future, whose development was to proceed from him, with which he was thus inspired, could not but fill him with joy and exultation ; hence, also, thereisno need for an express testimony to the 7ya2A4. in Genesis (the supposed reference to the laughing mentioned in Gen. xvii. 17 which was already interpreted by Philo to denote great joy and exultation, and which Hofmann also has again revived in his Weissag. und Hrfiil. TI. p. 18, is inadmissible, on a correct explanation of the passage). So much, however, is presupposed, namely, that Abraham recognized the Messianic character of the divine promise; and this we are justified in presupposing in him who was the chosen recipi- ent of divine revelations. For inventions of the Rabbis regarding revela- tions of future events asserted, on the ground of Gen. xvii. 17, to have been made to Abraham, see Fabric. Cod. Pseudepigr. I. p. 423 ff. The seeing of the day (the experimental perception of it through the Leing to see tt, Luke xvii. 22 ;' to which (iva) the exultation of Abraham was directed, was, for the soul of the patriarch, a moment of the indefinite future. And this secing was realized, not during his earthly life, but in his paradisaical state,* when he, the ancestor of the Messiah and of the nation, learnt that the Messianic age had dawned on the earth in the birth of Jesus as the Mes- siah. In like manner the advent of Jesus on the earth was made known to Moses and Elijah (Matt. xviii. 4), which fact, however, does not justify us in supposing that reference is here made to occurrences similar to the trans- figuration (Ewald). In Paradise Abraham saw the day of Christ, as indeed, he there maintained in general a relation to the states and experiences of his people (Luke xvi. 25 ff.). This was the object of the xai elds xal éydpn ; it is impossible, however, to determine exactly the form under which the eldée was vouchsafed to him, though it ought not to be explained with B. Crusius as mere anticipation. We must rest contented with the idea of divine information. The apocryphal romance, Testamentum Levt, p. 586 f. (which tells us that the Messiah Himself opens the gates of Paradise, fecds the saints from the tree of life, etc., and then adds : rére ayaAJudoera: "ABpadp nal "Ioadx x. "Iaxi8 nay yaphooua nat mévre¢ ol aytos évdbcovra evdpootrny), merely supplies a general confirmation of the thought that Abraham, in the intermediate state of happiness, received with joy the news of the advent of Messiah. Supposing, however, that the relation between promise (7ya- Acdoaro, iva Idy, etc.) and fulfilment (xa2 elde x. éyépn), expressed in the two clauses of the verse, do require the beholding of the day of Christ to be a real beholding, and the day of Christ itself to be the day of His actual ap- pearance, .6. the day of the incarnation of the promised One on earth, it is
1 Polyb. x. 4.7; Soph. O. 2. 831, 1888; and Wette, Mailer, Luthardt, Lechler in the Stwd.
gee Wetstein and Kypke on the passage. w. Krit. 184, p. 817, Lange, Baeumlein, *Comp. Lampe, Licke, Tholuck, de Ebrard, Godet.
292 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
mot allowable to understand by it, either, with Raphelius and Hengsten- berg, the appearance of the angel of.the Lord (Gen. xvili.) ¢.¢. of the Logos, to Abraham ; or, with Luther, ‘‘ the vision of faith with the heart,” at the announcement made in Gen. xxii. 18 ;’ or, with Olshausen, a prophetic vision of the dé6fa of Christ (comp. xii. 41) ; or, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, and most of the older commentators, also Hof- mann, the beholding of an event which merely prejfigured the day of Christ, a typical beholding, whether the birth of Isaac be regarded as the event in question,’ or the offering up of Isaac as a sacrifice, prefiguring the atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ (Chrysostom, Grotius, and many others). According to Linder,* the day of Christ denotes nothing but the time of the birth of Isaac, which was promised in Gen. xviii. 10, so that Christ would thus appear to have represented Himself as one of the angels of the grove of Mamre,* and, by the expression juépa } éuf, to have denoted a time of special, actual revelation. Taken thus, however, the day in question would be only mediately the day of Christ ; whercas, according to the connection and the express designation ri juépav riv éufv, Christ Himself must be the immediate subject of the day, as the one whose appearance constitutes the day emphatically His—His xar’ éfoxfv, analogously to the day of His second advent ;° hence, also, the plural had not to be employed (in answer to Linder’s objection). — xa? éxydp7] appropriately interchanged for 7yaAA., the latter corresponding to the first outburst of emotion at the unexpected proc- lamation.
Ver. 57. The Jews, referring x. elde x. éydépn to the earthly'life of Abraham, imagine the assertion of Jesus to imply that He had lived in the days of the patriarch, and professed to have been personally acquainted withhim !| How absurd is this |! — wevrfxovra] Placed first to indicate emphasis, correspond- ing to the position afterwards assigned to the word 'Afp. Fijty years are specified as the period when a man attains his full growth :* thou hast not yet passed the full age of manhood ! Consequently, neither the reading reocap- éxovra is to be preferred (Ebrard), nor need we conclude either that Jesus was above forty years of age (the Presbyters of Asia Minor in Iren. II. 22. 5) ; or that He was taken to be so old ;’ or that He looked so old (Lampe, Heumann, Paulus) ; or that they confounded ‘‘ the intensity of the devotion of His soul” as it showed itself in His person, with the traces of age." In the act of instituting a comparison with the two thousand years that had elapsed since Abraham’s day, they could not well care about determining very pre- cisely the age of Christ. In answer to E. v. Bunsen,’ who seeks to establish
1 Comp. Melanchthon, Calvin, and Calo- 6 Luke xvif. 24; 1 Cor. 1. 8, v. 5; 2 Cor. 1. vius; Bengel also: * Vidit diem Christi, 14; Phil. i. 6, ff. 16; 1 Thess. v. 2; 2 Thess. qui in semine, quod stellarum instar futu- ii. 2
rum erat, sidus maximum est et fulgidiss!- * Comp. Num. iv. 8, 89, vill. 24 f. ; Light- mum.” foot, p. 1046 f.
* Hofmann ; see also his Schriftbew. II. 2, T &4 Thy woAvwetpiay avrov Euth. Zigabenus. p. 304 f. 8 Lange, Life of Jesus.
8 Stud. und Arit. 1859, p. 518 f., 1867, p- ®° The Hidden Wisdom of Christ, efc., Lond. BO f. 1865, II. p. 461 ff.
4 Comp. Hengstenberg.
CHAP. VIII., 58, 59. 293 the correctness of the statement in Irenaeus, see Résch in Die Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 4 f. Without the slightest reason, Bunsen finds in the forty-six years of chap, iv. 2, the age of Christ. But also Keim is not opposed to the idea of Christ being forty years of age.
Ver. 58. Not a continuation of the discourse in ver. 56, so that Jesus would thus not have given any answer to the question of the Jews (B. Crusius) ; but, as the contents themselves, and the solemn ayy ayy A. iz. shows, an answer to ver. 57. This reply asserts even more than the Jews had asked, namely, rpiv, etc., before Abraham became, or was born (not : was, as Tholuck, de Wette, Ewald, and others translate),* Iam ; older than Abraham’s origin is my existence. As Abraham had not pre-existed, but came into eristence* (by birth), therefore yevéo6a: is used ; whereas eizi denotes being per se, which belonged to Jesus, so far as He existed before time, as to His divine nature, without having previously come intobeing. [See Note XXXV. p. 297.] Comp. I. 1. 6 ; andsee even Chrysostom. The Praesens denotes that which continues from the past, 4.6. here : that which continues from before time (i. 1, xvii. 5).4 ’Eyé eiue must neither be taken as ideal being (de Wette), nor as being Messiah (Scholten), and transferred into the counsel of God (Sam. Crellius, Grotius, Paulus, B. Crusius), which is forbidden even by the use of the Praesens ; nor may we, with Beyschlag, conceive the being as that of the real image of God,—a thought which, after ver. 57, is neither suggested by the context, nor would occur to Christ’s hearers without some more pre- cise indication ; nor, lastly, is the utterance to be regarded merely as a mo- mentary vision, as in a state of prophetic elevation (Weizsicker), inasmuch as it corresponds essentially to the permanent consciousness which Jesus had of His personal (the condition, in the present connection, of His having seen Abraham) pre-existence, and which everywhere manifests itself in the Gospel of John. Comp. on xvii. 5, vi. 46, 62. The thought is not an intuitive conclusion backwards, but a glance backward, of the consciousness of Jesus.* Only noteworthy in a historical point of view is the perverse explanation of Faustus Socinus, which from him passed over into the Socinian confession of faith :° ‘‘Before Abraham becomes Abraham, 7.¢. the father of many nations, I am it, namely, the Messiah, the Light of the world.” He thus admonishes the Jews to believe on Him while they have an opportunity, before grace is taken from them and transferred to the heathen, in which way Abraham will become the father of many nations.
Ver. 59. The last assertion of Jesus strikes the Jews as blasphemous ; they therefore set themselves, in the spirit of zealotry, to inflict punishment (comp. x. 81). A stoning in the temple is mentioned also by Joseph, Antéé. xvii. 9. 8. The stones were probably building stones lying in the fore-court. See Light- foot, p. 1048. —éxpbBy x. é&7ABev| He hid Himself (probably in the crowd), and
1 Geach. Jes. I. p. 469; comp. his Ge in itself would be also correct (Gal. iv. 4; echichtl. Chr. p. 285. and see especially Raphelius on the pas-
® Also the English Authorized Version. sage).
®§ This view, ‘“factus est," forms a more 4 Comp. LXX.; Ps. xc. 2; also Jer. {. 8 significant correlate to «ini than if yerdeOac ®§ Against Beyschlag. were taken as equivalent to nasci, which * See Catech. Racov., ed. Oeder, p. 144 f.
294 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
went out (whilst thus hidden). The word éxpt@7 explains how He was able to go out, and therefore (how very different from this is Luke iv. 80 !) pre- cludes the notion of anything miraculous,*—a notion which gave rise to the addition in the Tezt. Rec. (see the critical observations), which Ewald defends. Baur, who likewise defends the Tezt. Rec. (p. 384 ff.), finds here also a docetic disappearance (comp. on vii. 10 f.) ; if, however, such was John’s meaning, he selected the most unsuitable possible terms to express it in writing éxpt7 (comp. on the contrary, Luke xxiv. 81 : d¢avroc tyéveto an’ abvrav) and 2&%ABev éx tov iepov. The ‘‘ providential protection of God” (Tholuck) is a matter of course, but is not expressed.—There is no exegetical ground for supposing that the simple close of the narrative is designed to prefigure the death of Christ, which, being accomplished under the appearance of legality, released the Lord from the judgment of Israel, so that He left the old Israel as the school of Satan, and, on the other hand, gathered around Him the true Israel] (Luthardt). Note how the breach between Jesus and the Jews gradually approached the extremity, and ‘‘ how admirable also in the details, is the delineation of the ever-increasing intensification of the crisis,” *
Notes spy AmeEenican Eprror.
XXXII. The woman takenin adultery. Ver. 53 ; chap. viii. ver. 11.
In the face of all the evidence, internal and external, it seems impossible to vindicate for this remarkable passage a right to its time-honoured place here, although the internal testimonies seem to me far from convincing. The ex- change of John’s favourite ovv for dé is, indeed, striking, yet hardly decisive on the point of style. Taking a few passages at random, we find in ch. ii. 1- 12 dé four times, and no ovy ; in the whole chapter, dé 7 times, odv 3. In ch. v. 1-13, dé 5 times, ctv 2; ch. vi. 1-13, dé 6 times, oty 4; ch. vii. 1-13, dé 4 times, otv 3. Neither wd¢ 6 Aude (in its place here), nor dp0pov, nor ypayparete xai gapioaion, nor caraxpiyw, would of themselves awaken serioussuspicion. ‘The peculiar situation suggests its peculiar words. Nor, what is generally urged as the strongest internal reason against the passage, does the interruption of the narrative seem violent enough to be decisive. It unites itself naturally and even gracefully with what precedes, and the avroic of viii. 12 finds its antecedent as easily in wdc 6 Aadc of ver. 2 (who, of course, are not among the con- science-smitten retreaters, and especially as they may have consisted largely of his yesterday’s auditors), as to any assumed antecedent in ch. vii. In any case, the connection is somewhat loose.
Still, uniting the internal with the external difficulties, the numerous vari- eties of reading (always suspicious) and the absence of the passage from so many mss., versions, and Fathers, the case is strong against it—only, however, against its genuineness here. That it is, if not Johannean, at least Apostolic, and de-
1 Hengstenberg reverses the logical rela- thecase of awedAdwv, xif. 36. tion : nai €£7Ade stands, he says, for efeAduy, 2 adpatos avrois xardom Ty efovaelig ris ded- and describes the manner in which He hid srnros, Euth. Zigabenus; comp. Grotias, Himself,—a purely arbitrary statement, Wolf, Bengel, Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, and and if é¢feAdw» had been used,it would even Augustine. have preceded the éxpvBy (egressus), as in 3 Ewald, Geech. Chr. p. 477, ed. 8.
NOTES. 295
scribes a real and most remarkable incident in the life of our Lord, cannot be well doubted; there is none in the record of our Saviour’s life that is more completely lifted above any conception which belonged to the men of his time, and more completely beyond the probability of fabrication. In the Lord's answer to His accusers, by his ready escaping from the snares laid for Him, and that subtle appeal to their consciences, which, by placing the lustful feeling on a virtual equality with the outward act (as Matt. v. 28 ff.), dissolved the accusation and dispersed the accusers; and in His subsequent treatment of the woman, His separating His mission, on the one hand, from human civil tribunals, and His assertion of His divine relation as not here to condemn and punish, but to pity and save, it proves itself worthy of a place—however it got there—in the heart of. tbe most spiritual of the Gospels. Itis urged by some that it is allied rather to the Synoptic than to the Johannean spirit. It seems to me otherwise, and that an unerring instinct caught it, if it was found floating round, and fixed it in that Gospel which pre-eminently presents the deeper and, if we may so say, the diviner aspects of the Saviour.
XXXL. Thy apyiv 6,7t nad Ago tiv. Ver. 25.
This exceedingly difficult passage is variously interpreted. To the rendering of the Comm. Ver. there are three grammatical objections. Tv apyjv should be, according to Johannean usage, an’ dpync" 3,r¢ indef. or indirect interrog. should be the simple relative (4, what, that which), and Aa should be the perf. AeAaAnxa or Aadov eipnxa. (80 Field in Otsum Norv. p. 66.) To Meyer's construction, {Do you ask me) what I say to you from the beginning (that I am] ? the same objections (urged by Weiss) are in part applicable: rv apy7v should be az’ dpxn¢ ; xai is without significance ; AaA@ should be AeAdAnxa, and the question stands in no clear connection with what precedes or follows. The use of 6, re (indirect interrog.) is, indeed, strictly grammatical. Weiss adopts as the only fit- ting explanation that of the ancient interpreters (Chrys., Theoph., Euthym. Zigab.), which takes it as a question of displeasure ; ‘‘ Why do I even speak to you at all?’ Thus «ai and the pres. AaAG (as also Aade for Aéyw) become strictly in place. Tv dpyqv, placed emphatically at the head, has a well- known classical use (equivalent to the Latin omnino), at the outset, at all, in sen- tences actually or, like this, virtually negative. The 4,r:, standing for the direct interrog. 7/, 18, indeed, scarcely classical, but is found in the Sept., and has some analogous classical uses. It did not stumble the early Greek interpreters. Meyer’s objection to this (which Weiss calls trivial) seems to me, however, weighty, and the question quite unnatural in the mouth of our Lord at this stage of the conversation. Some bring out the name meaning by taking dr: as that, and reading the sentence as an exclamation, ‘‘That I even speak to you atall!” It seems questionable, after all, whether the rendering of the Comm. Ver. (retained by the Revisers) is not, with all its strict grainmatical objections, as best fitting the connection, the most probable. If it be objected to this that our Lord had not from the beginning declared His divine origin and sonship, we must regard the objection as only seemingly valid. Explicitly, indeed, He had not, perhaps (though see John i. 50), but implicitly He had perpetually declared it. Every sentence of the Sermon on the Mount involves a virtual assertion of His Messianic character and Divine Sonship. Besides, Field’s objection, that 4c4d should be AcAdAnxa, does not seem serious, Our Lord may regard His teach-
296 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ing as a continuous whole, and the rjy apyjv AaAw may be elliptical for ri dp, AeaAdanxa Kai itt Aado.,
XXXIla. “ He was a murderer from the beginning.’’ Ver. 44.
Rightly has Meyer, with many able expositors, explained this, not of that special and outward act of homicide whith so speedily followed the Fall, ex- hibiting in ghastly form the malignity of its generating principle, but of the one primal murder which involved all the rest. Sin in the person of the devil ; the devil, as the embodied principle of evil, murdered the race; implanted in the heart of humanity a seed which was to bear, in innumerable forms, the frait of death.
The thought is the same as that uttered by Paul in Rom. vii. 8-11, where, with characteristic vigor and vivacity, he portrays, as in his personal ex- perience, the great catastrophe of humanity; shows the impotence of sin without the vantage-ground of law, and its promptness to avail itself of this— the prohibition to taste the fruit under penalty of death—to seduce and slay its victims. Apart from the law the man lived, had in him no element of death ; with its innocent coming, the seducer springs into life, and the victim of his machinations dies, morally and physically. The devil thus commenced his recorded career on our planet with lying and murder. He charged with falsehood Him whom he knew to be absolute truth, and by this seduced man into a transgression whose threatened penalty, however vague might be his con- ception of it, he knew enough of its utterer to Know would be cortainly exe- cuted, and in its nature inconceivably disastrous. The Jews, says Christ, imitate their moral father in these so marked attributes,
XXXIV. ‘* When he speaketh a lie,” etc. Ver. 44.
Opinions differ as to whether 6 rarip atrov should be rendered ‘‘the father of him,” i.e. of the liar, or ‘‘ the father of it,’’ the abstract, weidoc, being devel- oped out of the preceding wevorns. Meyer prefers the former; Weiss goes back to the latter, more common construction. Either would be admissible if the article were wanting, so that zaryp could be taken predicatively, though even then tarT?p Tov Wevorou or Tov Wevorar, in the one case, and raryp rov weidove or TaTnp rovrov in the other, would be much easier and more natural. With the reading 6 targp, the two constructions are about equally difficult, and both, it seems to me, unsanctioned by any law of good Greek usage. There is no compe- tent Greek scholar who would not, but for considerations outside of grammat- ical laws, render, either ‘‘ because he is a liar and his father [is one} ”; or, much better, ‘‘ because his father also is a liar.” But we thus seem to be thrown back upon the unscriptural and monstrous doctrine of a father of the devil or demiurge, asserting rival claims to those of God. To escape this dilemma we must look back to find, if possible, a different subject for AaAz : one which shall refer it not to the devil, but to his child, the human liar. This may be done by either one of two different ways. The first, by a critical emendation of the text, reading, with an authority cited by Lachmann, but almost conjectu- rally 5¢ av for érav: ‘* whoever speaketh a lie, speaketh from what belongs to him ; because his father also is a liar.’’ The other by grammatical interpreta- tion (as suggested, I think, first by Middleton on the Greek Article), assuming
NOTES. - 297
viz, an indefinite subject (ric), and referring it to the subject naturally in the reader's mind: ‘‘ When one speaketh a lie, he speaketh,” etc. :Of these the former seems very easy and intrinsically probable ; yet as it has no good ms. authority in its favour, we are perhaps hardly at liberty to adopt it on con- jecture, however plausible. The other—the assumption of ric—is not specially harsh, and though not to be unnecessarily resorted to, yet accords with the very free way in which the Greek generally treats the subject of the verb, as 2 Oor. x. 10, ‘‘ For his letters gyol, says one, are weighty.’’ Perhaps 2 Cor. iii. 16, ‘‘But when one may turn (é7iorTpéyy T1¢) unto the Lord ;” see Arist. de Rhet. lib. I. v. 17 for the freedom with which the subject of the verb is treated, and of which examples might be multiplied indefinitely. If any objection may lie against this construction, it does not approach in harshness to that which makes 6 rarip avrov a predicate in the sense ordinarily assigned to it. Besides this, the meaning seems much more appropriate. To say of a man—who has been charged with being a child of the devil—that when he utters falsehood he speaks out of what properly belongs to him, because his father is a liar, is a natural and emphatic expansion of the previously implied idea. But to say of the devil that when he utters a lie he speaks from what belongs to him, because he is a liar, is little more than an identical proposition, and turns aside to apply to Satan the illustrative expression which would be naturally applied to his human votaries with whom the Lord is directly dealing. Besides, the con- junctive construction drav AadAg, when he may be speaking, favors the reference to a human personage whom we do not assume always and everywhere to utter falsehood, rather than to the great original Liar, of whom the language would naturally be dre Aadei, ‘* when he speaketh’’ (as he always and necessarily does). Besides, the ordinary construction almost requires avréc, and the clause would naturally read ér: «al abré¢ ears yetorne Kad mar)p TovTou (or Tov Weidore).
Towards the construction here advocated, modern English scholarship seems rapidly tending. The Revised Version gives it a place in the margin. Canon Westcott, in the Speaker's Commentary, declares in its favor, and Profs. Milligan and Moulton (of Aberdeen and Cambridge universities) in Schaff's Popular Commentary. Prof. Watkins, in Ellicott’s Comm. for English Readers, contemptuously rejects it, but in a way that proves him to understand but im- perfectly the problem, charging it with reviving the old heresy which gives a father to the devil, and thus ‘‘ opposed to the context, the teaching of the Gos- pel,’’ and ‘‘ the whole tenor of biblical truth.” It is in truth simply a question of linguistic and rhetorical propriety, and not at all of theology. Our construc- tion avoids serious and, I think, insuperable grammatical difficulties, puts into the Lord’s mouth a much more pertinent statement, and when finally admitted will make one of the most important recent advances in N. T. philology.
XXXV. ‘‘ Before Abraham was.” Ver. 59.
The R. V. here translates yevéo$a: was in tha text, but places was born, as its Greek equivalent, in the margin. I do not see why the true force of the Greek (as Meyer, Weiss, etc. against Thol., de W., Ew.), should not be given in the text. Admitting tho reality of the distinction, much is surely gained in rhe- torical force by putting the two words into juxtaposition, the was and the was born (became, came into being), the timeless being of the Son against the histori- cal becoming of Abraham.
298 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER IX.
Ver. 4. éué] B. D. L. &.* Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arr. Cant. Cyr. Nonn. read jydc. Instead of the following ye, L. &.* Copt. Aeth. Arr, Cyr. also have yudc. Had the saying been changed into a general proposition, and had éué therefore been altered into fudc, then, instead of ve, nudo must necessarily have been used in all cases alike. mucdc, which Tisch. also adopts, appears to be the original read- ing (instead of évé). It was changed into éué, because the plur. appeared inap- propriate, and on account of the following ye ; this latter, on the other hand, was assimilated to #ud¢ in L., etc. — Ver. 6. After éréypioe, Lachm. and Tisch. read atroi ; so A. B. C.** L. &. Cursives, to which also D. must be added with avry. On the other hand, the rov rv¢dAci that follows is wanting in B. L. &. Cursives (D. has airov). It is put in brackéts by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. We ought to read: éréyp. atrov rov wn. emi tr. 690. rod TudAod. AvTov was re- ferred to the blind man; in that case, however, either this avrod itself must be deemed out of place (on account of the following rov rvgAod), or rod tvgAov must be omitted. — Ver. 7. vixac] bracketed by Lachm., wanting only in A.* and the Codd. of the It. A copyist’s omission after ver. 11; hence, also, A** has supplied xai viyae after 2:A. — Ver. 8. rpocairnc] Elz. : rvgAdc, in oppo- sition to decisive authorities. A correction. — Ver. 11. ei¢ rdv LiAwayu) Elz., Scholz: ei¢ tiv KodvuByOpav rod LeAwdp, in opposition to very weighty testi- monies. Repetition from ver. 7. — Ver. 14. 6re] B. L. X. 8. 33, Codd. It. Cyr. : év 9 jmépa. So Lachm. and Tisch. Correctly: the redundant expression was easily supplanted by the word dre, which readily suggested itself. — Ver. 16. Lachm. and Tisch. : ovx éoriv odrog mapa Geod 6 avOp., after B. D. L. X. &. 33, 157. The position in the Elz. (oir. 6 dvOp. ovx &. 7. 7. 6.) is a transposition to make the reading easier. — Ver. 17. After Aéyovocy weighty witnesses require the insertion of otv,; which Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted. Lachmann’s inser- tion of otv, however, after daavexp. in ver. 20, is supported solely by B. &., whereas A. and other uncials and Cursives have dé. Both seem to be additions ; as also the following adroic, which is wanting in B. L. X. &, Cursives, Verss. Cyr. — Ver. 25. «ai elev] to be deleted, ag is done by Lachm. and Tisch. A mechanical addition opposed by weighty witnesses. — Ver. 26. The prepon- derance of evidence is in favour of dé in place of ody (Lachm.) ; rdAiv, however, with Lachm. and Tisch., after B. D. &.* Verss. Nonn. Aug., is to be deleted, as an addition which would readily suggest itself. — Ver. 28. After eAod. Elz., following Cursives, Vulg. Codd. It., inserts ody ; instead of which B. &.* Sahid. Cyr. Ambr. read xai éA., and D. L. &.** Verss. of 62 4. Various modes of es- tablishing the connection. — Ver. 30. The reading #y ydp rovro (approved by Rinck) is only found in X. A. and Cursives, and is on that ground alone to be rejected ; at the same time, it bears witness, also, to the fact of the original position of ydp being immediately after év (Tisch. : év rotry ydp, with B. L. &. Cursives, Cyr. Chrys.). The reading év rotry ody found in D. may be explained from the circumstance that the relation of ydp presented a difficulty. Instead
CHAP. Ix., 1. 299
of @avz. we must, with Tisch., read rd Oavuz., as in B. L. &. Cursives, Cyr. Chrys. How easily might the superfluous ré be suppressed ! — Ver. 35. row deot} B. D. &. Aeth. : rot avOpurov, because Jesus was accustomed thus to designate Himself. — Ver. 36. xal rig tort] Elz. Lachm. do not read «ai ; the evidence for it, however, is very weighty, and it may easily have been passed over by clumsy copyists. — Ver. 41. 4% ody duapt.] odv, bracketed by Lachm. and deleted by Tisch., is wanting in decisive witnesses. .A connective addition ; superfluous, and weakening the force.
Ver. 1f. The direct connection, by means of xaf, with the preceding words é&72Gev éx rt. lepov, and the correlation with it of rapdywy, makes it impossible, without arbitrariness, to take any view but this,—that the heal- ing of the blind man, instead of not being determinable with chronological exactness (Hengstenberg), must rather be placed soon after Jesus had left the temple, while He was still on His way, and on the very same day, the record of whose scenes commences with viii. 21. This day' was a Sabbath (ver. 14); not, however, the one mentioned in vii. 87 (Olshausen), but a later one, see on viii. 12. The objection that the calmness which marks the transaction, and the presence of the disciples, are not in keeping with the scene which had occurred shortly before (viii. 59), and that therefore another day ought to be assumed,’ has little force ; for the calmness of the bearing of Jesus is anything but a psychological riddle, and the disciples might easily have gathered round Him again. — rapdéyur] in passing dy, namely, the place where the blind beggar was (probably in the neighbour- hood of the temple, Acts iii. 2). Comp. on Matt. ix. 9, and Mark ii. 14. — Tupady éx yevergc.] So much the greater was the miracle ; comp. Acts iii. 2, xiv. 8. The supposition, based on ver. 5, that this blind man represents the «éouoc, to which Jesus, having been spurned by the Jews, now turns (Luthardt), is the less warrantable, as the stress in that verse is laid on ¢ac, and not on roi xéopuov (comp. even viii. 12). This healing of the blind is not intended to have a figurative import, though it is afterwards used (ver. $9 ff.) as a figurative representation of a great idea. — ric quaprev, etc.] The notion of the disciples is not, that neither the one nor the other could be the case ;* but, as the positive mode of putting the dilemma shows, that either the one or the other must be the case. See Baeumlein, Partic. p. 182. They were still possessed by the popular idea * that special misfortunes are the punishment of special sins ; against which view Jesus, here and in Luke xiii. 9 ff., decidedly declares Himself. Now, as the man was born blind, either it must have been the guilt of his parents, which he was expiating, — a belief which, in accordance with Ex. xx. 5, was very prevalent,‘ and ex- isted even among the Greeks,’—or he himself must have sinned even while in the womb of his mother. The latter alternative was grounded in the popular notion that even an embryo experiences emotions (comp. Luke i. 41,
? De Wette and others. Job, and Acts xxviil. 4. *Eath. Zigabenus, Ebrard, comp. also 4 Lightfoot, p. 1048. Hengst. § Maetzner in Lycurg. in Leocr. p. 217.
? Comp. on Matt. ix. 2, also the book of
300 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
43), especially evil emotions, and that the latter predominate.’ The expla- nation of the question from the belief (which is also not to be presupposed in Matt. xiv. 2) in the transmigration of souls* is as inadmissible as the assump- tion of a belief in the pre-ezistence of souls.* For apart from the uncertainty of the fact whether the doctrine of the transmigration of souls was enter- tained by the Jews in the days of Christ (see Tholuck on the passage, and Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 463 f. [E. T. p. 545 f.]), those two doctrines could not have been known among the people, and therefore must not be assumed to have been held by the disciples, although it is true that the pre-existence of souls, both of good and bad, is qn unquestionable article of doctrine in Wisd. viii. 19 f., as also with Philo and the Essenes, with the Rabbins, and in the Cabbala.‘ It is quite out of place, however, to refer to the heathen view of the pre-existence of souls.* Tholuck’s suggestion, finally, that the thought, though obscurely conceived, is, that the blind man, through being born blind, is marked out as a sinner in virtue of an anticipation of punish- ment, both contradicts the words, and is altogether destitute of biblical sup- port. In Luthardt’s view, the disciples, in accordance with Ex. xx. 5, re- garded the second of the two supposed cases as alone possible, but mentioned the first as a possibility, in order that Christ might solve the riddle which they were unable to solve. Similarly Baeumlein and Delitzsch, who looks upon the question as the mere expression of perplexity resulting from a false premiss. It is an arbitrary procedure, however, to ascribe such a dif- ference to two cases regarding which a question is asked in precisely the same form, or to treat the possibility in the one case as assumed merely in appearance. The disciples considered doth cases possible, and wished to know which of them was real. But at the same time they deemed a third case out of the question, and this was the error in the dilemma which they put forth,—an error which Jesus (ver. 3) lays bare and corrects by setting before them the Tertium datur. — iva rvod. yevv.] The retributive result, in accordance'with the teleological connection of the divine destiny. That the man was born blind might have been previously known to those who asked the question ; or the man himself might just have informed them of the fact, for the purpose of adding force to his request for alms (ver. 8).
Ver. 3. Ov mavredic avauapthrove avtoig gyotv, GAA’ Sa0v tig Td TUPAWHAVaL avTdr, Euth. Zigabenus. —£A2'] sc. rugdoc éyevvhln. — 7a epya tov Geot] the works of God, i.e. what God works, should be manifested in Him. The expression must be left in this general form (it first acquires its more exact force in ver. 4) ; it denotes the entire category of which such miraculous healings were a particular species ; hence the works of God were set forth and brought to light in this concrete case, to wit, in the man (év atr¢) who experienced the divine miraculous power. -In the connection of the divine decree, however, from which everything accidental, everything independent of the divine
1 See Sanhedr. f. 91. 2; Beresh. Rabba, f. 4See Grimm on Wisdom of Solomon in 88. 1, b.; Lightfoot, comp. Wetstein. the Exeget. Handbd. p. 177 f.; Brach, Lehre v. 2 Calvin, Beza, Drusius, Aretius, Grotius, @. Prae-existenzd. Seel. p. 22. Hammond, Clericus, and several others. ® Isidorus and Severus in Corder. Cat.
3 Cyril, de Wette, Brickner.
CHAP. IX., 4. 301
plan, is excluded, this ¢avépwore must stand in the relation of a purpose towards the sufferings which, in this particular concrete case, are miracu- lously removed. Hence iva ¢avep., etc., is a thought which contains the true nature of the Vheodicy for all sufferings. According to Weiss,’ the Epya 0. are spiritual operations, namely, the enlightenment of the world, sym- bolically set forth by this healing of the blind. This, however, anticipates the doctrinal application which Jesus Himself makes of the work which He wrought (ver. 39).
Ver. 4. By the participative jud¢ (see the critical observations), Jesus in- cludes the disciples with Himself as helpers and continuers of the Messianic activity. The further progress of the discourse is indicated by the pronoun which, for the sake of emphasis, is placed at the beginning of the sentence ; the subject is thus specified through whose activity the garépwore mentioned in ver. 8 is to be accomplished. “It is we who are destined by God to work His works as long as we live, and until death puts an end to our activity.” There is no hint whatever in the text that Jesus wished to mect the scruples of the disciples on account of the healing which He was about to perform on the Sabbath (Kuinoel) ; indecd, as far as the disciples were concerned, to whom Sabbath healings by Jesus were nothing new, there was no ground for such a procedure. —rov réuy. ue] Jesus does not again say yuac ;? for His mission involved also that of the disciples, and it was He who commis- sioned the disciples (xiii. 20, xx. 21). — gue] 80 long as, denoting contem- poraneous duration, very frequently so in the classics subsequent to Homer, with the pracs. or imperf.*—Day and Night are images, not of tempus oppor- tunum and importunum, nor also of aidy ovro¢ and uéAdAuy ;‘ but (for Jesus was thinking of His speedy departure out of the world, ver. 5) of life and death.* The latter puts an end to the activity of every one on earth (even to that of Christ in His human manifestation). By the different use made of the same image in xi. 9 f., we are not justified in regarding it as includ- ing the period of the passion (Hengstenberg). Moreover, Christ was still working whilst He hung on the eross. Olshausen’s view is wrong : juépa denotes the time of grace, which was then specially conditioned by the pres- ence of Christ, the Light of the world ; with His removal darkness assumed its sway. Against this view the general and unlimited form of the expres- sion dre ovdeic divara: épyalecGa: (which Olshausen arbitrarily restricts by add- ing ‘‘ fora time,” and ‘‘in spiritual matters”) is in itself a decisive objec- tion ; not to mention that Jesus regarded His death, not as the beginning of spiritual darkness, but as the very condition of greater enlightenment by the Spirit (xvii. 7, xv. 26, xiv. 26, a/.). With Olshausen agrees substan- tially B. Crusius ; comp. also Grotius, Bengel, and several others. Luthardt also refers day and night to the world, whose day-time coincided with the presence of Christ in the world, and whose night began when he departed
1 Lehrbdegr. p. 201. ‘Chrysostom, Theopbylact, Euth. Ziga- * Which Ewald prefers in opposition to benus, Ruperti, and others. his own translation. But see the critical *Comp. Hom. Ji. «. 810, 856; Aesch. note. Sept. 885; Pers. 841 ; Plat. Apol. p. 40 D, and ® See Blomfield, Gloss, ad Aesch. Pers. 484. Stallbaum thereon; Hor. Od. 1. 28. 15.
302 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
out of the world ; as soon as He should leave the world, no other could occupy His place in the accomplishment of redemption ; from that time on- ward, there would be no longer a redemptive history, but merely an appro- priation of redemption. But apart from the hair-splitting character of the distinction thus drawn, the grounds adduced against Olshausen hold sub- stantially good against this explanation also, especially that épyéfcofar— which here has no determining object, as in the previous case—and ovdei¢ are quite general ; and accordingly, épyera: vig—tpydCeofac must be regarded asacommonplace. Godet finds in pff¢ the thought of the evening rest, which Christ was to enjoy in His heavenly state. This is erroneous, however, because it is not evening but night that is mentioned, and because dtvara would then be inappropriate.
Ver. 5. A more precise description of His earthly vocation, characteris- tically expressed in relation to the sight which was to be bestowed on the blind man. ‘*Orav, however, is neither guamdiu (so usually) nor guandoqui- dem (so Liicke and Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 86),—which latter usage is foreign to the N. T., and is only apparently found in passages such as Thuc. 1. 141. 5, 142. 1,—but : When (quando, at the time in which) J am in the world, Iam the Light of the world. It expresses the necessary contemporane- ousness of the two relations. He cannot be in the world, says Christ, without at the same time enlightening the world. Thus, also, did it behove Him to show Himself in the case of this blind man. ¢é¢ is employed, it is true, in a spiritual sense, as ini. 5 ff., viii. 12, but also with a significant refer- ence to the sight which was to be restored to the blind man. In healing him, that enlightening activity of Jesus by which those who did not see were to be made to see (see ver. 39), is set forth in a transaction which, though primarily sensuous, was also suggestive of spiritual enlightenment (ver. 87 f.). In itself the first clause of the verse—éray . . . d—might have been dispensed with viii. 12); its utterance, however, in connection with ver. 4, was occasioned by the consciousness that He was soon to depart from the world, and that after His departure the present mode and action of the ga¢ elvat, which were bound up with His corporeal earthly career, must come to an end. Then Christ would work through the Paraclete and — through the vehicles of the Paraclete, as the Light of the world.
Ver. 6 f. For what reason Jesus anointed the eyes of the blind man with clay John does not inform us ; but this does not justify us in leaving the question unanswered (Briickner). The procedure was certainly not adopted for the purpose of defying the hierarchy (Ewald) because it was the Sabbath, according to which view it would have had nothing to do with the healing itself. At the same time, it was equally far from being of a medicinal nature ; for often as spittle was applied in the case of diseases of the eye (see Wetstein and Lightfoot), the means employed would bear no proportion to the rapidity with which the cure took place, especially considering that the man was born blind ; the same remark applies also to Mark vii. 82 and viii. 23. To treat the anointing with the clay as merely a means of awaken- ing faith (comp. Liicke), or as a dest of faith (Calvin), and, consequently, as having a purely psychological effect, is to represent the entire procedure as
CHAP. IX., 6. 803
adopted solely with an eye to appearances, to making an impression on the blind man. On this view, therefore, the ointment of clay had in itself nothing to do with the cure performed, which is scarcely reconcilable with the truthfulness and dignity of Jesus. Regard for this rather compels the assumption that the ointment was the real medium of the cure, and formed an essential part of the act ; and that, accordingly, the spittle was the con- tinens of the objective healing virtue, by means of which it came into, and re- mained actively in contact with, the organism. Comp. Tholuck and Ols- hausen, who characterize the spittle as the conductor of the healing virtue ; so Lange, who, however, conjoins with it the psychological action referred to above ; and also Nonnus, though he draws a very arbitrary distinction, term- ing the spittle Avofrovoy, and the x7Ad¢, gacogdépov. - There is nothing against this mode of viewing the matter, in the fact that Jesus used a medium in so few of His miracles of healing, and in so many others employed no medium at all (as [See Note XXXVa., p. 314] in the case of the blind men of Jericho, Matt. xx. 20 ff.; Mark x. 46 ff.); for He must Himself have known when it was necessary and when not, though no clearer insight into the causal connection between the means and the result is vouchsafed to us. We have no authority for attributing to John a view of miracles which regarded them as mysteries, and which prevailed at a later date ;' for with his chris- tology he, least of all, would find occasion for its adoption ; besides, that the procedure followed in the case of this miracle was unique, and thus its speciality was carefully substantiated by the judicial investigation which grew out of the occurrence. According to Baur (comp. Ewald, as above), the miracle was performed in this circumstantial way in order that it might wear the appearance of a work done on the Sabdath,; the supposition, however, is incorrect, if for no other reason, because the healing by itself, apart altogether from the circumstances attending it, was a breaking of the Sabbath. Baur, indeed, regards the whole narrative, notwithstanding the remarkable circumstantiality and natve liveliness which mark it, as an in- vention ; so also Strauss, Weisse, comp. the note after ver. 41. In harmony “with his view of the figurative design of the entire healing, Luthardt (comp. also Godet) interprets the anointing with clay to mean : ‘‘He must become blind who wishes to receive sight” (the sending to the pool of Siloam being intended to typify the épyeaPac rpd¢ airdv, iii. 20 f.). But interpretations of this sort have no warrant in the text, and furnish at the same time uninten- - tional support to the unhistorical view of those who treat the narrative as the mere vehicle of an idea,—a remark which holds good against Hengsten- berg, who, like Erasmus* and others, regards m7Aéc, after Gen. ii. 7, as the symbol of creative influence, although in this case we have only to do with an opening of the eyes (vv. 10, 14), and that by means of a subsequent washing away of the m7Aé¢. — cal iwéyproev aitod 1. myddv éni r. 460. T. Tupdod]
1 De Wette, comp. B. Crusius. toris restituere quod perierat, qui condide-
2 Erasmus, Paraphr.: ‘“‘paternum videli- rat quod non erat.” So substantially, also, cet ac suum verius opificium referens,quo Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, and primum hominem ex argilla humore ma-__ several others. Comp. also Iren. 5. 15, oerata finxerat. Ejusdem autem erat auo-
304 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
According to this reading (see the critical note), atrov must be referred to the spittle of Jesus ; He rubbed the ointment made of it and the clay on the eyes of the blind man.’— ei¢ rv xoAvpzB.] not dependent on éraye,? which is not connected with via: even by a xai,* but : Into the pool of Siloam, so that the 7/ié¢ is washed away into the pool by the process of cleansing which takes place on the edge of the basin.‘— On the Pool Siloam (Fountain, Isa. vill. 6 ; Luke xili. 4 ; Pool, Neh. ili. 15) and its doubtful situation,—which, however, Robinson, following Josephus, re-discovered at the entrance of the Tyropoeum Valley, on the south-east side of Zion.* The expression xoAvuB. tov ZA. denotes the pool formed by the fountain Siloam (6 Z:A., Luke xiii. 4 ; Isa. viii. 6).— The washing in the pool of Siloam is no more to be regarded as a medicinal prescription than the application of the myAdc¢ (the Rabbinical traces of a healing virtue of the water relate to the digestive organs, see Schoettgen), but was required by Jesus for the purpose of al- lowing the clay the necessary time for producing its effect, and, at the same time, this particular water, the pool of Siloam, was mentioned as being nearest to the scene of the action (in the vicinity of the temple, viii. 59, ix. 1), and as certainly also well known to the blind man. According to Lange,’ the intention of Jesus, in prescribing the sacred fountain of the temple, was to set manifestly forth the co-operation of Jehovah in this repeated Sab- bath act. But neither John nor the discussion that follows in ver. 13 ff.— in the course of which, indeed, the pool is not once mentioned—betrays the slightest trace of this supposed mystery. This also in answer to the mean- ing imported by Godet into the text, that Siloam is represented as the type of all the blessings of which Christ is the reality, so that, in the form of an action, Christ says, ‘‘ Ce que Siloé est typiquement, je le suis en réalité.”” This does not at all harmonize with the narrative ; in fact, on such a view, the confused notion would result, that the true Siloam sent the blind man to the typical Siloam in order to the completion of his cure,—that the Anti- type, in other words, sent him to the Type ! — arecraAutvoc] The name mio (which even the LXX. and Josephus give in Greek as Z:Awéy) denotes origi- nally missio (sc. aquamim), ¢.¢. outflow ; but John, adopting a typical ety- mology, renders it directly mow, missus, which in itself was grammatically allowable, either after the analogy of 1 (see Hitzig on Isa. viii. 6), so that the word would be a strengthened particip. Kal with a passive signification, or, in virtue of the resolution of the dagesh forte in the particip. Piel into yod.® He thus finds, in the name of pool, a noteworthy typical reference, not indeed to Christ,’the messenger of God, the true Siloam,” but to the cir-
1 Note the n&ive, attractive cireumstan- tiality which is characteristic of the entire narrative.
* Comp. on Matt. {f. 28.
3 Against Liicke and Winer.
4 Comp. on the pregnancy of this mode of expression, Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. fl. 2. 10; Winer, p. 887 [E. T. p. 416].
SII. p. 142 ff.
*See Tobler, d. Siloahquelle u. d. Ocelderg,
1852, p.1ff.; Rédiger in Gesen. Thes. TIT. p. 1416; Leyrer in Herzog'’s Encykl. XIV. p. 371 ff.
72.J.p. 685.
® See Tholuck, Beifrdge sur Spracherklar. p. 12 ff.; Ewald, Zehrd. &@. Hebr. Spr. § 156 a.
® As Theophylact, Erasmus, Reza, Calvin, Corn, & Lapide, and many other earlier commentators, also Schweizer, Ebrard,
st
CHAP. IX., 8-12. 305 cumstance that the blind man was sené to this pool by Christ. The pool of mow has the ‘‘ nomen et omen” of this sending away. The context naturally suggests nothing further than this.’ It is arbitrary with Wassenberg and Kuinoel to pronounce the entire parenthesis spurious (it is absent only in Syr. and Pers. p.), a view to which Licke also inclined, out of regard for John. But why should a fondness for typical etymologies have been for- cign to John ?, Comp. the much more peculiar example of Paul in Gal. iv. 25. Such things leave the pneumatic character of the evangelist unaffected. —amnyAsev] which he, being well acquainted with the neighbourhood, was able to do without any one to take him by the hand, rvgAg rodi (Eur. Hee. 1050), as, indeed, many blind men are able in like manner to find their way about alone, — 746e] namely, to his dwelling, as is indicated by the words ol oby yeiroves which follow. Jesus did not meet him again till ver. 35.
Vv. 8-12. Kai ol Gewpowvrec, etc.] And they who before had seen him that he was a beggar, the previous eye-witnesses of his being a beggar. Thexai gives the force of universality : and in general ; the partic. praes. has the force of the imperfect. — 6 xaPju. x. mpocar.] who is accustomed to sit there and beg. They had known him for a long while as occupied in no other way than in begging. — The peculiarly vivid and detailed character of what follows renders it probable that John derived his information from the lips of the man himself after he had become a believer. — Ver. 11. dvOpwroe Aeyéu. "Ina0%¢] ‘* nescierat caecus celebritatem Jesu,” is the opinion of Bengel and others. But he must surely have learnt something more regarding his deliverer than His mere name. The quondam blind man conducts himself rather through- out the whole affair in a very impartial and judicious manner, and for the present keeps to the simple matter of fact, without as yet venturing on a further judgment. — avéBAepa] may signify, I looked up.* 80 Lticke ; but this meaning is*inadmissible on account of vv. 15, 18, which require J re. covered my sight, visum recepi.* As regards the man born blind, indeed, the expression is inexact, but rests on the general notion that even onc born blind has the natural power of sight, though he has been deprived of its use from his very birth, and that he recovers it through the healing.‘ — That the man is able to give, at all events, the name of his benefactor, is intelli- gible enough from the inquiries which he would naturally institute after he
a Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Hengsten- berg, Brftckner, Godet maintain.
1 Not to the fact that in axeoradu., which should denote “/redy flowing, streaming,” a deliverance from certain evils was found, as Ewald supposes, It is quite a mistake to suppose any allusion to the water of baptism (Calovius, after Ambrose, Jerome, and others); as also to identify the name with nov in Gen. xlix.6 (Grotius), The simple and correct view is taken also by Bengel, de Wette, and several others; by Baeumlein with hesitation. Nonnus aptly remarks : t8ep oreAAoudvo.o rpowvupor dx oéo wouwns, Comp. Euth. Zigabenus: &4 ry
awecradudvor dxet rére TUdASy,
2 Mark xvi. 4; 2 Maco. vil. %; Plat. Pol. vil. p.515 C; Ax. p. 870 C; Xen. Cyr. vi. 4.9.
* Comp. Matt. xi. 5; Tob. xiv.2; Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 B.
‘Comp. Grotlus: “Neo male recipere quis dicitur, quod communiter tributum humanae naturae ipsi abfuit.'’ In Pausa- nias, also (Messen. iv. p. 240), we read of one who was born blind and received sight, avéBieve, Comp. Evang. Nicod. 6, where the man born blind who there speaks says: éwdOnxe tas xeipag dwi +. dfGadpmovs pov, «al avdBAcfa wapaxpRua.
306 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
had been healed. But the circumstance that while at the outset he expresses no opinion regarding the person of Jesus (see previously on drip. Aey. Iye.), he notwithstanding afterwards declares Him to be a Prophet (ver. 17), and One sent of God (ver. 33), though he was first brought by Jesus Himself to believe in Him as the Messiah in vv. 35 ff., is entirely in keeping with the gradual nature of the development through which he passed. Such a grada- tion is, indeed, natural and necessary in some cases, whereas others differ- ently constituted are at once carried to the goal by the force of the first im- pression, This in opposition to Baur'’s supposition that the narrator de- signedly so framed his account that the miracle should be viewed as an épyov Gcov primarily in its pure objectivity. — ric cov YsAwéy] here the name of the pool; hence the Rec. has ei¢ r. xoAvuB. r. 2cA.,—a correct gloss.
Ver. 18 f. "Ayovocy] These belong still to the persons designated in ver. 8. They act thus becausé the healing had taken place on the Sabbath (ver. 14), the violation of which they, in their servile dependence, believed it to be their duty not to conceal from the guardians of the law who ruled over the people. It does not, however, follow, from the fact that there were no sittings of the courts on the Sabbath, that the man was not brought on the day of the healing (so Liicke and several others suppose), but that by zpic rove dapia. is meant neither the Sanhedrim,’ nor a synagogal court,? of which, moreover, the text contains no notice.* Especially must it be remembered that in John the Sanhedrim is never simply designated ol dapicaio: (not even vii. 47), but always of apyiepeic x. ol apio., or (vii. 32) in the reverse order. The Pharisees as a corporate body are meant, and a number of them might easily have come together at one of their houscs to form a kind of sitting. — rév more rvoa.] A more precise designation of airéy.‘— Ver. 14 assigns the reason why they bring him. — rdv m7Aév] the clay in question.
Vv. 15, 16. Idd] Glancing back at the same question asked by others (hence «xa? oi ap.) in ver. 10. — andy, etc.] clay He laid on mine eyes (pov éxi r. 690.), etc. Comp. on xi. 82. Note how the man only states what he himself felt ; hence there is no mention of the spittle. Compare already ver. 11. — rc rd od Bf. ob typet} A Rabbinical precept specially forbids the anointing of the eyes with spittle on the Sabbath.® Even if this were not yet in existence or recognized as binding, still the general principle was ad- mitted that healing should take place on the Sabbath solely in case of danger to life.*— dAdo] who judged more candidly and conscientiously. Grotius well remarks : ‘‘Qui nondum occaluerant.” They conclude from the miraculous element in the healing, so far as it implied a special dizine help, which would not be vouchsafed to a sinner who disregarded God's commands, that there must be something peculiar in this action performed on the Sabbath, rendering it unfair to pass the judgment in question on its performer without further consideration. — The Hyperbaton in the position,
1 Tholuck, Baeumlein. 8 Comp. vil. 45, xf. 47.
2Lficke, Lange. Of such subcrdinate ‘See Buttmann, Neul. Gr. p. 842 [E. T. courts with twenty-three members there p. 400]. were two In Jerusalem. See Saalschitz, 6 Maimonides Schabb. 21. Hor. FP. p. 601. * Schoettgen and Wetstein ad Matt. xil. 9.
CHAP. 1X., 17-22. 307
obx Eovtv obtog mapa Oeov 6 dvfp., serves to lay stronger emphasis first on obrac, and then on rapa feov.! — oyxioua] comp. vii. 48.
Ver. 17. As there was such a difference of views among those who were assembled, they feel it to be of importance to ascertain the opinion of the man who had been healed. It might lead to further light being thrown on the affair. The subject of Atyovory is of dapcc., neither the hostile among them merely (Apollinarius and many others), nor the well-wishers alone (Chrys- ostom and his followers). — réA:v] a repetition of the question after ver. 15. — ri] cic éxeivo, dre ; 8e@ On li. 18. Theodore of Mopsuestia well remarks : irép ov. — mpod_tn¢] who had shown Himself to be such by this miracle. Comp. iii. 2, iv. 19, vi. 14, al. Thus the faith of the man became clear and confirmed by the controversy of the Pharisees. And he makes confes- sion of what he up to this time believes.
Ver. 18. Observe that the mere verb is not again employed, nor even ol dapioaio:, but of 'Iovdaio, t.e. the hostile hierarchical party among the assem- bled Pharisees, which now carries on further proceedings. Comp. ver. 22. —ov« éxior. placed emphatically at the beginning. — ovv] as the healed man had declared Him to be a prophet. They now suspected the existence of a fraudulent understanding between the two. — fue drov} till they called, ete. Then first, after these had come and made their declaration, were they un- able any longer to call the cure in question (vv. 26, 84), —avrot tov avaBrty. } of the very man who had recovered his sight, concerning whom his own parents must surely know best.
Vv. 19-21. To the two questions put in ver. 19 exactly corresponding answers are returned in vv. 20, 21 ; the second, however, twice nesciendo. — bv tei A£yere] Opposed to the personal unbelief of the questioners ; év as in vi. 71.—7éc] how does it happen that ? — avy] as it is alleged that he was born blind. — Ver. 20. még d2 dpre BAéret, ayvoeiv Afyovat, goBobuevor Tove 'lovdai- ove, "Ew xivdbvov xafiaravrec éavrovc, emi rov refeparevutvoy raparturavet Thy épdrnow, o¢ akiomorérepoy avrdv év rE roobry Cyrfuart, Enth. Zigabenus, — hueic] Opposed to the atrég . . . atrév .. . avréc, afterwards thrice re- peated, and asyndetically, with passionate emphasis. #Aciav éyer] he him- selfis of full age.* — avro¢ mepi avrov] he will himself speak concerning him- self.*
Ver. 22. "Hdy yap ovver£0.] for—so great cause had they for that fear—the Jews had already agreed, had already come to an understanding with each other ; conspiraverant, Vulgate.‘ The context does not justify the assump- tion of a decree of the Sanhedrim to that effect. The hope, however, was cherished of being able without difficulty to convert the arrangement in question into a decree of the Sanhedrim ; and the parents of the blind man might easily have come to know of this. We can readily understand that they should prefer exposing their son rather than themselves to this danger,
1 Comp. in general Bernhardy, p. 460. Neut. Gr.p. af. [E. T. p. 112]...
% Comp. Herod. 3. 86, 7. 18; Thuc. 8 75; Comp. Luke xxii. 5; Acta xxifi. 90; Polyb. 9. 28. 9, al. See Kypke, Lp. 887; Thuo. 419; 1 Macc. ix. 70; Ast, Lex. Plat. Loesner, p. 150. II. p. 840.
Savrov with the Spir. lenis. Buttm.
308 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
since they must have been certain that he would not refuse to make for the sake of his benefactor the dangerous confession. —iva] that which they had agreed on is conceived as the intention of their agreement.' — drocuvéy. yév.] Exclusion from the fellowship of the synagogue, and in connection therewith from the common intercourse of life, was probably at this time the sole form of excommunication. See on Luke vi. 22.
Vv. 24, 25. Ade dégav r. Oe] ‘* Speciosa praefatio,” Bengel ; for they expect a declaration prejudicial to Jesus, such as the man had hitherto refused to make, and therefore employ this sacred and binding requirement to declare the truth, by which God would be: honoured, inasmuch as to speak the truth was to show revefence to Him.* — #wei¢ oldayev, etc.|] This assertion of hierarchical authority (jueic with emphasis) was intended to overawe the man, and give a bias to his judgment. In vain. With cau- tious reticence he prudently refers them simply to what had actually hap- pened ; this alone was known to him ;* but not whether, etc. — rupdd¢ dv] being blind, namely, in his natural state, from birth. Comp. iii. 138.
Vv. 26, 27. As they are unable to attain their end, they return to the question as to the How? (comp. ver. 15) in order conclusively to establish the fact in the course of this second examination of the man. He, however, with his straightforward, honest mind,‘ becomes irritated, and even embit- tered, at this repeated interrogation. — xal oix 7xovcare] is taken as a decla- ration : and ye did not listen thereto (taken heed). It corresponds better, however, with the nalve character of the man, and with the liveliness of his irritation, as also with the succeeding dxotecv, which denotes simply ‘‘ hear,” to take the clause as a question: And did you not heur it ?— ri] why, as you surely must have heard it. — py xa? ipeic] surely not you also? like others. To the 6éAecv, etc., would correspond the effort to be convinced: of the reality of the miracle that had been performed. Chrysostom, Bengel, and several others consider that xai indicates that the blind man confessed himself to be one of His disciples, or that it was his intention to become one. His devel- opment, however, had not yet advanced so far. Sce vv. 35, 36. But that his benefactor had disciples about Him (ver. 2), he must certainly have learnt from others.
Vv. 28, 29. ’EAodép.] as preliminary to the following words. Passionate outburst in an unrighteous cause. — ov el uafl. éx. They had been unable to get out of him any declaration against Jesus, and regarded his behaviour, therefore, as a taking part with Christ. Bengel aptly remarks on éxeivov : ‘* Hoc vocabulo remocent Jesum a sese."” Comp. on vii. 11. — Ver. 29. fucic} once again with proud emphasis. — Mwicy] has the emphasis in opposition to rovrov. which is thus the more contemptuous in meaning (vi. 42, and often). — wéfev éoriv] i.e. by whom he is sent. Comp. vii. 14.
Vv. 80-83. The passionateness of the Jews now emboldens the man to make @ further confession (ver. 17). —év yap robry rd (see the critical notes) éavy.
1 Comp. afcoty tva in Dem. de Cor. 155 (see = ix. 8. Dissen on the passage), and Nagelsbach on ® Comp. Soph. O. @. 1108: ov« olSa xAhp ey, the Iia?, p. 62, ed. 3. 4 avnp aSdéynros, Nonnus.
2Comp. Josh. vil. 19; Esr. x. 11; 3 Esr.
CHAP. IX., 34-36. 309
toriv] - Why, herein (in this state of the case) is the marvel, that ye know not JSrom whence He is, and (that) He hath opened mine eyes. The force of the @avyaoréy lies in xa avéwée, etc., in virtue of the groundless nature of that ignorance to which actual testimony was thus borne ; see vv. 31-33. Con- cerning a man who has done that, ye ought surely to know, etc. ydp, ‘‘respicit ad ea, quae alter antea dixerat, et continet cum affirmatione con- clusionem, quae ex rebus ita comparatis facienda sit,” Klotz, ad Devar. p. 242. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 22. It is often thus used, especially when ‘¢ miratio rei aut aliorum incredulitatis ad significatur.”’ Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 6. —dpeic] Ye people, who ought to know this best. — Ver. 81. The man now proves to them, onward to ver. 33, how clearly it is evident from the act of Jesus that He is no sinner (ver. 16), but a pious man, nay, a man sent of God. He begins his proof witha major premiss, which he postu- lates as universally conceded and known,’ and which rests on the idea that miracles are answers to prayer.* A sufficient reason for not assuming that Jesus actually pronounced a prayer aloud in performing the miracle (as Ewald thinks), is the silence of John, who would scarcely have omitted this detail from a narrative so minute as this. Ver. 82. Minor premiss ; then in © ver. 83, conclusion, both in popular form. — oidéy] effect nothing—is re- stricted by the connection to miraculous deeds such as the one here recorded.
Ver. 84. Thou wert born with thy whole nature laden with sin, so that nothing in thee is pure from sins; but thou art entirely, through and through, a born reprobate.‘ They entertain the same prejudice regarding sinfulness before birth (not of the parents) to which the disciples had pre- viously given expression (ver. 2), and make here a spiteful application of it. Comp. on dog xiii. 10. The notion of ‘‘ heightened original sin” * is not appropriate to the connection, as the inference from being born blind implies sins committed before birth.—Note the contemptuous emphasis of the of . . . of. —diddox. 4u.] The emphasis rests here, not on didéox., but on 7na@¢ : dost thou comport thyself as our teacher ? — ét#3a2. atv. Ew] not designating arcommunication,® as no sitting of the Sanhedrim had taken place ; and, besides, how indefinite a mode of designating the matter would it be ! although éxf4/Aew is frequently used by Thucydides, Xenophon, and others to denote erile. Comp. also 8 John, ver. 10. As the context sug- gests nothing else, and as there is not a hint of a sentence of excommunica- tion, which might perhaps have been pronounced a few days later in the synagogue (Ewald), we must simply explain : they cast him out. Significant enough as the final result of the hostile and passionate discussion.’ The remark of Maldonatus is correct : ‘‘ex loco, in quo erant.” °
Vv. 85, 86. The inner connection is formed, not by the thought that
? Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 888. * Olshausen, de Wette, Tholuck, Baeum- * oifayer, Job xxvil. 9, xxxv. 18; Ps. Ixvi ein, and many older commentators.
18, cix. 7; Prov. xv. 20; Isa. i. 18. 7 Comp. Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theo- ® Comp. xi. 41 ff. ; Mark vil. 84. phylact, who, however, transfers the scene *Nonnus: ovyyoves auwAaxinow euauwOns to the temple.
BAos avijp. ® Comp. Bengel, Dem. 1366. 11; Acta vil.
® Hengstenberg, after Ps. li. 7. 5S,
310 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Jesus, when He had heard, etc., wished to confer on the man rich compensation ;' but, as the question ov moretec, etc., shows (thou believest on the Son of God ? which presupposes an affirmative reply), Jesus heard of his being cast out, inferred from this that the man had confessed Hiin to be the Messiah, and therefore asked when He met him, etc. The conclusion which Jesus arrived at was substantially correct ; for he who had been born blind had confessed regarding Him that He was rapa Geov, although the man did not yet consciously associate with this more general predicate a definite refer- ence to the Messiah. Liicke finds in morete¢ merely the inclination to be- lieve ; were this, however, its force, we must have had 6éAe¢ miorebewv, or some similar mode of expression. Like moretw in ver. 88, morebecc here also denotes actual faith, namely, in the manifested Messiah. —The words Tov vidy rT. Geo? must be taken, not in their metaphysical,* but simply in their theocratic signification (comp. i. 50), as the man who had been born blind, to whose notions Jesus had to accommodate Himself, could and did only understand this at the time. That Jesus, however, on His side, and for Himself, entertained the higher view, must be taken for granted. — Ver. 86. Surprised by this question, and quickly taking it as a point of connection, the man puts a counter-question, which was designed to show that he is uz- able as yet to believe in the Messiah, though ready to do so as soon as he shall know him. With regard to «ai rig éo7:, comp. xiv. 22, and on Mark x. 26. — iva] Design of the inquiry, asin i. 22.
Vv. 87, 38. Kai. . . xai] thou hast actually seen Him, and, etc. Comp. on vi. 86. The substantial meaning of the second clause is : and hearest Him speak with thee ; but it has a more concrete and lively turn. — éépaxac] refers to the present interview, not toa former one; for he had not seen Jesus whilst the act of healing was being performed, and he had not re- turned to Him from Siloam (see on ver. 7). The use of the per/. as the present, of completed action (thou hast a view of Him), need not surprise.‘ — éxeivés éotiv] éxeivoc is not predicate ;° but, as John’s very favourite man- ner is, subject, demonstratively comprehending the foregoing participial des- ignation of the same, as in i. 18, 83, v. 11. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 18. So also in the Classics, although they more frequently use oirog in this way.* The connection alone, then, shows whether the person intended is some one else, or, a8 in this case, and in xix. 35, the speaker himself, who presents himself objectively as a third person, and thus introduces himself to the person addressed with special emphasis, At the same time, the force of éxeivoc is not thus transformed into that of idem or ipse.’ — xbpie] ‘‘ jam augustiore
1 Chrysostom and several others.
27, vily rov avdpawov (see the critical notes) Jesus could not have expected the blind man to understand, as included in this question.
3 Olshausen, Ebrard.
« Bernhardy, p. 878.
* Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1859, p. 416.
* See Kriiger on Thue. 2. 15. 4.
7In relation to the erroneous assertion
that éxeivos in xix. 85 betrays an author different from the Apostle John (see on the passage), the Johannine use of the word was discussed at length by Steitz in a. Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 497 ff.; Buttmann in the same journal for 1860, p. 506 ff.; and then again by Steitz in the Stud. u. Arié. for 1861, p. 368 ff. These controversial discussions (see, finally, Steltz in Hilgen- feld's Zeitschr. 1662, p. 264 ff.) were In 80
CHAP. IX., 39. 311 sensu ita dicit, quam dixerat,” ver. 36, Bengel. — mpocexfwncev avrg] John uses mpooxuveivy solely of divine worship, iv. 20 ff., xii. 20. The man was seized by the feeling—as yet indeed vague and indistinct—of the divine dé€a, the bearer of which, the Messiah, the object of his newly awakened faith and confession, stands before him. The higher conception of 6 vid¢ r. Geod has struck him.
Ver. 39. An Oxymoron, to which Jesus (comp. 1 Cor. i. 18 ff.), seeing at Ifis feet the man born blind, and now endued not only with bodily, but also with spiritual sight, gives utterance with profound emotion, addressing Ilimself, moreover, not to any one particular person (hence elirev without the addition of a person, comp. i. 29, 36), but to those around Him in gen- eral, From among these the Pharisees then (ver. 40) come forward to reply. The compact. pregnant sentence is uttered irrespectively of the man who had been blind, who also ina higher sense appears in ver. 36 as still 9 BAéruv, and in ver. 88 as BAéruv. — ei¢ pina] telically, i.e. to this end, as is clear from the more exact explanation iva, etc., that follows, This «piua * is an end, though not the ultimate end, of the appearance of Jesus. He came to bring about, asa matter of fact, @ judicial decision ; He came, namely, inorder that, by means of His agency, those who see not might see, 3.6. in order that those who are conscious of the lack of divine truth (comp. the poor in spirit in Matt. v. 3) may be illumined thereby, and they who see may become blind (not merely: appareant caeci, as Grotius and several others explain), i.e. those who fancy themselves to be in possession of divine truth,? might not become participators therein ; but (comp. Isa. vi. 9 f.) be closed, blinded, and hardened against it (like the self-conceited Pharisees). The point of the saying lies in this: that ol u7 BAérovrec is subjective, and Brérwo objectice ; whereas of BAérovrec ig subjective, and rupdoi yévwvrat objec- tive.® —xoiza is neither merely separation,‘ nor equivalent to xardxpiocc ;° but what Christ here says regarding Himeelf is a matter of fact, a retributive
@
far unnecessary, as the use of éxetvors in John does not deviate from the genuine Greek usage ; and as the context of xix. 35 shows, as clearly as that of the present passage that the person who speaks is pointed to, being presented objectively as though he were a third person.
1QOn this accentuation of «piza, see Lo- beck, Paral. p. 418; comp. however, Lip- slus, grammat. Unters. 1. p. 40. — The word itself ts used by John only in this place. It denotes, not the frial which is hed, the judicial procedure («pcacs), but its result, the judictal sentence which 1s pronounced, the decision of the court, what is judicially measured out, etc. Hence cpiza Aapfdvay, Bacrd day, etc.
* Comp. Luke xi. 52; Matt. xi. 25; Rom. il. 19; 1 Cor. {. 21, iff. 18.
5 It is true, indeed, that the uh BAdworres are eusceptiile, and the fAéwrorres unauacep- tible ; but this was not determined by tho
consideration that the former believed without seeing, whilst the latter refused to belleve, notwithstanding all they had seen of Jesus (see Baur, p. 179); on the con- trary, the susceptibility of the one and the unsusceptibility of the other were rooted in their inner relation to Christ, which is necessarily moral, and the result of free self-determination. Indeed, against the view now controverted, ver. 41 alone is decisive, apart even from the mysterious designation of the matter by a circumstance occurring in connection with it. Comp. Delitzsch, Psych. p. 162.—On wan BAéweacr, to be ind, comp. Soph. O. C. 73; O. R. WR; see also Xen. Mem. 1. 8.4. On rvdgAds in the figurative sense, see Soph. O. RB. 871.
*Castalio, Corn. &@ Lapide, Kuinoel, de Wette, and several others.
5 Ammonius, Euth. Zigabenus, Olshau- sen.
312 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
judicial arrangement, affecting both sides according to the position they take up relatively to Him. Hence there is no contradiction with iii. 17, viii, 15, xii. 47.’ If, with Godet, we understand oi y7 BAérovrec and ol BAé- aovrec Of those who have not and those who have the knowledge of the Jewish law, we must refer BAfrwor and rvgAoi to the divine truth which Christ reveals. A twofold relation is thus introduced, to which the words Atyere bre BAéwouev, ver. 41, are also opposed.
Ver. 40. Pharisees were no doubt in His company, whose aie was to mark all the more carefully His further behaviour after the performance of the miracle, not apostate disciples of Jesus,* or adherents of a Pharisaic spirit (Lange). See x. 6, 21. They imagine that, in conformity with the Opinion which Jesus entertains regarding them, He must needs reckon them among the pu) BAérovrec ; and they fail altogether to perceive that, according to the sense in which He used the expression,—which, however, they do not understand,—He must include them among the PAirovrec. That they, the wise men of the nation, should be yu BAfrovrec or rvddoi (comp. Matt. xv. 14), seems to them, in their conceit, so astonishing and singular, that they ask : We also are surely not blind? The Pharisecs did not understand Jesus to be speaking of physical blindness,* because otherwise they would certainly not have put such a question.
Ver. 41. Alas ! virtually replies Jesus, Ye are not blind. Were ye blind (as I intended the yu? BAérovrec in ver: 89), that is, people who are conscious of being destitute of the true knowledge,‘ then ye would be without sin, i.e. your unbelief in me would not be sinful, just because it would involve no resistance to divine truth, but would simply imply that ye had not yet at- tained to it, a result for which ye were not to blame. But now ye as- sort that ye see (profess to be possessors of divine truth) ; the consequence whereof is, that your sin remaineth (is not removed),°* z.e. that your unbelief in me not only is sinful, but this your sin continues to exist, remains unde- stroyed,® because your conceit is a perpetual ground for rejecting me, so that you cannot attain to faith and the forgiveness of sin. ‘‘ Dicendo videmua, medicum non quaeritis,” Augustine. ‘‘Si diceretis : caecit sumus, visum peteretis et peccatum jam desiisset,” Bengel. According to Liicke,’ whom J. Miiller follows,* the meaning is: ‘‘ Were you blind, 7.e. without the capalility of knowledge, there would be no sin (guilt) in your unbelief ; you would then be unable to believe with knowledge. But so long as you say, notwithstanding all your blindness, We see, and therefore do not put away your conceited self-deception, so long your unbelief cannot depart, but must remain.” Against this view are the following objections : 1. TupdAci, because answering to yu) BAéwovres in ver. 39, cannot denote incapacity
1 Comp. also Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 186 f. stand. 3 Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus. ® Not, “ The sin remains yours’ (Ewald). * Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- Comp. xv. 16.
bepus, and others. © aveEaAaurros péver, Theodoret, Herac-
* Not, physically Blind, as Nonnus, The- Jeon. ophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several 7 So substantially Baeumlein. others here, as well as in ver. 40, after the ® Lehre v. ad. Sénde, 1. p. 268, ed. 5. example of Chrysostom, wrongly under-
~
CHAP. IX., 41. 313 for knowledge ; 2. The antithesis Afyere or: BAér. suggests for rvgdAoi, not the objective, but the subjective meaning ; 8. ‘Avapria is thus taken in dif- ferent senses in the two halves. Other far-fetched meanings are: Were you blind, like the multitude which you regard as blind, perhaps you would have no sin, etc.;? or (Hengst.), if ye suffered merely from the simple blindness of the human race, which is blind from birth, ye would have no sin of deci- sive significance, no unpardonable sin ; as though there were the slightest reference to anything of the kind! Substantially correct are Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, and several others ; comp. Luthardt and Ebrard ; still oix« av ely. ay. ought not to be transposed into, ‘‘ then would your sin forgive you.” The explanation of Godet is a natural consequence of his interpretation of ver. 89, but founders on the words Aéyere ri BAémquev.? [See Note XXXVI. p. $14, ]
OBSERVATION.—The absence from the Synoptics of the miracle performed on the man who was born blind finds its explanation simply in the circum- stance that it did not take place in the (Galilean) sphere of the synoptic narra- tive, and ought not to have been made the ground of an attack on its historical credibility, as was done by Strauss (who compares the healing of Naaman in 2 Kings v. 10); by Weisse (who derives the narrative, by means of a misunder- standing, from ver. 39); and by Baur.(who regards this story as the intensified expression of the healings of the blind recorded by the synoptists, p. 245 f.) ; whilst Gfrérer, on the contrary, content with asserting the presence of unhis- torical additions, comes to a conclusion disadvantageous to the synoptists.— According to Baur (p. 176 ff.), the narrative of the miracle was definitely and intentionally shaped, so as to set forth faith in its pure olyectivity, the susceptibil- ity to the divine as it is affected by the pure impression of the divine element in the Zpya ect, even when it is not yet aware who is the subject of these épye. ‘It clings to the thing itself; and the thing itself is so immediately divine, that in the thing, without knowing it, one has also the person.’’ In such wise are arbitrary, and not even relevant (see Briickner), abstractions from history converted into the ground of history. Ammon makes the occurrence a natural healing of an inflammation of the eyes / a counterpart to the converse travesty of some of the Fathers, who express the opinion that the blind man lacked eyes al- together, and that Jesus formed them out of the myAdc, as God at first formed man from the earth ;* comp. on ver. 6 f.
1 Ewald, as though besides a» John had written also rdxa or iows.
2 Sils appartenatent a la multitude igno- rante, leur ineréduliié @ Tégard de Jésus pourrait n'étre qu'une affaire d'entrainement (it would be merely a sin against the Son of man); mais éclairés, comme tls le sont, par la connatesance dela parole de Dieu, c'est asciem- ment, qu’tis rejettent le Meseie” (this is a sin
against the Holy Ghost). In this case, how- ever, Jesus must have said : vv 382 BAdwere, not viv 82 Adyere Sr: BAdwouer, which Godet, it is true, regards merely as an allusion to the question in ver. 40; while in reality it is the key to the correct understanding of the entire passage.
® See especially Irenaeus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nonnaus.
3lt THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Nores sy AMeERIcAN Eprron.
XXXvVa. ‘* Made clay from the spitile.’’ Ver. 6.
Weiss holds Meyer entirely correct in declaring it incompatible with the truth- fulness and dignity of Jesus that there should have been in the application of the spittle no real influence upon the result. Whether, with Meyer, we regard the spittle as containing, or, with Thol. and Ols., as conducting the healing virtue, which reached and wrought effectually on the organism, he would leave unde- cided. It is only certain, he holds, that the divine agency which restored sight to the blind man did not depend upon the natural qualities of the spittle, but miraculously enhanced them. He rejects Meyer's inference that the fact that Jesus did not elsewhere in his miracles employ like outward means, proves that he alone knew where there was a necessily of any such outward accessories. He rejects it on the ground that any necessity involved in the case is incompatible with the miraculous character of the event. This seems eminently just, and it is extraordinary how any can associate witha miracle, wrought by omnipotence, the necessity of any special form of intermediate agency. To me, moreover, both Meyer and Weiss seem wrong in considering any merely accompanying outward, and perhaps symbolical act, as inconsistent with the Saviour's trath- fulness and dignity. It surely may be proper by some external word or act, accompanying, though not directly aiding the miracle, to connect it manifestly with the person of the agent, and make an impression on the senses and the minds of men. Such, in the O. T. miracles, was Elisha’s smiting the waters of the Jordan with the mantle of Elijah, Moses’ stretching out his rod over the Red Sea, and smiting the rock for water in the desert. Such in reality was our Lord's bidding the man with the withered hand siretch out his hand, not in aid, but as symbol of the healing ; his sending Peter to the sea to obtain the stater from the mouth of the fish, and his breaking the five loaves to feed more than five thousand persons. Such was the carrying of handkerchiefs to the sick from the persons of the Apostles. It seems perfectly consonant with his con- stant course in nature that the Great Miracle-worker should partially disguise, partially reveal, the exercise of his power under some outward act which seems consonant with, while it can have noreal bearing on, the result. It seemsa natural way for the Infinite Spirit to deal with finite beings at once sensnous and spiritual. What the special accessories shall be may vary according to the pleasure of the Worker, and the circumstances of the case. The scene of this particular restoration, occurring in Jerusalem, the theocratic centre, and on the Sabbath, with its certain exposure to the hostile scrutiny and judgment of the chief men of the nation, with whom the Lord’s relations were becoming those of more pronounced enmity, may naturally have led Him to make the ac- cessories of this miracle unusually prominent and striking. Much more than would the utterance of any mere words, it prevents the miracle from being ‘done in a corner.’’ It almost flings the Lord’s challenge and defiance into the face of the theocratic rulers.
XXXVI. ‘ Tf ye were blind.”’ Ver, 41. “If ye were blind, ye would not have sin; but as it is (viv dé) ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.’’ If ye were in a mental condition answering to that of.the physically blind, yo would not have sin. As the physically blind is not
NOTES. 315
to blame for not seeing physical light and the objects which it reveals, so if ye had no capacity of moral vision, ye would be without blame for not discern- ing spiritual truth. But as the case stands, ye say that ye see: ye claim to have the power of vision. Ye renounce the plea of spiritual incapacity, and yet refuse to exercise the power of seeing and recognizing the truth, and must be treated as those who have the faculty of vision and whose blindness is wilful. Your sin, therefore, remaineth. The term is used, I think, in a judi- cial sense. Your sin is not taken away by any plea of ignorance which might be urged in your favour. It stands. Meyer and nearly all the commentators take it in various modifications of irremovable, I think wrongly.
The difficulty in the passage lies partly, at least, in the fact that the cases of physical and moral blindness are analogous indeed, but not parallel. There is no such moral blindness as to exempt completely from mora] responsibility. Every one has some light, and he who possesses alittle, being yet conscious how little it is, is the Saviour's 47 BAfrwy : while he who, possessing perhaps much more, yet fancies that he possesses all, and rejects the larger and diviner light, is the BAérav who, in this rejection, becomes blind.
31 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER X.
Ver. 3. xazet}] A. B. D. L. X. ®. Curss. Cyr. : gavei. Recommended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correct ; the following xar’ évoua was the oo- casion of writing the more definite word alongside, whence it was then intro- duced into the text.— Ver. 4. ra idta apé8ara] Lachm. and Tisch.: ra ida ravra, after B. D. L. X. &.** Cursives, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Lucif. Cant. zdvra, after the preceding occurrence of the word, passed mechanically over into wpéjata. — Ver. 5. dxodovOjawory] Lachm. and Tisch. : axodov@jooverv, after pre- ponderating testimony ; the Indicat. was displaced by the usual conjunct. — Ver. 8. mivrec}] 1s omitted in D. Cant. Ver. Foss. Didym., and mpo ézod is absent from E. F. G. M. 8. U. A. &.* Cursives, Verss. the Fathers. The omission of sdvrec is to be explained from its being superfluous ; and that of pd éxot, which Tisch. has deleted, from the Gnostic and Manichaean misuse of the passage in opposition to the Old Testament. — The place of xpd éxod after }AGov is deci- sively attested (Elz., Scholz. : before 7/G0v). — Instead of rifyocy, ver. 11, didworr (Tisch.) is too feebly attested. So also didwus, ver. 15. — Ver. 12. ra mpoBara after oxopr. is wanting in B. D. L. ®. Cursives, Verss. Lucif. ; bracketed by Lachm., and suppressed by Tisch. But why should it have been added? Ap- pearing as it would altogether superfluous, it might easily be passed over. — Ver. 13. 6 dé utofwr. gevyec] wanting in B. D. L. &. Cursives, Verss. Lucif. ; bracketed by Lachm., rejected even by Rinck, and deleted by Tisch. But how easily might the eye of a copyist pass at once from 6 dé ju08. to drt j08., 80 that 6 62 yio9. gedyee Was omitted. This explanation is suggested further by A.,° which omits i068. gevyet ott. — Ver. 14. yivaoxoua: ind tdv Eudv] B. D. L. &., most of the Verss. Cyr. Epiph. Nonn. : y:vdoxovcivy pe ra ud. Recommended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm, and Tisch. This active turn is a transfor- mation in harmony with the following verse, in which also there is no passive expression. — Ver. 16. The position det'ze (Lachm. and Tisch.) is strongly supported, but would easily suggest itself as the more usual instead of ye dei. — yevnoera] B. D. L. X. and some Verss. : yevyoovra:. Mechanically introduced after the preceding plural form. — Ver. 18. aipe:] Tisch. : jjpev, only after B. &.* — Ver. 26. Instead of ov ydp we must read, with Tisch., dr: ovx, after B. D. L. X. . Cures. Or. Cyr. Chrys. —xadc elrov tyiv] wanting in B. K. L. M.* &. Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. The apparent incongruity caused the omission. — Ver. 29. 5¢ dédwxe] D.: ddedwxdc. A stylistic alteration. B. L. &.* Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Goth. Tert. Hil. : 6 déduxev. A. B. X. It. Vulg. read yeifov afterwards. The latter is to be regarded as original, and because the neuter was not understood relatively to 6 rarjp as the source of the altera- tion, 6 dédwxev. — Ver. 33. Aéyovrec] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., after preponder- ating testimony, to be deleted. — Ver. 38. miorevyre] Tisch. : morevere, after in- adequate evidence for this irregularity, especially as ticrevere precedes and fol- lows ; for instead of the following micreécare, decisive evidence renders it neces- sary, with Tisch., to read miorevere,— Iva yore kai micrevonte] Lachm. and Tisch. :
CHAP. X., l. 317
tva yvre x. yiwwdonnre, after B. L. X. Curss. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Aeth. and some Fathers. Correctly ; not being understood after yrdre, y:vdéox. was altered into morevo. — aity] B. D. L. X. &. Curss. and most of the Verss., also Or. Athan. and others, have r¢ rarpi. Recommended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. With such decided witnessed’ in its favour, justly ; for the empha- sis lying in the repetition of the word mighty easily escape the copyists. — Ver, 42. éxei] Decisive evidence assigns it its place after uvrév. So also Lachm. and Tisch.
Ver. 1.1 The new chapter should have begun with ix. 35; for x. 1-21 constitute one act with ix. 85-41, as is evident both from the circumstance that x. 1 ff. follow immediately without the slightest indication of a change having taken place, and also from ver. 6 (comp. ix. 41). The parable is therefore still addressed to the Pharisees of chap. ix.; as ver. 21 also shows by the reference which it contains to the healing of the blind man. — apjv apufy, etc.] After the punitive words of ix. 41, Jesus now, with solemn earnestness, and through the medium of a parable, unveils to them how their hostile relation to Him, in rejecting Him, while at the same time re- garding themselves as the leaders of the people of God, necessarily made them the corrupters of the nation. His discourse proceeds, however, without any objection or contradiction being raised by His opponents ; for they did not understand the figure, ver. 6 ; many also fail to understand the explanation, and despise the speaker as crazy (ver. 20) ; whilst others, again, yield to the impression made by the penctrating truth of His words (ver. 21). It happened, accordingly, that Jesus was able to carry out the beautiful allegory (ver. 6) in all its detail, without interruption, as it were in one breath ; and had therefore, at its close, nothing further to do than to Jet the words spoken produce their natural impression. Their primary effect was a division among His hearers (ver. 19), in accordance with ix. 39 ; such as had already showed itself in ix. 16. —6é 9 cicepxduevoc, etc.] The flocks of sheep spent the night in a fold (atag, YN) surrounded by a wall, at whose gate an under-shepherd (6 @vpwods, ver. 8) kept watch during the night. See especially Bochart, Hieros. I. p. 482, ed. Rosenm. Opposed to the eicepydu. 61a T. ipa (the emphasis lies on the last word) is the aveBalvuy GAAaxz60er, who gets up (on to the wall, for the purpose of coming into the avag, over it) from elsewhere, i.e. from another direction than that indicated by the gate. There is only one door. On dddayéfev, which is equivalent to the old classical dAAofev, see.* — xAérr. x. 2norhe] Thief and robber ; a cli- mactic strengthening of the idea ;* the individual features, however, of the soul-destroying, selfish procedure thus indicated ‘ are not to be dissevered. — For the explanation of the figure we must note,—(1) The aay rev mpofii- tov is the community of the people of God, whose members are the péfara,* con- ceived in their totality as the future community of the Messianic kingdom
1 On the parable, seo Fritzsche in Frits- ® Bornemann, Scholia in Lucam, p. Xxx. ; achior. Opusc. p. 1 ff.; Voretzsch, Dise.de Lobeck, Puraiip. p. 60 f. John x. 1-18, Altenb. 1888. 4 Ezek. xxxiv. 8; Mal. li. 8; Jor. xxfit. 1. 4 Ael. I. A.7.10; 1. 2.62; 4 Mace, {. 7. 5 Comp. Ps. xxili., Ixxvil. 21, xov. 7, 6. 3
318 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN. (xxi. 16 f.)°3' thus ideally in their theocratic destination. It is correct, indeed, as to substance, to assume a reference to the predestinated (Augus- tine, Lampe) (though not in the Augustinian sense) ; but in form it intro- duces something foreign tothe context. (2) The @ipa is not to be left with- out its proper signification ;* nor to be taken as denoting in general] the legitimus ordo, the divine calling, the approach ordained by God, and the like ;° but Christ Himself is the door ; indeed, He Himself in ver. 7 expressly thus interprets this point, because His hearers had failed to understand it.‘ The true leaders of the theocratic people can enter on their vocation ir. no other way than through Him; He must qualify and commission them ; He must be the mediator of their relation to the sheep. Quite a different position was tuken up by the Pharisees ; independently of Him, and in an unbelieving and hostile spirit towards Him, they arrogated to themselves the position of the leaders of the people of God. It is thoroughly arbitrary to assume that Jesus did not here intend by the figure of the door to denote Himself, notwithstanding the distinct declaration contained in ver. 9. Chrysostom, Ammonius, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others, have per- versely interpreted the door of the Holy Scriptures. ‘‘Ipse textus addit imagini interpretationem qua contenti simus,” Melanchthon.
Vv. 2, 3. Mosugv] Shepherd, without the article qualitaticely ; it character- izes such a one, not specially as the orner (the antithesis to the hireling first appears in ver. 12), but in general, in contrast to the robber. —6 Ovpwpic¢ avoiyer] belongs to the description of the Icgitimate mode of entering, and is not intended to have any special explanation ; for which reason also no fur- ther notice is taken of it in vv. 7, 8. It must not, therefore, be explained either of God ;* or of the Holy Spirit, Acts xiii. 2 ;° or of Christ ;" or of Moses ;* or of John the Baptist.° He enters into the fold, and the sheep hear Ilis coice (His call, His address, His appeal) ; they listen to it as to the voice which is known to them (comp. ver. 4). Comp. the shepherd’s cry to his flock, ‘‘cirra,” in Theoer. iv. 46, viii. 69. — ra mpdéBara] are the sheep in the fold generally. It was common for several flocks to pass the night in one fold ; and their shepherds, because they come every morning to lead out the individual flocks, are known to all the sheep in the fold. On the con- trary, ra idia mpéBara are the sheep which belong to the special flock of him who has entered ;* these he calls xar’ dvoua, 7.6. not merely by name
xvilf. 15.
2 Comp. Matt. xxv.-22.
2 Lticke, de Wette.
3 Maldonatus, Tholuck, Luthardt, Briick- ner, Hengstenberg, Godet, and others.
4 Comp. Ignat. ad Philad. 9, where Christ is termed dpa rov warpds ; also Herin. Past. 3; Sim. 9. 12.
§ Calvin, Maldonatus, Bengel, Tholuck, Ewald, Hengstenberg, following vi. 44 f.
* Theodoret, Heracleon, Ruperti, Aretius, Corn. & Lapide, and others, also Lange.
7 Cyril, Augustine.
8 Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, following Deut.
® Godet, after {. 7.
10Into the beautiful general figure of ra wpoBara, the word i&a introduces a special, individual element, which makes it all the richer and more telling. It has been incor- rectly maintained (by Bengel, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, and others), that although té&a is firat associated with wpoBara when it occurs for the second time, the mpdfara which hear must necessarily be the same as those which ure afterwards described as ra téa mpéBara. These latter are no doubt among the wpéfata which hear; but it is
CHAP. X., 4-7. 319
évoyacri,’ but distributively — by their namen, each by its name.* To give to the individual animals of their flock a name was not an unusual custom among the shepherds of ancient times.* In Lange’s view * the id:a rpdf. are the farourite sheep (image of the elect), the bell-wethers, which are fol- lowed by the whole flock (rad xpéfara, ver. 4). Erroneously ; for, on the one hand, Ida alone would not sufficiently support this notion (comp. ver, 12) ; and on the other, éumpocfev aopeberac and axodowWei, ver. 4, are 80 completely correlate, that avrov and ré mpé3ara must necessarily be the same : at all events, avroic must otherwise have been used instead of avrg, ver. 4. — léyec] to pasture, vv. 9, 10. Looking back to ix. 34, 22, Godet imports into the words the idea of separation from the old theocracy, which is devoted to ruin.* Such a thought is contained neither in the words* nor in the context.
Ver. 4. And when he has brought out all his own sheep (those belonging to his flock), and so forth. He leaves none behind (xdyvra, see the critical note). éx,342y pictures forth the manner of the faye. He lays hold on the sheep which he has called to him, and brings them out to the door. — The idea, which is symbolically set forth in vv. 8 and 4, is that of the living, loving fellowship which subsists between the leaders of the people of God, whom Christ has appointed, and Christ Himself, for the satisfaction of the spiritual needs of the Church, both in general and in particular.
Ver. 5. 'AAZorpin dé, etc.] But a stranger, who does not belong to them as their shepherd. It is not cxclusively the avuPaivavreg aAaay. of ver. 1 who are here intended, but every other one in gencral who is not their shep- herd. The fellowship referred to in vv. 3 and 4 is portrayed according to its exelusice nature. — ot p27) axoAovOfaovew]) future (see the critical note), as in vill. 12. It is not prophetical (Lampe: of the ‘‘cathedra Mosis planc deserenda,” comp. Luthardt), but describes what zill be the result of the in- tervention of a stranger. The sheep will certainly not follow, but flee from him. .
Vv. 6, 7. Ilapouta] Every species of discourse that deviates from the common course (nivoc) ; hence in the classical writers especially—proterb.’ It denotes here, as corresponding to the Hebrew “wn, if we define the conception more exactly, not parable (because it is not a history), but alle- gory.°—The Pharisees do not understand the meaning of what He thus al- legorically delivered to them, and therefore (otv, ver. 7) Jesus sees Himself compelled to begin again (rd/v), and to explain to them, first of all, the main point on which the understanding of the whole depended, namely,
only ra i&a that the shepherd calls by name, and so forth. Thus the particular Church belongs to the Universal.
® Similarly even Luther: “ It denotes the Christian freedom from the law and judg- ment.*’
That would be merely dvopza, or dydéuart, or éx’ ébydéuaros, Polyb. 5. 85. 2, 11. 15. 1.
Sex THs cis Exactoy axpas dportisos, Euth. Zigabenus.
8 8ee Jnferpp. ad Theocr. 5.101; Pricaeus on the passage.
4 Leben Jesu, IL. p. 955.
® Polluz, 1. 250.
7 Plat. Soph. p. 261 B; Soph. Aj. 6'9; Ad. N. ff, 12. 22; Lucian, Nigr. 1. 87° comp. 2 Pet. fi. 22.
®See Wilke, Rhcfor. p. 109. Suldas: » wapotpia «oT. Adyos awoxpudos 6 éerépov wpo'y- Aou onuayoueros,
320 . THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
how the door in ver. 1 is to be understood. It is incorrect, therefore, with most recent commentators (also Hengstenberg and Godet), to say that we have a second parable with a different turn ; if Christ had not intended even in ver. 1 to describe Himself as the door, He would only have confused His hearers in ver. 7, instead of enlightening them. — éyé] with great em- phasis. — rav mpoBdrur] to the sheep, as is required by ver. 1; not, through which the sheep enter into the fold,’ so that Jesus characterizes Himself as the tutorem ac nutritorem of the sheep (Fritzsche). Christ, however, is the door to the sheep, so far as the true spiritual leaders of the people of God receive through Him the qualification and appointment to their vocation. See on ver. 1.
Ver. 8. See Ewald, Jahrb. ix. p. 40 ff. The actual antithesis to the iyd eiut } Gipa is formed by the many who had come forward to be the teachers and leaders of the people of God, without connecting their working with Christ. He describes them from the point of view of the time at which they came forward : before me; they came forward before Christ had appeared as the door to the sheep ; they had developed their power and activity since the time of the second temple, in a way that gradually grew more and more pernicious, and they formed now the party of hierarchical, specially Phari- saical, antagonists of Christ. The members of this hierarchical caste are in- tended ; the expression fised by Christ, however, is popular, and not to be pressed as hard and unhistorical (Hase) ; the use of the present eioi, more- over, gives it a living relation to the leaders of the people, as they then actually were before his eyes. On the other hand, passages like vii. 19, v. 39, 45, iv. 22, exclude any possible reference to Moses and the prophets. Hence we may not, with Hilgenfeld, regard the language as ‘‘ harshly antz- Judaistic,”” or under cover of the Gnostic dualism, refer it to the entire Old Testament past, .e. to ali the pre-Christian leaders of the people of God. Nor may we in any way set aside the temporal meaning of xpd, whether explaining, with Calovius : in advance of me (antequam mitterentur) ; or, with Briick- ner (after Stier) : before they have sought and found measthe door ; or, with Wolf, converting it into ywpic,—a view which comes substantially to that of Olshausen (‘‘ without connection with the Logos”) ; or, with Tittmann and Schleusner, taking it for ixép, loco, and with Lange importing into this view, ‘‘instead of me,” the notion of absolute pre-eminence, as though the one who precedes would thrust completely aside him who is thus thrown into the background. zpé, in the sense of instead, is foreign to the New Testament, and rare in Greek writers. But when 7Afov, with a view to the removal of everything objectionable, is taken pregnantly, making it express an arbitrary or unauthorized? coming forward,* we import into the word a meaning which in itself, indeed, is a matter of course, but must have been distinctly expressed (as in ver. 48), if it were to be emphatic.* This also
1 Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Wolf, 8 Hieronymus, Augustine, Isidore, Herac- Lampe, Fritzsche, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, leon, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Melanch-
Baeumlein, Godet, and others. thon, Jansen, and several others; also Lu- ? Nonnus takes it In the sense of creeping _thardt, Ebrard. in secretly: wdvres S00 wapos RAVOW UroxAdr- 4In #Adov by itself, so far as it precedes
rorre wedidy, wpd <xou, it is impossible to find, as Luthardt
CHAP. X., 9. 321 against B. Crusius, who lays the stress on the purpose of the #AGov (‘‘in order to give the people a new time”). The explanation, finally, of /alee Messiahs,' is unhistorical, as their coming began after Christ’s day ; a cir- cumstance indeed on which B. Bauer grounds against John a charge of anachronism. De Wette considers the discourse out of harmony with the wisdom and gentleness of Jesus. But the worthless men, to whose entire class He alludes, stood actually in His presence, and had surely done enough to call forth His severity and wrath. — «Aémraz eioi x. Ayorai] namely, of the sheep, ver. 1. Comp. the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Instead of mdvre¢ dcct, aravreg S001 would have been still stronger.*—-a/Aé]. The want of success which attends this predatory (soul-destroying) procedure. — ovx gxovoav] did not listento them. For their adherents did not belong to the true people of God (ra péfara).
Ver. 9. ’Eyé eiue } Obpa] rH derAaccacugs tov pyrow BeBaoi trav Adyov, Euth. Zigabenus. — d’ éiuov] emphatically occupying the front place, excluding every other mediation. — cic£A@y] namely, to the sheep in the fold. Comp. vv. 1, 7. The subject is therefore a shepherd (ric), who goes in to the sheep through the door. Others, on the contrary,* regard the sheep as the subject, and the @ipa as the door for the sheep. But there is no ground for such a change of figure, since both the word cickpyeoba after vv. 1 and 2, and the singular and masculine ric, can refer only to the shepherd, and any other en- trance than through the door is for the sheep inconceivable ; so that the em- phatic d’ éucd, so far as the éyé is the door, would be without any possible antithesis. — owi#oera:] is not (with Luthardt and older comm. after 1 Tim. iv. 16) to be understood directly of the attainment of the Messianic redemption (compare especially 1 Cor. iii. 15), which would be foreign to the context (see what follows) ; but means : he will be delivered, i.6. he will be set free from all dangers by the protecting door ;—in its deeper significance the figure undoubtedly involves safety from the Messianic ardéAea, and the guarantee of future eternal redemption. This happy cw6goera: is then followed by un- restrained and blessed service, which is graphically set forth by the words eioeA. x. é€eA., aS in Num. xxvii. 17, as an unhindered entering in and going out of the fold, at the head of the flock, whilst engaged in the daily duty of tending it; and by vou eipfoe, as the finding of pasture for the flock.‘ That this voug, in the interpretation of the allegory, is yy vous,’ which works for the eternal life of those who are fed through the evangelical grace and truth which they appropriate (comp. ver. 10), needs no illustrating.
does, the thought ‘‘on his own responsi- bility,” or ‘“‘so that he places Christ after himself.” Adoy denotes neither more nor less than the simple veneruné ; as in ver. 10. éyeo 4A Sor is equal to the simple ego veni ; the emphasis rests primarily on wdvres Sco, omnes quotquol, and then on #pd ¢uov, which is placed at the end.
3 Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodore of Mop- suestia, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, Gro- tlus, Maldonatus, Hammond, Tittmann, Schleusner, Klee, Weizsdcker, and several
others.
3 Strabo, p. 18, 1. 11, Isocr. Lock. 12.
* Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Maldo- natus, Bengel, and several others; also Fritzsche, Tholuck, de Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg, Godot, etc.
4 rotpviey vonas, Soph. O. BR. 760; compare Plat. Legg. iil. p. 679 A: vouys yap ob« iy owaris,
® Plat. Phaedr. p. 248 B.
322 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Ver. 10. The opposite of such a one as entered di’ éuod, is the thief to whom allusion was made in ver. 1; when he comes to the sheep, he has only selfish and destructive ends in view.’ — éy& 7AGov, etc.] Quite otherwise J / J have come (to the sheep), etc. By this new antithesis, in which Christ contrasts Himself, and not again the shepherd appointed through Him, with the thief, the way is prepared for a transition to another use of the figure which represents Him no longer as the door.* Compare the promise in Ex. Xxxiv. 28 ; xxxvii. 24, in contrast to the false shepherds in Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff. — iva Cum Exwor]. The opposite of Obey x. aroa.; the sheep are not to be slaughtered and perish, but to have life; and as required by the figure, the Messianic life in its temporal development and eternal perfection. — xai nepioooy Ex.] and hare it abundantly (overflowingly), t.e. in the figure: rich fulness of nourishment (comp. Ps. xxiii) ; as to the thing, abundance of spiritual possessions (grace and truth, i. 14, 17), in which the life consists. Incorrectly Vulgate, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, and many others, compare also Ewald, who interpret the passage as though mepiocdrepov were used, more than Cwh, viz.—the kingdom of heaven; or, according to Ewald, ‘‘ Joy, and besides, constantly increasing blessing.” The repetition of izwow gives the second point a more independent position than if xai alone had been used.*
Ver. 11. 'Eyé] Repeated again with lively emphasis. It is no other. —é moun 6 xaddc] the good, the excellent shepherd, conceived absolutely as He ought to be : hence the article and the emphatic position of the adjective. In Christ is realized the ideal of the shepherd, as it lives in the Old Testa- ment.‘ With the conception of xadé¢ compare the Attic xaddc nayabéc,* and the contrary : rovypéc, xaxéc, ad:xoc. —In the following specification of the things in which the good shepherd proves himself to correspond to his idea, ~ 6 wou. 6 xaddg 18 solemnly repeated. — riBéva r. yoyfv] As to substance, though not as to the meaning of the words, equivalent to dotva: r. ». (Matt. xx. 28). It is a Johannean expression,* without corresponding examples in the classics ;’ and must be explained, neither from the simple 03¥, Isa. liii. 10,° nor from ‘}23 WP) 03%,° where 33 is essential ; but from the idea of the sacrificial death as a ransom that has been paid.” Its import accordingly is : to pay down one’s soul, impendere, in harmony with the use of riBévac in the classics, according to which it denotes to pay.“ Compare Nonnus : xa? worxie iding ob geiderat, GAAG EOhoee Abtpov av dtuv. —inrép] for the good of, in order to turn aside destruction from them by his own self-sacrifice. Com- pare xi. 50 f. It is less in harmony with this specific point of view, from which the sacrifice of the life of Jesus is regarded throughout the entire
1Comp. Dem. 782. 9: a noe Svddrray ® Also Tob. vil. 7; 2 Maco. xv. 12. wpéfara, avrds xarecdiwy. © xilf. 37 f., xv. 18; 1 John tik 16.
? From ver. 11 onward, but as the true 7? Against Kypke, I. p. 388. Shepherd Himsef (Matt. xxvi. 81; Heb. xilf. ® Hengstenberg.
20; 1 Pet. if. 23. ® Judg. xil. 3; 1 Sam. xix. 5. 3 Comp. ver. 18; Xen. Anab. 1. 10.3: «at 10 Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. il. 6. TavTHY éowoay Kal GAAa — éowoay, 1180 frequently in Demosthenes and
4 Pg. xxiii. ; Isa. xl. 11; Ezek. xxxiy.; Jer. others; see Relske, Jnd. Dem. p. 49%, ed. xxili.; Zech. xi.; also Mio. v. 3 Schaef.; Diasen, ad Dem. de Cor. p 271.
CHAP. X., 12. 323
New Testament, to take réva:, with de Wette, Ebrard, Godet, as denoting merely lay down (as in xiii. 4) ; or to assume the idea which is foreign to the passage, ‘‘ to offer as a prize for competition” (Ewald).
Ver. 12 f. In opposition to the idea of the good shepherd, we have here that of the hireling. The term jofuré¢ must not be taken to refer to the conduct of the Pharisees in their leadership of the people (Baeumlein and older writers, also my own view previously), as these hierarchs are included in the characteristic designation of Thieves and Robbers (vv. 8, 2), with which the description of the hireling, who is cowardly, and careth not for the sheep, would not harmonize. Nor can it be directed against the mode in which the legitimate priesthood lead the people, as Godet thinks ; for the priesthood consisted to a large extent of Pharisees, and formed with these latter, as far as antagonism to Christ was concerned, one great party (vii. 82, 45; xi. 47, 57; xvii. 8). The expression 6 piofuré¢ rather represents those leading teachers of the people of God, who, instead of being ready to sacrifice their lives for the community, flee from danger, and forsake, from in- difference and disregard, their charge. Under the figure of the pcfwrdc, there rise to the view of Christ the many cross-forsaking teachers, who would arise even in the apostolic age (Gal. vi. 12 ; Phil. ili. 18), and to whom the Apos- tle Paul forms the most brilliant historical contrast. The question by whom the p.ctwrdé¢ is hired, leads beyond the purpose of the allegory, which sets forth, in contrast to the good shepherd, a shepherd who, influenced solely by se/f-interest, takes charge of a flock, which is not his own property. — nai ovn dv rout] is closely connected with 4 sod. dé: but he who is a hireling (hired for wage) and is not a shepherd,—shepherd in the sense of being owner of the sheep which he leads out to pasture ; hence the words ov otk etol, etc., are added for the purpose of more emphatically expressing the meaning. Note that Christ possesses a Church (flock) even before His death ; partly, according to the old theocratic idea, namely, that of the old people of God as His idtos, i. 11 ; partly in reality, namely, the totality of those who believed on Him, whom the Father has given Him (vi. 87) ; partly proleptically (ver. 16) ; though, as far as He is concerned, they are first purchased (compare Acts xx. 28 ; Titus ii. 14) by Him through His death, after which event began the extension of His shepherd's functions to all, by the drawing of His Holy Spirit (xii. 82). — There is no justification for inter- preting the «olf specially, either of the devil,’ or of heretics, after Acts xx. 20.7 It isa general image of every sort of power, opposed to the Messiah, and bent on destroying the kingdom of God, which may make its appear- ance ; this power, however, as such, has its causal and ruling principle in the devil, xii. 81; xiv. 80; Matt. x. 16.—aprNXee ara x. oxoptrifec ra rpdp. } he snatches them (namely, the individuals on which he falls), and scatters the sheep, i.e. the mass of them, the flock ; hence the word rpéZarc is neither superfluous nor harsh (de Wette). — dre yuofur. éor:] nothing else. This and what follows supplies the ethical key to the behaviour described. — Notice
1Euth. Zigabenus, Aretius, Olshausen, Chrysostom. and several others; admitted even by 2 Augustine, Jansen, and several others.
324 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
further, that while in verse 12 we read 6 uo. dé, here we have 6 d2 ,u0f. because the antithesis of the hireling was first brought forward in ver. 12, and greater emphasis was secured by the immediate connection of puof. with 6.’
Ver. 14f. After the description of the hireling, there now follows again that of the opposite,—the characterization of Himself as the good shepherd, first specifying His intimate acquaintance with His sheep, and then repeating His readiness to sacrifice Himself on their behalf. The latter point consti- tutes the refrain of the characterization (vv. 17, 18), being here concretely expressed (it is different in ver. 11, where it was predicated of the good shepherd in abstracto). —xaBoc yivdoxer pe, etc.] The nature and mode, the holy nature of that reciprocal acquaintanceship. Compare xiv. 20, xv. 10, xvii. 8, 21. _As between God and Christ, so also between Christ and His people, the reciprocal knowledge is a knowledge growing out of the most intimate fellowship of love and life,—that fellowship which directly in- volves yevdoxerv ; comp. on Matt. vil. 28. — riOnu2) I lay down ; near and cer- tain future. The clause x. r. y. is not dependent on xafdr.
Ver. 16. The repeated mention of His sacrificial death, by which the union of Jews and heathen into one community of believers was to be effected (see on Eph. ii. 14),raises His look to the future when He (as the good Shepherd lifted up on high,? shall be the guide also of the heathen, who have become believers, and whom he now prophetically terms His sheep.* But the thought that He does not need the faith of the Jews (Hengstenberg after Ruperti) 1s arbitrarily forced into the passage as an intervening link of logical connec- tion. The Jews outside of Palestine‘ are not intended, as they form part of the fold of the Jewish theocracy, to which the words éx r#¢ avAge rabrae refer, and within which Jesus Himself lived and spake ; hence also the demon- strative ratr7c. —éyw] He is their owner.® ‘‘ Hoc verbum habet magnam potestatem,” Bengel. — & ovx dori éx rig abage tabryc) which are not from this fold, which are not derived from it. This expression, however, does not imply that Jesus conceived the heathen as alsoin an aviy ;° for the emphasis rests not on tatryc, but on ri¢ avAyc, and the characteristic feature of the heathen is the dispersion (vii. 35, xi. 52) ;’ while the thought of a divine
1 Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 878.
3 Compare Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. il. 3.
® The relation of ver. 16 to what precedes corresponds entirely to the New Testament idea, that salvation proceeds from the Jews to the heathen (comp. iv. 22, xi. 52). This advantage of the Jews js also to be recog- nized as acknowledged by John. to whom we are not to ascribe the idea of a perfect equality of the two (Liicke, B. Crusius; comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 355). The heathen who are to be gained are, how- ever, even before they are recipicnts of salvation, réxva 7. Seov, and Christ has them as His sheep, according to the ideal view of the /fuéure, as an actuality so far as it is certainly fixed in the counse of
God (comp. Rom. xi. 28). It is therefore in- correct to explain the mode of expression from the fellowship with God realized through conscience (Luthardt) ; because, to be a child of God and an adherent of Christ presupposes regeneration. For this, how- ever, they are destined by the divine elec- tion of grace, and fitted and prepared by the prevenient divine drawing. Compare xi. 52, xii. 32, and prophetic utterances, such as Mic. iv. 2; Isa. xlix. 17f., lil. 18 ff., lif, 10 ff.
* Paulus.
® Comp. Acts xvili. 10.
* In answer to de Wette.
7 Correctly Bengel : “ alias oves dictt, non aliud ovile ; crant enim dispersae in mundo.”
CHAP. X., 17, 18. 325
leading of the heathen ’® does not correspond at all to the figure of an aiA4, of which the conception of theocratic fellowship constitutes an essential feature. Compare the figure of the olive tree in Rom. xi. 17 ; Eph. ii. 12; Matt. viii. 11.— dei] according to the divine decree. — ayayeiy] neither adduweere, fetch ;* nor avvayayeiv, assemble, xi. 52 ;* but lead, as shepherd, who precedes the sheep, and whom they follow, ver.4. Bengel’s remark is appro- priate : ‘‘ Non opus est illis so/um mutare ;” for the shepherd who leads also the heathen is the eralted Christ, révruv xbpioc, Acts x. 86. —xal yevhoerat, etc.] and will become, inasmuch as I lead, beside my shecp out of the Jewish ava“, those other sheep of mine, also, one flock (consisting of the two parts, GudorépwHev, Nonnus), one shepherd. This is the happy issue ; by the asyn- detic collocation, the conception of unity (u/a, cic) is made to appear with more marked prominence. Comp. 1 Cor. x.17; Eph. iv. 5. Oneic rofp, observe in reference to yevfoera: : ‘‘de jure Jesus semper unicus est pastor ; de jure et facto igitur unus jiet,” Bengel. The fulfilment of His declaration, which began with the conversion of the heathen by the apostles, is still ad- vancing, and will be completed only with the realization of what is spoken of in Rom. xi. 25 f. The Stoic dream of the union of all men domep ayéAne ouvydua véuw nove cuvtpepoutync * has been dispelled ; the idea, however, con- sidered in itself, goes on realizing itself in Christ till the judgment day. | Vv. 17, 18. Christ’s portraiture of himself as the Good Shepherd is finished. He now further bears testimony to that which filled His heart, while set- ting forth this great vocation, which was only to be fulfilled by dying and rising again, namely, the loce of His Father, which rests upon Him just because of that which He has declared concerning Himself as the good shepherd.— dca rovro . . . rz] is to be taken as in all the passages where it occurs in John :° therefore—tecause, namely, 6a rovro referring to what had preceded, and dr: introducing a more precise explication of did rovro. The sense con- sequently is : therefore, because of this my relationship as Shepherd, of which I have spoken down to ver. 16, my Father loves me, because, namely, I (éyé ; no other does so or can do 80) lay down my life, in order to take it again. Note in particular : (1) The explanation érc:. . . zov is pragmatically correct, because it is precisely a readiness to sacrifice His life which is the main char- acteristic of the good shepherd (vv. 11,15). (2) iva rad. AGfw abriw does not belong to ayar., but expresses tho intention or design of ri8. r. py. pov (not merely its result, as Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, and many suppose ; or its condition, as Calvin, de Wette, and several others maintain) ; for the ground of the love of God lies not merely in the sacrifice considered by itself, but in the fact that the Good Shepherd, when He gives up His life, is resolved to take it again, in order that He may continue to fulfil his pastoral office till the final goal is reached, when all mankind shall constitute His flock. Indeed, only on the condition of His taking His life again, could He fulfil the office of Shepherd unto the final complction contem-
1 Acts xiv. 17, xvil. 27. * Nonnus, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, ® Vulgate, Luther, Beza,and many others; Casaubon.
also Tholuck, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, * Plut. de fort. Alex. 6.
Godet. &V. 16, 18, viii. 47, xfl. 18, 89; 1 John fil 1.
326 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
plated in the divine decree, and referred to in ver. 16. For this reason, also, iva cannot be regarded as introducing the divine intention (Tholuck), because the ground ofthe Father's love must lie in the volition of Jesus, —which voli- tion, it is true, corresponds to the Father's will, though this is not here ex- pressly declared, but first in ver. 18. — Ver. 18. It must be, however, not an unwilling, but a voluntary self-sacrifice, if it is to form the ground of the love of the Father to Him ; hence the words ovdeig . . . ax’ éuavrov (mea ipsius sponte). Nor must He proceed to effect this voluntary sacrifice of His own authority ; but must receive a warrant thereto, as also for that which He had in view in so doing, viz. the resumption of His life ; hence the words :' éfovoiay»
. Aafeiv airfv. Nay, more ; even this very thing which He purposed to do, namely, the surrender and resumption of His life, must have come to Him as a commission from God ; hence the expression : rafryv r. tvroAyy . . . rarpéd¢ pov, in which ratryy (this and not something different) is emphatic, and ri évroAyy is correlate to the idea of éfovcia, as this latter is grounded in the divine mandate. Notice further : (1) The éfovcia, the power conferred (so also.in xix. 10 f., not power generally), lies in the relation of subordination to God, of whom the Son is the commissioned representative, and to whom He submits Himself voluntarily, 7.e. from no compulsion exerted by a power outside of Himself, but with self-determined obedience to the Father.* Equality of nature * is the condition of this moral harmony. (2) The view which pervades the New Testament, that Christ did not raise Himself from the dead, but was raised by the Father, is not affected by this passage, in- asinuch as the taking again of His life, for which the theanthropic Christ had received authorization, implies the giving again of the life, to wit, the re-awakening activity of the Father. This giving again on the part of God, by which Christ becomes Cworo:feic mvetyare (see 1 Pet. iii. 19, and Huther on the passage), and that éfovcia, which Christ receives from God, arc the two factors of the resurrection—the former being the causa efficiens, whilst the latter, the éfovcia of Christ, is the causa apprehendens.* — (8) raitay tiv évroa. embraces the aforementioned twofold éfovcia ; justly 80, inasmuch as the authorization to die and to rise again was only formally divided accord- ing to its two aspects. Chrysostom and several others erroneously refer tatryy to the dying alone.
Vv. 19-21. MWdaw]) see ix. 16. —év roi¢ "Iovdalouc.] These words refer. to the Pharisees (ix. 40) who, in keeping with their relationship to Jesus (against de Wette), are designated according to the class to which they belonged (as the Jewish hierarchical opposition). The majority of them clung to the hostile judgment (compare viii. 48), which they had contemptu- ously expressed ; some of them, however, felt themselves impressed, and denied the assertion of the rest. Comp. ix. 16.— ri atrov axovere] i.e. of what use is it to you to listen to His discourses ? —xai uaiverac] in conse-
1 [éfovciay, right, privilege, permission ; ® Olshausen. not, asin the Eng. Version, power. It isa ‘Compare Constitutiones Apostol. 5. 7. 8: privilege accorded to Him by His Father.— éavrdv xpoordéypare rov warps 8a tpioy Heepwy K.] aveyeipas,
3 xiv. 80f.; Matt. xxvi. 53.
CHAP. X., 22, 23. 327
quence of being possessed by a demon. — yu?) datudmor, etc.] surely a demon cannot, ctc. ; 8 confirmation of that denial from the miracle which had given rise to the entire discussion. We see from this that these 4220 be- longed to the more unprejudiced and conscientious class which had given expression to its feelings in ix. 16. At the same time, the conclusion must not be drawn that they would have refused to recognize any demoniacal miracles (if in themselves beneficent)—Matt. xii. 24 is opposed to this view ; but they believed it impossible to attribute a miracle of so greata kind to a demon, who must have been working through the medium of Jesus. Note, moreover, that also here they do not get further than a nega- tive judgment.
Vv. 22, 28. A new section ; the proceedings at the feast of the Dedication of the Temple. — As there is not the least hint of a return journey to Galilee or Perea, and as vv. 26 ff. point back to the discourse concerning the Good Shepherd, we must needs suppose that Jesus remained in Jerusalem and the neighbourhood between the feast of Tabernacles and the feast of Dedication (about two months), and did not labour outside of Judea ; He first leaves Judea in ver. 40.1! The insertion here of a journey to Galilee or Perea? is dictated by harmonistic assumptions and clumsy combinations (sug- gested especially by the narrative of the journey in Luke ix.51 ff.), and not by the requirements of exegesis ; for mé’v in ver. 40 cannot be reckoned among such requirements. — rg ¢yxaivia] the feast of Renewal, founded by Judas Maccabaeus, to commemorate the purification and consecration anew of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes, celebrated for eight days every year, from the 25th Kislev onward (the middle of December), and especially distinguished by the illumination of the houses ; hence also termed ra gata. See 1 Macc. iv. 50 ff. ; 2 Macc. i. 18, x. 6 ff. ; Joseph. Antig. xii. 7. 7. From this festival (79%) sprang the Christian Church Dedication Festival, and its name éyxaima. See Augusti, Denkw. III. p. 816. —év ‘Tepave.] The celebration was not restricted to Jerusalem, but was universal (see Lightfoot, p. 1068 f.) ; the words é» ‘lepovc. are added because Jesus was still there. —x«. yecyov fv] a remark added for the sake of John’s Gentile Christian readers, for whom the statement that it was winter when the festival occurred, would be sufficient to explain why Jesus wilked about in Solomon's porch and not in the open air ; hence the expla- nation, stormy weather (Matt. xvi. 8, so Er. Schmid, Clericus, Lampe, Semler, Kuinoel, Lange), is not in harmony with the context. — The orod LoAouavos (comp. Acts iii. 11) was a portico on the eastern side of the temple buildings,* which, according to Josephus, was a relic from Solomon's days which had remained intact in the destruction of the temple by Nebu- chadnezzar. The mention of this particular part of the temple is one of the traces of the writer having been himself an eye-witness ; events like this no doubt impressed themselves on the memory so as never to be forgotten
1 Compare also Wieseler, p. 818; Ewald, Riggenbach, Luthardt, Godet.
Geach. Caristi, p. 471. * Hence denominated or. dvarodkuxy by 2 As recently proposed, especially by Josephus in his Ant. xx. 9. 7.
Bbrard, Neander, Lange L. J. II. p. 1004 f.,
328 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(comp. viii. 20). Any reason for Jesus being in the porch, beyond the one given in the words xat yecuov 7,’ must be rejected as arbitrary, since John himself gives no hint regarding it.
Ver. 24. Ol 'Iovdaioc] Here too the standing party of opposition. — éxbxAwoay] encircled Him. The word ‘graphically sets forth the urgency and obtru- siveness of the Jews ; but neither implies that Jesus had been deserted by His followers (Lange), nor represents the "Iovdaio: as pushing in between Him and His disciples, and so enclosing Him in their midst (Godet). — Heyov aire] ‘‘ This speak they out of a false heart, with a view to accusing and destroying Him,” Luther. According to Hengstenberg, they really vacil- lated between an inclination and disinclination to believe. But see vv. 26, 31. They desire an express and thoroughly direct declaration, though not as if making a last attempt to induce Jesus to take up the réle of a political Messiah (Lange). —r. wuy. Hu. alperc] aipecy not in the sense of take away ;?
but in that of lift up. It denotes to ercitte the soul, which, according to the connection, may be due to very different mental influences ;* in this case, by strained expectation, which thou causest us. The explanation: davaprac petakd rioreuc x. amioriac,* is an approximation to the sense, but is not the pre- cise signification of the words. —ei ov el, etc.] if thou, and so forth, as in Luke xxii. 67.
Vv. 25, 26. Jesus had not only told them (on many occasions, if not always so directly as, for example, to the woman of Samaria, or the man born blind) that He was the Messiah, but had also testified to the fact by His Messianic works (v. 86). But they do not believe. The actual proof of their unbelief is first subjoined in the second clause : for ye belong not to my sheep ; otherwise ye would stand in a totally different relation to me than that of unbelief ; ye would hear my voice, and know me, and follow me, vv. 4, 14, 27. — iyo... tueic] Reproachful antithesis. —xafa¢ elzov ipiv] belong, as also Lachmann and Tischendorf punctuate, to what precedes (comp. i. 83); but not in such a way as to involve merely a retro- spective reference to the figure of the rpéfara (Fritzsche : ‘‘ ut similitu- dine utar, quam supra posui’’), which would render this repulse very meaningless ; but in such a way as to recall to their recollection the negative declaration itself as having been already uttered. It is true, indeed, that He had not given direct expression to the words 6rz ovx éoré, etc. in the preceding allegory ; indirectly, however, He had done so, namely, by a description of His sheep, which necessarily involved the denial that the Iovdaioc: belonged to them. That this is the force of xaf elr. iu., He Him- self declares by the exhibition of the relation of His sheep that follows. Weare precluded from regarding it as an introduction to what follows,* which would require a comma before xa6éc, and a colon after iuiv, by the circum-
1 Luthardt, after Thiersch, Apost. Zeital- Soph. O. R. 914; Prov. xix. 18; Philo, de
ter, p. 73: for “the purpose of expressing Monarch. I. p. 218; Joseph. Antz. ili. 2. 8; in a figurative way the unity of the Old and iil. 5. 1.
New Covenants.” ; *Euth. Zigabenus, and many others. ®Nonnus: vsoxAdwres gdpéva: Elsner: § Curss., Cant., Corb., Arr., Euth. Zigabe- enecas. nus, Tholuck, Godet.
* Eur. Jon. 928; Hec. 69; Aesch. Sept 198:
CHAP. X., 27-30. 329
stance that Jesus nowhere else quotes and (in the form of a summary) repeats a longer discourse of His own. In keeping with the style of the Gospels, only a brief, sententious saying, such as xiii. 383, would be fitted for such self-quotation. In this case, however, the quotation would embrace at least vv. 27 and 28.—The circumstance that Jesus should refer to this allegory about two months after the date of vv. 1-21, which has been erroneously used as an argument against the originality of the discourse (Strauss, Baur), may be simply accounted for by the assumption that during the interval He had had no further discussions with His hierarchical oppo- nents,—a supposition which is justified by its accounting for the silence observed by John relatively to that period. The presupposition involved in the words xaOodc elroy ipiv, that Jesus here has in the main the same persons before Him as during the delivery of His discourse regarding the shepherd, has nothing against it ; and there is no necessity even for the assumption that John and Jesus conceived the discourses to be directed against the "Iovdaios as a whole (Brickner).
Vv. 27, 28. Description of the relation of the sheep to Him (comp. vv. 4, 14), which brings clearly to view that the "Iovdaian cannot belong to them. Notice in ver. 27 the climactic parallelism of the two halves of the verse as far as didwyc abroic (ver. 28), after which, commencing with «ai ov py dréa., etc., the discourse goes on to express in a double form the inseparableness of the blessed relationship. On the emphatic polysyndeton, compare vv. 8, 12. — rd rpéB. ra éud] the sheep which belong to me. — fu aidyv.] also con- ceived already in its temporal development, iii. 15, v. 24, and repeatedly.— xal ov py) aréa.] The negation belongs to the verb ; this declaration : ‘‘ they shall certainly not perish,” will be accomplished in eternity. The lost sheep, t.¢. the sheep which has been separated, and wandered away from the flock (Matt. x. 6 ; Luke xv. 4), typifies him who is separated from the protection and gracious leading of Christ, and has fallen into unbelief. Compare the following xai ovy dpmdce:, etc., where this protection and gracious leading is set forth with still more concrete tenderness by the words é ri¢ xetpdc pov. His hand protects, bears, cherishes, leads them. Liberty and the possibility of apostasy are not thus excluded (in answer to Augustine and the teaching of the Reformed Church) ; he who has fallen away is no longer a rpé3arov, but on the part of Christ everything is prom- ised by which preserving grace is secured, and this is the ground of the Certitudo salutia.
Vv. 29, 80. Explanation of the assertion just made, ovy dprdce:, etc. If in my hand, they are alsoin the hand of my Father, who is greater than all, so that an dordfev, etc. is impossible ; I am one with Him. — &¢ déduxé por] 8c. ard. On the import of the words, compare on vi. 87. In charac- terizing God as the giver of the sheep, Jesus enables us to see how fally He is justified in appealing, as He here does, to the Father. — peiov (see the crit- ical note) : something greater, a greater potence. On the neuter here em- ployed, compare Matt. xii. 6 (Lachmann).'— réyruy] Masculine. Compare
1 See Bernhardy, p. 885; Kfibner IL p. 45; Dissen ad Dem. de Cor. p. 306 (wornpdy 8 ovxopdvrys).
330 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ric, ver. 28, and ovdele, ver. 29. Without any limitation : all besides God. — kai ovdete divara, etc.] Necessary consequence of the peiloy révrwyv, but not setting aside the possibility of losing the grace by one’s own fault, vi. 66. — é r. yep. rov warp. pov]. This expression, rov warp. u., is due to the presupposition, flowing out of d¢ dedwxé por, that God did not let the sheep out of His hand, 74.6. out of His protection and guidance, when He gave them to Christ. But this continued divine protection is really nothing else than the protection of Christ, so far, that is, as the Fa- ther is in the Son and works in Him (see vv. 37, 88) ; hence the latter, as the organ and vehicle of the divine activity in carrying out the Messianic work, is not separated from God, is not a second some one outside and alongside of God ; but, by the very nature of the fellowship referred to, one with God.’ Compare on év éouer, 1 Cor. iii. 8. God's hand is there- fore His hand in the accomplishment of the work, during the performance of which He administers and carries into execution the power, love, etc. of God. The unity, therefore, is one of dynamic fellowship, ¢.6. a unity of action for the realization of the divine decree of redemption ; according to which, the Father is in the Son, and moves in Him, so that the Father acts in the things which are done by the Son, and yet is greater than the Son (xiv. 28), because He has commissioned, consecrated, and sent Him. The Arian idea of ethical agreement is insufficient ; the reasoning would miss its mark unless unity of power be understood (on which Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, and many others, also Liicke, justly lay emphasis). The or- thodoz interpretation, which makes it denote unity of essence (Nonnus : Ev yévoc éouév ; Augustine : unum, delivers us from Charybdis, that is, from Arius, and suwmus from Scylla, that is, from Sabellius), specially defended by Hengstenberg, though rejected even by Calvin as a misuse of the passage, goes beyond the argumentation ; although, in view of the metaphysical character of the relation of the Son to the Father, clearly taught elsewhere, and especially, in John, the Homoousia, as the essential foundation, must be regarded as presupposed in the fellowship here denoted by év écyev.
Vv. 31, 32. The Jews understood the expression in ver. 80 to refer to essential unity, and in their tumultuous and angry excitement would even stone (Lev. xxiv. 10 f.) the dlasphemer ; the overawing impression, however, produced by Christ's reply was powerful enough to restrain them. — éBdo- tacav| sustulerunt (Vulgate), avyéprafov (Nonnus) they lifted up stones, with the intention of throwing them at Him. The word is more characteristic than aipecy in viii. 59, though on account of rdAw the two must have the same import ; hence the interpretation : they fetched (Hengstenberg, Godet, and others), is less exact.? — 7421] vill. 59. — xadd épya} not specially : works of lore (Kuinoel, B. Crusius), but in general : praeclara opera, distinguished works. * — édecéa tyiv] have I showed you, v. 20. Comp. ii. 18 ; Ps. lxxviii.
1 Compare Weiss, Lehrbdegr. p. 205 f. them as works of God performed through ® Compare Hom. Qd. A. 594 ; Soph. Af.814; Him. The explanation of Luthardt says Polyb. 15. 26. 8. ; * too little: “‘ Works with which no fault can
3 Jesus was the more able thus to desig- be found.” nate His acts, because He characterized
CHAP. X., 34-36. 331 11.1 — éx rob rarpbe pov] from my Father, who is in me, and from whom, therefore, they go out through me. Compare vv. 87, 88. — did roiov, etc. ] propter quale, etc. Not without the irony of profound indignation (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 13) does Jesus ask, What, then, is the character of that one of His works, on account of which they are about to stone Him?? Not as though He did not know why they were intending to stone Him, but doubt- less in the consciousness of having actually shown Himself by His works to be something totally different from a blasphemer. — ep? BAacg7p. nat bri) for blasphemy, and, indeed, because. Thereproach: ‘‘thou makest thyself God” (comp. v. 18), 7.e. a divine being (i. 1), was a consequence of the mistaken view taken of ver. 80, which they had interpreted of essential unity. Kat connects with the general charge a more exact definition of that on which it was based.
Vv. 84-38. Jesus justifies Himself from the reproach of blasphemy by defending His assertion that He was the Son of God—the words of ver. 80 which had excited the opposition amounted to this—from the Scriptures (vv. 34-36) ; He then sets forth the unity affirmed in ver. 80 as credibly attested by His works (vv. 87, 38).
Vv. 84-36. In Ps. 1xxxii. 6, unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people —not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (de Wette, Hitzig)—whose approaching destruction, in contrast with their high dignity, is intended to stand out, are called gods, agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the representatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 28. From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minori ad majus, that He might call Himself Gods Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they (av 4 rarjp fyiace, etc.) ; and never- theless had designated Himself, not @eé6¢, as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely vide r. Geov.? — tv Tr véuy] Spoken of the Old Testa- ment generally, of which the law was the fundamental and authoritative portion. Comp. xii. 84, xv. 25 ; Rom. iii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 21. —dtyuédyr] as in viii. 17. — éxeivovc] whom? Jesus takes for granted as known. — elre] namely, 6 véuo¢ (compare afterwards # ypag4), not God (Hengstenberg). — mpo¢ obc}] to whom, not adversus guos (Heinsius, Stolz), which does not follow from the context. There is nothing to warrant the supposition that the prophets are also referred to (Olshausen). — 6 Adyo¢ rov Oeov] Neither the Adbyag daapxog (Cyril), nor the revelations of God (Olshausen, comp. Godet). but the saying of God just mentioned: éyd ela, etc. This saying belongs, not to the time when the Psalm was written, but to that earlicr period (the period of the induction of the authorities into their office, comp. Ps. ii. 7), to which God, the speaker, points back. — xai ov divara, etc.] This clause,
1 Plat. Crat. p. 480 E: rd dec fas Adye eis rhe Tuy Opdadpey aigdynety caragrioa,
2 Uddgere, see Bernhardy, p. 870; Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. p. 208).
3 Hengstenberg Incorrectly remarks: ‘‘ He
accepts the charge, ‘Thou makest thyself -
God.’ On the contrary, He does not enter on it at all, but simply justifies the pred-
icate, ‘‘ Son of God,” which He had assumed for Himself. But Beyschlag also is wrong when he says (p. 106): “That which Jesus here affirms concerning Himself (6v 4 rargp wytace, etc.) might equally have been affirm- ed by every prophet.” On sucha view, no regard would be paid to the relation of warip and vids.
332 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
though containing only an auxiliary thought, and not a main point of the argumentation (Godet), has been without reason treated as a parenthesis ; whereas both in point of structure and sense it is dependent on ei : and it isim- possible, etc. So also Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg. — Avéjva:] The Scripture (consequently, also, that saying of the Psalms) cannot be loosened, i.e. cannot be depriced of its validity." The auctoritas normativa et judicialis of the Script- ures must remain unbroken. Note, in connection herewith, the idea of the unity of the Scriptures as such, as also the presupposition of their theopneustia. — bv dé rarhp yy. etc.] That is surely something still greater than that ad- dress of the Adyoc r. Geov to authorities when they were installed in their offices. In this question, which is placed in the apodosis, and which expresses sur- prise, the object, which is correlate to the ixeivove of ver. 35,'is very em- phatically placed at the commencement ; and teic (you people) is placed over against the inviolable authority of the Scripture. — jyiace hath consecra- ted, a higher analogue of the consecration to the office of prophet (Jer. 1. 5 ; Sir. xlv. 4, xlix. 7), denoting the divine consecration to the office of Messiah, who is the ayrog rov Geod (vi. 69 ; Luke iv. 34). This consecration took place on His being sent from heaven, and immediately before His departure (hence hyiage xa? aréor.), in that the father not merely ‘‘ set apart” the Son to the work (as though the word é&eAéfaro had been used ; Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 86 ; comp. Euth. Zigabenus, Hengstenberg, and Briickner), but also conferred on Him the Messianic évroA# and éfovsia, with the fulness of the Spirit appertaining to them (iii. 34), and the power of life (v. 26), and the nAfpupa of grace and truth (i. 14). —drc BAacgypeic] The reply which, in view of dv, etc., we should have expected to be in the oblique construction (BAaconueiv or dre BAaodnuei, comp. ix. 19), passes over with the increasing vivacity of the discourse into the direct construction.* — dri elrov] because I said. He had set it indirectly in vv. 29, 30.
Vv. 37-89. Your unbelief, which lics at the foundation of the judgment bre BAacdnueic, Would then be justifiable, if I did not, etc. In the other case, however, you ought to believe, if not me, at all events my works, in order that you, etc. — ci ob row] if Lleave them undone.*—ra épya rov rartp. p. | which my Father works ; compare on ix. 3, xiv. 10, also ver. 28. — ua mor. pot] not merely permissive, but an actual command, as in the case of the fol- lowing moretere (see the critical note). The alternative is decided: they ought not to belicve Him if, etc. —éyoi] My person in and by itself, apart from the actual testimony borne to it by the Zpya. — To believe the works, is to hold for true the testimony which is contained in them (v. 86). The object of faith is that which Jesus declares concerning Himself, and what, in agreement therewith (comp. xiv. 11), the works prove concerning Him. According to the reading iva yoare x. yweonyre (see the critical note), which Hengstenberg, notwithstanding, rejects as giving an intolerable meaning, Jesus describes this as the end to be attained by His prescription : in order
1Comp. Matt. v. 19; John v. 18, vil. 28; Gr. p. 24 [E. T. p. 272). Herod. 8, 82; Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 D; Gorg. 3 Comp. Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 207 [E. T. p. p. 509 A; Dem. 31. 12, 700, 18. $46] ; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278.
2 Compare vill. 54, and see Buttm. -Veutd.
ma
CHAP. X., 40-42, 333
that ye may attain to knowledge, and may (permanently) know, etc.—dis- tinguishing between the act and the efate of knowledge.’ — dre év éuoi 6 mar. xay® évavrTg@] This nowis the unity which He meant in ver. 30 ; not essential unity (old orthodox explanation of the rep:ydprote essentialis patris in filio et filii in patre, see Calovius), although it is metaphysically the fundamental condition, but dynamic unity : the Father lives and moves in Christ, who is His active organ, and again Christ is in the Father, so far as Christ in God is the power which determines the execution of the divine épyov. The thought that Christ has in God ‘‘the ground of His existence and working” (de Wette), lies far remote from the words xayo év airg, because the relation of the clauses of the proposition must be equal. But this relation is nothing else than that of inner, active, reciprocal fellowship. In accordance there- with, the Father is in the Son, as in the executor of His work, as the Son is also in the Father, because Christ is the regulative and determining agens et movens of the work of redemption in the Father. Comp. the many Pauline passages which represent all the divine redemptive activity as taking place in Christ ; e.g. Rom. viii. 89; Eph. i. 8 ff. — Ver. 89. otv] In consequence of this defence, which averted the threatened tumultuous stoning, for which the Jews had begun to preparc themselves. The supposition that widoac Genotes laying hold of with a view to carrying out the stoning, is op- posed by the réd, which refers back to vii. 80, 82, 44 (against Calvin, Luthardt, Hengstenberg). — xal £7/6ev, etc.] And yet they were unable to carry their plan into execution ; He escaped out of their hands, which are conceived as already stretched out after Him. How this deliverance was effected must be left undetermined (Kuinoel : by the arrival of His adher- ents ; Hengstenberg : by the indecision of His enemies) : of any miraculous element (e.g. becoming invisible) in His escape, although assumed by many early commentators, and still by, B. Crusius and Luthardt, John gives no hint. Comp. on viii. 59. Euth. Zigabenus: dvaywpei dia rov Gupdv rov POovepav, évdidovs avT@ Awpzcat Kal Aj~at TH ATovGia avrov.
Vv. 40-42. Tddcv.] 1. 28. — répav r. Iopd.] He went away from Jerusalem, beyond the Jordan (as in vi. 1, xviii. 1) to Perea, and, indeed, to the place, etc. Instead of allowing themselves to be won over to faith and redemp- tion, the Iovdaioc had grown ever more hardened and decided in their hos- tility, till it had reached the extreme ; the Lord then finally gives them up, and knowing that His hour was near, though not yet fully come, He with- draws for a calm and undisturbed, although brief, season of activity to Perea, where He was safer from the hierarchs (comp. xi. 54) ; and in the place where John was when he baptized for the first time (namely, i. 28 ; later, in Salim, iii. 23), there could be as little lack of susceptible hearts as of quict, elevating, and sacred memories for Himself. —éuecvev ixet] How long, we cannot precisely ascertain, as He spent also some time in Ephraim before the feast of the Passover (xi. 54 f.). In any case, however, the fuecvev éxei lasted but for a very short period, as is evident also from the word viv in xi, 8. —nxal roAdoi, etc.] ‘‘ Fructus posthumus officii Johannis,” Bengel. —
1 Compare éwipeAndjva cai imcuedcioda:, Plat. Legg. vill. p. &49 B.
334 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Azyov] not aité, but a bearing of testimony in general. —'Iudévyyc péy, etc. ] Logically we should expect yév after onueiov ; but even classical writers fre- quently disregard logical precision in their mode of placing yév and dé.1— onyeiov éroinoey ovdév} A characteristic feature of the history of John, which in this respect also has remained free from fanciful additions ; the people, however, referred to the circumstance in view of the oyyeia which Jesus had wrought, as they had been informed, elsewhere, and probably here also, before their own eyes. In this way we may also account for yéy not occu- pying its strictly logical position.—The repetition of 'Iwdvey¢ in ver. 42 belongs to the simplicity of the style, which is here faithfully reflected, and is in harmony with the feeling of reverence entertained by the people for the holy man whose memory still lived among them. — aA767 77] As was actually shown by the works of Jesus. In this way, their experience of the truth of the testimony of John became the ground of faith in Christ. What a con- trast to the experiences which Jesus had just had to pass through among the ’Iovdaio. | The ray of light thus vouchsafed to Him in the place where He first commenced His labours, is here set forth in all historical simplicity. Baur, however,” maintains that the people are merely represented as speaking these words in order that the entire preceding description of the life and works of Jesus may be surveyed from the point of view of the miracles. John himself gives a comprehensive retrospect, but in the nght place, namely, at the close of the active ministry of Jesus in xii. 87 ff., and in how different a manner ! — éxei (see the critical note), emphatically closes the verse.
1 See Kfihner, ad Xen. Mem. 1. 6. 11; 9p. 182 f., and Zheol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 280 f. Baeumlein, Partix. p. 168. .
=e =e
CHAP. XI. 335
CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 12. of paOyra? avrov) A. 44 have merely atrg. D. K. II. &. Curss. Verss.: abty ol zaOyrai (80 Lachm. and Tisch.). B. C.* L. X. Copt.: ol uaO. atrg. The simple air is the original reading; oi wad. was written in the margin; then was introduced into the text partly before and partly after air ; and in the former position brought about the partial change of ai-@ into airoi. — Ver. 17. tAGov. . . etpev] Lachm. : 40ev. . . xai evpev, solely afterC.* D. Partly before (so Lachm. in the margin), partly after juéparc (80 Elzev. and Lachm.), stands 764, Which, however, is altogether omitted (so Tisch.) by A.* D. Curss. Verss.: téoo. 44n ju. must be regarded as the original reading (B. C.*). The word dn, beginning and ending with H, was easily passed over, as standing immediately before 7épac, which also begins with H, and was then restored in the wrong place. — Ver. 19. Instead of xai roAdoi, we must, with decisive testimonies, read moAAoi dé with Lachm. and Tisch. — avrov] after ddeAgod must, with Tisch., after B. D. L. &., be deleted as a usual addition. — Ver. 21. 6 ddeAg. pov ove dv éreOvqxec) Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive witnesses, read ov« dv dnéOavev 6 ad, pov. If érefvaxec had been the original reading, it would have been found as @ various reading ‘also in ver. 32; it isa clumsy interpretation. — Ver. 22. GAAd] is wanting in B. C.* X. &. Curss. Verss. Chrys. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An antithetical interpolation. —- Ver. 29. éyeiperac] B. C.* D. L. &®. Curss. Verss.: 7yép%. So Lachm. A mechanical transposition into the historical tense, with which the reading #pyero (instead of épyeraz) in the same Codd., except D., is also connected. — Ver. 30. After 7» Lachm. and Tisch. have é7: (B. C. X. &. Curss. Verss.). An addition more precisely determining the meaning, which other witnesses place before nv. — Ver. 31. Aéyovrec}] B. C.* D. L. X. ®. Curss. Verss.: dégavrec, which, as an unusual expression, must with Tisch. be received into the text on the authority of these decisive witnesses. — Ver. 32. The position of airod before eic r. 76d. (Elz. and Lachm. place it after) has the decision of the Codd. in its favour. — cic] B. C.* D. L. X. &. Curss. ; aj6¢. So Tisch., and the witnesses are decidedly in its favour. — Ver. 39. In- stead of rereAevrnxdéroc, Elz. has reOvyxéz0¢, in opposition to decisive testimonies. A gloss. — Ver. 40. The future form éyy has decisive evidence in its favour (Lachm. and Tisch.). — Ver. 41. After Ai9ov Elz. places od iy 6 re9vnxd¢ xelpevoc, in opposition to decisive testimony. Other witnesses have other explanatory additions. — Ver. 45, 4] Lachm. has 4, after A.** B.C. D. Curss. Verss. (in ver, 46, also, the 8 is adopted by Lachm., althongh the evidence in its favour is weaker). The one act, which is meant, would easily suggest the singular. — After éolncev Elz. inserts é'Incots. An unusual addition, opposed to over- whelming evidence. — Ver. 50. d:adoyifecbe] A. B.D. L. &. Curss. Or. Cyr. Chrys. : Aoyiiecfe. Recommended by Griesbach ; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., and correctly too ; d:adoyifecOac was more familiar to the copyists from the other Gospels. — Ver. 57. d2 xai] Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted «ai on the authority of decisive witnesses. — Instead of évroAjy, B. J. M. ¥. Curss.
336 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Or. (twice) have évroAds, which, with Tisch., is to be adopted. The Receptea is @ correction.
Ver. 1 f.* This stay of Jesus in retirement, however, is terminated by the sickness of Lazarus (dé). — Simplicity in the style of the narrative: But there was a certain one sick, (namely) Lazarus of Bethany, of the town, etc. : a7ré (vil, 42; Matt. ii. 1, xxvii. 57) and é& denote the same relation (i. 46 f.), that of derivation ; hence it is the less allowable to regard the two sisters and the brother as Galileans, and Mary as the Magdalene (Hengsten- berg).* That Lazarus lived also in Bethany, and was lying ill there, is plain from the course of the narrative. For change of preposition, without any change of relation, comp. i. 45 ; Rom. iii. 30 ; 2 Cor. iii. 11; Gal. ii. 16 ; Eph. i. 7 ; Philem. 5.*—This Bethany, situated on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, and, according to ver. 18, about three-quarters of an hour's walk from Jerusalem (see on Matt. xxi. 17), was characteristically and spe- cially known in the evangelical tradition from the two sisters who lived there ; hence its more exact designation by the words ék ric xéun¢e Mapiac, etc.,‘ for the sake of distinguishing it from the Bethany mentioned in i. 28 (see critical note oni. 28).°— #4 dé Mapia, etc.] Not to be put in a parenthesis. A more exact description of this Mary,*—who, however, must not be iden- tified with the woman who was a sinner, mentioned in Luke vii., as is done still by Hengstenberg (see on Luke vii. 36, 87 f.)—from the account of the anointing (Matt. xxvi. 6 ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ff.), which John presupposes, in a general way, as already known, although he himself afterwards takes occa- sion to narrate it in xii. 1 ff. So important and significant did it appear to him, although tradition had not preserved it in its pure original form (not even in Matthew and Mark). — 7 6 adeAgéc, etc.] Thus, to refer to Laz- arus as the brother of Mary, was perfectly natural to the narrative, and after ver. 1 is clear in itself. Entirely baseless is Hengstenberg’s remark : the relation of Lazarus to the unmarried Mary was more intimate than to the married Martha, who had been the wife of Simon the leper, Matt. xxvi. 6 (which is a pure invention). See in general, against the erroneous combi- nations of Hengstenberg regarding the personal relations of the two sisters and Lazarus, Strauss, Die Halben und die Ganeen, p. 79 ff.
Vv. 8, 4. Merely the message that the beloved one is sick. The request
10On the whole section relating to the raising of Lazarus, see Gumlich in the Stud. u. Kritiken, 1862, pp. 65 ff., 248 ff.
4In the Constitt. Apost. 3. 6. 2, also, Mary Magdalene is expressly distinguished from the sister of Lazarus.
® Kfihner, ITI. p. 219.
‘This genitive, presupposing, as it does, the nominative form Mapia, is opposed to the adoption in John of the Hebrew form Mapiauz, which, in the various passages where the name occurs, is supported by very varying testimony, in some cases by very strong, in other passages, however, by no evidence at all
® For the legends about Lazarus, see es- pecially Thilo, Cod. Apocry. p. 711; Fabric. Cod. Apoer. III. pp. 475, 509.
® On account of her predominant impor- tanoe, and from being s0 well known, Mary is mentioned first In ver. 1. Had she been the elder sister (Ewald), there would be no apparent reason why Martha should be mentioned firat in vv. 5, 19, and 20. Comp. also Luke x. 88, where Martha appears as mistress of the house.—Lazarus seems to have been younger than the sisters, and to have held asubordinate place in the house- hold, xii. 2.
———
CHAP. XI., 5-7. 337
lay in the message itself, and the addition dv g:Aeic supplied the motive for it fulfilment. — cizev] spoken generally, and not addressed to any definite person, but in the hearing of those present, the messenger and the disciples. Sufficient for the moment as a preparation both for the sisters and the dis- ciples. — oix fore mpd¢ Oévarov] mpéc refers to destination (comp. afterwards trép) : itis not to have death for its result, which, however, does not mean, as the antithesis shows : it is not deadly, he wiil not die of it. The idea of death is used with a pregnancy of meaning, and the words signify : he shall not fall a prey to death, as death is wont to be, with no reawakening.' Comp. Matt. ix. 24. That Jesus certainly knew, by His higher knowl- edge, that the death of Lazarus was certain and near at hand, though the death must be conccived as not having yet actually taken place (see on ver. 17), is confirmed by ver. 14 ;—for the assumption of a second message (Paulus, Neander, Schweizer) is purely arbitrary. With this significant declaration, Jesus designed to supply to the sisters something fitted, when the death of their brother took place, to stimulate the hope to which Martha gives actual expression in ver. 22. There is no warrant for introducing a reference to the spiritual and eternal life of the resurrection (Gumlich). — trip tie d6E. rT. 0.] t.e. for the furtherance of the honour of God. Comp. ix. 8. The emphatic and more definite explanation of the expression is given in iva dofao0z, etc.—words which, containing the intention of God, state the kind and manner of the irép r. dé£. r. 6., 80 far, namely, as the glorifica- tion of the Son of God involves the honour of God Himself, who works through Him (comp. v. 23, x. 30, 88). It is in these words, and not in ver. 25 (Baur), that the doctrinal design of the narrative is contained. Comp. vv. 40, 42.
Ver. 5 is not an elucidation of ver. 8 (de Wette), seeing that ver. 4 inter- venes ; nor is it a preparation for ver. 6 (B. Crusius: ‘‘ although He loved them all, He nevertheless remained’) ; but explains the motive impelling Him to open to them the consolatory prospect referred to in ver. 4: ‘* Felix familia,” Bengel. —7yéra] An expression chosen with delicate tenderness (the more sensuous ¢:Aziy is not again used as in ver. 8), because the sisters are also mentioned.* Marthais named jirst, as being the mistress of the house, and the eldest (ver. 19 f.). Compare the preceding note. Arbitrarily Hengst. : ‘‘ Mary is not required to be separated from Lazarus, because she was most deeply affected by his death.”
Vv. 6, 7. Oiv)] Resumption of the narrative after the observation in ver. 5. — After ver. 6 a colon only ought to be placed, for the course of the nar- rative is this : ‘‘ When therefore He heard that he was sick, He remained then, indeed, etc.; (but) afterwards,” etc. — uév] logically is quite correct after rére : then, indeed (tum quidem), when He heard, He did not immedi- ately go away, but remained still two days. [See Note XXXVII. p. 860.] There is no corresponding dé after érecra, as one would naturally expect,*
1 Sdvaros yap evples 6 udype Tis KOLVES avac- ® (But in the classics frara sometimes técews, Euth. Zigabenus. takes the place of 8¢ as the antithetic cor-
*Comp. Xen. Mem. il. 7.12; Tittmann, relative of udy. With spmroy dy this is con- Synon. p. 58; and Wetstein. stant.—K.]
338 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
because the adversative relation, which was in view at first, has given way to one of simple succession.’ — érecra ueta tovro} deinde postea (Cic. p. Mil. 24), asin the Classics also (comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 258 E: érecra Abyer dF pera rovro) synonymous adverbial expressions are frequently conjoined.*— The question why Jesus did not leate at once for Bethany is not solved by the assumption, that He designed to test the faith of the parties concerned (Olshausen ; Gumlich also mixes this reason up with his otherwise correct view), which would, in opposition to ver. 5, have amounted to a harsh and arbitrary delaying on His part ; nor is it explained by the similar notion, that the message of ver. 4 was meant first to produce its effect (Ebrard), as though there had not been without that time enough for this ; just as little is it accounted for by the supposition that important business connected with His work in Peraea still detained Him,* for John gives not the slight- est hint of such a reason, and it isa purely @ priors assumption. It is to be explained by a reference back to ver. 4, according to which Jesus was con- scious of its being the divine will that the miracle should be performed pre- cisely under the circumstances and at the time at which it actually was per- formed, and no otherwise (comp. ii. 4), for the glory of God. The divine éci, of which He was conscious, decided Him, and that, under a moral necessity, lest He should act itp poipay, to remain still ; the same dei again impelled Him at once to depart, when, in virtue of His immediate knowl- edge, He became aware of the death of His friend. Comp. onver. 17. All the more groundless was it tomake use of the delay of Jesus as an argument against the historical truth of the narrative (Bretschneider, Strauss, Weissc, Gfrérer, Baur, Hilgenfeld), according to which Jesus intentionally allowed Lazarus to die, in order that He might be able to raise him up again (Baur, p. 193). —ei¢ ri» "Iovdaiav] for they were in Peraea, x. 40. The more defi- nite goal, Bethuny, is not at first mentioned ; but is specified afterwards, vv. 11, 15. The less reason, therefore, is there for finding a special design in the use of the words ei¢ r. 'Iovd. (Luthardt : ‘‘into the land of unbelief and hostility”), @ meaning which Godet and Gumlich import also into wéau.
Ver. 8. The question breathes solicitude for the safety and life of the beloved Master. — viv] just now, refers to the recent events which, though past, seemed still to form part of the present, x. 31. Hence the use of the Amperfect ; see Kithner, II. p. 885. — ré2cv] emphatically at the beginning. —wrdayei¢] Present, as in x. 32. _ .
Vv. 9, 10. The sense of the allegorical answer is this: ‘‘ The time appointed to me of God for working is not yet elapsed ; as long as tt lasts, no one can do anything to me,; but when it shall have come to an end, I shall fall into the hands of my enemies, like him who walketh in the night, and who stumbleth, because he is without light.” In this way Jesus sets aside the anxiety of His disciples, on the one hand, by directing their attention to the
1Comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 589; Stall- on the Jias, p. 149, ed. 3.
baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 89 A; Baeumlein, {The adverbs are scarcely synonymous.
Partic. p. 168. éwacra, then, afterwards : 84, vivacious, in 2 Kiihner, IT. p. 615; Fritzsche, ad Marc. sooth, you see.—K.]
p. 22. Comp. rére éweara, which occurs fre- *Liicke, Krabbe, Neander, Tholuck,
quently as carly as in Homer; Niégelsbach Lange, Baumgarten.
CHAP. XI., 9, 10. 339 fact that, as His time is not yet expired, He is safe from. the apprehended dangers ; and, on the other, by reminding them (ver. 10) that He must make use of the time apportioned to Him, before it come to an end.’ So substan- tially Apollinaris (d:ddoxe: 6 xbpeog itt mod Tov Katpod tov méBovg ovn dv vd "Tovdaiuy wdfor xai diddoxee rovro dia wapaBoAge, iuEpac ey Karpov dvopdluv Tov pd Tov 7é0oue, trav d? Tow maéBove vixra), Ruperti (only partially), Jansen, Maldon- atus, Corn. & Lapide, Wolf, Heumann, and several others ; also Maier and B. Crusius ; comp. Ewald and Hengstenberg. On individual points, note further : (1) dédexa is placed emphatically at the beginning, signifying that the day referred to is still running on, and that anxiety is still premature (not : only twelve hours ; Bengel correctly remarks: ‘‘ jam multa erat hora, sed tamen adhuc erat dics”). The supposition that Jesus spoke the words early in the morning, at sunrise (Godet, Gumlich), is as arbitrary as it is unnecessary. (2) 1d ga¢ r. xéou. 18 the sunlight, so designated in har- mony with the elevated tone which marks the entire saying ; the words dre. . . BAéree belong merely to the coloring of the picture, and are not intended to be specially interpreted (for example, of the guidance of the divine will, as Godet thinks, following older commentators). (8) Applying the figure to Jesus, night (ver. 10) commenced with the éAfAvGev 9 Spa, xvii. ' 1 (comp. xii. 27) ; the day with its twelve hours was then over for Him, and, according to the divine decree, the stumbling in His path which, with the close of the twelfth hour, had become dark, must now follow,* in that He fell into the hands of His enemies ; till then, however, cbtru EAnavOer } Spa avrod, Vii. 80, viii. 20. (4) The expression &r: rd gic ova éorww év avrg, which is also a detail not intended for interpretation, is not equiva- lent to: he has not, etc. (Ewald ; it is also inadmissible to take this view of Ps. xc. 10), but is an outflow of the notion that, in the case of a man walk- ing in the night, it is dark in him, i.e. his representation of his surroundings is dark and without light, so that he cannot discover his whereabouts in his consciousness of that which is round about him. Grotius: ‘‘ in oculis ejus ;” but the expression éy air@ suggests the inner intuition and representation. (5) Substantially the same, and decisive for the view which the disciples would take, are the thought and figure in ix. 8 f. ; hence also here neither is day to be taken as an image of tempus opportunum,® nor vig of tempus importunum ; nor is it any more allowable to say, with Gumlich and Briick- ner (comp. Melanchthon, Beza, and Calvin), that gé¢ rod «. r. is God, who shows the Son the way, so that this latter thus walks in the day, and His person and work remain unendangered (ov mpooxérre:*) ; similarly Baeum-
1 Not, as Godet interprets: that He dare wish to beactive deyond the ordained goal
nat lengthen the working time appointed to Him by the divine will, that He may not venture to add toitt astt were a thirteenth hovr. Such a thought was totally foreign to the minds of the disciples in giving their warning. All that they desired was, that He should not shorten His life by exposing Himeelf to the threatening danger of death.
* The idea set forth is therefore not “ the
and mit of life,” which would, indeed, be absurd (Tholuck’s objection) ; but to be re- moved from activity on the attainment of the ordained goal of life. When the twelfth hour has passed, nigh? falls on the wanderer, and he stumbles.
® Morus, Rosenmiiller, Paulus, Kutnoel.
4 Ver. 10. 7d dus ovn dori ev avry is then explained by Briickner, after Matt. vi. 22 f.,
340 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
lein ; Liicke, on the other hand, rightly refers r7¢ guépac to the ‘‘ day's work” of Christ, which has its definite limit (its twelve hours) ; but then he — explains év r9 #uépe of fulfiling the duties of his calling (comp. Melanchthon), which is always the way of safety, and takes vi¢ as an image of unfaithful- ness to one’s calling, which leads to destruction. In this way, however, teo totally different meanings are assigned to the figurative term #uépa, the second of which is the more decidedly to be rejected, as the mention of twelve hours is evidence that the temporal explanation alone is correct. For this reason, further, we must reject not only the view taken by de Wette, who regards the day as the image of ‘‘ upright, innocent, clear action,” the twelve hours, as the ways and means of action, and the night as the lack of prudence and singlemindedness ; but also that of Luthardt : ‘‘He who keeps within the limits of his calling will not strike against anything, will not make false steps, for the light of the world, 7.e. the will of God, gives him light ; he, however, who passes beyond the limits of his calling will go wrong in his doings, seeing that he is guided, not by God's will, but by his own pleasure.” Tholuck also diverges from the consistent carrying out of the temporal view ; for, though understanding the twelve hours of the day of the fixed time of the vocation, he afterwards introduces the calling itself : ‘¢ Whoso abides not by his calling will come to damage.” Comp. Schwei- zer, p. 106; also Lange, who combines several very different views. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euth. Zigabenus, the walking in the day denotes either a dlameless walk, in which a man has no need to be afraid ; or fellowship with Christ (so also Erasmus : ‘‘ quamdiu vobis luceo, nihil est periculi ; veniet nox, quando a me semoticonturbabimini.”' Vat- ablus, Clarius, Lampe, Neander). Both are incorrect, for the simple reason that the disciples had expressed concern, not for themselves, but for Christ, by their question in ver. 8 (Chrysostom and his followers arbitrarily remark that they had been more in anxiety, imép éavrdv) ; and because the former of these views would furnish no explanation of the mention of the hours, which is just the key to the figure. This objection holds good also against Hilgen- feld,? who brings out as the meaning of Jesus: He has the light absolutely in Himself, and for him, therefore, no dark point can exist in His earthly course. On this view, moreover, ver. 10 remains without explanation. Ols- hausen, adopting the second view of Chrysostom, is prepared to accept an inadmissible double meaning of sjuépa ;—partly in His brotherly relationship to men, Jesus regards Himself as accomplishing His ordained day’s work ; but again, in His higher dignity, as the spiritual enlightener, in whose bright- ness the disciples would have nothing to fear.* Comp. Bengel, who thinks
to mean that the eye, which has received the light, becomes itself a lamp, and so the whole man is illumined. But how could Jesus expect the disciples to understand so far-fetched an illusion? If such had been His meaning, He must have used, in agree- ment with Matt. vi. 28, some such words as: Ore TO has 7d €v aUT@ axGTos eariv,
1 Su in the Paraphr. But in the Annotat.
he takes substantially our view: ‘ Dies habet suas horas, nec is nostro arbitrio fit previor aut longior ; et ego tempus habeo praescriptum, quo debeam redimendi orbis negotium peragere, id Judaeorum malitia non potest anticipari: proinde nihil est, quod mihi timeatis.”
2 Lehrbdegr. p. 268.
3 Ebrard adupts Olshausen’s view in the
CHAP. XI., 11-13. 341 that rd gac r. xéou. rotrov signifies the ‘‘ providentia Patris respectu Jesu, et providentia Christi respectu jidelium.
Vv. 11-18. Kai pera rovro 2éys1] This representation separates the two discourses, between which a pause is to be conceived as intervening.—The death of Lazarus, which has just taken place, and become the occasion of the determination to leave at once (ver. 7 ; see on ver. 17), Jesus designates (comp. Matt. ix. 24), in view of his resurrection, by the word kexoiu., has fallen asleep, the event having become known to Him by immediate knoul- edge (spiritual far-seeing). Hence also the definiteness of His statement, to which the addition of the words 6 ¢iAo¢ 74. communicates a touch of painful sensibility, while the judy (our) claims also the loving sympathy of His disci- ples. — éEvrviow] awaken out of sleep; a late Greek word, rejected by the Atticists.'— The misunderstanding of His disciples, who thought of the sleep which follows after a crisis has been passed through (see examples of the same thing in Pricaeus ; comp. also Sir. xxxi. 2, and Fritzsche’s remarks thereon), loses its apparent improbability (against Strauss, de Wette, Reuss) when we refer back to ver. 4, the words of which they had naturally un- derstood, not in the sense intended by Jesus, that He would raise him up from the dead, but, after the analogy of ix. 8, as signifying that He pur- posed to come and miraculously heal him. The journey thereby involved, however, they did not desire (ver. 8) ; the expression xexoluyra: accordingly corresponded to their wishes ; hence the conclusion at once drawn, that he must be on the way to recovery, and the effort, by calling attention to this fact, to make the journey appear unnecessary. The very earnestness of their desire, caused them to overlook the significant nature of the words iva éEurviow avréy, and to fail to see that it would have been absurd thus to speak of one who was really asleep. Such a mistake on their part is psy- chologically intelligible enough.* The notion that ver. 4 had led them to believe that Jesus had already healed at a distance (Ebrard, Hengst.), and that, in consequence, they necessarily understood sleep to refer to recovery, is incompatible with the fact that the words of ver. 4 do not at all suggest such a healing (how different in iv. 50 !) ; and that if they had thought of such a healing having taken place, they would have grounded their ow6fceraz on this, and not on the fact of sleeping ; they would hence have dissuaded from this journey as unnecessary in a very different way. According to Bengel (and Luthardt), the disciples believed, ‘‘somnum ab Jesu immissum esse Lazaro ut eveniret quod praedixerat ipse ver. 4. But there is no ex-
following more definite shape: “The day has ita determinate measured duration. If & man use the day as day, f.e. the time for working given him by God asa time of working, he needs to be in no fear that his working will bring him mischief, for the light of the mundane sun illuamines him. But he who walks as though ti were night, t.¢. without working the will of God, would pro- cure for himself eternal mischief, because he would not have in him the light (in the absolute sense, 1. 5)."° In this way the es-
sential elements are read into the passage ; and what a strange difference in the con- ceptions found in the same expressions! How could the disciples have possibly understood their Master !
1 Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 224. Comp. Acts xvi. 27.
2**Discipuli omnt modo quaerunt Domi- num ab isto itinere avocare,"’ Grotius; ‘ /i- benter hano fugiend! pericull occasionem erripiunt,” Calvin.
342 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
egetical support for this view, not even in the use of the first person singu- lar sopetoua:, which finds its very natural explanation in the connection with éfurviow (the case is different with dywyer, ver. 7), without that sup- position (against Luthardt).
Ver. 14 f. Mappycig] 2.e. without the help of figurative hints as in ver. 11. Comp. x. 24, xvi. 25. — Ad¢. aré@.] Now a declaration of the simple oceur- rence ; hence there is no addition to the word Ad. as in ver. 11. —é¢ tpac] is immediately explained by the words iva zioreic.; for every new advance in faith is, in respect to degree, a coming to beliere, comp. ii. 11. The words bre ovx Hu. Exei are to be taken together with yaipu. If Jesus had been there, He would not have permitted His friend to die (against Paulus), but have saved him even on the sickbed ; in this case the far greater onueiov of His défa, the raising him from the dead, would not have taken place, and the faith of the disciples would therefore not have had the benefit of it, though, just on the eve of the death of their Lord, it stood greatly in need of being increased. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘cum decoro divino pulchre congruit, quod praesente vitae duce nemo unquam legitur mortuus.” — iva] indicates the telic direction, or intention of the emotion (not merely hope, de Wette). Comp. vill. 56. Remark that Jesus rejoices not at the sorrowful event in itself, but at the circumstance that He was not there, in consequence of which it assumed a salutary relation to the disciples. —aAa’] Abrupt transition.’ And the summons is now brief and measured.
Ver. 16. Thomas (RDRM= DORA), after the Greck translation of his name ({win), was called among the Gentile Christians Didymus. That Jesus gave him this name for the purpose of signifying that his nature was one which halted, and was divided between the old and the new man, is an invention of Hengstenberg’s, which he even goes so far as to base on Gen. xxv. 23 f.— Notwithstanding what had been said in ver. 9, Thomas looked upon the return of Jesus as leading to His death; with His ardent temperament, he at once expresses what is in His mind, but with the immediate resignation and courage of love,” since their business was to obey the clearly and definitely declared will of the Lord (differently in xiv. 5, xx. 24). There is no ground for charging him here with “inconsideratus zelus” (Calvin) ; nay, ‘‘Fear and Unbelief” (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigab.) ; dualism of Belief and Unbelief (Hengstenberg), and the like. — yer’ airoi] refers to Jesus,* not to Lazarus (Grotius, Ewald). — cuzpabyrge occurs in the New Testament only here.‘
Ver. 17. 'EAfév] into the neighbourhood of Bethany, see ver. 80. That Jesus went by the direct road, may, in view of this object, be taken for granted ; to insert here events from the Synoptic Gospels for harmonistic purposes, only causes confusion. — cipev] namely, by inquiry. — réccapac] As we must assume that Lazarus did not die before the day on which the
1 Herm. ad Vig. p. 812; Baeuml. Partic.p. with the context from ver. 8 and from «ai 15. ymets, in which the «ai points to Jesus. On * Soph. Fragm. 690. Dind: davdvrn xeimp the thought, comp. Matt. xxvi. 85 and paral- cuvdavety épws wm’ exer, Eur. Suppl. 1009 ff. lels.
2 This reference follows in accordance 4 But see Plat. Zuthyd. p. 22.
CHAP. XI., 18, 19. 343
words of vv. 7 ff. were spoken, whilst Jesus was made at once and directly aware of the departure of His friend, then, if the Lord, as is probable, com- menced the journey on the same day, and if Lazarus, agreeably to the Jew- ish custom, was buried on the day of his death, two full days and parts of two other days (the first and fourth) must have been spent in travelling to Bethany. No material objection can be urged against this supposition, since we do not know how far northwards in Perea Jesus was sojourning when He received the message announcing the illness. The usual opinion— still entertained by Luthardt, Ebrard, Gumlich, Hengstenberg, Godet—is, that Lazarus died and was buried on the very day on which Jesus received the message. In this case Jesus must have remained that day and the two following in Peraea, and begun the journey on the fourth day (a journey which some suppose to have occupied merely ten or eleven hours, or even a shorter time),’ and completed it on the same (Ebrard) or on the following day. On this supposition, however, Jesus would either not have known of the death of His friend before the third day, which would be quite opposed to the character and language (vv. 4, 6) of the narrative ; or else He would know of it as soon as it happened, and therefore at the time of the arrival of the messenger, which would alone accord with the tone of the entire history. In this latter case, the two days’ postponement of His departure, which, not- withstanding He had resolved on, would be unnatural and aimless, and the ‘words of ver. 4, which treat the sickness of Lazarus as still continuing, would have been inappropriate. Correctly, therefore, have Bengel (on ver. 11 with the comparison of iv. 52) and Ewald fixed the death of Lazarus as contemporaneous with vv. 7, 8, so that the occurrence of the death and the knowledge of it possessed by Jesus determined His leaving at once. They would then have arrived at Bethany on the fourth day (comp. on i. 28).
Ver. 18. This observation explains the fact mentioned in the following verse, that so many of the 'Iovdaio: (from the neighbouring capital) were pres- ent. — #v] The use of the praet. does not of itself necessarily imply that Bethany had ceased to exist at the time when the writer wrote, but might be explained (as it usually is) from the general connection with the past events narrated.? Still, as John is the only one of the evangelists who thus uses the praet. (see besides xviii. 1, xix. 41), and as he wrote a considerable time after the destruction of Jerusalem, it is more natural to suppose that Jerusalem and the surrounding region were conceived by him as lying waste, and Bethany as no longer existing. — amd oradiwy dexar. | fifteen stadia off, t.¢. about three-eighths of a geographical mile. On this mode of describing the distance (Apoc. xiv. 20) see Buttm. Neut. Gr. p. 133 [E. T. p. 153]. Com- pare also xii. 1, and on Acts x. 80. <A stadium = 589} feet Rhenish (606% feet English) measure.
Ver. 19. ’Ex rav 'Iovdatwv] is generally taken as equivalent to 'IepocoAvpurdy, but altogether without ground. Wherever John uses the term “the Jews,”
1 But see van der Velde, Reise durch Syr. *See on Acts xvii. 21; Kriger on Xen. u. Pal. I. p. 245 ff. The actual road was Anabd. 1. 4. 9; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Hier. undoubtedly considerably longer thanthe 9%. 4. : distance in a straight line.
344 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
unless it be in the purely national sense (as in ii. 6, ii. 18, iii. 1, iv. 9, and frequently), to distinguish them as a nation from other nations, he constantly means the Jewish opposition to Jesus. See on i. 19. So also here.’ On them, however, the miracle produced the noteworthy deep impression which will be recorded in vv. 45, 46. The Lazarus family, which, without doubt, was a highly respected one, must—and might it not have been so, notwith- standing its friendship with Jesus /—have had many acquaintances, perhaps also relatives, among these Jews. — mpoc rd¢ rept M. x. M.] is not quite iden- tical in force with mpd¢ r#v M. x. M.,”? but designates the two sisters with their surroundings (Bernhardy, p. 268 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 4. 2; comp. Acts xiii. 13). The words might denote the sisters alone, according to later Greck usage (see Valckenaer, Schol. ad Act. xiii. 18; Lehrs Quaest. Hp. p. 28 ff.) ; but this usage is quite foreign to the New Testament, and in the present connection, the expression employed has its special decorum, they being men who had come. It implies, moreover, that the household was one of a higher class. —iva wapaz. avr.] The expression of sympathy and consola- tion, which was connected with definite formalities, lasted usually seven days.°
Ver. 20. Martha, now also discharging her duties as hostess, and in con- sequence coming more into contact with others from without, is first in- formed of the coming of Jesus (how must be left undecided), and with judicious haste goes at once to meet Him, without exciting attention by com- municating the fact to her sister. — éxafé{ero] The manifestations of sympathy were received sitting.‘—Note the different nature of the two sisters, as in Luke x. 38 ff.
Vv. 21, 22. Ei #¢ dde] Not a reproach, but a lament : Hadst Thou been here, and stayed not in the distant Peraea. — xai viv] Without a//a (see the criti- cal note) the expression simply connects past and present : and now, when he is dead. She then gives expression indirectly (‘‘ ob voti magnitudinem,” Grotius) to her conjidence, which had quickly arisen in consequence of the arrival of Jesus, that by His prayer He would be able to raise the dead one to life. Having the confidence, she expresses the wish. We can understand from ver. 4 why, now that the healing could no longer be effected, she should think of a resurrection ; for with her faith in Jesus, and her know}l- edge of His wonderful works, she must have felt sure that the declaration of ver. 4 would be fulfilled in some way or other. The less, therefore, may we adopt Calvin’s judgment : ‘‘ magis affectui suo indulget, quam se contineat sub fidei regula.”— The position of the words airjoy riv Oedv, ddcee 6 Bedc is emphatic ; and the emphasis is heightened by the repetition of 6 @edc.° This word aireiofa, to beg for oneself, is not elsewhere used of Jesus praying to God (but épwray, tapaxadeiv, rpocetbyeofar, deiofar) ; it corresponds to the intensity of Martha's emotion, which would lead her to choose the mare concrete, more human expression (comp. Matt. vii. 9; John xv. 16, al.). Thus
1 Compare Briickner, Gumlich, Godet. See Geler, de Luctu Hebraeorum, p. 2So Lachmann after B.C. L. X. &. 211 ff. Comp. Dougt. dnal.ad Ez. vill. 14. 21 Sam. xxxi. 18; 1 Chron. x. 12; Judith ® Comp. Aen. Mem. 1. 8. 2: evxero 52 spds xvi. 28. See Lightfoot, p. 1070 ff. Tous Seovs . . . ws TOUS Geods KaAAeTa eiddras.
CHAP. XI., 23-26. 345 naively, as to form, does she speak in the excitement of her fecling ; forthe idea of the superhuman relation of Jesus to God had not as yet presented itself in any way to her mind. But as to substance she was right ; see vv. 41, 42.
Vv. 28, 24. Jesus understood her, and promises avaorfeera: 6 ad. cov ! He meant ' to carry out the purpose stated in ver. 11, but expressed Himself ambiguously—no doubt intentionally—in order to lead the faith of Martha away from her merely personal interest, and to raise it rather to the higher general domain of the one thing that is needful. His words might as easily denote a raising up to be accomplished at once, as the resurrection at the last day. Martha ventures to take it only as a consolatory word of promise relatively to Lazarus’ participation in this latter resurrection ; she had previously dared to hope for 80 much, that she was not now able to in- terpret so indefinite a reply in her own favour. Accordingly, her response expresses that resignation of disappointed expectation, which would now so naturally present itself to her mind ; an answer full of submission, and not one of ‘‘as it were further inquiry.” *
Vv. 25, 26. Jesus connects with her answer that which He intended to say, as fitted to draw her faith from her own interest to His person: J, no other than I, am the resurrection and the life, i.e. the personal power of both, the one who raises again, and who makes alive. Comp. xiv. 6; Col. iii. 4. The (wf after the avécraare is its positive result (not its ground, as Luthardt and Ewald think), the efernal life, which, however, also presupposes the happy state of (u7 in Hades, in Paradise (Luke xvi. 22, xxiii. 48). In the course of what follows, Jesus tells who it is that experiences Him as this power of resurrection and life, namely, 6 morebuw cic tué. The thought is in both clauses the same ; they form a parallelism with a positive and negative declaration concerning the same subject, which, however, in the second clause, is described not merely by morefuv again, but by Cor xai moretuy, be- cause this was the only way of making the significant antithetical reciprocal relationship complete. With a view to this end, dying denotcs in the first clause physical death, whereas in the second clause it is uscd in the higher sense ; whereas, vice tersd, life is spoken of in the first clause in the higher sense, in the second in its physical sense. Whoso believeth in me, even if he shall have died (physically), will lice (be a partaker of life uninterruptedly, as, prior to the resurrection, in Paradise, so, by means of the resurrection, eternally) ; and every one tho lives (is still alive in time) and belieres in me, will assuredly not die for ever, t.¢e. he will not lose his life in eternity, viii. 51,—a promise which, though not excluding physical death in itself, does
1 That is, He meant the raising of Lazarue, which actually afterwards took place, and which was the fulfilment of the egusvigew ; swaXdlvopoos éye(pera:, Nonnus. Quite in op- position to the progress and connection of the narrative, with its beautiful signifi- cance, is Hengstenberg's remark: ‘‘ Jesus means epecially the resurrection at the last day, and along with this, also, Mis trane-
Jerence to Paradise.’ The soul of the de- ceased must already have deen in Paradise, Luke xxiil. 48,
2 De Wette, compare Calvin.
® It is not merely ¢«% that is carried out In what follows (Luthardt) ; for the life which Jesus ascribes to the believer, even in death, finds its completion precisely in the resur rection.
346 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN.
exclude it as the negation of the true and cternal («4, vi. 50. Compare Rom. viii. 10. In accordance herewith, (év neither can nor may be taken in the spiritual sense (Calvin and Olshausen) : to apply xay aro@., however, to Lazarus, and ¢éyv to the sisters,’is inadmissible, simply because Lazarus was to be raised again solely to temporal life. Both are to be left in their yencrality.—On za¢ Bengel remarks ingeniously : ‘‘ hoc versu 25 non adhib- itum ad majora sermonem profert,” and on mor. rovro: ‘‘applicatio . . . per improvisam interrogationem valde pungens.”
Vv. 27, 28. Martha’s answer affirms the question, and gives the reason for the affirmation ; for to Messiah alone could and must we be indebted for that which is mentioned in ver. 25 f.?—- éyé] with the emphasis of conscious assurance, — reriorevxa] I have convinced myself, and believe. Comp. vi. 69. —4 Xpioréde, 6 vide rov Oeov}] The second predicate, although conceived by Martha still in the popular theocratic sense, and not yet understood in its es- sentially divine import (comp. on i. 50), satisfactorily expresses her faith in the divinely-conferred éfovcia of her friend, and is correlative to the 6 ei¢ 7. cop. épxduevoc, and to be connected with it. The present ipyduevog is employed because she looks for the advent of the Messiah as close at hand. Compare on Matt. xi.3 ; Luke ii. 25, 38. — Ver. 28. That Martha called her sister at the bidding of Jesus, is clear from xai gwvei ce ; and any doubt as to whether He actually commissioned her to do so is baseless.* — Aé@pa] not openly, that is, whispering these words to her secretly, so that the 'Iovdaios in ver. 81 who were present—these men so hostilely disposed towards the be- loved Teacher—might not observe what she should say to her, in order that they might not disturb the further consolation and elevation which she now, with the faith in her heart that she had just so decidedly expréssed, ex- pected for her sister and herself from Jcsus. —6 didéox.] This designation, which had probably been customary in the family, was sufficiently intelligi- ble to her sister ; she did not need to mention His name, nor does she mention it, for the sake of secrecy. Compare Mark xiv. 14.
Vv. 30, 31. He had remained outside the place, not, however, because of the proximity of the grave (He did not even know where it was, ver. 384, against Hengstenberg and others), but doubtless because Martha had in- formed Him of the presence of the many ’Iovdato.,—which it was so natural for Martha to do, that Luthardt should not have called it in question. He did not desire their presence while He said to Mary what He intended to say, for which reason also He had her called secretly. His intention, however, was not realized, for the Jews thought that when Mary went away so hastily she had gone to the grave,‘ and followed after her, in order not to leave her alone in her sorrow without words of sympathy and consolation. On ei¢ r. uvnu. Comp. ver. 38, xx. 1.
1 Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact. vai, evpe, and the further words sewiorevaea,
* The simple and full affirmation of what _etu., express the holy foundation on which was asked {s contained therefore in vai, her vai rested in her heart.
xvpee, and éye reriorevxa is not a Confifeor * Briickner, compare Tholuck ; Hengsten- freely formed by Martha in responsetothe berg, after Chrysostom. question (Godet, after Lange) ; on the con- * On this custom see Geler, de Lucitu Hebr.
trary, her Confileor is contained inthe words VII. 2%, and Wetstein.
CHAP. XI., 382-34. 347
Ver. 82. "Erecev, etc.] Not sd Martha, ver. 21. Mary’s feelings were of an intenser and stronger kind. — avrot mpdc tr. wédac}] at His feet (xpés, Mark v. 22, vii. 25). So afterwards, pou é adeAgds, my brother had not died, as in xili. 6, and very often in the New Testament and in the classics.’ — ei #¢ cde, etc.] like Martha in ver. 21, but without adding anything beyond her tears. This thought had unquestionably been the oft-repeated refrain of their mutual communications on the subject of their sorrow.—No further conver- sation takes place, because the "Iovdaioe by coming with her disturbed them, vv. 81, 88 ; according to Luthardt, because Jesus wished a deed to take the place of words ; but of this there is no hint in the text.
Vv. 88, 84. —Todc ovvedd. airy 'Iovd.] The Jews who had come with her (see on Mark xiv. 53). Note the emphatic «Aaiovoay . . . xAaiovrac. — tveBpiphoaro r@ wvetpat:] Alone correct are the renderings of the Vulgate : infremuit spiritu ; of the Gothic : inrauhtida ahmin ; and of Luther: er ergimmete im Geiste, He was angered in the spirit. On rg mvefyarst, comp. xiii. 21 ; Mark vill. 12 ; Acts xvii. 16. The words Bp:udopa: and éuSprudoua: are never used otherwise than of hot anger in the Classics, the Septuagint, and the New Testament (Matt. ix. 30 ; Mark i. 48, xiv. 5), save where they denote snorting or growling proper.* For this reason the explanation of sharp pain (so also Grotius, Liicke, Tholuck, who thinks the word denotes a painful, sympathetic, and shuddering movement, not expressed in sounds, B. Crusius, Maier, and several ; compare already Nonnus) must be rejected at the very outset, as opposed to the usage of the word. The same applies also to Ewald’s notion * that it is simply a somewhat stronger term for ocrevdfecy or avaorevd- Gey (Mark vii. 84 ; comp. viii. 12). But at what was He angered? This is not expressed by rO rvetuar: (against this supposition év éavr¢ in ver. 88 is sufficiently decisive), as though He were angry at being affected as He was (rg mdf). This view, which quite misconceives the humanity of Jesus, is taken by Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others.‘ Nor was His anger enkindled at death as the wages of sin ; *
1See Kiihner, § 627 A 4; Stallbaum, ad Flat. Rep. p. 518 C.
8 Aeschyl. Sept. 461; Lucian, Necyom. 20. See Gumlich, p. 263 f.
® * Ag though compelled to gather up all the deepest powers of love and compassion, first, in deepest emotion, repeatedly sigh- ing and weeping,” Gesch. Christi, p. 486. Somewhat differently in the Johann. Schr. J. p. 822: “‘ Like an old hero of the prime- val age, like a Jacob, who, gathering together the deepest forces of his spirit, prepares for the combat, and In the midst of the struggle weeps aloud.”’ Melanchthon has a similar idea.
‘To much the same effect is Cyril's view, who takes rye wvevpars to mean the Holy Spirit, and to be used instrumentally : +7 év- vader Tou dyiov wrevuaroe, Jesus was angered at the human compasaion which He had felt.
Hilgenfeld, in his ZeArbdegr. p. 960, Hvang. p. 206 (comp. Késtlin, p. 189), has recently modified this view as follows: a genuinely human feeling threatened to tear away the human person joined with the Logos from His fellowship with the Logos, and the dis- pleasure of the Logos was therefore only able to express itself inwardly, to vent it- self on the humanity. Me, on the contra- ry, Weiss, LeArdegr. p. 27. Interpretations like these spring from a’ soil which lies altogether outside the domain of exegesis. More simply, but also doing violence to the moral nature of the human oompassion felt by Jesus, is the view taken by Merz (in die Wurtemd, Stud. 1844, 2): He became angry with Himself because He felt as if His heart would break.
* Augustine, Corn. & Lapide, Olshausen, Gumlich.
348 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
nor at the power of death (Melanchthon, Ebrard),'the dread foe of the human race (Hengstenberg); nor at the unbelief of the Jews (Erasmus, Scholten) as well as of the sisters (Lampe, Kuinoel, Wichelhaus ;? nor, finally, at the fact that He had not been able to avert this melancholy oc- currence (de Wette). The last-mentioned notion is appropriate neither to the idea, nor to the degree of anger, nor to ter. 4 ; and all these references are forced into the text. Briickner’s opinion : the anger is that of the Redeemer misunderstood by His enemies, and not understood by His friends, is also an importation ; so also Godet’s forced expedient : Jesus was indignant that, in performing this His greatest miracle, to which He found Himself pressed by the sobbings of those who were present, He should be pronouncing His own death-sentence ; Satan purposed making it the signal of His condemnation, and some even of those who were weeping were destined to become His accusers. Of all which nothing is either found or hinted at in the passage. The reference lying in the context was over- looked in consequence of the word ’Iovdaio: not being taken in the sense in which it is constantly used by John, namely, as the designation of the hostile party. It must be remembered that, in ver. 88 also, this inward wrath of the Lord was aroused by the behaviour of the Jews noticed in ver. 37. He was angered, then, at the Jews, when He saw them lamenting with the deeply-feeling Mary, and professing by their cries (of condolence) to share her feelings, while at the same time aware of their bitter hostility to Him who was the beloved friend both of those who mourned and of him whom they mourned, nor is ver. 45 inconsistent therewith. The moving cause of His wrath therefore lay solely in that which the text states (d¢ éldev
. kAaiovrac); the separative expression : airy xAaiovoav . . . ‘lovdaioug xAalovrac, sets forth the contrast presented by the procedure of the two, while going on together before Him. Alongside of the lamentation of Mary, He could not but see that the weeping of the Jews was hypocritical, and this excited His strong moral indignation and wrath. John has simply expressed this indignation by the right term, without, as Lange thinks, combining in éveBpcufo. the most varied emotions of the mind, as in a “* divine thunderstorm of the spirit.” By the addition of 7 mvetyar: the indignation experienced by Jesus is defined as having been felt in the depths of His moral self-consciousness. During this experience, also, the rveiua of Jesus was & mvevya dywotvyc ; see on Rom.i. 4. John might also have written ry puxy (seé on xii. 27); but +6 rvebyare is more characteristic. — xa? érépagev éavrév] not equivalent to érapdyOy TQ wvebmart, xiil. 21; nor even denoting, ‘‘ He allowed Himself to be troubled (agitated), surrendered Him- aclf' to the agitation” (de Wette); but, as the active with the reflective pro- noun necessarily requires, He agitated Himself, so that the outward manifes-
2 80 also Luthardt (who is followed by had thus, as it were, thrown out threaten- Weber in his v. Zorne Gottes, p. 24): ‘He was ings against Himself... Comp. Kahnis, angered at death and him whohasthepow- Dogmaitk,I. p. 504, ‘‘at the unnaturainess er of death, His antagonist, that he had ofdeath.” done such a thing to Him, that he had thus 3 Komm wb. d. Leidensgesch. p. 66 f. penetrated into His innermost circle, and
CHAP. XI., 35-37. 349
tation, the bodily shuddering, during the internal movement of indignation, is designated by the words, and not the emotion itself.' Euth. Zigabenus remarks, in the main correctly : dtéoecce’ cup Baiver yap tevdocecOar Ta avdrepa pépn trav obruc tuBptwwutvov. The use of the reflective expression has no dogmatic basis (Augustine, Bengel, and several ; also Briickner and Ebrard suppose that it was designed to exclude the notion of the passivity of the emotion), but is simply due to its being more descriptive and picturesque. The reader is made to see how Jesus, in His inner indignation, shakes Him- self and shudders. — row refeix. avrév;] This question He puts to Mary and Martha, and it is they who answer it. Having experienced the stirrings of indignation, without any further delay, gathering Himself up for action, He now asks that which it was in the first instance necessary for Him to know. The assumption made by Hengstenberg,’ that He already knew that which He asked, is due solely to exegetical assumptions, and reduces the question to a mere formality.
Ver. 85. 'Eddxp. 6'I.] He weeps,* while on His way to the sepulchre, with those who were weeping. Mark the eloquent, deeply-moving simplicity which characterizes the narrative ; and remark as to the subject-matter, how, before accomplishing His work, Jesus gives full vent to the sorrow which He felt for His friend, and for the suffering inflicted on the sisters. It is also worthy of notice, that daxptev is here used, and not again xAaiecv,— His lamenting is a shedding of tears in quiet anguish, not a weeping with loud lamentation, not a xAavOude as over Jerusalem, Luke xix. 41. Itisa delicate discrimination of expressions, unforced, and true, According to Baur, indeed, tears for a dead man, whose grave was being approached in the certainty of his being raised to life again, could not be the expression of a true, genuinely human sympathy. As though such sympathy could measure itself by any mcrely reflective standard, and as if the death of His friend, the grief of those who surrounded IIim, and the wailings of the sisters, were not sufficient, of themselves, to arouse His loving sympathy to tears ! It is precisely a genuine human emotion, which neither could nor should resist the painful impression produced by such amoment. But they obliterate the delicate character of this trait with their hard dogmatic hand, who make the tears shed by Christ refer to ‘‘the misery of the human race pictured forth in Lazarus” (Hengstenberg, comp. Gumlich).
Vv. 36, 837. The ‘Iovdaioe express themselves variously : those who wero better disposed say, How must He have lJored Lazarus whilst alive (imper.), if He thus weeps for him now that he is dead | Those who were maliciously and wickedly disposed treat His tears as a welcome proof, not of His want of love (Luthardt), but’of His inability, apart from which He must surely have been able to heal Lazarus of his sickness, even as He had healed the blind man of his blindness! In this way they at the same time threw doubt on the reality of the healing of the blind man (for they regard it as the
‘
1 As Hengstenberg maintains (“Jesus mus, Jansen, and others. stirs Himself up to energetic struggle,” % [Incept. Aor.; He began to weep: burst etc.); compare also Godet. into tears.—K.]
380 also Gumllich, after Augustine, Eras-
350 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
majus in their conclusion ad minus), and suppose, moreover, that Jesus did not come sooner to Bethany because He was unable to save Lazarus ; for the conclusion drawn by them implies that He had received information concern- ing the sickness. The malicious import of the question in ver. 87 has been correctly recognized by Chrysostom, Nonnus (avridéyqcav), Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Calvin, Bengel, and most of the older commen- tators, as also by Luthardt, Lange, and Godet ; some recent writers, how- ever, as Liicke, de Wette, Tholuck, Maier, Briickner, Ewald, Gumlich, Hengstenberg, groundlessly reject this view, notwithstanding that the fol- lowing words, réA:v éufpiu., rightly interpreted, find their explanation in these expressions of His opponents.—The circumstance of their appealing to the healing of the blind man, instead of to the awakenings from the dead, recorded by the Synoptics, is no argument against the reality of the latter miracles (Strauss) ; nor even is this appeal less appropriate (de Wette), but it was, on the contrary, naturally suggested by their own most recent experi- ence ; it was also thoroughly appropriate, inasmuch as they were thinking, not of a raising from the dead, but simply of a healing of Lazarus, which was to have been effected by Jesus. — iva] the thought is : be active, in order that. Comp. on Col. iv. 16. — xai obroc] like the blind man whom He healed. For the healing (the opposite of 4? amo8évy) is the point of comparison.
Ver. 88. This rovypia (Chrysostom) of the revé¢ stirred afresh, in the midst of His pain, His deep, though quiet, indignation ; in this case, however, it was less noticeable, not being attended with the rapdocerw éavréy of ver. 83. —eic Td pvnpeiov] to the grave (not into, see what follows ; comp. ver. 81). The sepulchral vaults were entered either by a perpendicular opening with steps, or by an horizontal one ; they were closed cither by a large stone, or byadoor. They exist in great numbers, down to the present day.’ The grave of Lazarus would have been of the first kind if ééxecro én’ avrg be rendered : it lay upon it; the one at present shown as the grave of Lazarus, though probably without sufficient reason,’ is such. But éréx. éx’ atv. may also mean : it lay against it, before it ;* and then the reference would be to & grave with an horizontal entrance. No decision can be arrived at. , The description of the grave would seem to imply that Lazurus was a man of some position.
Vv. 39, 40. While Jesus called upon those present to take away the stone (which was done, as related in ver. 41), Mary waited in silent resignation. On Martha, however, with her mobile practical tendency, the command of Jesus, which implied a desire to see Lazarus, produced a terrifying effect. Her sisterly heart (hence } adeAg7 rot vereA.) shudders at the thought, and rises up against it, and she wishes not to sec the corpse of her beloved brother, already passing over into a state of putrefaction, exposed to the gaze of those who were present ;—from the fact of his having already lain four days, she concludes, with good reason, that he must already have begun to stink. For her earlier idea of a possible resurrection (ver. 22), which,
1 Robinson, IT. p. 176 ff., and his more re- 2 See Robinson, IT. p. 310. cent Jesearches, p. $27 ff.; Tobler, Golgotha, 2 Comp. Hom. Oi. 6.19: Ovpat & éwdxecvro. p. 251 ff.
CHAP. XI., 41, 42. 351
moreover, had been entertained only for a time, had passed over, owing to the expressions of the Lord in vv. 23-26, into faith in Christ, as the Resur- rection and the Life in gencral, through whom the dear departed one also . liveth (ver, 26). Accordingly, it is incorrect to suppose that her wish was to call the attention of Jesus to the magnitude of the work to be performed by Him, with a view to calling forth a new confirmation of His promise (Hengstenberg) ; on the contrary, far removed from such reflections, she now no longer at all expects the reawakening of the corpse, and that, too, not from unbelief, but because the higher direction which her faith had re- ceived through Christ’s words had taught her resignation. — The embalming of the body (its fumigation, embrocation, and envelopment in spices, as also its anointing, xii. 7) can not have taken place ; otherwise Martha could not have come to the conclusion which she expresses. This omission may have been duc to some cause unknown to us ; but the supposition that the sisters still intended carrying out the embalming is inadmissible owing to the jd. bfec. — terapratoc] of the fourth day (comp. on ver. 17), that is, one buried for that time.'— The gentle reproof contained in ver. 40 refers to vv. 28 ff., and is justified ; for that which He had said regarding the glory of God in ver, 4 was to be realized through the resurrection promised in ver. 23—prom- ised in the sense present to Christ’s mind. At the same time, the perform- ance of the miracle was itself dependent on the fulfilment of the condition éav morevo. (which had been required also in vv. 25 f.) ; to unbeliecing sisters He could no more have restored the dead brother than to an unbelieving Jairus his child (Luke viii. 50), or to the widow of Nain her son, if her atti- tude towards His compassion and His injunction 4) «2aie (Luke vii. 13) had been once of unbelief.
Vv. 41, 42. Jesus knows that His prayer, that God would suffer Him to raise Lazarus to life,—a prayer which He had previously offered up in. still- ness, perhaps only in the inarticulate yearnings of His heart,—has been heard, and He thanks God for hearing it. Petition and thanksgiving are not to be conceived as blended in one ;* nor is the latter to be regarded as anticipatory (Hengstenberg), as though He offered thanks in the certain an- ticipation of the hearing of His prayer (Ewald, comp. Godet). Not that He offers thanks because the hearing of His prayer was unexpected and un- hoped for (cirov) ; no, He for His part (¢y4) knew, even while He was ask- ing God in stillness, that God always heard Him ;* but because of the people standing by, ctc. — Some have stumbled at ver. 42, and looked on it either as spurious,* or as a reflection of the evangelist who puts this ‘‘ show- prayer” (Weisse), or even ‘‘ sham-prayer” (Baur), into the mouth of Christ for the purpose of supplying an argument for the story (de Wette ; sce, on _ the other hand, Brickner), or for the divinity of Christ (Strauss, Scholten).
1 See Wetstein. Comp. Xen. Anad. vil.4. daw (Euth. Zigabenus): but also con- 9: 48n ydp foay weswrain (dead); Diog. versely, wdvrore SéAw & OéAas; see Vv. 30,
Laert. 7. 184. xil. 27. 2 Merz in dle Wurtemburg. Stud. 1844, 2, p. * Dieffenbach in Bertholdt’s Xrif, Journ. 65; Tholuck. vol. i. p. &
§ Correct reason for this: wdvrore &dAcic &
352 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
But it is precisely He who is most intimate with the Father, who may in- dulge in reflection even in prayer, if His reflections relate to God, and are prayer. The opposite judgment applies an arbitrary standard to the subject. Moreover, if it had been his own reflection, John would probably have said: dia roig "Iovdaiovg instead of da tr. 6yAov. Comp. ver. 45. — elxov] as in vi. 36 : Iwill have said it, namely the evyapiord oo, etc. To refer to ver. 4 (Ewald) is inadmissible even on account of d:d r. 5yAov alone. — ot] Thou and no other. They shall be convinced of it by learning from my thanks- giving that my working takes place in Thy strength, in the full certainty of a victory of Thy sending.
Vv. 43-46. With a loud voice, He cried out ; this was the mighty medium through which He caused His miraculous power to operate.—The ex- pression deipo ff (hither out! hue foras! without verb,)' includes in itself the resurrection-call, but docs not imply that the act of reawakening has been already performed (Origen). Nonnus correctly remarks : drvoov epb- xuwoe déuac vexvooodog nxd. Jesus did not here call out éyeipov or éyépOnre (a8 in the case of the daughter of Jairus, and of the son of the widow of Nain, Luke viii. 54, vii. 15), because the words detpo fw seemed the most natural to employ in the case of a dead man already lying in the tomb. — deden. +. x60. K.T. xeip. xetpiatc] By Basil (Oatuate Oavya év Oatpar:), Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Augustine, Ruperti, Aretius, Lightfoot, Lampe, and several others, this is regarded as a new miracle, to which is reckoned, besides, even the covering up of the countenance. An arbitrary disfiguration of the fact to the point of introducing apocryphal elements. It is not necessary, with the purpose of escaping from this view, that the Aor. é57/4#e should be under- stood de conatu (Kuinoel) ; nor to assume that each limb was enwrapped by atself, as was the custom in ELgypt (Olshausen, de Wette, B. Crusius, Maier) ; but the winding-sheet in which the corpse was wound from head to foot (Matt. xxvi. 59), thus embracing the entire body,’ might, especially as it had to hold no spices (ver. 39), be slack and loose enough to render it pos- sible, after it had been loosened by his movements, for the awakened man to come forth. He was not completely freed from the grave-clothes, till the command Aicare aivvév had been given. — xetpia) Girdle, bandage; in the N. T. it occurs only here, but see Prov. vii. 16.*—xai 4 dyi¢ abrod covd. mep.ed. | special mention is here added of the last part of the complete death- dress in which he issued forth from the tomb, not, however, in the parti- cipial form.‘ Jlis face was bound about with a napkin.® — 2éyer airoic] to those who were present in general, as in ver. 39. Let him go away (comp. xviii. 8). With strength so completely restored had he risen again. But any further excitement was now to be avoided.
OBSERVATION.— On the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, which constitutes the culminating point of the miraculous activity of our Lord, we have to remark :
1Comp. Hom. @Qd. 6.192; Plat. Pol. iv. 3 Aristoph. Av. 817; Plut. Ale. 16. p. 445 D, v. p. 477; D. Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. 4 Kiihner, II. p. 428. p. 24 C. 8 On wepied, comp. Job xil.8; Plut. Mor.
2 See Jahn, Arch. I. 2, p. 424. p. 8 E.
CHAP. XI.. 353 (1) the assumption of a merely apparent death! is decidedly opposed, both to the character of Jesus Himself, and to the style and purpose of the narrative, which is distinguished for its thoughtful tenderness, certainty, and truthfulness. (2) To reduce the account to a strange misunderstanding, which either makes a con- versation between Christ and the two sisters, on the occasion of the death of Lazarus, regarding the resurrection, originate the story of the miracle,* or (with Gfréfer*) confounds the latter with the account of the awakening of the (only apparently dead) youth of Nain, — Nain being.thus an abridgment of the name Bethany,—or which converts, in the tradition prevailing at Ephesus, the Lazarus of the parable in Luke xvi. into a Lazarus raised from the dead by Jesus (Schenkel), is an arbitrary and violent procedure, simply incompatible with the genuineness of the Gospels. (3) The complete annihilation of the history into a myth (Strauss) is a consequence of assumptions which, in connec- tion with so detailed and unique o narrative as this,‘ reach the very acme of boldness and arbitrariness, in order to demonstrate by misrepresentation of individual features the existence of internal improbabilities, and the want of external evidence for the credibility of the narrative. (4) The subjective theory of the occurrence, which makes it to be a form created ° by the writer himself for the purpose of setting forth the idea of the défa of Christ (Baur, p. 191 ff.), which claims adequate recognition only when it demonstrates its death-denying power (comp. Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 132), makes out of the miracle of the history & miraculous production of the second century, a creation of the idea in atime which bore within itself the conditions for productions of quite a different kind. That very artistic style of representation which, in the account of this last and greatest miracle, is most strikingly prominent, is only comprehensible from the personal, profound, and sympathizing recollection which had pre- served and cherished, even in its finest traits, the truth and reality of the event with peculiar vivacity, fidelity, and inspiration. No narrative of the N. T. bears so completely the stamp of being the opposite of a later invention. But in none, again, was the glow of the hope of the Messianic fulfilment so imme- diately operative to preserve and animate each feature of the reminiscence. This also in answer to Weizsicker, p. 528, who leaves it undecided how far the allegorical point of the narrative assumed by him—the setting forth, namely, of the doctrine that believers have everlasting life—is attached to actual facts. But in this way, with ideal assumptions, even the best attested history would fall into the dead condition of 4 priori doubt. And what an incredible height of art in the allegorical construction of history must we ascribe to the composer !
? Paulus, Gabler in his Journ. fiir auserl. theol, Lat. TIT. p. 285 ff. ; Ammon, Leden Jesu, III. p. 128; Kern inthe 7d. Zettechr. 1889, I. p. 188; Schweizer, p. 158 ff.
2 Weisse, II. p. 260 ff.
® Heiligth.und Wahrh. p. 811 ff.
* Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 484. “‘ No narra- tive of this apostle ts pervaded by so intense a glow and rapid liveliness of description as this, In which he undertakes to set forth, In one great picture, the trembling of Jesus for the life of His friend, the attendant struggle with the darkness of the world, and the calmness and joy of victory, prom-
inent over all, and undisturbed from first to last ; while between these press in the still higher tones of the consciousness of His Messianic glory and of its confirmation in power."
§ This subjective picture would seem, ac- cording to Baur, p. 247, an intenstfication of the (two) synoptical raisings from the dead (comp. Scholten): ‘‘the superlative to the lower degrees, on which the Synoptics re- main.” The name Lazarus js significantly taken from the parable, Luke xvi. The substantial contents of the narrative are in ver. 2, and all else unsubstantial form.
354 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Yet Holtzmann also ' appears to think only of an allegory (‘living hieroglyph’’). (5) It appears, indeed, surprising that the Synoptics are silent concerning the rais- ing of Lazarus, an event in itself so powerful to produce conviction,? and so inflaential in its operation on the last development of the life ofJesus. Yet this is not inexplicable (Briickner), but is connected with the entire distin- guishing peculiarity of John ; and the argumentum e silentio employed against the latter must—the genuineness of the Gospel being granted—rather turn against the Synoptics if their silence were conceivable only as the consequence of their want of acquaintance with the history (Liicke, de Wette, Baur). But this silence is intelligible, not on the supposition of tender considerateness towards the family at Bethany,? in which—even setting aside the fact that Luke also wrote only a few years earlier than John, and not before the destruction of Jerusalem—there ig suggested something altogether arbitrary,‘ and in unexam- pled contradiction to the feeling and spirit of that early Christian time. Just as littleis it to be explained from the fact that the deep and mysterious character of the history placed it in the class of what belonged to the special mission of that evangelist who had been in most confidential relations with Jesus (Heng- stenberg),’—a view which is not to be adopted, for the reason that the synop- tical raisings from the dead also are not less profound and mysterious, as lies, indeed, in the facts themselves. Rather is that silence of the Synoptics only comprehensible when we consider that they so limit the circle of their narratives that, before they open, with the entrance of Christ into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. and parall.)—and thus with the so-called Passion-week, the scene of the last development—they have introduced nothing of the Lord's ministry in the metropolis and its immediate neighbourhood ; but up to that point confine themselves absolutely to his proceedings in Galilee, and generally to those quite remote from Jerusalem (the geographically nearest miraculous work being the healing of the blind men at Jericho, Matt. xx. 29 ff.). This, as their Gospels actually prove, is the allotted province to which the older evangelistic historical writings confined their task and performance, and this included the Galilean raisings from the dead, but excluded that of Lazarus. John, on the other hand, conversely, choosing from the different classes of miracles, selected out of the raisings from the dead not a Galilean one, but that which lay beyond that older theatre of the Saviour’s history, and was most closely connected with
1 Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 657.
2 It is well known what Spinoza himself (according to Bayle, Dict.) is said to have confessed : ‘‘ that could he have persuaded himself of the truth of the raising of Lazarus, he would have rent in pieces his whole system, and would have embraced without repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians.”
3 Epipbantus, Grotius, Wetstein on xii. 10, Herder, Schulthess, Olshausen, Baeumlein, Godet; so also with pictorial fancifulness, Lange, L. J. II. 2, p. 1188 f.
43t would have certainly sufficed, instead of passing over the entire history in silence, simply not to have mentioned the names, as in the case of Peter’s smiting with the sword. And is it supposed, then, that when
the synoptists wrote (thirty years and more after the Lazarus incident), the resolution to put him to death, xil. 10, was still to be feared! Is it known that at so late a period Lazarus and his sisters were still alive ?
5 So also Philippi, der Eingang des Joh. Ev. 1866, p. 11f. He thinks that Matthew re- lated nothing of that which was reserved for John ; that he knew that the latter also would write his Gospel. A classified distri- bution of the material of this kind is in it- self very improbable in view of the spirit of the apostolic time, even irrespective of the fact that the first Gospel, in its present form, cannot have proceeded from the hands of the apostle.
CHAP, XI., 45, 46. 355
its great final period. He has thus certainly supplied—as in general by his notices from the Judean ministry of the Lord—an essential deficiency in the older evangelical narrative. The acquaintance of the Synoptics, which is not to be doubted, with the raising of Lazarus, makes their silence regarding it appear not inexcusable (Baur’s objection), but simply a consequence of that limitation which the older evangelical history had prescribed to itself, so as neither to contain any mention of the stay of Jesus in Bethany at that time, nor of His subsequent sojourn in Ephraim, but to make the Messianio entrance of Jesus to proceed from Jericho onwards, excluding any lodging in the family of Bethany ; comp. on Matt. xxi. 1, note. (6) The fact that in the accusation and condemnation of Jesus no use was made of this miracle, either against or for Him (employed by Strauss, and especially by Weisse), cannot be evidence against ita historical character, since the Jews were prudent enough to give a political colour to their accusation, and since the disciples cowd not appear in favour of Jesus, and He Himself would not enter upon & more minute defence of Himself; while Pilate, as judge, even if he had heard of the act, and had interested himself about it, yet was not warranted to introduce it into the examination, because it was not brought forward either in confirmation or refutation of the charge. Moreover, had the evangelist recorded this history merely as an introduction to the entry which follows, etc. (Keim), he could less properly have left the further development without any reference to it. (7) The impossibility of an actual awakening from the dead is relative, not absolute (as Jesus’ own resurrection shows), and can yield no @ priori counter. proof—even setting aside the fact that the #7 dfe: rests on an inference only, however probable—where, as here, the worker is the bearer of the divine life. He certainly ascribes the result to God; but this applies to all His miracles, which were indeed fpya rod zarpéc, and Christ was the Accomplisher through the power of God. Hence Schleiermacher’s proposal (L. J. p. 233) to put Christ— with the exception of the firm persuasion, that that which He prayed for will also be done by God—ouwlside the realm of miracle, erroneously puts aside the question. It is Christ who raised Lazarus, ver. 11, but therein also exhibited an épyov éx rov rarpdc, x. 33.
‘Vv. 45, 46. This occurrence makes an overwhelming impression upon the party adverse to Jesus, upon the Iovdai. Many from the 'Iovdaiorg — those, namely, who had come to Mary, and had seen the act of Jesus—believed on Him. A certain number, however, of them (of these who had become be- lievers) went away (from the scene of the miracle) to the Pharisees, and said to them, etc., but with well-meaning intent, in order to put them in posses- sion of a correct account of the act, and to bear witness to them of the miracle (comp. Origen). The ordinary understanding of the passage finds here two sections among the 'Iovéaio: who had come to Mary; many of them had become believers, but certain of them remained unbelieving, and the latter had denounced Jesus to the Pharisees with evil intent (as a juggler, thinks Euth. Zigabenus ; as a sacrilegious person, who had disinterred the corpse, thought Theophylact ; as a dangerous person, think most commentators), or communicated the fact, simply with the view of obtaining a judgment upon it (Luthardt). The error of this interpretation lies in not observing that John has not written ray éAévrev (which is the reading of D,) but oi
356 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
éABSvrec, x.7.A., 80 that éx rév 'Iovdaivy is said generally of the Iovdaio: in general, and ol éAdvrec (4%, qui, etc.) more closely defines the roAAoi ; instead of rivéc, however, ver. 46, there now remain no others, none who had not become believers, since a77AGov indicates that they went away from the place to the Pharisees, while in the preceding only the Jews who came to Mary are men- tioned. Lachmann and Tischendorf have rightly placed a comma after "loud. — mpd rv Mapiav] for the same reason as in ver. 1 she was named /jirst, —here she is briefly named alone. Hengstenberg strangely imports into the words an antithes®& to those who had come only for Simon’s sake. See on xv. 1, 2.
Vv. 47, 48. Now, since Jesus had, even according to the testimony of His earlier opponents, even raised a dead man, the matter becomes too seri- ous for the Pharisees to permit them to look on any longer without taking a decisive step. The chie priests (with whom they have accordingly com- municated) and they themselves summon a sitting of the council, i.e. a sitting of the Sanhedrin. On ovvdy. ovvédp. comp. Diod. Sic. ii. 25. Not to be translated : they assembled the Sanhedrin. In that case, as everywhere, where this is expressed by ovrédp., the article must have been used. — ri rowovperv|] what are wedo? The Indic. is used ;’ for that something must now definitively be done, was undoubted. Comp. Actsiv. 15, 16. — d7:] the simple because, as statement of the ground of the question. — ovrocg 6 dvbp.] contemptuously. — ctrw}] without interposing. —xal éAeboovrat, x.7.A.] 80 they fear, in keeping with the political view of the Messiah. Comp. vi. 15. And they really fear it (against Strauss, Weisse, who here see an invention) ; they do not merely delude themselves with it (Luthardt) ; nor do they wish to give to their proper motive (envy, Matt. xxvii. 18) only another colour (Calvin, Hengstenberg). Now, when they saw the last outbreak before their eyes, their calculation must necessarily be shaped according to the popular conception of the Messiah, and according to the effects which this notion would produce upon the mass (uproar, etc.). — apovow] they will take away (tollent, Vulgate), not equiyalent to amodgcovorv,* which is less appropriate to the egoistic sense, which is concerned ‘about the withdrawal of their own power. Nonnus well remarks : agaprdéfover. —uav] correla- tive to ‘Puyaio:, placed first with the emphasis of egoism, though not as genit. of separation (away from us), since such a construction with alpw is only poetical ;* but: the place and nation belonging to us. — rdv rérov] is to be defined solely from the emphatic judy ; our place, i.e. the holy city,* the residence of the Sanhedrin and of the entire hierarchy. Hence neither : the country (so most commentators, as Luther: ‘‘ country and people”), nor : the temple.* The latter is sustained neither by Acts vi. 18, nor by passages like 8 Esdr. viii. 78 ; 2 Macc. v. 19; Matt. xxili. 38. The San- hedrists apprehend that the Romans, who had, indeed, acquiesced in great
1 See Stallbaum, ad Flat. Symp. p. 176 A. 4 Chrysostom, Grotius, Ewald, Baeumlein, 2Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Grotius, Lfiicke, Godet. de Wette, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and 5 Maldonatus, Liicke, de Wette, Maier, others. B. Crusius, Hengstenberg. § Kihner, I. p. 160.
CHAP. XI., 49-52. 357
part hitherto in the hierarchical constitution of the Jews, and the spiritu- ally political sway of the Sanhedrin, would enter Jerusalem, and remove the city as well as the people’ from the rule of the Sanhedrin, because it knew so badly how to maintain order.
Vv. 49, 50. Caiaphas, however, solves this question of belpléanibes cen- suring his colleagues on account of the latter, since the means to be adopted had been clearly put into their hands by circumstances. — cig rig] unus quidam.* This one alone was a man of counsel. — Kaidgac] see on Matt. xxvi. 8; Luke iii. 2. — row évcavrod éxcivov] He was high priest of that year. The previous and following time is left out of consideration, not, however, negatived, but simply that remarkable and fatal year is brought into promi+ nence. Comp. xviii. 18. The supposition of an annual change in the office cannot be ascribed* even to a Pseudo-John, considering his manifest ac- quaintance elsewhere with Jewish affairs ; but to appeal fo the fact that the high priests were frequently changed in those times, and that actually before Caiaphas several were only a year in office, Josephus‘* (Hengstenberg), is least of all applicable in the case of Caiaphas, who was already in office,
p. 25. Again, the assumption of an alternative holding of the office by Annas and Caiaphas, in virtue of a private agreement (comp. on Luke, lve. cit. ; so Baur, ascribing this view to the Pseudo-John, and Maier’), is as purely arbitrary (sce Bleek, p. 257) as the pretended allusion to the change of Asiarchs (Gfrérer). — tueic] you, people. — oix oldare ovdév] that you can still ask : ri rootpev. — obd2 Aoyif.] (see critical notes) : nor do ye consider that, ctc. The proud, discourteous style of this address evinces passionate feeling generally, not exactly the manner‘ of Sadduceeism (Hengstenberg, Godet) ; from Acts v. 17 it is by no means clear that Caiaphas was a Sad- ducee. — juiv] for us Sanhedrists. — In cuydéper iva, a8 in xvi. 7, the con- ception of divine destination is expressed : that it is of advantage to us that one man must die, etc. — trép] in commodum, in order that the people may be preserved from the destruction which threatens them, ver. 48. — é76Ay7a] through their subjugation, and the overthrow of the national inde- pendent existence. — Observe the interchange of évug (the people as a nation) and Aaéc (the people as a political, here theocratic, community). — The principle itself, which regarded in itself may be moral and noble, is expressed in the fecling of the most ungodly and selfish policy. For simi- lar expressions, see Schocttgen and Wetstein. To refer the scene to a legend afterwards current among the Christians (Weizsicker), is opposed ‘to the earnest narrative of the evangelist.
Vv. 51, 52. Observation of John, that Caiaphas did not speak this out of his own self-determination, but with these portentous words—in virtue of the high priest’s office which he held in that year—involuntarily delivered
1 g9vos, Luke, xxill. 2; Acts x. 22, ed al. Ebrard (apud Olshausen), that the two al-
2Comp. Mark xiv. 47, 51,4 al.; Bern- ternated with each other in the offering of
hardy, p. 442. the annual sacrifice of atonement. And
? Against Bretschneider, Strauss, Schen- that John means to say that in that year
kel, Scholten. this fanction fell to Caiaphas. But be does 4 Anté, xviii. 2. 2 nol say 80.
® Here, too, belongs the supposition of ® Josephus, Bell, il. 8. 14.
358 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
a prophecy.'—The high priest passed in the old Israclitish time for the bearer of the divine oracle, for the organ of the revelation of the divine decisions,? which were imparted to him through the interrogation of the Urim and Thummim (Ex. xxviii. 830 ; Num. xxvii. 21). This mode of in- quiry disappeared, indeed, at a later time,* as the high-priestly dignity in gencral fell gradually from its glory ; yet, there is still found in the pro- phetic age the belief in the high priest’s prophetical gift (Hos. iii. 4), as also in Josephus,‘ the idea of the old high-priesthood as the bearer of the oracle distinctly appears, and Philo® sets forth at least the true pricst as prophet, and thus idealizes the relation. Accordingly—as closely con- nected with that venerable and not yet extinct recollection, and with still surviving esteem for the high-priestly office—it was a natural and obvious course for John, after pious reflection on those remarkable words which were most appropriate to the sacrificial death of Jesus, to find in them a disclosure of the divine decree,—expressed without self-knowledge and will, —and that by no means with a ‘sacred irony” (Ebrard). Here, too, the extraordinary year in which the speaker was invested with the sacred office, carries with it the determination of the judgment ; since, if at any time, it was assuredly in this very year, in which God purposed the fulfilment of His holy counsel through the atoning death of His Son, that a revelation through the high-priestly organ appeared conceivable. dpyiep. ov certainly bears the main emphasis : but rov évaur. éx. is again significantly added to it (not, asde Wette thinks, ‘‘ mechanically, as it were’’), as in ver. 49. For Rabbinical passages on unconscious prophecies, see in Schoettgen, 349. The notion of prophecy, however, is different from that of the ?\p-N3 (against de Wette) ; comp. on xii. 27, 28. The latter is a heavenly voice of revelation. —ér:] not: that, according to which what follows would di- rectly state the contents of mpoeg#r., but: he gave utterance to a prophecy in reference to the fact that." For what follows goes beyond that which the words of Caiaphas express. — itp rov ivovg] Caiaphas had said : irép rov Aaov ; but John turns to the negative part of ver. 50 («. ui? 4A. 7d &vog aéda.), because he wishes to set the Gentiles over against the Jews, and this sep- aration is national.* For the benefit of the nation Christ was to die ; for through His atoning death the Jews, for whom, in the first instance, the Mes- sianic salvation was designed, iv. 22, were to become partakers through
1 Here there is the conception of an un- conscious prophecy, so far as that which Calaphas spoke in another sense must yet, according to divine direction, typically set forth the substance and object of the re- demptive death. See Disterdieck, De rei propheticae naturd ethicd, Géttingen 1852, p. %6
2See generally Ewald, Alterth. p. $85; Keil, Arch. I. p. 182
® Josephus, Antt. fil. 8. 9.
4 Antt. vi. 6. 8.
§ de Creat. Prine. II. p. 867.
* According to Tholuck, +r. émavrov éx.
should be understood tn the sense that the high priest himself was bound to explain that in this year a greater and more general collective sacrifice was to be offered than that offered by him once a year on behalf of the people (Heb. ix. 7). But how can this lie in +r. éveavrov éx.? Especially as Gpxtepevs, «.7.A., would seem only to make the mpoedyr. explicable, but expresses nothing as to the relation of the high- priestly sacrifice. This also against Lu- thardt’s similar interpretation, I. p. 87.
7 if. 18, ix. 17, e¢ al.
® Comp. Luke vil. 5; John xviii. 85.
CHAP. XI., 53, 54. 359
faithin the eternal saving deliverance. But the object of Hisdeath extended still further than the Jews ; not for the benefit of the nation alone, but in order also to bring together into one the scattered children of God. These are the Gentiles, who believe on Him, and thereby are partakers of the atonement, children of God (i. 12). The expression is prophetic, and, just as in x. 16, proleptic,' according to the N. T. predestinarian point of view,® from which they appear as those who, in order to further their entrance into the filial state, are drawn by God (vi. 44), are given by the Father to the Son (vi. 37), and endowed with the inward preparation (vi. 65), Euth. Zigabenus rightly re- marks : réxva uév obv rov Oeod ra Evy ovéuacer oc uéAdovra yevéofa. This like- wise in answer to Hilgenfeld,* according to whom the Gentiles, as natural children of God, who do not first become so through Christianity, must be meant (but see i. 12, iii. 3, 6, e¢ al.). A filial state towards God out of Christ is opposed to the N. T., not only as Hilgenfeld puts it, from a Gnostic, dual- istic point of view, but also, as Luthardt conceives it,* referring the essence of it only to the desire after Christ (Tholuck, Weiss, Godet, to the suscepti- bility). This is only the preliminary step to the filial state. The gathering into one, i.e. to a unity, toan undivided community, is not intended in a local sense ; but, amid their local dispersion, they were to become united ina higher sense, in virtue of a faith, etc., through the xocvwvia rov dyiov rvebparoc, as one communion tv Xporg. Chrysostom aptly remarks : fy cdpua éxolgoev’ é év ‘Péun xaOhpevog rove "Ivdoi¢ péAog elvar vouifec éavrov. The uniting with the believing Jews* is not spoken of here, but in x. 16; here only the Christian folding together of the scattered Gentiles themselves.*
Vv. 53, 564. Oiv] In consequence of this word of Caiaphas, which pre- vailed. — iva] They held deliberations with one another, in order, etc., Matt. xxvi. 4. — rappyo.] frankly and freely, vii. 4. —é roi¢ 'Iovdaiotc] He with- drew Himself—since those deliberations of the high council, whether through Nicodemus or otherwise, had become known to Him (otv)—from intercourse with His Jewish adversaries, and betook Himself to the sequestered village of Ephraim, according to Eusebius 8 miles, according to Jerome 20 miles" N.E. from Jerusalem, in Judea; according to Josephus,® in the neighbourhood of Bethel, comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 20 (according to the Keri). It can hardly be the present village of Taiyibeh,* considering its more west- erly situation. Hengstenberg identifies it on insufficient grounds with Baal Hazor, 2 Sam. xiii. 23 ; and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Encyel., with Dy, Josh. xvili. 22. The mention of the desert is not opposed to the north-east- erly situation of Ephraim, as Ebrard thinks ; for the desert of Judea (i.e. } Epnuog xar’ é€oxfv) extended as far as the region of Jericho. —eic¢ r. ydpay,
1 Calvin well remarks: ‘ Filfos ergo Del, *Comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. etiam antequam vocentur, ab electione 9880 f. aestimat, qui fide tandem et sibi et allis ® The wocety ra audédrepa dy, Eph. fi. 14. manifestari incipiunt.” * For the expression ovvayey (and the like)
* Rom. ix, 24 ff., xv. 27; Gal. fll. 14; Eph. = «is év, comp. Plat. Pailed. p. 878 C; Eur. Or. 1. 9 ff.; Rom. vill. 29, 80, xi. 25, 26, xvi. 25, 1640, Phoen. 468. 26; Eph. ill. 4 ff. ; Col. 1 27; Acts xilL 48, 7 So also Ritter, XV. p. 465, XVI. p. 581 ff. xvill. 10. ® Bell. iv. 9. 9.
3 Lehrbegr. p. 158, Evang. p. 297. * See Robinson, Il. p. 887 f.
260 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
x.t.4.] He departed into the country (as opposed to Jerusalem, the capital city) ; then a more precise defining of the place to which He withdrew, namely, the neighbourhood of the desert ; and, finally, definite mention of the place, @ town named Ephraim.’
Ver. 55. ‘Hv dé éyy. t. maaya r. 'I.] Comp. ii. 18, vi. 4. — & rig yopac] as in ver. 45,—thus : out of the country (as opposed to Jerusalem), not : out of that district (Grotius, Bengel, Olshausen). —iva dyvic. éavr.}] refers to the legal usages of self-purification, which varied greatly according to the degrees of the Levitical uncleannesses (washings, sacrifices, etc.). These, in compliance with the general principle of appearing before God pure,” were completed before the beginning of the feast, in order to obtain from the pricst the declaration of ceremonial cleanness.* Pilgrims accordingly set out according to thcir needs, in good time before the feast ; eee Light- foot, p. 1078, and Lampe.
Ver. 56. The people, owing to the sensation which Jesus had in so many ways already aroused, and the edict of their spiritual superiors against Him (ver. 57), have taken a lively interest in the question, whether He will vent- ure, as heretofore, to come to the feast. Their anxious question is a double question ; What think you? (do you think) that He certainly will not come? Since He has not performed the pilgrimage with any of them, and is not yet present, His coming is strongly doubted of among them. Liicke: what do you think (in reference to this), that He will not, etc. But on that view His not coming would be already presupposed as certain, which would be premature. To understand the words in the sense that He 7s not come * is grammatically incorrect. The passages quoted by Hartung ° do not apply here.*-— The inquiry is interchanged in the court of the temple, because it was there that His appearance was to be looked for ; while éorjxére¢ vividly represents the groups as standing together.
Ver. 57. With the explanatory dé (xai is spurious) the. particular circum- stance is now added, on account of which men so greatly doubted of His coming. — dedwxecoav] comes first with emphasis. Already had the direc- tions of the rulers in question been given. — iva] object, and with this con- tents of the évroAai, the issuing of which we are to think of as the fruit of the sitting, ver. 47 ff., and of the further deliberations, ver. 53,
Nores spy American Eprror. XXXVI. ‘‘ When therefore he heard,’’ etc. Ver. 6.
The rendering of this verse is not quite happy, either in the Common or the Revised Version, owing to the failure to give the force of the uév with rére. The Common Ver. says, ‘‘ He ubode two days still,’’ apparently mistranslating
2 On xewpa, comp. Plat. Legg. v. p. 745 C, others ; not the Vulgate. vil. p. 817 A; Mark i. 5; Acts xxvi. W; 8 Partikell. IT. p. 156.
8 Macc. ili. 1. * Tholuck (who otherwise follows our in- 2 Gen. xxxv. 2; Ex. xix. 10, 11. terpretation) incorrectly adduces Polyp. iL. * Num. ix. 10; 2 Chron. xxx. 17, 18, ef ad. 111.1. In that passage uy stands with the Comp. xvill. 28. perf. quite as in Gal.iv. 11. See Ellendt,
‘ Erasmus, Castalio, Paulus, and several Lez. Soph. Il. p. 412
NOTES, 361
tére by ‘‘still.”” The Revision renders rére correctly, but neglects pf, and both seem to imply that because He heard he was sick He lingered two days in the same place. The original gives a distinctly different conception. ‘ When He heard that he was sick, at that time, indeed, He remained two days in the place in which He was ; then, after this, He saith,’’ etc. The concessive puéy shows that, though naturally He would have immediately gone, yet then—for reasons afterwards given or implied—He yet lingered two days. The matter is correctly explained by Meyer.
3862 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER XII.
Ver. 1. 6 refunxec] is wanting in B. L. X. 8. Verss. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But those testimonies are here the less decisive, since the word before dv éy. éx, vexp. 6°I. appeared entirely superfluous, and hence was easily dropped. For its addition there was no reason. — Ver. 2. dvax. ctv atte] Elz. : cuvavax. abr, against decisive testimonies. — Ver. 4. Instead of "Iovd. Lin. 'Ioxap., Tisch. has merely 'Iovda¢ 6 "Ioxap., and that before elc, according to B. L. 8. Cursives, Verss., where, however, the position before eic is not so strongly supported. Lizwroc was, after vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26, readily added. — Ver. 6. elyev xai] B. D. L. Q. &. Cursives, Copt. Vulg. Or. : éywv. A correction of the style. — Ver. 7. ei¢ r. Hyuép. T. evrag. pw. teT7p.] Lachm. and Tisch. : iva ei¢ r. julp. T. évtag. pou tTnpnon, after decisive testimonies. Not being understood, the words were altered according to the thought in the parallel passages, es- pecially Mark xiv. 8. — Ver. 8 is entirely wanting in D., and, had the counter testimony been stronger, would have been liable to the suspicion of having been interpolated from Matt. xxvi. 11, Mark xiv. 7, if it stood before dgec, x.7.., and occupied the characteristic position of words as in the Synoptics (rdvrore first). — Ver. 13. Expafov] Lachm. and Tisch., éxpavyafoy, after preponderating evidence. The Kec. is from Matt. and Mark. — Ver. 15. Ovyarep] @vyarnp (Lachm., Tisch.) is so decisively supported, that the vocative—which of itself might easily find its way into the text—must be traced to the LXX., Zech. ix. 9, — Ver. 17. r:] The witnesses are much divided between 6r: and dre (Tisch.) ; but the latter (A. B. Q. &.) is the more strongly attested. Nevertheless 6r:, which Lachm. also has, is to be preferred ; it was changed into dre, because mechan- ically referred to the preceding 6 dv per’ avrov. — Ver. 22. nad maAcv] Lachm. and Tisch. : épyera:, and then before Aéyovory : «al, according to A. B. L. Cur- sives, Codd. d. It. Aeth. Rightly. The more closely defining «x. 7éA:7 was added to the repeated épyera: (so 8.) ; and as this had at a later time displaced the verb, the xai before Azyovory also disappeared, as a disturbing element. Had the verb been written as a gloss, épyovra: would have been found. — Ver. 25. Instead of aoAfoe:, read with Tisch. aroAAver, according to B. L. &., etc. The future was introduced through the parallelism. — Ver. 26. éév ric] Elz. : xai éav Tic, against such weighty testimony, that xai was already rightly deleted by Griesb. — Ver. 30. The position of 7 ¢wv) airy (Lachm., Tisch.) is decisively accredited, — Ver. 31. The first rovrov is wanting in witnesses of too weak authority to cause its rejection (Griesb.). — Ver. 35. év tuiv] Elz. : eb’ duc, against preponderating testimonies. An interpretation. — Vv. 35, 36. Instead of fwc, Lachm. and Tisch. have both times dc, after decisive testimony. The first fw¢ arose through the final letter of the preceding vepirareire, and the more readily, as a reminiscence of ix. 4 suggested itself. The second éw¢ then followed of itself, but has, besides, some other testimonies (including &.) than the first. — Ver. 40. ex:orpag.] Lachm. and Tisch. : orpa¢., according to B. D. ®%. 33. The compound form is from the LXX,, Isa. vi. 10 (hence also many
CHAP. XII., 1, 2. 363 witnesses have éridrpéyworv). On the other hand, tdooza: (so Lachm. and Tisch.) instead of idowuar is 80 decisively supported by almost all the Uncials, that it is not to be traced to the LXX., but the conjunctive is to be regarded as an attempt to conform to what precedes. — Ver. 41. dre] Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive testimony : 6rz, which, not being understood, was altered. — Ver. 47, xat uz) mecrevayp}) Lachm. and Tisch. : x. u. gvAdty, according to preponder- ating testimonies, and rightly ; for m:cr. has manifestly arisen from the pre-
ceding (vv. 44, 46).
explained from the apparent paradox.
—t Chinese Gordon, a BY ARCHIBALD FORBES,
O man of = AN Guzoso on ime wn life furnishes than \
sO ad
3 nothing, but wort SUCCESS are ¢ — ss * rraaitest beliefs in'God ale Pant OF the ° pe Gordon," oglishman, such is . Sent post-paid on reg fae chats Publis Paper, FS€ 5 Cloth, 750,
PUNK by 10 & 12 Dey gt, AONALLS,
1 Fregnently this 1 rr
Josephus. See Kypke, L p. 306 f[,
3 Gesch. Chr. p. 511.
8 Johann. Schr. I. p. 829.
¢ Asalso Wicseler, Hengstenberg, and oth- ers assume, who (see on xvili. 28) regard the account of John, In respect to the day of Jesus’ death, as agreeing with that of the Synoptics.
§ Against Grotlus, Tholuck, Wieseler, and several others.
* This must therefore, according to the
The omission of the p/ in D. and Codd. of the It. is to be
icle by which the narrative 55. To assume a sequence tethany, either on account of thardt : **s0 consciously and to put to shame the thought igh dé or a424 were expressed, text. — mpd &&. hu. tov w.] siz \nalogously in designations of rards the reckoning of the six Nisan, on the evening of which counted as already belonging id hence also had been already isth Nisan is most naturally er ; consequently the sizth day san, on which Jesus, according vefore Easter. So also Ebrard, * without any sufficient grounds, John at once name the full day antially agrees, But according ith Nisan a Thursday—it would ust the above assumption of the the Sabbath day’s journey (see it is not clear from what place rrived from a place that lay very th Nisan as the first day before arrival.” Others, again, includ- in, arrive at the result of the 10th
enlation which gave Satarday forthe 8th Nisan, bave been the Sunday (Hase, de Wet- te). But if we hold that John does not fix the day of death differently from the Syn- optics, we get as the result the Saturday (Wichelhaus and several others), reckoning backwards from Thursday the 14th Nisan inclusive. Further, tho 9th Nisan is ex- pressly fixed as the day of arrival in Bethany by Theophylact, and recently by Licke and several others.
364 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Nisan (Monday) ; so Hilgenfeld, Baur, Scholten, who find a twofold ob- jection to the historical truth of the Gospel, in the day of the month for the selection of the paschal lamb (Ex. xii. 8), and the day of the week which opened the Christian Easter week, and from this chronology demonstrate the secondary relation of our evangelist to the Synoptics. Yet Baeumlein also reckons in this way. — 728ev cic Byfaviay] according to the Harmonists (including Hengstenberg and Godet), making a circuit by Jericho, which is as inappropriate to the Johannean as to the synoptical account (see on Matt. xxi. 1). The return by Jericho is not reconcilable with the notice in xi. 54, where He, in fact, by the healing of the blind men, and by the visit to Zacchacus, awakened so much attention. — drov fv Adcapoc, x.t.A.] added, on account of the great importance of the matter, without any further special purpose, yet with emphatic circumstantiality. — éroiycav] the family of Bethany, namely, xi. 1. 2, which is clear from the following x. 7 M. deyx.! On this and the other variations from the narrative of Matt. xxvi. 6 ff, Mark xiv. 8 ff., which, however, do not set aside the identity of the occur- rence (different from Luke vii. 3 ff.), see on Matt. xxvi. 6 ff. The peculiar- ity of John’s account is founded on the fact of the writer's being an eyc- witness ; but is referred by Baur, p. 256 ff., to an eclectic and arbitrary treatment, dependent on an ideal point of view ; comp. also Hilgenfeld. — ' § 62 Adlapoc cic Hv, x.T.A.] appears, indeed, a matter of course (hence Baeum- lein and others believe Simon the leper to be indicated as the entertainer) ; but the complete restoration of him who had been raised from the dead is so weighty a consideration with John, that he further specially brings him forward as the present table companion of his Restorer. This also in answer to Marcker, Passim. p. 17.
Vv. 3,4. To explain the great quantity of the ointment (12 ounces) as the outcome of the superabundance of her love (Olshausen), is arbitrary. Mary did not anoint with the whole pound, but with a portion of it (comp. on ver. 7). On miorixés,* genuine, unadulterated, see on Mark xiv. 8. — xe- Avrizov} belongs to ybpov, as rodvreA., Mark xiv. 3.—roi¢ wédac avrov] repeated, on account of the correlation with rai¢ Opcéiv abr#c, in order to make promi-
1 That this meal is to be placed still on the same day, therefore Saturday, at the usual time of the evening repast, appears from the fact that the éravpcor does not fol- low before ver. 12 (against Wichelhaus, p. 158 f.). The Sabbath is not opposed to this, since the preparations which had possibly been necessary for the meal might already have been made on the preceding day, if the family—which is a supposition suffi- ciently obvious—knew that Jesus was com- ing.—But the supposition that the meal was a solemn banquet, where Godet, following Bengel, introduces a company of the inhab- itants of Bethany as the subject of érotnaayr, finds no support in the text, where, besides Jesus and the disciples, only the members of the family (no other participators) are
named, and has the serving of Martha against it, which only bespeaks the usual domestic entertainment, although the grat- itude and respect of the family had more richly set forth the meal expressly given /o ihm, to which the description Seirvory roveiy (Mark vi. 21) with the dative points.
2 1f John adopted this word from Mark, —which, considering the rareness of its oc- currence, is probable, and may have been done quite involuntarily,—this shows no literary dependence, and does rot justify the suspicion that he also drew the subject- matter from this source (Hilgenfeld). Should moriads be the adjective of a proper name (Pistic), all objection would disappear of itself. Comp. on Mark xiv. 3, note 2, Goth. also has pistikeints.
CHAP. XII., 5-8. 365 nent the greatness of the love ; with her hairs, His feet. --éx rig dopic] ex causal.!— eig éx t. od. a.] the rest did not agree with him ; but it was Judas, etc. —é péAdwv, x.t.A.] This utterance stood in truth already in psychological connection with this destiny ; sce on vi. 71.
Vv. 5, 6. Tpcaxociuy] Mark xiv. 5 sets forth the climax in the tradition by érdvw rpiax. The mention of the price itself (about 120 Rhenish guidens, or about £10) is certainly original, not the indefinite woAAov of Matt. xxvi. 9.— mrwyoic} without the article : to poor people. — x. tT. yAwoo. elye x. r. B. éfaor.] gives historical definiteness to the general xAémrycg fv. He had the chest, the cash-box,* in his keeping, and bore away that which was thrown into it, z.e. he purloined it. This closer defining of the sense of Baordcer, auferre,* is yielded by the contert.‘ The article does not signify that he had taken away all the deposits (objection of Lticke and several others), but refers to the individual cases which we are to suppose, in which deposits were removed by him. The explanation portabat ® yields a meaning which is quite tautological, and a matter of course. The BadAdueva were gifts of friends and adherents of Jesus for the purchasc of the necessities of life and for charitable uses. Comp. Luke viii. 3; John xiii. 29. That the dis- ciples had acquired earnings by the labour of their hands, and had deposit- ed such earnings in the bag, nay, that even Jesus Himself had done so (Mark vi. 3),—of this there exists no trace during the period of His minis- try. — The question, why Jesus had not taken away the custody of the chest from the dishonest disciple (which indeed, according to Schenkel, he prob- ably did not hold), is not answered by saying that He would remove from him every pretext for treason,‘ or that He did not desire violently to inter- fere with the development of his sins (Hengst.); for neither would harmo- nize with the educative love of the Lord. Just as little, again, is it ex- plained by suggesting that Judas carried on his thefts unobserred, until perhaps shortly before the death of Jesus (Liicke), which would be incom- patible with the higher knowledge of the Lord, ii. 25 ; comp. vi. 64, 71. The question stands rather in the closest connection with another—how Jesus could adopt Judas at all as a disciple ; and here we must go back solely to a divine destination, Acts i. 16, ii. 23. Comp. the note after vi. 70, 71. That the custody of the chest had been entrusted to Judas only by agree- ment of the disciples among one another (Godet), is an assumption which quite arbitrarily evades the point, while it would by no means have excluded the competency of Jesus to interfere.
Vv. 7, 8. According to the Recepta, Jesus says: ‘‘She has fulfilled a
1 Comp. Matt. xxill. 2; Rev. vill.5; Plat. Phaedr. p. 285 C ; Dem. 581. 26, et al.
2 See as regards yAwocd«. 2 Chron. xxiv. 8; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. % f.
§ xx. 15; Matt. vil. 17; Polyp. |. 48. 2, e¢ ai.
*See Krebs, Odes. p. 158. 8o Origen, Codd. of the It. Nonnus, Theophylact, Cor- nellus & Lapide, Kypke, Krebs, and several others, including Malfer, Grimm; comp. Lange, who, however, explains: Ae laid hold of. But pacrdge» denotes to lay hold of
only in the sense of ymAaday (Suidas). See Reisig, ad Soph. O. C.1101; Ellendt, Lez. Soph. I. p. 200. And in this sense only in the tragic poets.
® Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others, including Lficke, de Wette, B. Crusius, Lu- thardt, Ebrard, Wichelhaus, Baeumlein, Godet, Hengstenberg, Ewald; Tholuck doubtful.
* Ammonius, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others.
366 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
higher purpose with the spikenard ointment (airé); in order to embalm me with it to-day (as though I were already dead), has she (not given it out for the poor, but) reserved it.” Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 12. But according to the correct reading (see the critical notes): ‘‘Let her alone, that she may not give away to the poor this ointment, of which she has just used a por- tion for the anointing of my fect, but preserve it for the day of my embalm- ment.”” Nonnus aptly remarks : d¢pa gvAdfn odparog puetépov KetutjAov, tiad- xev E20n hueripuv xreptuv émiriuBiog Opn. Comp. also Baeumlein. According to this view, the guépa rov évrag. is the actual, impending day of embalm- ment, in opposition to which, according to the Recepta, the present day of the anointing of the feet would be represented proleptically as that of the anointing of the corpse. [See Note XXXVIII., p. 383.] The thought of the Recepta is that of the Synoptics ; the Johannean carries with it the air of originality, and, comparing the significance of the two, the Johannean is more in harmony with the fact that Mary anointed the feet merely, and by no means resembles a faulty correction (Hengst., Godet). The circumstance that the corpse of Jesus was not afterwards actually anointed (Mark xvi. 1), can, in view of an utterance so rich and deep in feeling, afford no ground for deserting the simple meaning of the words. — rnpeiv is to be ex- plained, agreeably to the context (comp. ii. 10), as an antithesis to érpdéy, ver. 5, but not by the quite arbitrary assumption that the ointment had re- mained over from the burial of Lazarus (Kuinoel and several others); but to understand rypioy of the past ; that she may have preserved it (B. Crusius, Ebrard) is grammatically wrong.’ According to Ewald, rypetv is to be un- derstood, as elsewhere, of festal usages (ix. 16): ‘‘ Let her so observe this on the day of my burial,” so that Jesus would have that day already regarded as equivalent to the day of His burial, when such a loving custom was suitable. But as regards rypeiv, see what precedes ; instead of the indefinite airé, tt, however, rovro was at least to have been expected. —- Ver. 8. Reason of the statement introduced with iva, «.7.A. — ve? éavroy] in your own neighbour- hood, so that you have sufficiently immediate opportunity to give alms to such. For the rest, see on Matt. xxvi. 11.
Vv. 9-11. Oty] since Jesus thus tarries in the neighbourhood. The lively intercourse among the pilgrims to the feast tended the more to spread the information.— éx ray ’Iovdaiwy] here again (comp. xi. 19), not generally of the inhabitants of Jerusalem (so usually), but, according to the standing usage in John, of the Jewish opposition. They came, not for Jesus’ sake alone, to observe Him further, but in order also to see Lazarus, and to be convinced of His actual and continued restoration to life. Since, however, many of the ’Iovdaioe went forth (from Jerusalem) for the sake of Lazarus, and be- came believers in Jesus, the chief priests (¢.e. not indeed the Sanhedrim as such in general, but rather that part of it which composed its hierarchital head) took counsel to put Lazarus also to death. We have here, accord-
1The modification of this rendering in scious) of preserving it for the representa- Luthardt: ‘‘ Leave her in peace as regards _ tion, beforehand, of the day of my embalm- the fact that she has kept the ointment for ment,” is a grammatical impossibility. me with the design (even though uncon- Similarly, however, Bengel.
CHAP. XII., 12-15. 367
ingly, the opposite results, that the sight of Lazarus subdues many of the hitherto adverse party to faith (comp. already xi. 45); and on the other hand, that the extreme Right of the hierarchy resolves the more energeti- cally to counterwork this. —746ov] Still on Saturday evening and Sunday. The procession of people took place then on Sunday (ver. 12). — éBovd. dé] Simple continuation of the narrative ; hence, neither is dé to be understood as namely, nor éBovd. as pluperfect (Tholuck). — oi apyp.] It was indeed for the interest of the hierarchy (not exactly for that of the Sadducees, Acts v. 17, as Lampe thought, since the chief priests are here adduced as such generally, not in their possible sectarian tendency) to remove out of the way the living witness also on whom the miracle had been wrought, not merely the miracle- worker Himself. The tyrannical power, in this way, proceeds consistently, in order, as it imagines, to put away even the recollection of the affair. ‘‘Praeceps est malitia et semper ultra rapit,” Grotius. —émyov] not : they Jell away,’ which, without closer definition, does not lie in the word, but rather : they took themselves off, they removed to a distance ; 80 great an at- tractive power did the matter possess for them, and then followed the falling away. The separation in the position of the words: modAol . . . rév "Iov- daiwv, brings both points emphatically out.
Vv. 12, 18. Ty éxabp.] after the day designated in ver. 1, consequently Sunday (Palm Sunday), not : after the deliberation mentioned in vv. 10, 11 (Ebrard and Olshausen, Leidensgesch. p. 36). — dxA. rod. x.r.4.] Unprejudiced pilgrims to the feast, therefore, not again "Iovdaiot. — axotoavrec] perhaps from the ’Iovdaio in ver. 11 who had returned as belicvers, —ra Baia r. 9. ] asasymbol of joy. The article ray (not rd) contains the element of definite- ness ; the branches of the palm-trees standing on the spot.? The expression : the palm branches of the palma, is. similar to oixodeomérne ric oixiac, and the like.? The thing itself has in other respects nothing to do with an analogy to the Zulabd at the feast of Tabernacles (Lev. xxiii. 40). Comp. however, 1 Mace. xii. 51. — trdvrnow aire] see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. p. 820]. — dcavvd, «.7.A.] See on Matt. xxi. 9. — Baordeds r. 'I.] without the ar- ticle :* the King of Israel who comes in the name of the Lord.
Vv. 14, 15. Etpav dé, «.r.A.] The more detailed circumstances, how he had obtained the young ass (évépiov), are passed over by John ; hence he is not in contradiction with the Synoptics (Matt. xxi. 2 ff. parall.). — «afd Lore yeyp.] Zech. ix. 9. See on Matt. xxi. 5. John cites very freely from memory ; hence the omission of the other prophetic predicates (even of the mpabs in Matt.), because he has in his eye simply the point of the riding in upon the young ass, as & Messianic onyeiov excluding all doubt. All the more fitted to tranquillize, then (uz ¢oBoi), in ever more peaceful array, without horse and chariot, is the coming of the King of Zion. Instead of 4? ¢ofoi, John might also have said yaipe ogédpa LXX.) ; but there floated before him, in his citation from memory, simply the opposition to that terror by which otherwise a royal entrance may be accompanied. ‘‘ The Church's figure of
1 Cornelius & Lapide, Lampe, Paulus. * Lobeck, Paraiip. p. 586 f. 2 On Batorw comp. 1 Maco. xifl. 81; Symm. * Lachmann has it; Tisohendorf, «al 4. Cani. 1. 8; Sturz, Dial, Al. p. 88.
368 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the cross” (Hengst.) did not yet lie on this ass’s foal, otherwise John would not have passed over the °)J’ of the passage, nor have found the emphasis in "pH poBod.
Ver. 16. Observation by John. Comp. ii. 22, xx. 9. But this which here took place, namely, that Jesus mounted a young ass which He had obtained, His disciples at first (when it took place) did not understand, so far, namely, as the connection of the matter with the prediction of the prophet remained still hidden from them ; when, however, Jesus was glorified, they remembered (under the illumination of the Spirit, vii. 39, xiv. 26) chat this, this riding on the young ass did not accidentally occur, but that it was writ- ten of Him, and that they (the disciples) did this, nothing ‘other than this which had been written of Him, to Him, on the occasion of that entrance, — in bringing, namely, the ass to Him, whereby they became the instruments of the fulfilment of prophecy. In this éroijcav air there is the echo from John’s recollection of the way and manner of the etpay ovdpiov as known from the Synoptics. To take éroi7oav generally : they (indef.) did, and to refer it to ver. 13,’ is incorrect, since the first two ratra can only point to vv. 14, 15. — On én’ atro see Bernhardy, p. 249. Winer, p. 867 [E. T. p. 393).
Vv. 17, 18. Oty) Leading back again after the intermediate observation of ver. 16 to the story, and this so as to state how it was the raising of Laza- rus which so greatly excited both the people who thronged with Jesus from Bethany to Jerusalem (the 'Iovdaio: who had become believers, vv. 9, 11, and: others, certainly including many inhabitants of Bethany itself), and the multitude which came to mect them from Jerusalem (ver. 12). — éuapr. x.t.A. dre]? for they had, in truth, themselzes seen the reanimated man ; had also, perhaps, themselves witnessed in part the process of the miracle, or at least heard of it from eye-witnesses, and could accordingly testify to His resurrection. — igdvyoev . . . vexpav] The echo of thcir triumphant words. — dia rovro . . . b7¢] On this account (on account of this raising from the dead), namely, because; see on x. 17. — irfrrgcev] not pluperfect in sense, but : they went to meet (as already stated above, vv. 12, 13). — 6 dyA4oc] The article points to ver. 12.— jxovoay] namely, previously, in Jerugalem. — toro] with emphasis ; hence also the separation in the order of the words,
Note.— While we necessarily recugnize the main difference between the Synop- tics and John, namely,that according to the former, the journey of Christ to Jeru- salem is made from Jericho, where He had remained for the night at the house of Zacchaeus, and the stay in Bethany is excluded (see on Matt. xxi. 1, note), the Messianic entry is yet one and the same event in all four evangelists. Against the assumption of two distinct entries,? which makes one entry from Jericho, and another one or two days later, from Bethany, the very nature of the transaction is decisive, of which a repetition, and that so early, could have hardly failed to
1 De Wette, Ewald, and older commenta-__‘ ther, Erasmus, and many others. Thus the tors. 6xAos would be the same as in xi. 42, which, 2 With the reading 6re (see critical notes), however, is not appropriate to ver. 12 and éxapr would have to be taken absolutely: ver. 18, and would only tend to confuse. the people bore witness, who, viz. were with * Paulus, Schlelermacher, 7b. d. Schriften Him at the raising of Lazarus. Comp. Lu- des Luk. p. 243 ff., and L. J. p. 407 ff.
CHAP. XII., 19-22. 369
degenerate into an organized procession. Only in its occurring once, and being brought about accidentally, as it were, by the circumstances, does it re- tain a moral agreement with the mind of Jesus. With this view, too, all four accounts conform, and they all show not merely by their silence respecting a second procession, but also by the manner in which they represent the one, that they are entirely ignorant of any repetition. Such a repetition, especially one so uniform in character, is as improbable in itself, as opposed to the natural development of the history of Jesus, which here especially, when the last bloody crisis is prepared for by the entry of the Messianic King, must preserve its divine decorum, and finds its just measure in the simple fulfilment of the prophetic prediction.
Ver. 19. Contrast to the triumph ; the despairing self-confession of the Pharisate adversaries, not us Chrysostom, in spite of the article in ol ¢apic., explained of the quiet friends of Jesus among the Pharisees. — xpdc éavrote] to oneanother ; but a4Ag. is not employed, because the utterance is to appear as limited to the particular circle. Comp. on vii. 35. — Oewpeire, x.7.A.] You perceive that we profit nothing, namely, by our previous cautious, expectant, feeble procedure. ‘‘Approbant Caiaphae consilium,” Bengel. —4é xécpo¢] designation, indicative of their despair, of the great multitude. Comp. poy in the Rabbins. See Wetstein. —In amyAbev (is gone off or away) is contained, by means of the pragmatic connection with érfow airod, the representation of the falling away from the legitimate hierarchical power. Comp. imzyov, ver. 11.
Ver. 20. The Zellenes are, as in vii. 35, not Greck Jews, Hellenists,’ but Gentiles, — prosclytes, however, as is shown by what follows (note especially the pres. part. avaBacv. : who were wont to go up), and that of the gate, like the Aethiopian chamberlain, Acts vill. 27, not pure Gentiles. Where did the scene take place? Probably in the court of the temple, with which locality, at least, the entry just related, and the connected transactions, onwards to ver. 36, best correspond. According to Baur (comp. also Scholten), the whole affair is to be referred simply to the idea of the author, who makes Jesus, under the ascendency of Jewish unbelief, to be glorified by believing heathcndom. This idea is that of the history itself. Bengel rightly observes : ‘‘ Pracludium regni Dei a Judacis ad gentes transituri.”
Vv. 21, 22. The Messianic hope, which they as proselytes share, draws their hearts to Him whose Messiahship has just found so open and general a recognition. They wish to see Jesus, that is, to be introduced to Him, in order to make His nearer personal acquaintance, and this it is which they modestly express. For meresecing, as in Luke xix. 8, any intervention of a third party (as Brickner now also recognizes) would not have been required. — Whether they came to Philip accidentally, or because the latter was known to them (perhaps they were from Galilee), remains undetermined. To pre- suppose in Philip, on account of his Greek name, a (reek education (Hengst.), is arbitrary, — «fpce] not without the tender of honour, which they naturally
! Calvin, Semler, B. Crusius, Ewald. benus, Salmasius, Selden, and several * Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- others, including Paulus, Klee, Schweizer.
370 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. paid even to the disciple of a Master so admired, who truly appeared to be the very Messiah.—That Philip first communicates the proposal to Andrew, who was possibly in more confidential relations with Christ (Mark xiii. 8), and who was on terms of intimacy with him by.the fact of the same birth- place (i. 45), and that with him he carries out their wish, rests on the cir- cumstance that he was himself too timid to be the means of bringing about an interview between the Holy One of God—whose immediate destination he knew to be for Israel—and Gentiles. His was a circumspect nature, prone to scruples (vi. 5 ff., xiv. 8,9). ‘‘ Cum sodali, audet,” Bengel. Note the stamp of originality which appears in such side-touches. — In the read- ing fpyera: ’Avdp. x. . nal Aéyovor rp "I. (see critical notes), observe (1) the lively mode of representation in the repetition of épyerac ; (2) the change from the singular to the plural of the verb, which occurs also in the classics.’ Ver. 23. The proposal of the Gentiles, which had been brought to Him, awakens in Jesus, with peculiar force and depth, the thought of His ap- proaching death ; for through His death was His salvation in truth to be conveyed to the Gentiles (x. 16, 17).—Accordingly, this wish of the Gen- tiles must appear to Him as already commencing that which was to be effected by His death. Hence His answer to those two disciples (not to the *EAAnvec, Ebrard), which is pervaded by a full presentiment of the crisis at hand, and at the close, ver. 27, resolves itself into a prayer of deep emotion, but, by means thereof, into complete surrender tothe Father. This answer is consequently neither tnappropriate (de Wette), nor contains an indirect refusal of the request of the Greeks.* Nor is the granting of it to be conceived as having previously taken place, and been passed over in silence by John,’ as shown by the naturally succeeding dzexp. airoic¢,—nor as indirectly conceded by the fact that the Apostles brought it before Jesus, and that He commenced speaking (Luthardt), which involves the improbability that Jesus was on the point of addressing Himself to these Heathen (whom Ewald supposes pres- ent), but that their admission, which was to have followed this outburst of emotion, was prevented by the voice from heaven which broke in and changed the scene.* The theory that in v. 23 ff. the synoptical accounts of the transfiguration, and of the conflict of soul in Gethsemane, are either fused into a historical mixture (Strauss), or formed into an ideal combina- tion (Baur), proceeds from presuppositions, which make it possible to adduce even Gal. ii. 9 as a witness against John xii. 20 (see against this, Bleek, p. 250 ff.), as Baur has done. — éafavéev] Placed first with emphasis. — iva]
1 Xen. Anad. ii. 4.16, and Ktihner in le.
3 Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet.
8 Tholuck, B. Crusius, and older commen- tators.
* According to Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 527, Jesus would, in granting the request, be exposed to a temptation, and have done something at this last development out of keeping with His previous ministry, which would have awakened disquiet, furnished a new embarrassment to the hierarchs, etc.
But we may also conversely pass the judg ment that Jesus, on the very threshold of His death, could not have designed to re- fuse an actual manifestation of His univer- sal destination, which He, moreover, had expressed in x. 16,—offered so accidentally, as it were,—especially since the conversion of the Gentiles to the Messiah was grounded in prophecy. To yield to the prayer was, further, by no meansa full concession to the petitioners.
CHAP. XII, 24-26, 371
Comp. xiii. 1, xvi. 2, 82. The hour is conceived of absolutely (in the con- sciousness of Jesus the present hora fatalis xar’ téox#v), and that which is to take place in it, as the divine indication of its arrival. — dofac0y] through death, as the necessary passage to the heavenly glory.’
Ver. 24. My death, however, is necessary to the successful and victorious development of my work, as the wheat-corn must fall into the earth and die, in order to bring forth much fruit. The solemn assurance (aufy, aut, x.7.4.) is in keeping with the difficulty of getting the disciples to accept the idea of His death. —azo@dévy] For the vital principle in the corn, the germ, forces itself out ; thus the corn is dead, and become a prey to disso- lution, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 36. — avra¢ ydvoc] by itself alone, vi. 15.* The life of the corn which has not fallen into the earth remains limited and bound to itself, without the possibility of a communication and unfolding of life outwards issuing from it, such as only follows in the case of that corn which dies in the earth through the bursting forth of the living germ, and in this way of death produces much fruit. Thus, also, with Christ ; it is through His death that there first comes upon all peoples and times the rich bless-
ing which is destined for the world. Comp. ver. 82.
' ‘Ver. 25. As it is my vocation, so also is it that of those who are mine, to surrender the temporal, in order to gain the eternal life. Comp. Matt. x. 89 ; Luke ix. 24, xvii. 88.—The yy7 is in each instance the soul, as ari also is be taken in like manner in éach instance. This is clear from its being distinguished from (44. He who loves his soul, will not let it go (6 piloyyav sv xatpg paprupiov, Euth. Zigabenus), loses it (see critical notes)— é.e. causes it to fall into the death of everlasting condemnation ; and he who hates his soul in this world (gives it up with joy, as something which is a hindrance to eternal salvation, and in so far must be hated) will preserve at for everlasting life, keep it to himself as a possession in the everlasting Mes- ‘ sianic life. Note the correlatives : g:Aav and juody, arroAéoes and gvAdger (comp. XVil. 12), dv rg xéopy robry (in the pre-Messianic world), and ei¢ Cu aidyor. — On puceiv, whose meaning is not to be altered, but to be understood rel- atively, in opposition to g:Aowwyia, comp. Luke xiv. 26. ‘‘ Amor, wé pereat; odium ne pereat ; si male amaveris, tunc odisti; si benc oderis, tunc amasti,”? Augustine.
Ver. 26. Requirement and promise, in accordance with that which was expressed generally in ver. 25. — follow] on the way of my life-surrender ; comp. Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24.—érov eip? ty] comp. xiv. 8, xvii. 24. The pres. tense represents the fut. as present : where I am, there will also my ser- vant be, namely, after I have raised him up (vi. 89, 40, 44, 54) in the Parousia. Comp. xiv. 8, xvii. 24. That following after me will lead him into blessed fellowship with me in my kingdom. Comp. Rom. viii. 17 ; 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12. For the counterpart, see vil. 84. According to Luthardt,’ the being on the same way is meant, consequently the contents of that requirement are simply turned into a promise. A feeble tautology, especially after ver. 25
1 Comp. xvii. 5, vi. 62; 1 Pet. 1. 11. ’ Comp. Euth. Zigabenus 1. 2 Ast, Ler. Flat. I. p. 814.
B72 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(cic Conv atdvov). — édv tic Eu. dian. x.t.4.) Parallel with the preceding, further designating, particularly and specifically, the promised happiness, and that in the light of the divine recompense contained init. This thought is expressed by the conjunction of dcaxovg and tiufoe, which verbs have the emphasis (it is different previously, when éyof.. . éuoi bore the emphasis) ; he who serves me, him will the Father honour, actually, through the glory in the everlasting life, comp. Rom. ii. 10, viii. 17. The d:axoveiv, however, is here to be understood with the previously enjoined quality of following Christ.
Vv. 27, 28. The realization of His sufferings and death, with which His discourse from ver. 23 was filled, shakes Him suddenly with apprehension and momentary wavering, springing from the human sensibility, which natur- ally struggles against that heaviest suffering, which He must yet undergo. To define this specially as the feeling of the divine anger (Beza, Calvin, Calovius, Hengstenberg, and many others), which He has certainly appeased by His death, rests on the supposition, which is nowhere justified, that, ac- cording to the object of the death,’ its severity also is measured in the con- sciousness. Bengel well says : ‘‘ concurrebat horror mortis et ardor obedien- tiae.”” The Lord is thus moved to pray; but He is for the moment uncertain for what (ri elrw), aropotpevoc bird THo Gywrtac, Euth. Zigabenus. First, a momentary fear of the sufferings of death (comp. on Luke xii. 50) obtains the upper hand, in virtue of that human weakness, in which even He, the Son of God, because He had become man, had His share (Heb. iv.15, v. 7, 8), and He prays: Father, save me from this hour, spare me this death-suf- fering which is awaiting me, quite as in Matt. xxvi. 39, so that He thus not mercly ‘‘ cries for support through it, and for a shortening of it’? (Ebrard). But immediately this wish, resulting from natural dread of suffering and death,* yields to the victorious consciousness of His great destiny ; He gives expression to the latter (4/24 did rovro, «.7.4.), and now prays: Father, glorify Thy name ; i,e., through the suffering of death appointed to me, let the glory of Thy name (of Thy being in its self-presentation, comp. on Matt. vi. 9) be manifested. The fulfilment of this prayer was brought about in this way, that by means of the death of Jesus (and of His consequent dé£a) the divine decree of salvation was fulfilled, then everywhere made known through the gospel, in virtue of the Holy Spirit (xiv. 16 ff.), and obedience to the faith established to the honour of the Father, which is the last aim of the work of Christ, Phil. ii. 11. — 7 yoy pov] not as a designation of tn- dividual grief (Olshausen), but as the seat of the affections generally. He might also have said 7é rvevud wou (comp. xi. 33, 88), but would then have meant the deeper basis of life, to which the impressions of the yvz4, which is united with the odpf, are conveyed. Comp. on Luke i. 46, 47. — rérep, oaody pe, x.t.A.] The hour of suffering is regarded as present, as though He were already at that hour. To take the words interrogatively : shall I say :
14, 20, ill. 14, x. 11,12; Matt. xx.28; Rom. the moral greatness and the worth of His vill. 3, ili. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21, e¢ al. sacrifice. Comp. Dorner, Jesu Stindlose 2 Which in itself is not only not immoral, Volikommenh. p. 6. but the absence of which would even lower
CHAP. XII., 27, 28, 13
save me? etc.’ yieldes the rsult of an actual prayer interwoven into a reflec- tive monologue, and is therefore less suitable to a frame of mind so deeply moved. — aAA4] objecting, like our but no /* — éa robro] wherefore, is con- tained in the following prayer, rérep, défacov, x.r.A. Consequently : there Sore, in order that through my suffering of death Thy name may be glorified. The completion : in order that the world might be redeemed (Olshausen and older commentators), is not supplied by the context ; to undergo this suffer- ing* is tautological ; and Lampe : to be saved, is inappropriate. The roiro is here preparative ; let only dia rovro. . . tabryv be enclosed within dashes, and the sense is made clearly to appear: but no—therefore I came to this hour— Father, glorify, etc. Jesus might have said : GAA4, rérep, déEacov cov rd dvoua, dia tovTo yap 720ov t. r. 6. t. But the deeply emotional languhge throbs more unconnectedly, and as it were by starts. — The repetition of a4rep corresponds to the thrill of filial affection. — cov stands emphatically, in the first place, in antithesis to the reference which the previous prayer of Jesus contained to Himself. On the subject-matter, comp. Matt. xxvi. 39. —otv] corresponding to this petition. — gur éx r. ovp.] The voice which came from heaven : I have glorified it (in Thy mission and Thy whole pre- vious work), and shall again (through Thine impending departure by means of death to the déga) glorisy it,‘ is not to be regarded as actual, natural thunder (according to the O. T. view conceived of as the voice of the Lord, as in Ps, xxix., Job xxxvii. 4, and frequently), in which only the subjectize disposition, the so-attuned inner ear of Jesus (and of the disciples), distin- guished the words xal édéfaca, x.r.A. ; while others, less susceptible to this divine symbolism of nature, believed only ina general way, that in the thunder an angel had spoken with Jesus ; while others again, unsusceptible, understood the natural occurrence simply and solely as such, and took it for nothing further than what it objectively was. So substantially, not merely Paulus, Kuinoel, Liicke, Ammon, de Wette, Maier, Baeumlein, and several others, but also Hengstenberg.* Several have here had recourse to the later Jewish view of Bath-Kol (by which, however, only real literal voices, not natural phenomena, without speech, were understood ; see Liibkert in the Stud. u. Krit. 1885, 8), as well as to the Gentile interpretations of thunder as the voice of the gods (see Wetstein). Against this entire view,
1go0 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jansen, Grotius, Lampe, and many others, includ- ing Lachmann, Tholuck, Kilng, Schweizer, Maier, Lange, Ewald, Godet.
4 See Hartung, Partitell. I. p. 86; Baeum- lein, Pard&i&. p. 18 f.
% Grotius, de Wette, Luthardt, Lange, Ebrard, Godet ; comp. Hengstenberg: “in order that my soul may be shaken."
4The reference of é&dfaca to the O. 7. revelation, which is now declared to be closed (Lange, L. J. IT. p. 1908), is without any foundation in the context.
* See, in answer to him, some appropriate observations in Engelhardt, in the LutA.
Zellechr. 1865, p. 200 ff. He, however, re- fers the dofdce to the fact that the Son, even in His sufferings, will allow the will of God entirely to prevail with Him. The glorify- ing of God, however, by means of the death of Jesus, which was certainly the culminating point of His obedience to the Father, reaches further, namely (see espe- cially xvii. 1, 3) to God's honour through the Lord's attainment of exaltation throughout the whole world by means of His death. As é&faca refers to His munus propheticum, so 8ofdcw to the fact that He attains to the munus regium through the fulfilment of the munus sacerdotale,
374 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
it is decisive that John Himself, the ear-witness, describes a dur) éx rod ovpavot, which was an objective occurrence ; that he repeats its express words ; that, to understand the first half of these words referring to the past, as the product of a merely subjective perception, is without any support in the prayer of Jesus ; that, further, Jesus Himeelf, ver. 80, gives His confirmation to the occurrence of an actual voice ; that, finally, the 4/2oc also, ver. 29, must have heard a speech. Hence we must abide by the interpretation that a voice actually issued from heaven, which John relates, and Jesus confirms as an objective occurrence. It is a voice which came miraculously from God (as was the case, according to the Synoptics, at the baptism and the transfiguration), yet as regards its intelligibility condi- tioned by the subjective disposition and receptivity of the hearers,’ which sounded with a tone as of thunder, so that the definite words which resound- ed in this form of sound remained unintelligible to the unsusceptible, who simply heard that majestic kind of sound, but not its contents, and said : Bpovriw yeyovéva: ; whereas others, more susceptible, certainly understood this much, that the thunder-like voice was a speech, but not what it said, and thought an angel (comp. Acts xxiii. 9) had spoken in this thunder-voice to Jesus. This opinion of theirs, however, does not justify us in regarding the divine word which was spoken as also actually communicated by an- gelic ministry (Hofmann), since the utterance of the 420: is not adduced as at all the true account, and since, moreover, the heavenly voice, according to the text, appears simply as the answer of the Father.
Vv. 30, 81. ‘Amexpi6y] not to the disciples (Tholuck), but, according to ver. 29, with referencé to these two expressions of opinion from the people. He leaves their opinions, as to what and whose the voice was, unnoticed, but recognizes in their hearts the more dangerous error, that they do not put the voice (this thunder or this angelic speech, according to their supposition) in any relation to themselves. — d:’ éué] to assure me that my prayer has been heard; ‘‘novt patris animum in me,” Erasmus. — dé’ iuac] in relation to you to overcome unbelief, and to strengthen faith. Comp. xi. 42. — vi» pio, x.t.A.] Not an interpretation of the voice (Hengstenberg), but also not without reference to d:’ tudo (Engelhardt), which is too weighty an ele- ment. Rather : how the crisis of this time presses for the use of that d¢ tpéac | —vuv ... vov] with triumphant certainty of victory, treating the near future as present ; now, now is it gone so far! He speaks ‘‘ quasi certa- mine defunctus,” Calvin. — xpiaic] Now is judgment, i.e. judicial (accord- ing to the context : condemnatory) decision passed upon this world, i.e. on the men of the aidy obrog who reject faith. This judgment is an actual one ; for in the victory of the Messianic work of salvation, which was to be brought about by the death of Jesus, and His exaltation to the heavenly glory connected therewith,* the xdcuoc was to be sct forth in the entire sin-
1So also Tholuck, Olshausen, Kling, tion to the belief in the last judgment Luthardt, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 391 f., (against Hilgenfeld, Lehrdegr. p. 274), as has Lange, Ebrard, Godet, following the old been supposed from a misinterpretation commentators. also of iil. 19, 20, in spite of the repeated ? There lies in it, accordingly, no opposi- mention of the last day, and in spite of v.
CHAP. XII., 32, 33. 375 fulness and impotence of its hostility towards Christ, and thereby in fact judged.’ Comp. xvi. 9, 10, 88. This victory the ruler of this world in particular (r. xéop. r. solemnly repeated), the devil, was to submit to :* His dominion must have an end, because the death of Jesus effected the recon- ciliation of humanity, by which reconciliation all were to be drawn away from the devil by becoming believers, and placed under the spiritual power of the Christ exalted to glory, ver. 82, Rom. v. 12 ff.; Phil. ii. 9-11. He is called the dpyuv rov xéouov rotrov, as the ruler of the unbelieving, Christ- opposing humanity (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12), as in the writings of Rabbins, he, as ruler of the Gentiles, in opposition to God and His people, bears this standing name (DY Ww).* Here he is s0 called, because precisely the judgment of his dominium, the world, was declared. — éxBanOhoera tw) The necessarily approaching removal of the power of the devil through the death and the exaltation of Jesus is vividly represented as a casting out from his empire, namely from the xdopog ovzo¢. Only this supple- ment is yielded by the context, not r7¢ apx7¢ (Euth. Zigabenus, Beza), nor rov dixaornpiov (Theophylact), nor out of the kingdom of God (Ewald), and least of all rot ovpavov.‘ The indefinite rendering : he is repulsed,’ or to be . removed from the presence of the judge (Hofmann, Sechriytbew. I. p. 449), is excluded by the appended é&w. — Note further, that the victory here an- nounced over this world and over the reign of the devil wasindeed decided, and commenced with the death and the exaltation of Christ, but is ina state of continuous development onward to its consummation at the last day (comp. Rev. xx. 10) ; hence the padsages of the N. T. on the continu- ing power and influence of the devil (2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12 ; Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Pet. v. 8, and many others) do not stand in contradiction to the present passage. Comp. Col. ii. 15.
Vv. 82, 83. And I shall establish my own dominion in place of the devil's rule. —xayé] with victorious emphasis, in opposition to the devil. — ééy tywha éx tr. yi¢] so that I shall be no more upon the carth. Comp. on iwdu
27, against which here the very absence of the article should have been a warning. Again, what is subsequently said of the devil (as aleo the passages xiv. 30, 81, xvi. 11) is not to be explained from the Gnostic idea, that the devil, through his having contrived the death of Christ, but having after His death recognized Him as the Son of God, had been cheated, and so forfeited his right (Hilgenfeld). Of such Gnostic fancies the N. T. knows nothing. The con- quest of the devil is necessarily given along with the atoning effect of the death of Jesus, and through the operation of the Spirit of the eralted one it is in process of completion until the Parousia.
1 As hereafter the devil is the subject which Is cast out, so here the «écnos Is the oulject which ts judged. This in answer to Bengel: ‘"‘judicium de mundo, quis posthac jure sit obfenturus mundum."" Grotius ex-
plains «plows simply of the vindicatio in lidertatem ; humanity is to be freed from its unjust possessor ; consequently as re- gards the material contents, substantially as Bengel, comp. also Beza.
2 Schlelermacher, indeed (Z. J. p. 848), {n- terprets the dpx.7. «. 7. of ‘‘ the public power” in ite conflict with the activity of Jesus. In reference to the declarations of Jesus re- garding the devil, it is most markedly apparent with what difficulty Schleter- macher subordinated himself to exegetical tests.
§See Lightfoot and Schoettgen, aleo in Elsenmenger, Znifdeckt. Judenthum, I. p. 647 ff.
4 Luke x. 18; Rev. xii. 8, so Olshausen; hence the reading «drw.
§ De Wette; comp. Plat. Menez. p. 43 B; Soph. Oed. RB. 886.
376 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
éx, Ps. ix. 14. Probably Jesus (differently in iii. 14) used the verb 51° (comp. Syr.): PWN {Oo ‘Ad W1 DX, This exaltation from earth into heaven to the Father (vii. 33 ; Acts ii, 83, vi. 31) was to be brought about by the death of the cross ; and this manner of His death, Jesus, in the opinion of John, indicated (xviii. 32, xxi. 19) by the word tude (comp. iii. 14, viii. 28). Thus, according to John, the designation of the return from earth to heaven, which Jesus gives by iyw0e éx r. y., is not merely a representation of His death, so far as this exalts him to the Father, but an announcement of the manner of the death (comp. xviii. 32, xxi. 19), through which He will end His earthly life, since He was to die aralted on the cross. But this interpre- tation of John’s does not justify us in at once understanding ty. éx r. y. of the crucifixion (so the Fathers, and most older commentators, including Kling, Frommann, Hengstenberg), which is forbidden by é« r#¢ y7c, nor in finding therein' a ‘‘sermo anceps” (Beza and several others including Luthardt, Ebrard, Godet, comp. Engelhardt), since by the very force of éx r. y- the double sense is evcluded. It belongs to the freedom of mystic exposition linking itself to a single word (comp. ix. 7), as it was sufficiently suggested, especially here, by the recollection of the tywOjva already employed in iii. 14, and is thus as justifiable in itself in the sense of its time as it is wanting in authority for the historical understanding. To this mystical interpretation is opposed, indeed, the expression éx ry¢ y7¢ (comp. Isa. lili. 8) ; but John was sufficiently faithful in his account not to omit this é« r. y7¢ for the sake of his interpretation of iw6d, and simply adhered to this iy., and disregarded the connection.* — On adv, comp. on xiv. 3. — mavrac éAx. mpd¢ éuavr.| all, i.e. not merely adherents of all nations, or all elected ones and the like, but all men, so that thus none remain belonging to the dpywy row xéopov trotrov. But to the latter, the devil, stands opposed not the mere pdg éué, but, to myself, to my own communion. Comp. xiv. 3 ; éuavrév never stands for the simple éué, also not in xiv. 21 (against Tholuck). The drawing takes place by means of the Holy Spirit, who, given by the exalted Lord (vii. 39, xvi. 7), and taking His own place (xiv. 18, 19), wins men for Christ in virtue of faith, and, by means of internal moral compul- sion, places them in the fellowship of love, of obedience, and of the true and everlasting life with Him. Comp. vi. 44, where this is said of the Father. The fulfilment of this promise is world-historical, and continually in process of realization (Rom. x. 18), until finally the great goal will be reached, when all will be drawn to the Son, and form one flock under one shepherd (x. 16). In this sense wdvra¢ is to be left without any arbitrary limitation (Luthardt’s limitation is baseless: all, namely, those whom He draus to Himself). For the manner in which Paul recognized the way and manner of the last consummation of the promise thus made, see Rom. xi. 25, 26.
Ver. 34. The people—rightly understanding édv inp. éx r. yfc, ver. 82, of an exaltation to take place by the way of death—gather thence, that in ac-
1 “ His suspension on the crose appears to ical touch would here be very strange.
Him the magnificently ironical emblem of His 2 Scholten sets aside the whole comment elevation on the throne,” Godet. An iron- as an interpolation.
CHAP. XII., 35, 36. 377
cordance therewith no everlasting duration of life (uéve:, see on xxi. 22) is destined for Him on the earth, and do not find this reconcilable with that which they on their part (jueic) had heard out of the Scripture (vdyo¢, as in x. 84 (of the Messiah (7xotc., namely, by reading, comp. Gal. iv. 21). They reflect on the scriptural doctrine (comp. also the older book of Enoch) of the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, which they apprehend as an earthly kingdom, and especially on passages like Ps. cx. 4, Isa. ix. 5, 7, and par- ticularly Dan. vii. 18, 14.— From the latter passage, not from ver. 23, where He does not speak to the people, they put into the mouth of Christ the words rdyv uldv rot avfp., as He had designated Himself so frequently by this Messianic appellation, in order at once to make manifest that He, although He so terms Himself, yet on account of the contradictory token of the twwhjvac ix t. y7¢ Which He ascribes to Himself, cannot be the Dan- ielian Son of man, He who was so characterized in the Scripture ; the Son of man, by which name He is wont to designate Himself, must in truth be quite another person. — otroc] this strange Son of man, who is in oppo- sition to the Scripture, over whom that tyra is said to be impending.’ That the speakers, however, were unacquainted with the appellation 6 vid¢ rov avfp. for Jesus (Briickner) is, after the first half of the verse, not to be assumed.
Vv. 35, 86. Jesus does not enter upon the question raised, but directs the questioners to that one point which concerns them, with the intensity and seriousness of one who is on the point of taking His departure. To follow this one direction must indeed of itself free them from all those doubts and questions, — év tyutv] among you. — mepir. d¢ rd pao Exere] On the reading wc, see the critical notes. Walk as you have the light, i.e. in con- formity with the fact that you have among you the possessor and bearer of the divine truth (comp. on viii. 12) ; be not slothful, but spiritually active, and awake in the enjoyment of this relation, just as one does not rest and lie still when he has the bright light of day, but walks in order to attain the end in view before the darkness breaks in (see what follows). On o¢ as assigning the motive (in the measure that), comp. generally on xiii. 84, and here especially on Gal. vi. 10. Ellendt aptly says, Ler. Soph. II. p. 1008 : ‘‘nec tamen causam per se spectatam, sed quam quis, qualis sit, in- dicat.” The signification guamdtu (Baeumlein) is not borne by dc, not even in Soph. Aj. 1117,? Phil. 685. 1880. — iva pe) oxoria, x.7.A.] in order that— which would smite you asa penal destiny in retribution of your y? reperareiv —darkness (the element opposed to the divine truth of salvation, which still at present shines upon you) may not seize you, like a hostile power. Comp. Rom, i, 21 : éoxorio@y 3 aobverog airév xapdia. On xaradéBy, comp. 1 Thess. v. 4; also in the classics very frequently of danger, misfortune, and the like, which befall any one.? — xa? 6 weper., x.7.4.] and how dangerous were
? The inquiry has Init something pert, vil. 14 This also in answer to Hofmann, saucy, as if they said: “A fine‘Son of Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 79. man’ art thou, who art not to remain for 2 See Schneidewin tn loc. ever in life, but, as thou dost express it, art 8 Arrian, Alex. 1, 5.17: ei vig nated peras
to be exalted! To the Danielian Sonof avrovs, man an everlasting kingdom is given, Dan.
378 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
this condition ! This is brought home in a saying from ordinary life ; comp. xi. 9, ix. 4. — rot trdye:] whither he is departing, iii. 8. Thus the éoxotropévog goes away, Without knowing the unhappy end, into everlasting destruction ; comp. 1 John li. 11. For the opposite of this rot imdye:, see viii. 14, 21, xvi. 5, et al. —dc r. gic éxyere] Repeated and placed first with great emphasis, — zorebere ei¢ r. gmc, iva, x.7.A.] More minute designation of that which was previously intended by the figurative rep:rareire. — viot tov gwt.] Enlightened persons. See on Luke xvi. 8 ; Eph. v. 8. — yévgo6e] not be, but become. Faith is the condition and the beginning of it ; comp. i. 12. — éxpbBy ax’ aitrav] The situation in viii. 59 is different. He now, according to the account of John, withdraws from them into concealment, probably to Bethany, in order to spend these last days of life, before the arrival of His hour, in the quiet confidential circle, not as a warning, ‘‘summi judicii occultationis Domini” (Lampe, Luthardt), which is not in- dicated, and is all the more without support, that the last discourse was not condemnatory, but only hortatory.
Ver. 37. At the close of the public ministry of Jesus there now follows a general consideration of its results in respect to faith in Him, as far as ver. 50. — rocatra] not so great,’ but 80 many, vi. 9, xiv. 9, xxi. 11. Comp. the admissions of the Jews themselves, vii. 81, xi. 47. The multitude of the miracles, t.¢. the so-often-repeated miraculous demonstration of His Messianic glory, must have convinced them (comp. xx. 30), had they not been blinded and hardened by a divine destiny. The reference, however, of rocatra is not : so many as hate hitherto been related, for our Gospel contains the few- est miraculous narratives,—but it lies in the general recognition of their _ great multitude. Comp. xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 10; Heb. iv. 7. — gurpoof. avr.] before their eyes. — ovx éxior. ei¢ avr.) summary statement.
Ver. 88. “Iva] in order that, according to divine determination, the prophecy might be fulfilled. This ‘‘ in order that” contains the definite assumption that the prophet Isaiah predicted what, according to divine destiny, was to come to pass ; thus, then, the historical fulfilment stood in necessary relation of final cause to the prediction. Comp. on Matt. i. 22. — by eixe] similar pleonasms, which, however, as here, may denote an emphatic circumstantiality, are found also in the Greek writers.? The pas- ° sage is Isa. liii. 1, closely following the LXX. The lament of the prophet | over the unbelief of Ais time towards his preaching (and that of his fellows, 7uav), and towards the mighty working of God announced by him, has, ac- cording to the Messianic character of the whole grand oracle, its reference and fulfilment in the unbelief of the Jews towards Jesus ; so that in the sense of this fulfilment, the speaking subject (addressing God, xipse, comp. Matt. xxvii. 46), which Isaiah introduces, is Jesus, not the evangelist and those of like mind with him (Luthardt).— rj axoq ju.) to that heard from us, t.¢. to the message which they receive from us (comp. on Rom. x. 16), not : which we receive (comp. Sir. xliii. 24), namely, actually in Christ (Luthardt), as
1 Licke, de Wette, and several others. sics, tocatrd re xai roavra, Heindorf, ad 2 Comp. on the distinction between the iat. Gorg. p. 456 C. two notions, the phrase current in the clas- 3 Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 14, Anad. i. 9. 11.
CHAP. XII., 39, 40. 379 Hengstenberg also understands it of that which we have received through revelation (comp. Euth. Zigabenus).' The piural, however, jz», comprises God and Christ inthe fulfilment. — 4 Bpayiow xvp.} Plastic expression for the power of God,* and that according to the Messianic conception ; in the miraculous signs of Christ-—in which the unbelieving do not recognize the brachium Dei. ‘‘In se exsertum est, sed caeci non viderunt illud,” Bengel. But to understand Christ Himeelf* is required neither by the original text nor here by the connection.
Vv. 89, 40. Ard rovro. . . Src) a8 always in John (see on x. 17) : therefore, referring to what precedes, on account of this destiny contained in ver. 388— namely, because, so that thus with ér: the reason is atill more minutely set forth. Ebrard foists in an entirely foreign course of thought, because Israel has not willed to believe, therefore has she not been able to belicve. Con- trary to this Johannean use of d:a rovro. . . drt, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Lampe, and several others, including Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, B. Crusius, Luthardt, take dia rovro as preparative. —oix 7dbvavro] not: nolebant,* but—thus solving the enigma of that tragic unbelief—they could not, an impossibility which had its foundation in the divine judgment of obduracy. ‘‘Hic subsistit evangelista, quis ultra nitatur ?” Bengel. On the relation of this inability, referred back to the determination of God, to moral freedom and responsibility, see on Rom. ix.—xi. —reri¢Awxev] The passage is Isa. vi. 9, 10, departing freely from the original and from the LXX. In the original the prophet is said, at the command of God, to undertake the blinding, etc., that is, the intellectual and moral hardening (‘‘ harden the heart,” etc.). Thus what God then will allow to be done is represented by John in: his free manner of citation as done by God Him- self, to which the recollection of the rendering of the passage given by the LXX. (*‘the heart has become hardened,” etc.) might easily lead. The subject is thus neither Christ (Grotius, Calovius, and several others, includ- ing Lange and Ebrard), nor the devil (Hilgenfeld, Scholten), but, as the reader would understand as a matter of course, and as also the entire con- text shows (for the necessity in the divine fate is the leading idea), God. Christ first appears as subject in idcoua:.—~merdp.] has hardened.‘ — rar orpagaot] and (not) turn, return to me. —idooua:] Future, dependent on iva wf. See on Matt. xiii. 15. The moral corruption is viewed as sickness, which is healed by faith (vv. 87, 89). Comp. Matt. ix. 12; 1 Pet. li. 24. The healing subject, however, cannot, as in Matt. xiii. 15, Acts xxviil. 27, be (od (so usually), precisely because this is the subject of reripdoxey, x.1.A., but it must be Christ ; in His mouth, according to the Johannean view of the prophecy from the standpoint of its fulfilment, Isaiah puts not merely the utterance in ver. 88, but also the words rerigAwaev .. . idoopas avrotc,
1 Comp. on the genitive, Plat. Phaedr.p. Calovius, and several others. 274 C; Pausan. vill. 41.6; Pind. Pyth. 1. 168. 4 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Buth. Ziga- 2 Comp. Luke i. 51; Acts xiii.17; Wied. benus, Wolf.
y. 16, xi. 21; Bar. il. 11; Isa. lf. 5, lil. 10. ® Augustine, Photius, Euth. Zigabenus, Beda, Ruperti, Zeger, Jansen, Maldonatus,
® See Athenaens, 12, p. 549 B; Mark vi. 82, vill. 17; Rom. xl. 7; 2 Cor. fff. 14.
380 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
and thus makes Him say: God has blinded the people, etc., that they should not see, etc., and should not turn to Him (Christ), and He (Christ) should heal them. Nonnus aptly says : ‘Ogfa2poicg atdwoev évdv éxidprepag Epywv . . . ey Kpadin votwot. . . xal por wroorpiywot, vooBAaBlac d2 caéow avdpac adutpaivovrac éup wachovs ptOy. Thus the 1st person idooua: is not an instance of ‘‘ negligence,” ' but of consistency.
Ver. 41. *Orc] (see the critical notes) : because He saw His glory, and (in consequence of this view) spoke of Him. This was the occasion that moved him, and it led to his speaking what is contained in ver. 40. — atrov] refers to Christ, the subject of idcouc:, ver. 40, and the chief person in the whole subject under contemplation (ver. 37). According to Isa. vi. 1 ff., the prophet, indeed, beheld God's glory, God sitting upon His throne, attended by seraphim, etc. ; but in the O. T. theophanies, it is precisely Christ who is present as the Logos,* and their glory is His. See oni. 1. Of course the glory of Christ before the incarnation is intended, the pop¢?) Geot (Phil. ii. 6), in which He was. —xai 2Aad. epi avrov] still dependent on dr: ; é24Ayo0e has the emphasis as the correlate of elde.
Vv. 42, 48. “Onwc pévror] yet, notwithstanding.* It limits the judgment on the unbelief of the Jews, which had previously been expressed in general terms. — kai éx r. apy.] even of the Sanhedriste (in secret, vii. 48). — did rove éapic.] the most hostile and dreaded party opposed to Jesus in and outside the Sanhedrim. — aroovrdy.] comp. ix. 22. — riv d6&. 1. avOp.] the honour coming from men. Comp. v. 44.— rv d6é. rod Oeov] the honour which God imparts. Comp. Rom. iii. 23. They preferred the honour of men (potius, see on iii. 19) rather than to stand in honour with God. Theirs was thus not yet the faith strengthened for a free confession, which Jesus demands (Matt. x. 32), with the setting aside of temporal interests ; Augustine calls it ingressus jfidei. Where subsequently the right advance followed, the un- hesitating confession also was forthcoming, as in the cases of Nicodemus and of Joseph of Arimathaea. But the case of Gamaliel is not applicable here (Godet) ; he did not get so far as faith. — On #rep, as strengthening the negative force of the 7 (comp. 2 Macc. xiv. 42), see Kihner, IT. sec. 747, note 4. |
Vv. 44, 45. The closing observations on Jewish unbclief, vv. 87-48, are ended. Over against this unbelief, together with that faith which stood in fear of men, vv. 42, 48, John now gives further, vv. 44-50, an energetic summing up, a condensed summary of that which Jesus has hitherto clearly and openly preached concerning His personal dignity and the divinity of
1 Tholuck, comp. his A. 7.im N. 7. p. 35 f. ed. 6.
2 From which a conclusion can as little be drawn against the personality of the Logos (Beyschlag, p. 166 f.),as from the angelic theophunies against the personality of the angel or angels concerned (not even in Rev. v. 6). That the idea of angels in the N. T. wavers between personality and personifi- cation is not correct. Observe also, that the self-revelation of the devil does not set
aside the personality of the man who is the bearer of it (as Judas). Further, the avrou, implying the identity of Christ with the Logos, here shows clearly enough that the latter is viewed as personal. Comp. also Pfleiderer, in Hilgenfeld, Zeitechr. 1866, p. 258.
3 Herod. i. 189; Plat. Crit. p. 54 D, Men. p. 92 E ; comp. the strengthened dues ye pévror, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 848; Bacumlein, Partik. p. 172 f.
CHAP. XII., 44, 45. 381 © His teaching, in condemnation of such conduct (‘‘ Jesus, on the other hand, cried and said,” etc.), by which the reprehensible nature of that unbelief and half-belief comes clearly into view. So substantially Bengel, Michaelis, Morus, Kuinoel, Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, Schweizer, B. Crusius, Reuss, Baur,’ Lange, Briickner, Weizsicker,* Ebrard, Baeumlein, Ewald, Godet. Ver. 86 is decisive, for the correctness of this interpretation, ac- cording to which Jesus has departed from the public scene of action with- out any announcement of His reappearance ; and it is confirmed partly by the nature of the following discourse, which contains mere echoes of earlier utterances ; partly by the fact that throughout the whole discourse there are no addressed persons present ; partly by the aorists, éAdAyoa, vv. 48, 49, pointing to the concluded past. This is not in opposition to éxpafe xai eizev,® since these words (comp. vii. 28, 87, i. 15) do not of themselves more close- ly define the point of time which is intended. Hence we are neither to as- sume, with de Wette, that with John the recollection of the discourses of Jesus shaped itself ‘‘ under his hand ” into a discourse, genuine indeed, but never delivered in such language (what unconsciousness and passivity he is there- by charged with ! and see, in opposition, Briickner); nor are we to say, with Chrysostom and all the older commentators, also Kling and Hengsten- berg, that Jesus here for once did publicly so speak (évdévro¢ roic 'Iovdaiorc tov Ovuov, wdduv aveddvy x. diddoxez, Euth. Zigabenus), in accordance with which some resort to the explanation, in contradiction with the text, that He spoke what follows in ipso discessu, ver. 86 (Lampe). But when Luthardt, following Besser,‘ assumes that Christ spoke these words in the presence of the disciples, and with reference to the Jews, there is opposed to this not only the fact, in general, that John indicates nothing of the kind, but also that éxpage is not appropriate to the circle of disciples, but to a scene of publicity. Crying aloud He exclaimed, whereby all His hearers were made sensible enough of the importance of the address, and the excuse of ignorance was cut off from them. — 6 mor. cic éué, x.7.A.] An utterance which John has not in the previous discourses. Comp., however, as to the thing, v. 36 ff., vii. 29, viii. 19, 42, x. 38.— ov... 4A2’] simply nega- tiving. The object of faith is noé the personality of Jesus in itself,—that human appearance which was set forth in Him, as if He had come in His own name (v. 48),—but God, so far as the latter reveals Himself in Him as His ambassador, by means of His words and deeds. Comp. vii. 16; Mark ix. 87. Similarly : He who beholds me, etc., ver. 45. Comp. i. 14, xiv. 9. Yet in ¢his connection the negation (ob Gewpei éué) is not expressed, although it might have been expressed ; but what had to be affirmed was, that the beholding of Christ was at the same time the beholding of His sender. In
1 Baur, however, finds in this recapitu- latory discourse only a new proof, that with John historical narration is a mere form of his method of representation. Comp. also Hilgenfeld.
2 Yet the ideas (against Weizsiicker, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 167 f.) con- tained in this speech are not different from
those of the prologue. The form is differ- ent, but not the ma(ter; and the prologue contains more.
* Against Kling, de Wette, Hengstenberg ; also Strauss in advocacy of the non- originality of the Johannean discourses.
* Zeitechr. f. Luth. Theol, 1852, p. 617 ff.
382 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
His working and administration, the believing eye beholds that of the Sender ; in the glory of the Son, that of the Father, i. 14 ; Heb. i. 8.
Ver. 46. Comp. viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 35, 36.—éyo] J, no other, J am the light, as possessor and communicator of the divine truth of salvation, come into the world, etc. —— 3 weivy] as he is, in a state of unbelief, but that he may be enlightened. Comp. ver. 36, i. 4 ff.
Vv. 47, 48. Comp. iii. 17, 18, v. 45 ff., viii. 15 ff. — Jf any one shall have heard the words from me, does not denote hearing in the sense of believing (Liicke), but a hearing which is in itself indifferent (Matt. vil. 26 ; Mark iv. 15, 16, xviii. 20) ; and by the x. 7 gvAdEg which follows (see the criti- cal notes), that very faith which follows hearing is denied. ¢vAdocewv, namely, denotes not indeed the mere holding fast, guarding (ver. 25), but, as throughout, where doctrines, precepts, and the like are spoken of (see especially Luke xi. 28, xviii. 21 ; Rom. ii. 26), the keeping by actual /ul- Jilment. But this takes place simply by faith, which Christ demands for His phuata : with faith the guvadccev comes into action ;* the refusal of faith is the rejection of Christ,* and non-adoption of His words, ver. 48, is the op- posite of that ¢uAdccew so far as its essence is just the baxoy tH¢ wicrews. — On axobey with a double genitive as in Luke vi. 47, Acts xxii. 1, comp. Xvill. 37.°— éya ov xpivw avrév] J, in my person, am not his judge, which is meant generally, not exclusively of the das¢t judgment, but in a condemnatory sense, a8 opposed to odferv, as in iil. 17. — Ver. 48. éyec] Placed first with great emphasis : he has his judge; he stands already under his trial, But this judge, says Christ, is not Himself, as an individual personally consid- ered in and by Himself, but His spoken word ; this, and nothing else, will be (and with this arises before the mind all the terror of the jinal decision) the determining rule of the last judgment. It is Christ, indeed, who holds the judgment (v. 22, 27), but as the bearer and executor of His word, which constitutes the divine power of the judgment. Comp. vii. 51, where the law judges and takes cognizance. How decisively does the present pas- sage declare against the attempt of Scholten, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, and others, to explain away the last judgment out of John! Comp. vv. 28, 29 ; 1 John lv. 17.
Vv. 49, 50. Comp. vii. 16, v. 30. —4r:] gives the reason for the expres- sion in vv. 47, 48: for how plainly divine is this my word | — é& éuavrot] avroxéAevoroc, Nonnus. — avréc] ipse. — évroa. é6.] He has given (laid upon) me @ charge, what I should say, and what I should speak. The former desig- nates the doctrine in its contents, the latter the publication of it through the delwery which makes it known. Comp. on viii. 48 ; Rom. iii. 19.*—4 évroAy avrov| namely the commission which has just previously been more minutely designated. This is, because it is in truth the outflow and chan- nel of the divine redemptive will, eternal life (alike in its temporal de- velopment and eternal consummation) ; it is this, however (comp. vi. 38,
1 Hence the Recepfa x. wh morevcy is a cor- 3 Buttmann, WN. 7. Gr. p. 145 [E. T. p. 167]. rect gloss. ‘ For similar accumulations of the verbs 2 aBeretvy, here only in John, but comp. of speaking in Greek writers, see Dissen, Luke x. 16 ; 1 Thess. lv. 8. ad Dem. de Cor. p. 187; Lobeck, Paral. p. 61.
NOTES. 383
xvii. 17; comp. xi. 25, xiv. 6), not asthe mere means, but as, in its fulfil- ment, the efficient power of life in virtue of the grace and truth which are received by believers out of the fulness of Jesus, i. 14, 16. — otv] Since that évroAq is of so great efficacy, how could I speak that which J speak other- wise than as the Father has said it tome (at my inauguration)? Observe the correlation of éyé and 6 zarfp, as well as the measured simple solemnity of this closing address,
Norz spy AmeErroan Eprror,
XXXVIIL. "Agee avrg, tva x.r.A. Ver. 7.
The rendering of the Rev. Ver., which is substantially that of Meyer, ‘‘ Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying,’’ seems to have little pertinence against the murmuring of the thievish disciple (which was not di- rected against any supposed future use of the money, but only against its pres- ent alleged waste), nor very intelligible in itself, as that part of it which had been used coud not be so preserved (and this was probably a large part of it), and of a remaining portion of it the text says nothing. If reryjpyxev, there- fore, is to be decisively rejected, the rendering of the margin of the Rev. Ver. seems the only right one, which gives to d¢e¢ avr7y its ordinary N. T. meaning, and assumes a not unallowable ellipsis with iva. ‘‘Let her alone : it was that she might keep it against the day of my burial,’’ of which the present anoint- ing is regarded as a type, and this the more naturally as that real embalming was so close at hand, To him who is not afraid to find coincidences in the Gospels, Matt. xxvi. 12 is corroborative of this view. The words ‘‘ that she might keep it” are not probably ased of her having kept it over from the entombment of Laza- rus, but refer to the suggestion made by Judas of its being given to the poor. She has not applied it to any such purpose, however intrinsically good ; under
higher influence it has been kept for even a more sacred purpose, my figurative burial,
384 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER XIII.
Ver. 1. eAgAvOev] Lachm. and Tisch. : 746ev, according to preponderating evidence. The perfect arose from xii. 23. — Ver. 2. yevouévov] B. L. X. &. Cant. Or. : yevouévov (but Or. has once yevou.). So Tisch. The aorist was introduced through the non-observance of the point of time, as being the more current form in the narrative. — ’lIovda Zip. ’Iox., iva avrév rapadgv] B. L. M. X. &. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Codd. It. Or. : iva rapad@ avrév "lIovdac Sinwrog "Ioxapiorns. So Lachm. on the margin, and Tisch. (both, however, reading rapadoi, accord- ing to B. D.* &. only). This reading, considering the important witnesses by which it is attested, is the more to be preferred, as it was very early misun- derstood, because it was supposed that the seduction of Judas by the devil was here related (so already Origen). The Recepia is an alteration in conse- quence of this misunderstanding. The conjunctive form apadvi, however, remains generally doubtful in the N. T. — Ver. 3. 6 ’Ijcovc] is wanting in B. D. L. X. Cursives, Vulg. It. Or. Bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch. It was mechanically repeated from ver. 1.— Ver. 10. The position of the words ob« Exe: ypeiav is decisively attested. — Instead of 7, important witnesses have ei 47 (80 Lachm.), which, however, is an attempt at explanation or correction. Tisch. has deleted #) 7. wodac, but only after &. Or. one Cod. of It. and Vulg. mss. An old omission, occasioned by the following xafap. dAo¢. — Ver. 12. avatecdv] Lachm. : xu) dvav, according to A. L. Verss. Chrys. In favour of xai, witness also B. C.* &. Or., which have xa? avérecev (so Tisch.). The kai before 2AaZ. is omitted by Lachm. after A. L. Verss. Since «ai before dvar. is in any case decisively accredited ; since, further, the witnesses for avésecey are more important than for avareodv ; and since, had dvaveodv been the original reading, it would not have been resolved into xa? avérecev, but into avérecev kai, —we must read with Tisch. xai avérecev, so that the apodosis first begins with elrev, This was not observed, and it was made to commence either after réda¢ avrov (thus arose the reading in Lachm.), or after iudr. ai'rov (hence the Re- cepla). — Ver. 22. ov] is wanting in B. C. and certain Verss. ; deleted by Tisch. Was easily passed over after the last syllable of éBAerov. — Ver. 23. Ex rev (Elz. : Tév) is decisively attested. — Ver. 24. rvOéofai, ric dv ein] B. C. L. X. 33. Aeth. Ver. Rd. Vulg. Or. : wai Aéyec air: eid tle eorew. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly : the Recepia is added, as a gloss, after what John does in ver. 25. &. has the gloss alongside of the original reading in the text. — Ver. 25. émirecdy] B, C.* K. L. X. II.* 8.** Cursives, Or. : dvareciv (so Lachm.). But éxevirrew does not occur elsewhere in John ; and how readily would the familiar expres- sion of lying at table suggest itself to mechanical copyists !— Instead of ovr, Elz. and Lachm. have dé. Witnesses are much divided. Originally, no par- ticle at all appears to have been found; so B. C. Or. Griesb. — After éxeivog, important witnesses (including B. C. L.) have ofrwc, which, however, although defended by Ewald, very readily arose from otroc, which was added to éxeiro¢ in explanation, as it still found in K. 8. U. A. — Ver. 26. Bawac Td Wupiov éxe-
CHAP. XIII., 1-5. 385
ddcu] Tisch. : Bépo 7. yp. nal déow airy, after B.C. L. Copt. Aeth. Or. But éxididévac, which is not elsewhere found in John, does not betray the hand of an interpreter, and therefore the reading of Tisch. is rather to be considered as the usual resolution of the participle, with neglect of the compound.—In- stead of Baywac, as above, Lachm. has éusdy., following A. D. K. If. Theodoret. Although these witnesses form the preponderance among those which read the participle, yet éufaéy. might be very readily introduced from the parallels, Matt. xxvi. 23, Mark xiv. 20; and for the originality of the simple form, the weighty witnesses (B. C. L. etc.) which have Bdyu (not éufdyw) are accordingly all the more to be taken into account. Therefore, too, below, instead of xai éuBawac (so also Lachm.), with B. C. L. X. &. 33. Or. Cyr., Bayar otv (so Tisch.) ought to be read (D. has xai Bayar). — After yuplov, Tisch. has, moreover, Aap- Paver «al, following B. C. L. M. X. &.** Aeth. Or. Rightly: it was, through misapprehension, omitted as irrelevant. — Instead of 'Ioxapidry, Lachm. should consistently, following B. C. L. M. X. &. Cursives, Codd. It. Or., here also (see on vi. 71) have read ‘Ioxapidrov (as Tisch. has). — Ver. 30. Instead of et6fuc é&7A9. read with Lachm. and Tisch. ¢&A0. evfic.— Ver. 31. After dre, Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. have oty; rightly, since B. C. D. L. X. &. Cursives, Verss. Or. Cyr., turn the scale in favour of od», while the omission (Griesb. Scholz) was the more readily suggested, as there was an inclination to begin the new sentence with vy dé vw. — Ver. 32. e: 6 0, édog, év avrg) is rejected by Scholz as ‘‘inepta iteratio,” and bracketed by Lachm. The words are wanting in B. C.* D. L. X. I. &.* Cursives, Verss. Tert. Ambr. But the very repetition and the homoeoteleuton would so readily occasion the omission, that these adverse witnesses cannot overthrow the reading. — Ver. 38. The order éyd trdye (Lachm. Tisch.) is too decisively attested to admit of its being derived from viii. 21. — Ver. 36. The order axod, dé forepoy (without yor) is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch ; so also in ver. 38, amoxpivera: (instead of dzexpi6n). — Ver, 38. The form gwr7jon (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively accredited ; and in- stead of arapvijcy, apryycy is, with Lachm. and Tisch., following B. D. L. X. 1. Or., to be read, in place of which the compound was introduced from Matt. xxvi. 34 and the parallel passages.
Vv. 1-5. On the construction [See Note XX XIX. p. 402], observe : (1) vv. 1-5 are not to be taken together asa single period ;' as Paul also® defines the connection : ‘‘ He arises before the Passover feast at the meal then taking place,” which latter would more nearly define mpd r. éopr. r. r. This con- structing the whole together is inadmissible, because ei¢ réAo¢g zydr. avrote, being connected with pd d2 éopr. r. r., completes regularly the construction of ver. 1, and with xai deixvov y:v. a new period begins ; consequently (this also in answer to Knapp, Liicke, Ebrard, and several others) eidé¢, ver. 8, cannot be the resumption of eidéc, ver. 1. Rightly Lachmann and Tischen- dorf close ver. 1 with a full stop." (2) We may not join xpd ric éopr. 7. rdoxa with eidéc,* because the expression states too vaguely and indefinitely the point of time in which the definite consciousness of His hour entered the
1 Griesbach, Matthael, Schulz, Scholz, ‘Kling, Luthardt, Riggenbach, Graf in
Bleek, Ebrard, and several others. the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 741 ff.; before him 9 Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 862 ff., 1967, p. 534 ff. also Baeumlein in the Stud. u. Kril. 1846, p. * Comp. Hengst. Godet, Ewald. 897.
386 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
mind of Jesus ; the definite day before the feast would be designated as such (perhaps by rpd pidc fyuépac rod waoya, comp. xii. 1; Plut. Sull. 837). But that wpd ro éopr7c—comp. with xii. 1—must denote this very day before the feast, namely, the 14th Nisan,’ is an altogether arbitrary assumption. Just as incorrect is it (8) to refer it to éyarfeac,* so that the love entertained before the feast stands over against the love entertained’ until the end,—which assumption is extorted simply by an attempt at harmonizing, is opposed to the order of the words (ayarfoas . . . xéouq must in that case have stood before eiddésc, x.r.A.), and—through the division which is then made to appear of the love of Jesus (the love before the feast, and the love from the feast onwards)—is in contradiction with John’s more reflective and spiritual manner ; while it leaves, moreover, the participial clause eidag . . . rarépa without appropriate significance. The simple literal mode of connection is rather : Before the feast, Jesus gave, since He knew, etc., to His own the closing proof of love. While, then, a meal is being observed, as the devil already, ete., He arises from the meal, although He knows that the Father, etc. There is thus nothing to place in a parenthesis.
Ver. 1. Mpa d2 7. éopr. tr. réoxa] xpd is emphasized by the intervening dé. Jesus had arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, on the following day (xii. 1, 12) had entered Jerusalem, and then, xii. 36, withdrawn Himself into concealment. But before the paschal feast began,® there followed the closing manifestation of love before His death, which Jobn intends to relate. How long before the feast, our passage docs not state ; but it is clear from ver. 29, xvili. 28, xix. 14, 31, that it was not on the 14th Nisan, as the har- monists have frequently maintained (sec, however, on xviii. 28), but‘ on the 13th Nisan, Thursday evening, at the Supper. On the 14th Nisan, in the evening, the festival commenced with the paschal meal, after Jesus had been crucified on the afternoon of the same day. Such is the view of John ; see on Xviii. 28. — eiddc, x.7.2.] Not, ‘‘although He knew” (this is unpsycholog- . ical, Hengstenberg), but because He knew. He gives expression to that which inwardly drew and impelled Him to display towards His own a further and a last token of love ; He knew, indeed, that for Him the hour was come, that he should go, etc. (iva comp. Xi. 23). On perafg, comp. v. 24; 1 John iii. 14. —dayarfoac, «.r.A.] is regarded by interpreters as co-ordinated with eiddc, x.7.A., according to the well-known usage, which rests on a logi- cal basis, of the asyndetic connection of several participles ;° so that the meaning would be: As He had (ever) loved His own, so also at the very last ‘He gave them a true proof of love. But opposed to this is the absence of
1 Hofmann, Schri/tbero. IT. 2, p. 205, Lange, Baeumlein, and several others, fncluding Paul and Hengstenberg.
2 Wieseler, Tholuck, see in opposition Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 208.
3 Rightly has Riickert observed. 4bendm. p. 26, that by mpd 82 ris 2opris the possibility of thinking of a point of time within the Passover, and thus even of the paschal meal, is precluded for the reader who has
advanced so far. Incorrectly, Riggenbach, Zeugn. f. d. Do. Joh. p. 72; there hangs over the present passage ‘‘a certain darkness.” Certainly, if we set ont from a harmonistic point of view. With such, rather {is it en- tirely irreconcilable.
* See also Isenberg, @ Todestag des Herrn, 1868, p. 7 ff.
5 Voigtler, ad Luc. D. M. xii. p. 67 ff. ; Kithner, ad Xen. Anad. |. 1. 7.
CHAP. XIII., l. 387
an cei, which Nonnus supplies, or of an’ apyfe, or wéAaz or the like, along with ayarf#oac, whereby a correlation with ei¢ réA0¢ would have been estab- lished. In addition to this, the clause rote éy 7 xéony, not initself indis- pensable, but expressive of sorrow, is manifestly added in reference to the preceding éx rod xéouov r., and thus betrays the connection of ayarfoagc . . . bony with the final clause iva peraBy, «.r.A. Hence: ‘in order to pass to the Father, after He should hate (not had) loted,” etc. [See Note XL. p. 408.] This, ‘after He should hare loved,” etc., is a testimony which His conscience yielded Him with that ciddc, x.7.A. — rove idiove] This relationship —the N. T. fulfilment of the old theocratic, i. 11—had its fullest represen- tation in the circle of apostles, so that the apostles were pre-cminently the idtoe Of Jesus, — cig réAog 7ydm. airob¢] to be connected with zpo dé ry¢ éopr. tr. mw. : at last (ei¢ réAoc is emphatic) He loved them, t.6. showed them the last proof of love before His death.’ How, the xa2 deéxvov, x.r.4., which immediately follows, express¢s, namely, by means of the washing of the feet, hence it cannot be understood of the whole work of love in suffering (Graf). cig ré2o¢ denotes at the end, finally, at last.* So also 1 Thess. ii. 16. It may also denote fully, in the highest degres;* but this yiclds here an inappropriate gradation, as though Jesus now exercised His love to the utmost (in answer to Godet). It was the like love with the preceding ayarfoac, only the last proof before departure ; for His hour was come. — On nyéryoev, of actually manifested love, comp. ver. 84 ; 1 John iv. 10, 19; Eph. ii. 4, v. 2, 25.
Notre.—From the present passage—since pd rij¢ toprij¢ gives the chronological measure for the following supper, and with this for the whole history of the passion—already appears the irreconcilable difference between John and the Synoptics in respect of the day of Jesus’ death. See details on xviii. 28. Even if spd ric éopr. were connected with eidur, this statement of time would - be historically explicable only from the fact that Jesus, conformably to the oer- tainty which entered His mind before the feast —‘‘ my hour is come”—did what follows not at the feast, i.e. after the beginning of the feast on the evening of the 14th Nisan, but just before the feast (i.e, at least on the evening of the 13th Nisan), in the consciousness that now His time was fulfilled, satisfying His love for the last time. Luthardt incorrectly concludes that, if Jesus knew already before the feast, etc., He must have died at the feast. Of such an antithesis the text contains not the slightestindication. Rather, if Jesus knew before the feast, etc., and acted in this consciousness, we are not at liberty to move forward the deizvov, and that which is connected with it, to the feast. The matter lies simply thus : If the supper were that of the 14th Nisan, then John could not say pd rac topric, but only either mpd tov deixvov roi mdoyxa (which sense is imported by Hengstenherg) ; or, on the other hand, like the Synoptics, rg mpdry tov afiuuv (Matt. xxvi. 17), or r. tpt tig toprijc. The 15th Nisan was already 7 éravpiov rov macya (LXX. Num. xxxiii, 3: NOB N10,
1 Ebrard's inconsiderate objection (on 2 Luke xvili. 5 (see commentary In loc.); Olshausen, p. 887) against my connection of Hat. fii. 40; Xen. Gee. xvit. 10; Soph. Phu, aig TEA. Hyde. With wpd 7. éopra#s, since eis réA. 477 (and Hermann's note). nyéx. {3 the last performance of love, will *? Pfllugk, ad Kur. Hec. 817; Schweighiuser, probably be found by him to fallofitselfto Lex. Polyd. p. 616; Grimm on2 Macc. viil. the ground, 29.
388 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. comp. Josh, v. 11); but the 14th was mivy MO2, Num. xviii. 16, ef al., 7 juépa rov Tacxa. Comp. Introd. § 2.
Vv. 2-5. And (e quidem) this ei¢ réAoc nydrgoev airobe He fulfilled at the supper by the washing of the fect. — deimvov yevou.] Note the present, stand- ing in relation to the present éyeiperar, ver. 4 (see critical notes). Whilst it ia becoming supper-time, i.e. whilst supper-time ts on the point of being kept." They had already reclined for the purpose, vv. 4, 12. According to the Recepta, yevou., the meal was not yet over (Luther and several others, includ- ing Klee and Hofmann, p. 207, who explains as though pera 1d deirvov were expressed), but already in progress,—supper had begun. This itself was, according to ver. 1, not the paschal supper, but (hence also without the article 7) an ordinary evening meal on the 13th Nisan (in opposition to the synoptical account) in Jerusalem (not in Bethany, see on xiv. 81), the last repast of Jesus before His death, at which He founded the Lord's Supper (xili, 21 ff., 38, xviii. 1). The institution of the Supper John leaves un- mentioned—not as being unacquainted with it (Strauss), or seeing in it no ecclesiastical rite (Scholten), but because it was universally known (1 Cor. xi.), and the practice itself was in daily use (Acts ii. 46). Rather, there- fore, than repeat the familiar account, he selected from the abundance of that last night what, besides this, he found most in harmony with his peculiar object, the making known the glory of the Aédyo¢ in the flesh,—in the washing of the feet, yépc¢, in the discourses, ydpr¢ and aAgfea. According to Schenkel, John desired by his silence to preclude the notions of a magical effect resulting from the Lord’s Supper, and the later controversies concern- ing it. But such a purpose would have required the very opposite proced- ure, viz. distinct instruction. Baur assumes, p. 264, that the evangelist has dated back the significance of the Supper to the second Passover, chap. vi., because he did not wish to allow the last meal of Jesus to pass for the same as that in the Synoptics, namely, a paschal meal. Comp. also Scholten, p. 289 ff. But for this purpose such an inversion of the synoptical matcrial was not at all necessary. He could have mentioned the institution of the Supper at the last meal in such a way that this would still not have been a paschal meal. — rot diafddAov 7dn, x.r.A.] cannot serve merely as a pre- tude to the subsequent and more frequent mention of the relation of Jesus to the traitor (vv. 10, 18, 21, 26, 27, 30), as Godet maintains, which would be but a formal purpose, and not in harmony with the tragic emphasis of the language. Nor is it intended to make us sensible of the forbearance of Jesus, who Himself washed the feet of Judas,* norin general, the mere short-
1 [Or rather, perhaps, while a supper is ‘ak- ing place.—K.]
2 Certainly it is often indifferent whether the article stands with Setxvoy or not, but here it must have stood, had {t been intend- ed to Indicate that solemn meal of the 14th Nisan, the venerable meal of the feast. In xx!. 20 the article had to be expressed, be- cause it points backwards. This in answer
to Tholuck. Hofmann, Lange, and Paul al- so get over too readily the want of the arti- cle; and even Graf imports the meaning, which is incompatible with the absence of the article: ‘After the principal part of the supper, the eating of the paschal lamb, was over.”’
* Otherwise special prominence must have been given in what follows to the washing
CHAP, XIII., 2—5. 389
ness of the interval (jd) ere the final tragedy, which he yet devoted to such a work of love (this, indeed, was already contained in eiddc, x.7.4.), but—to which the #67 points—the undisturbed clear elevation of this His might of love over the impending outbreak of the tragic devilish treachery, which could not even now, immediately before its occurrence, confuse His mind. Ac- cording to the reading ’lotdag Xiu. Ioxapidsrye (see the critical notes), we must explain ; the devil having already formed the design that Judas should deliver Him up. The xapdia is not that of Judas (Luthardt, Baeumlein), as in the Recepta, but of the deotl (comp. Vulgate) ; as in the classics BaAjew or BaA- AecOar el¢ vodv, eic Ovudv, év gpeaiv, frequently denotes in animum inducere, statuere, deliberare.’ [See Note XLI. p. 403.] Current as was this mode of speech, we cannot be surprised, in an anthropomorphic representation of the devil, at the mention of his heart (in answer to Liicke, Godet, and others), in which he has his éOvuyiag (vill. 44), peOodeiag (Eph. vi. 11), vofuara (2 Cor. ii. 11), etc. As the heart of God may be spoken of (Acts xiii. 22), so also the heart of the devil. — 'Iotdacg Liu. "Ioxap.] The full name, and at the close, contains a shuddering emphasis. — The participial clause is not to be placed in a parenthesis; it is co-ordinated with deixvov yivop. — eiddg, x.1.A.] Although Tle knew (bug tig Gxpav ovyxatiBy tareivworw, Euth. Zigabenus). The con- sciousness of His divine elevation rested, while on this threshold of death, in the fact that now, being on the point of entering, by stepping over this threshold, upon His glorification, the Messianic fulness of power, which had formerly been bestowed upon Him on the occasion of His mission (Matt. xi. 27), which extended over all things, and was limited by nothing, was given into His hands for complete exercise (comp. on xvii. 2, Matt. xxviii. 18) ; and that God, as He was the source of His coming (comp. on viii. 42), so is the goal of His present departure. — On mévra déduxev arg comp.1 Cor. xv. 25 ; Eph. ii. 22 ; Phil. ii. 9-11, e¢ al. — Ver. 4. éyeiperaz, x.7.A.] Note how the whole representation regards things as present ; to the historic present correspond the present and perfect participles y:voz., PeBaAyn., ciddc, vv. 2, 3. On ri6. ra iudr. comp. Plut. Ale. 8.— The washing of the feet was wont to take place before the beginning of the meal, by the ministry of slaves ;* it was not, however, always observed ; see on Luke vii. 44. Hence we cannot argue, from the omission of it up to this point at this meal (for the guests had already reclined at table), either against (Wichelhaus) or én favour of (Lange : the host was bound to eat sith his family) the supposition that the meal was the Passover meal.—Any peculiar cause for the extraordinary pro- cedure of Jesus is not intimated by John ; and to introduce one from the dis- pute among the disciples about rank, mentioned in Luke xxii. 24 ff. (so, fol- lowing the older commentators, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Godet, with various representations of the scenic associations ; also Baur, who, however, regards the narrative only as the exposition, given in a historical form, of Matt. xx. 26, 27, and Luke xxii. 26, 27, 28, after Strauss had maintained it to bea mythical rendering of a synoptical discourse on humility), is arbitrary in
of his feet. Euth. Zigabenus, comp.Chrysos- Ellendt, Ler. Soph. I. p. 204. tom, Calvin, and several others. See Dougt. Anal. IL p. 50; Stuck. Anté. } Sce Wetstein in foc.; Kypke, I. p. 800; conviv. p. 217.
390 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
itself, since John, fully as he introduces his narrative in vv. 1, 2, gives not even the slightest indication of it, while it is appropriate neither to the position nor to the validity of the account of Luke (see on Luke xxii. 24). The symbolical act of departing love must, especially since Jesus had already reclined at table, have been the outcome of the moment, arising from His own urgent consideration of that which was needful for the disciples and for His work.'— dcé{woev. éavr.] indicating the personal performance more than the means (comp. xxi. 18). He is, in truth, entirely & servant, ravra peta maone tpolvpiag avtovpyjoay (Euth. Zigabenus). — Baares ddwp} He pours water." — ric tr. wr.] into the wash basin standing by. Nihil ministerii omittit,”» Grotius. — #pfaro] for the act commenced was interrupted when Peter's turn came, and not till after ver. 10 was it continued and finished. John employs the #p£aro, 30 common in the other evangelists, here only in this minute description. — ¢] with which,* or instead of 3, by attraction (Rev. i. 13, xv. 6), as in xvii. 5, 11.
Vv. 6-9. "Epyera: otv] So that He thus made a commencement with another disciple, not with Peter himse’f (so Augustine, Beda, Nonnus, Rupertius, Cornelius & Lapide, Maldonatus, Jansen, and other Catholics in the Romish interest ; but also Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg). With whom (Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus point to Judas Iscariot, whom, however, Nonnus makes to be last) is left altogether undetermined. — ci pov, k.T.A.] éxm2ayeic elre rovro Kal opddpa evAaByMeic, Euth. Zigabenus. The emphasis lies primarily upon of ; but not secondarily on jov, as if éuov were used, but on r. xédag: Dost Thou wash my feet? The present vixrec, like A:0alére, x. 82, and roceic, ver. 27. — Ver. 7. Note the antithesis of ty... ob. What He did was not the external work of washing (so Peter took it), but that which this washing signified in the mind of Jesus, namely, the token of the morally purifying, ministering love. — era ravra} namely, through the instruction, vv. 13-17. To refer this to the later apostolic en- lightenment and experience ‘ is not justified by the text (comp. yevdoxere. ver. 12), and would have been expressed, as in ver. 36, by the antithesis of viv and iorepov. — Ver. 8. Peter, instead of now complying, as became him, refuses with definite and vehement decision. But Jesus puts before him a threat connected with the necessity of this feet-washing, which could only have its ground and justification in the higher moral meaning of which the act was to be the quiet symbolic language. Thus He intends what He now says not of the external performance as such in and by itself, but of the ethical contents which it is symbolically to sct forth, after He had already indicated, ver. 7, that something higher lay in this act. It is precisely John who has apprehended and reported in the most faithful and delicate manner how Jesus knew to employ the sensuous as a foil to the spiritual, and thus to ascend, first enigmatically, then more clearly, and ever higher, towards the very highest. He says : If I shall not have washed thee, thou hast no part
1 Comp. Ewald, Geach. Chr. p. 5A. p. 43 B. 2 Comp. Planudius in Bachmann, Anat. 2. 4 Chrysostom, Grotlus, Tholuck, Hengs- p. 99, 18. tenborg, Ewald, and several others.
3Hom. x. 77, Of xvil. 66; Athen. x.
CHAP. XIII, 10, 11. 391
with me. By this He undoubtedly means the /eet-washing which He in- tended to perform (roi¢ wéda¢ cov was to be understood as a matter of course, according to the connection,—against Hofmann, II. 2, p. 323), yet still un- der the ethical sense, which it was to set forth symbolically, and impress in a way not to be forgotten. Washing isthe time-consecrated image of moral purification. Hence the thought of Jesus divested of this symbolical wrap- ping is: If I shall not have purified thee, just as I now would wash thy feet, Jrom the sinful nature still adhering to thee, thou hast no share with me (in the eternal possession of salvation). Hengstenberg’s view, who here takes the washing as the symbol of the forgiveness of sins (according to Ps. li. 4), is opposed to vv. 12 ff. — Peter, as ver. 9 shows, did not yet understand the higher meaning of the Lord’s words ; he could but take His answer in the external sense that immediately offered itself (if, in disobedience to me, thou dost not suffer thyself to be washed by me, thou hast, etc.). The thought, how- ever, of being a man separated, by further resistance, from Jesus and His salvation, was sufficiently overpowering for His ardent love to make him offer forthwith not merely His fect, but also the remaining unclothed parts of His body, His hands and His head, to be washed ; xai év r9 waparrgoec cai év TH ovyxuphoe. opodpérepoc, éxarepa yap é& aydrne, Cyril. — ei¢ rdv aidva] ahile eternity lasts, spoken passionately. Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 18. — pépoc éyewv peté tivoc] denotes the participation in the same relation, in the like situ- ation with any one, Matt. xxiv. 51, Luke xii. 46, after the Hebrew Ni pan (Deut. xii. 12), and Dy pn (Deut. x. 9, xiv. 27; Ps. 1.18). The expres- sion in the classics would be ovx éyecc or peréyeic pépog pov. It is the denial of the ovyxAnporvépoy elva: Xpiorov, and thus the threatening of exclusion from the Cw and déf£a of the Lord.
Vv. 10, 11. Jesus corrects the disciple by proceeding to speak of the washing in question according to its intended spiritual significance, that he may thus lcad the disciple, who had misunderstood Him, to the true comprehension of the matter. According to the mere verbal sense, Ho says: ‘‘Ile who has bathed needs nothing further than to wash his feet (which have been soiled again by the road) ; rather is he (except as to this necessary cleansing of the feet) clean in his entire body.” But this state- ment, derived from experience of the sensuous province of life, serves as a symbolical veiling of the ethical thought which Jesus desires to set forth : ‘‘ He who has already erperienced moral purification in general and on the whole in fellowship with me, like him who has cleansed his whole body in the bath, requires only to be freed from the sinful defilement in individual things which has been again contracted in the intercourse of life ; as one who has bathed only requires again the washing of his feet, but in other respects he is clean as to his whole moral personality.” This necessity of individual purification demanding daily penitence, which Jesus here sets forth in the AeAouptvog by roi¢ éda¢ vixacfaz, how manifest it became in the very case of Peter! .g., after he denied his Lord, and after the hypocrisy exhibited at Antioch, Gal. ii. To illustrate the entire spiritual purification’ by 6 Aedov-
1 Calvin well remarks: ‘Non quod omni ex parte puri sint, ut nulla in illis macula
392 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
pévoc, however, suggested itself so very naturally through the very feet- washing, which was just about to be undertaken as its correlate, that an allusion to baptism’ (with Olshausen, B. Crusius, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet), perhaps after 1 Cor. vi. 11, cannot be made good, while we need not even assume a reference to the by no means universal custom of bath- ing before meals. The word is to be thought of as the purifying element represented in é ArAovuévoc ; a8 also in the simile of the vine, which is anal- ogous in regard to the matter of fact depicted, the xafapoi tore, xv. 8, is referred back only to the word of Christ as the ground thereof. But the notion of ethical purification must, in the connection of the entire symbol- ism of the passage, be also strictly and firmly maintained in oi ypeiav . . . vipacfa: ; 80 that the latter is not, as Linder* thinks, intended to suggest that the clean man even may undergo the feet-washing,—not, however, for the object of purification, but as a token of love or humble subjection. — xai tyueic xaBapol éore] Hereby Jesus now makes the application to Peter and his JSellow-disciplees of what was previously said in the form of a general propo- sition : ‘‘ Ye also are clean,” as I, namely, have just expressed it of the Aezov- pévog ; you also have attained in your living fellowship with me through my word to this moral purity of your entire personality ; but—so He sub- joins with deep grief, having Judas Iscariot in view—but not all/ One there is amongst you who has frustrated in his own case the purifying influ- ence of this union with me! Had Peter hitherto not yet seized the sym- bolical significance of the discourse of Jesus, yet now, on this application nal tueic, x.T.A.. and on this tragical addition GAA’ ovz? mdvrec, its meaning must have dawned upon his understanding. — 7] gives a comparative refer- ence to the absolute expression oi« éyec yp. : has no need (further) than.* — tov wapadid. avrév] His betrayer, Matt. xxvi. 48 ; John xviii. 2. — Further, what has been said of an anti-Petrine aim in this passage, in spite of i. 43, vi. 68, 69 (Strauss, Schwegler, Baur, Hilgenfeld), by which the desire for an Ebionitic lavation of the whole body has actually been ascribed to Peter (Hilgenfeld), is purely imaginary.
Vv. 12, 13. Tevdonere, x.7.A.] know ye, etc.; tpwra ayvoovvrag, iva dieyeipg ei¢ spoooxgv, Euth. Zigabenus. Comp. Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 186. — ri] namely, according to the spiritual contents whose symbolical represen- tation was the act that was presented to the senses. — Ver. 13. Ye call me Teacher and Lord. It was in this way that the pupils of the Rabbins ad- dressed their teachers, °3°) and ‘2 ; and so also did the disciples address Jesus as the Messiah, whose pupils (Matt. xxiii. 8) and dovAc (ver. 16) they were. Comp. on 6 diddox., xi. 28.‘ guveiv does not signify to name; but in the article lies the of that is present to the mind in uttering the words.’
amplius haereat, sed quoniam praecipua sui parte mundati sunt, dum scilicet abla- tum est regnum peccato ut justitia Del su- perior sit.’’
1Theodore of Mopsuestia, Augustine, Ruperti, Erasmus, Jansen, Zeger, Cornelius & Lapide, Schoettgen, Wetstein, and many others.
2 Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 512 ff.
3 Comp. Xen. em. iv. 8.9; Herod. vi. 52: ov duvanévous 82 yrwvat % Kai rpd Ttovrov (better than even formerly); Soph. Track. 1016; Winer, p. 473 [E. T. p. 508).
4 On the nominativus fiéuli, see Buttmann, N. T. Gramm. p. 132 [E. T. p. 151].
§ Kriiger, § 45. 2. 6.
—_—w
CHAP. XIII., 14, 15. 393
Vv. 14, 15. It is not the act itself, but its moral essence, which, after His example, He enjoins upon them to exercise. This moral essence, how- ever, consists not in lowly and ministering love generally, in which Jesus, by washing the fect of His disciples, desired to give them an example, byt, as ver. 10 proves, in the ministering love which, in all self-denial and hu- mility, ts active for the moral purification and cleansing of others. As Jesus had just set forth this ministering love by His own example, when He, although their Lord and Master, performed on the persons of His disciples the servile duty of washing their feet,—as an emblem, however, of the efficacy of His love to purify them spiritually,—so ought they to wash one another's feet ; t.c. with the same self-denying love to be reciprocally serviceable to one another with a view to moral purification. The understanding of the injunction ddefAere, x.7.A., in the proper sense was not that of the apostol- ical age, but arose at a later time, and was followed (first in the fourth century, comp. Ambrose, de sacram. iii. 1; Augustine ad Januar. ep. 119) by the introduction of the washing of the feet of the baptized on Maundy Thursday, and other symbolical feet-washings (later also amongst the Men- nonites and in the community of Brothers). 1 Tim. v. 10 contains the non-ritualistic reference to hospitality. The feet-washing by the Pope on Maundy Thursday is a result of the pretension to represent Christ, and as such, also, was strongly condemned by the Reformers. Justly, however, the church has not adopted the feet-washing into the number of the sacra- ments ; for it is not the practice itself, but the spiritual action which it symbolizes, that Jesus enjoined upon the disciples. And it is solely to this moral meaning that the promise in ver. 17 is attached ; and hence the essential marks of the specific sacramental idea, corresponding to the essence of baptism and of the Supper—sacramental institution, promise, and colla- tive force—are wanting to it. This in answer to Bdhmer,' who designates it an offence against Holy Scripture, that the Protestant church has not recognized the feet-washing as a sacrament, which, outside the Greek church,? it was explained to be by Bernard of Clairvaux (‘‘ Sacramen- tum remissionis peccatorum quotidianorum”), without any permanent result. Baeumlein also favours the maintenance of the practice as a legacy of Christ. But its essence is preserved, where the love, from which the practice flowed, abides. Nonnus aptly designates the xafac éyd, x.7.A. 88 looguie plunua. The practice itself, moreover, cannot in truth be carried out either every- where, or at all times, or by all, or on all. —éyo . . . xat tueicg] Argumen- tum a majori ad minus. The majus implied in éyé is further, by the sub- joined 4 xbprog x. 5 diddox., brought home with special force, and therefore, also, the principal point, 4 xipwe (comp. ver. 16), is here thrown back. — ixédecyyza] Later term, instead of the old rapddecyua.*® — iva, x.7.4.] Design in setting the example : that, as Jhave done to you (‘‘in genere actus,” Grotius), you also may do, namely, in ministering to one another in self- denying love for the removal of all sinful contamination, as I, for my part,
1 Stud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 829 ff. tom in monasteries. * In which it has been preserved as a cus- * Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 12.
394 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
have just now figuratively fulfilled in your case, in the symbol of the feet- washing, this ministering love directed to your moral purification.
Vv. 16, 17. Truly you, the lesser (arécrodoc : commissioned), may not dis- pense with the performance of that which I, the greater, have here per- fobmed. Comp. xv. 20; Matt. x. 24 ; Luke vi. 40. —-raira] That which I have herein (vv. 13-16) set forth to you by my imédecyza, by means of the feet-washing, and have made an obligation. — ei expresses the general, and édv the particular, additional condition. The ei makes a definite supposi- tion? (oldare d2 abta rap’ éuov pabdvres, Euth. Zigabenus) ; édv is in cass you, etc. The knowing is objectively granted, the doing subjectively condi- tioned. — axap.] said in reference to the happiness of the present and future Messianic life. Comp. on xix. 29.
Vv. 18, 19. Ov wrepi ravr. iudy 2£yw] Namely, this that ye waxdproi tore, «.7.A. ‘¢ Est inter vos, qui non erit beatus neque faciet ea,” Augustine. Unneces- sarily and inappropriately, Tholuck refers back to ver. 10. — #6] I for my part, opposed to the divine determination (GA1’ iva, «.r.4.), which required however, the selection of apostles so to take place that the traitor entered into the number of the chosen. Ina very arbitrary manner Tholuck gives the pregnant meaning to éfeAef. : whom I peculiarly have chosen. — oida} I know of what character they are, so that I do not therefore deceive myself, if I do not say of you all, etc. — a/’] is ordinarily taken as the antithesis of ov wepi mw. tu. A., and is supplemented by rotro yéyovev (namely, that I cannot affirm, ver. 17, of you all) ; while others connect it with 6 rpdywy, «.r.2., thus taking iva 7 yp. nA. as an intermediate clause.* The former view is unauthorized by the context, which suggests a rovro yéyovev just as little as in 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; the latter does not correspond to the importance in the con- nection of this declaration of purpose. The only supplement in accordance with the tert is (comp. ix. 8,1. 8) : éfeAeEduyy avrots : But I made the choicein obedience to the divine destiny, in accordance with which the Scripture (that which stands written, comp. xix. 37 ; Mark xii. 10 ; Luke iv. 21) could not but be fulfilled, etc. Comp. vi. 70, 71. The passage, freely cited from the original, is Ps. xli. 40, where the theocratic sufferer (ho is unknown ; not David, whom the superscription names) makes an utterance which, accord- ing to divine determination, was to find its Messianic historical fulfilment in the treason of Judas. —6é rpdy. per éuoi tr. dpr.] Deviating from the origi- nal erlar, 72°%), and from the LXX., yet without substantial alteration of the sense (intimacy of table-companionship, which, according to Hellenic views also, aggravated the detestable character of the crime,‘ and involun- tarily suggesting itself, since Judas actually ate with Jesus (rpdy., vi. 56-58). —inxgpev) has lifted up. Note the preterite; Judas, so near to an act of treason, is like him who has already lifted up his heel, in order to admin- ister a kick to another. To explain the figure from a crafty tripping up
1Comp. on the twofold protasis, Stall- dowbt.—K.] baum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 67 E, Apol. p. 20C ; *Semler, Kulnoel; admitted also by Klotz, ad Devar. p. 512; Ellendt, Ler. Soph. _Liicke. I. p. 498. 4 See Pflugk, ad Kur. Hec. 798.
2 [Mere condition, without implying
CHAP. XIII, 20. 395
of the foot in wrestling (xrepvifecv), is less appropriate both to the words and to the facts (Jesus was not overreached ). — Ver. 19. ar’ dpri] not now, but as alwaysin the N. T. (i. 52, xiv. 7; Matt. xxiii. 89, xxvi. 28, 64; Rev. xiv. 18) : from this time forward. Previously, He has not yet definitely disclosed it. — mioreboyre, x.r.A.] Ye may believe that I am He (the Messiah), and that no other is to be expected ; sec on viii. 24. How easily might the disciples have come to vacillate in their faith through the success of the treason of Judas, if He had not foreseen and foretold it as lying in the ordered plan of the divine destiny ! Comp. xiv. 29. But through the predictive declaration, what might have become ground of doubt becomes ground for faith.
Ver. 20. And for the furtherance and confirmation of this your fidelity in the faith, which, in spite of the treason arising from your midst, must not vacillate, I say to you, that ye may confidently go forward to meet your calling as my ambassadors (xx. 21). The high and blessed position of my ambassadors remains so unimpaired, that whoever accepts them accepts me, etc. And the more, that Jesus must apprehend a disheartening impression from the treason on the rest of the disciples, the more earnestly (aufy, aujv 2éyw ip.) does He introduce this encouragement. Comp. Calvin : Christ would ‘+ offendiculo mederi ;” and Grotius : ‘‘ ostendit ministeria ipsis injuncta non caritura suis solatiis.” The contrast of the treason to the dignity of the apostolic circle (Hilgenfeld) He certainly does not mean to assert, so self- evident was this contrast. Nor do the words serve to confirm the moreto., bre éyd eis (Ebrard), to which the first half of the verse is not appropriate, in which, indeed, Godet, without justification, would give to the simple éav ria the limiting sense: He among you, who is really my ambassador. Further : to join ver. 20 with vv. 16, 17' is an arbitrary construction, which Kuinoel aggravates by explaining the words as a gloss from Matt. x. 40, added to ver. 16, and which subsequently entered the text in the wrong place, as Liicke also has revived the suspicion of a gloss (from Luke ix. 48). The lack of connection, employed by Strauss as an argument against the originality, is external, and not in the sequence of the thought ; and besides, the emotion and agitation of Jesus are here to be considered. The manifest identity of the saying with that of Matt. x. 40, forbids our explaining it in an essentially different sense (Luthardt explains of the sending of those needing the ministry of love to the disciples). But to bring in here the dis- pute about rank, which Luke xxii. 24 ff. places after the supper (Baeumlein), is groundless, and uscless in the way of explanation.
Nore.—The story of the feet-washing, vv. 1-20,—rejected by Bretschneider, Fritzsche, and Strauss as a mythical invention, and recognized by Weisse as genuine only in individual portions,—has been justly defended by Schweizer, p. 164 ff., in conformity with its stamp of truth and originality, which through- out indicates the eye-witness ; in opposition to which, Baur can only recog- nize a froc formation out of synoptical material (see on vv. 2-5) in behalf of the idea, as also Hilgenfeld, comp. Scholten. The no&-mention of the oc-
1 Lampe, Storr, Klee, Mailer, Hengstenberg, comp. Brfickner.
390 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. currence in the Synoptics is explained from the fact that with them the situa- tion is quite different, and the main point is the institution of the Supper.
Vv. 21, 22. The thought of Jesus recurs in deep excitement and agitation —owing to which, probably, an interrupting pause occurred—back to the traitor ;’ it constrains Him now to testify with the most straightforward definiteness what He knows, but at which He had previously only hinted : One of you will betray me! Comp. Matt. xxvi. 21, 22, in comparison with whose representation that of John is to be preferred. — r@ rveijparc] in His Spirit (xi. 83), not: through the dicine Spirit (Hilgenfeld). — 23Aemrov otv, x.7.4.] ‘* perculsi rei atrocitate vix credibili animis probis minimeque suspi- cacibus,”’ Grotius. Judas may likewise have dissembled.
Vv. 23, 24. There was, however, reclining at table, one of the disciples, etc., so that qv belongs to év r@ xdAry (Luke xvi. 23). The custom was to lie with the left arm supported on the cushion, and the feet stretched out behind, so that the right hand remained free for eating. The one who lay next reached, with the back of his head, to the sinus of the girdle* of the first, and had the feet of the first at his back ; in like manner, the third in the xéAmug of the second.* — &v nya. 6'I.] xar’ éiox#v. Comp. xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20. It explains the fact that he was Jesus’ nearest table-compan- ion. And here, out of the recollection of that sacred, and by him never to be forgotten moment, there jirst breaks from his lips this nameless, and yet so expressive designation of himself. It is arbitrary, however, to take this as a circumlocution for his name ;‘ such a view is precluded by the circumstance that dv ny. 6 xbpwc is never employed (but always 6 'Iycovc). — According to the reading x. Aéyes abr@' eiré tic éotiv (see critical notes), Peter supposes, with his characteristic hasty temperament, that John, as the confidant of Jesus, would know whom the latter meant.® The Aéye: is uttered in a whisper, as implied also in the vividly portraying veie:. Should eizé be taken as: ‘‘say to Jesus” (Ewald), either repi ob Aéyee would be omitted, or Atyec¢ would take the place of Aéyer.
Vv. 25, 26. Graphic representation. Raising himself from the «éAro¢ of Jesus to His breast, nearer to His ear, he draws close to Him, and asks (in a whisper). — éyé] J, for my part. — 1d you.] which he meanwhile took into His hand. — zriddow] shall gice, present to. ‘The morsel is a piece of bread or meat, which Jesus dips into a broth on the table (not into the Charoseth, see on Matt. xxvi. 23, since the meal, according to John, was not the
1The course of thought assumed by Godet is pure invention : “ If the true apos- tle carries within Himself God (ver. 20), the traitor carries in himself Satan” (ver. 2%).
3 xdAwos, Luke vi. 88; Plin. ep. iv. 22.
3 See Lightfoot, p. 1095 f.
* Gotthold, Bengel, Hengstenberg, Godet.
§ In this and other individual traits (xviii. 15, 16, xix. 26, 27, xx. 2, 8, xxi. 8, 4, xviii 10, xiii. 8, xxf. 15, 16) the design has been dis- covered to make Peter appear in a less advantageous light than John, or to make him appear so generally,—which would be
in keeping with the anti-Judaic tendency of the author. See especially Baur, p. 820 ff. Comp. Hilgenfeld, Zvang. p. 885; Spaeth in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 182 f. But if the author had actually entertained this design, it would have been an easy thing for him—since he is said to have dis- posed of the historical material in so alto- gether free a manner—to have satisfied it in dogmatic points (which would be prinel- pally concerned), and yet more easy, at least in {. 43, and vi. 68, 69, to have remained silent. Comp. on vy. 10, 11.
CHAP. XIII., 27-29. 397
paschal meal).— The closing words of ver. 26 have a certain tragic solemni- ty. By the designation of the traitor, it was not the curiosity of John, but his own love, which Jesus satisfied, and this by means of a token not of apparent, but of real and sorrowful goodwill towards Judas, in whom even now conscience might be awakened and touched through a token at the same time, such as most naturally suggested itself at table to the Lord as the head of the family, expressive of forbearance towards the traitor. This in answer to Weisse, who psychologically mishandles the entire representa- tion as a fiction derived from ver. 18, and finds the true occurrence only in Mark, while Strauss gives the relative preference to Luke (xxii. 21).
Vv. 27, 28. Kat pera 7d wuu.] and after the morsel, i.e. after Jesus had given him the morsel, ver. 26. So frequently also in the classics a single word only is used with yerd, which thus in the context represents an entire clause.*— rére}] then, at that moment, intentionally bringing into relief the horribly tragic moment. — eiogAOev, x.7.A.] 30 that he was thus from henceforward a man possessed by the devil, Mark v. 12, 18, ix. 25; Luke viii. 80 ; Matt. xii. 45. The expression (comp. Luke xxii. 8) forbids a figurative interpretation (that Judas completely hardened himself after this discovery was understood by him to have been made), found already in Theodore of Mopsuestia. The complete hardening, in consequence of which he could no more retrace his steps, was simply the immediate consequence of this possession by the devil. But against a magical causal connection, as it were, of the entrance of the devil along with the morsel, Cyril already justly declared himself. The representation rather is, that now, just when Judas had taken the morsel without inward compunction, he was given up by Christ, and being laid open to the unhindered entrance of the devil («e@d- rep tiva rbhAnv ri tov gvAdrrovrog éphunv, Cyril), experiences this entrance. John did not see this (in the external bearing of Judas, as Godet supposes) ; but it is with him a psychological certainty. — 8 roweic, rainoov raxiov) What thou purposest to do,* do more quickly. In the comparatice lies the notion : hasten it. So very frequently in Homer @aooorv.4 The imperative, however, is not permissire (Grotius, Kuinoel, and several others) ; but Jesus actually wishes to surmount as soon as possible the last crisis (His dpa), now determined for Him in the divine destiny. The resigned, characteristic decision of mind brooks no delay. To suggest the intention, on the part of Jesus, to be rid of the oppressive proximity of the traitor,’ is to anticipate what follows.
Vv. 28, 29. Oideic¢] Even John not excepted (against Bengel, Kuinoel, Lange, Hengstenberg, Godet), from whom the thought was remote, that. now already was the treason to be accomplished. — mpd¢ ri] for behoof of what, — Ver. 29. yép] Proof, by way of example, of this non-comprehension. Some of the disciples had taken those words as an order, to hasten a matter
1To this belongs also the circumstantial See Duncan, Lex. ed. Rost, p. 4, and AauBdver cai and we. (see critical notes). generally Naigelsbach, Anm. 2. Ilias, p. 21, Jesus has put the morsel Into the broth 3814, ed.8; on the graecism of tdxtov, Lo-
(Bdpas), and then taxes it, eto. beck, ad Phryn. p. 77. 2 See Ast, ad Plat. Leg. p. 278 f., Lex. Plat. 5 Ambrose: “ut aconsortio suo recede- II. p. 811; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XTIT. p. 8 ret," comp. Liicke, B. Crusius, Tholuck.
® Comp. ver. 6 ; Winer, p. 249 [E. T. p. 248].
. 398 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
of business known to Judas, the bearer of the chest. They had therefore two more definite suppositions between which they wavered, both produced by a helpless state of mind, but not irrational, since it is not said that they thought of instantaneous attention to the command, nor in the night. — ¢i¢ 7. éopr.| belongs to dv xp. 2x. There was therefore as yet no matter needful for the feast purchased. This, following as it does the statement of time already adduced in ver. 1, presupposes that the present meal was not the Jestal meal, for the latter belonged to the feast itself, which, according to ver. 1, was still impending.'— roic rrwxoic) placed first as the other subject referred to in this second supposition. Comp. Gal. ii. 10. This giving to the poor is likewise thought of as designed for the approaching celebration, because they attempted thus to explain the present direction to the purveyor. —In the transition into the indirect form of speech, 4, «.7.4. must be com- pleted ; or that He said that to him, in order that he, etc.
Vv. 30, 31. Aafdv otv] connecting with ver. 27. With éAev eidi¢ begins the fulfilment of the command of Christ, given in ver. 27. How er- roneous therefore is Hengstenberg’s statement, in spite of the evfic: he went away only at the close of the meal! Before the ¢#A#ev the supper, in sooth, is to have had its place, and Judas to have taken part in it !—#» é vié] The meal had begun in the evening, and—when we consider also the time consumed in the feet-washing—had already advanced into the night. This conclusion of the narrative respecting Judas presents, unsought, some- thing full of horror, and which precisely in this most simple brevity of expression takes profoundest hold of the imagination. Comp. Luke xxii. 53. With dre obv é£7Afe begins a fresh break in the narrative. To omit odv (see critical notes), and to connect these words with #v dé vic,* has against it, apart from the critically certified ot», the considerations that the follow- ing Afyec would stand very abruptly,® dre ¢£7Afe itself would be very super- fluous, and the deeper emphasis of the bare 4» d2 vf at the close would be lost.
Vv. 31, 32. Nev édoféo07, «.7.4.] The traitor is gone, and now the heart of the Lord, which has become freer and more at ease, pours itself forth 2s in an anticipated triumph. In view, namely, of the near and certain end, He sees in His death, as though He had already undergone it, His lifz- work as accomplished, and Himself thereby glorified, and in this His glorifi- cation the glory of God, who completes His work in the work of the Son. The défa intended by Jesus is, therefore, not that which is contained for - Him in the feet-washing and in the departure of Judas, which would not correspond to the sublime and victorious nature of this moment (against Godet). But neither, again, is it the heavenly glory (Luthardt) ; for to this the future dofdce:, ver. 82, first refers, and this change of tense possesses a
1 Against Wieseler, pp. 366, 881, Tholuck, Lange, Luthardt, Baeumlein, Hengsten-
benus, and others, including Bengel, Pau- lus, Ewald.
berg, Paul in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 866 f., and several others). See also Bleek, p. 129 f.; Rickert, Abendm. p. 27 f.; Hilgen- feld, Paschastr. p. 147; Isenberg, p. 10f.
2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga-
3 Ewald supposes that ‘“‘by an old mis- take” dre ovy ¢£7AGev had dropped out before Aéye. But sach is the reading of Cyril only.
CHAP. XIII., 33, 34. 399
” -thendogs the iJoféo7 denote the actual défa, which
ation has begun, that now at length a state of completion, the task ap- zrged. It isthe glory of His death, . already arrived, He contemplates, 6 person, so far as it has been glori- to ver. 31, passing from the dééa,
Ev Of Rachel, B , 81.00, “tz. 12m0, paper, 5c AnD to the heavenly glory, which from “Sree Story Of the Sierras B ence the future dofdae).—ei 3 Bed¢ Press.) © °° Paper, 15¢.; cloth, hee “rin der to subjoin a further thought. —
L’Evan
Scliste. Z2mo, Paper, 50c.: ALPHONSE D
Mumu, and the i cles, $1.00, “UPET.
not, with Ewald, to Christ : in Him-
the év aizvg@. He will be so glorified
l be contained in God's own peculiar han the divine glory itself, completed ough the return into the fellowship of
1, and had become man. Comp, xvii. also of the corresponding relation (on ad : and that.’ On the idea of the rec-
). — cific] straightway ; for how imme- ird3 which my death is the departure !
1 Hie glances at His loved ones, whom vhich but now was that of victory, again IIere, in the first place, the tender rexvia ty of departing love. — pixpév] Accusat. :th and love in distress, in temptation, etc. d,.. . say I nowalso to you.* — r. "Iovd. ] ference, vii. 34, viii. 21, 24, and with the ere. And for the disciples the ov divacbe poral impossibility. See xiv. 2, 3. — dprc] 7, 37, xvi. 12. He could no longer spare
u Pat i 75C. » Paper, r5¢.; cloth, pon Stmas j Ever nD &@ Palace, fcr? Ha ramets BY Eowany a9 ;
Nr
N. - B Paper, Sie Paper, asc; JOun Han.
CHIBA Chinege’ 75C. “D Foraas 22mo, papain, BY Ax.
eMmpNsucas., 7 them the announcement. Ver. 84. Commandment now of the departing Lord for those who,
according to ver, 33, are to be left behind, which He calls a new one, i.e. one not yet given either in the Decalogue or otherwise, in order the more deeply to impress it upon them as the specific rule of their conduct. The novelty lies not in the commandment of love in itself (for see Lev. xix. 18, comp. Matt. v. 48 ff., xix. 19, xxii. 87, 88), nor yet in the higher degree of love found in xafic 7yér. ty., so that the requirement would be, that one should love one’s neighbour not merely d¢ éavrév, but itp favrév,‘ since xa0i¢ does not indicate the degrce or the type (see below,) and since, more- over, the O. T. d¢ éavrév does not exclude, but includes the self-sacrifice of
1 Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 145. rendering {s also quite erroncous. 2 Comp. xiv. 16, xvi. 19; Heb. x. 87; LXX. ‘Cyril, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theo- Job xxxvi.2; Sap. xv. 8, ¢¢ ai. pbylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and many. in-
* Luther incorrectly begins a new sen- cluding especially Knapp, Scr. tar. arg. p. tence with nai dui (“and Tray to younow: 369 ff. @ now commandment,” etc.). Ebrard's
406 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
bas) might be readily passed over by clumsy copyists, especially, too, as the preceding xvpre might occasion its being overlooked. -—Ver. 23. srorgoouer] Lachm. and Tisch. : sro:ygcdue$a, in accordance with important witnesses (D. also with é7evooat x. moujonuar declares for the middle voice). Rightly; the middle, which John uses nowhere else, was unfamiliar to the copyists. — Ver. 28. #yandre] D.* H. L. and a few Curss. : dyandre, to which Buttmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 481 f., gives the preference. Too weakly attested ; and how easily would a stumbling-block be found in the imperf., as denying love to the disciples !—Between ér: and mopevoua Elz. has elrrov, against decisive witnesses. An interpolation in conformity with the preceding.
Ver. 1.1 From Peter Jesus now turns, with consolatory address in refer- ence to His near departure, to the disciples generally ; hence D. and a few Verss, prefix xa? elrev roic¢ pafyraic avrov (so also Luther, following Erasmus). But the cause of the address itself is fully explained in John’s narrative by the situation, and by no means requires the reference, arbitrarily assumed by Hengstenberg, to Luke xxii. 85-88. The whole of the following fare- well discourses, down to xvii. 26, must have grown out of the profoundest recollections of the apostle, which, in a thoroughly genial manner, are viv- idly recalled, and further expanded. It accords with the entire peculiarity of the Johannean narrative of the last Supper, that the Synoptics offer no parallels to these farewell discourses. Hence it is not satisfactory, and is not in keeping with the necessary personal recollection of John, to regard him as taking his start from certain primary words of earlier gospels, which he, like an artist of powerful genius, has transfigured by the freest, but, at the same time, most appropriate and enchanting transformation (Ewald). — x) tapaoc.] by anxiety and apprehension. Comp. xii. 27. It points to what He had spoken in the preceding chapters of His departure, not (with Chrysos- tom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and many) to Peter's denial, after the prediction of which the rest of the disciples also might have become anxious about their constancy. This is erroneous, because the following discourse bears no relation to it.— miovetere, x.r.A.] By these words Jesus exhorts them not to faith generally (which they certainly had), but to that confident assurance by which the yu? rapdcocofac was condi- tioned : trust in God, and trust in me. To take, in both cases, mioretere a3 imperatives * appears most in conformity with the preceding imperative and the direct character of the address.* [See Note XLII. p. 425.] Others : the first mor. is indicative, and the second imperative: ye believe on God, beliere
_1 Luther's exposition of chap. xiv., xv., 2 Cyril., Gothic, Nonnus, Theophylact,
xvi. belongs to the year 1588. He terms these discourses ‘'the best and most con- soling sermons that the Lord Christ deliv- ered on earth,’’ and “a treasure and jewel, not to be purchased with the world’s goods.’ — Luther’s book (which originated in sermons, which Casp. and Cruciger took down) is among his most spirited and lively writings. How highly he himself esteemed it, see in Mattheslus, eti//le Pred. (ed. Narnb. 1592, p. 1193).
Euth. Zigab., Bengel. and several others, including most moderns, from Liicke to Hengst. and Godet. 2 So also Ebrard, who, however, in con- “*formity with a supposed Hebraism (see on Eph. iv. 26), finds the inappropriate mean- ing: ‘‘ Believe on God, 80 ye believe on me.” Thus the emotional address becomes a re- flection. Olshausen arrives at the same sense, taking the first mor. as imperative, the second as indicative.
CHAP. XIV., 2, 3. 407 therefore on me.’ Luther, who regards the first sentence as hypothetical ' (in itself admissible),* in his translation takes ztoretere, in both cases, as in- dicatives, According to any rendering, however, the inseparable coherence of the two elements of faith (God in Christ manifest and near) id to be noted. Comp. Rom. v. 2. :
Vv. 2, 3 serve to arouse the morebecy demanded in ver. 1, to which @ pros- pect so blessed lies open. In the house of my Father are many places of sojourn, many shall find their abiding-place (uov4 only here and in ver. 23 in the N. T. ; frequent in the classics, comp. also 1 Macc. vii. 38), so that such therefore is not wanting to you also ; but if this were not the case I would hace told you (‘‘ademissem vobis spem inanem,” Grotiusy. After elroy av tuiv a full stop must be placed, and with érz (see critical notes) mopevoua: a new sentence begins.* But the Fathers of the church, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio, Wolf, Maldonatus, Bengel, and many others, including Hofmann, ‘ and Ebrard, refer elzov av ipiv to what follows : if it were not so, then I would have said to you: I go, etc. Against this ver. 8 is decisive, according to which Jesus actually says that He is going away, and is preparing a placc.* Others take it as a question, where, however, we are not, on account of the norist elrov, to explain ; would I indeed say to you: I go, etc.?* But : would I indeed have said to you, etc. ? In this way there would either be intended " an earlier saying not preserved in the Gospel (Ewald),’ possibly with the stamp of a gloss on it (Weizsicker), or a reference to the carlier sayings regarding the passage into the heavenly world (Lange). But for the latter explana- tion the language in the present passage is too definite and peculiar ; while the former amounts simply to an hypothesis which is neither neccssary nor ca- pable of support on other grounds.—The oixia rov warpé¢ is not hearen gener- ally, but the peculiar duwelling-place of the divine dé£a in heaven, the place of His glorious throne, * viewed, after the analogy of the temple in Jerusalem, this earthly olxog rot warpég (ii. 16), as a heavenly sanctuary (Isa. lIvii. 15). [See Note XLII. p. 426.] Comp. Heb. ix. — roAAai] lxavai défaobat xai tude, Euth. Zigabenus. The conception of different degrees of blesscdness (Augus-
1 Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther in his Zx- position, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Aretius, Maldonatus, Grotius, and several others.
? Bernhardy, p. 385; Pflugk, ad Zur. Med. 8&6, comp. on 1, 51.
? So, first Valla, then Beza, Calvin, Ca- saubon, Aretius, Grotius, Jansen, and many others, including Kuinoel, Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, B. Crusius, de Wetto (who terms the assertion ‘‘somewhat natve.”" But it has rather its full weight in the faith presupposed in the disciples, that He cannot leave them uninstructed on any essential point of their hope ; comp. Kést- lin, Lehrbegr. p. 168), Maler, Hengstenberg, Godet, Lachmann, Tischendorf.
4 Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 464.
‘This reason is valid, whether we read now in ver. 38 «ai érowudow, or with Lach- mann merely éroydow: Hofmann follows
the latter, and connects therewith, as well as with éay, artificial and laboured depart- ures from the simple sense of the wor.!s. Ebrard also adopts a forced and artificial view, according to which é¢rocpdacas is said to be objective: bring about your pres- ence ; but cropdow (without cai) must point to the making accessible for the disciples. How could a listener hit upon this difference of idea in the same word ?
* Mosheim, Ernesti, Beck in the Stud. u. Krit. 1881, p. 180 ff.
7 He would also place et 8 ni... réroy Upir within a parenthesis, and finds here either a saying out of a now unknown gospel, or rather out of the fragment supposed to have been lost before chap. vi.
© Ps. ii. 4, xxxfilL 18, 11; Isa. Ixill. 15, et ab.
408 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
tine and several others) lies entirely remote from the meaning here; for many the house of God is destined and established, and that already a7é xara- Boane xdouov, Matt. xxv. 84. — bre ropeboua:, x.t.A.] for I go, etc., assigns the reason of the assurance : év r9 olxig . . . woAAai eiow, 80 that e d2 uh, elroy av vuiv is to be regarded as logically inserted. The ropebouac érouudoat, x.t.A., however, is an actual proof of the existence of the uovai roAAai in the heav- enly house of God (not of the elrov av tyiv, as Luthardt thinks, placing only a colon after tuiv), because otherwise Jesus could not go away with the design of getting prepared for them in those yovai a place on which they are thereafter to enter, a place for them. This éroiudéfew rérov presupposes povdc soaAde, in which the dwelling-place to be provided must exist. The idea is, further (comp. the idea of the mpédpouoc, Heb. vi. 20), that He having at- tained by His death to the fellowship of the divine défa, purposes to pre- pare the way for their future ovvdofactjva with God (comp. xvii. 24) ; but ‘therefore He speaks with them in the simplest possible, as it were, child- like fashion, according to their thoughts, as is necessary to attract and allure simple people,” Luther. — Ver. 3. Kai éav . . . rérov] Emphatic repetition of the consolatory words, with which is united the still more consolatory promise : I will come again, and will (then) receive you to myself. Jesus says, kai é4v, not x. érav, for He does not mention the point of time of His return, but what consequences (namely, the wads épyouat, x.7.A.) will be connected with this departure of His, and preparation of a place of which He had just given them assurance. The zopevecOat x. éroiz, x.7.A., is the conditioning fact which, if it shall take place, has the wrd/uw épyeo@a, x.7.4., as its happy consequence. Comp. xii. 382. The nearness or remoteness of the appcar- ance of this result remains undefined by éév. Comp. Diisterdieck on 1 John ii. 28, where the reading érayv is an alteration proceeding from clumsy copy- ists.—By md2uv &pyoua: Jesus means, and that not indefinitely, or verging to- wards a merely spiritual import (de Wette), but distinctly and clearly, His Parousia at the last day (vi. 39, 40, xi. 24), and not His resurrection (Ebrard), to which the following x. zapad., «.7.4., is not appropriate. That in John (comp. 1 John ii. 28), and in Jesus, according to John (comp. xxi. 22, v. 28, 29), as in the whole apostolic church, existed the conception of the Parousia as near at hand,’ although in the Gospel, on account of its spiritual character, it comes less into the foreground, seein Kaeuffer, de fwi¢ aiwy, not. p. 181 f., comp. also Frommann, p. 479 f. ; Lechler,? Wittichen,’* and Weiss.‘ On this His glorious return He will receive the disciples into His personal fellowship (as raised from the dead or transformed respectively), and that as partakers of His divine dd£a in the heavenly sanctuary which has descended with Him to the earth, in which a place will be already prepared for them. He comes in the glory of His Father, and they enter into fellowship with
1 However decidedly this is still denied heaven,” and ‘ broken off the head” of by Scholten, who finds in John only a __ the expectation of the Parousia. But the spiritual coming, in the sense, namely, that _ head is exactly in the present passage. the Spirit of Jesus remains. According to 2 Apost. und Nachapost. Zeit. p. 2A ff. Keim (Geschichtl, Chr. p. 45, ed. 3), the 3 Jahrod. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 357 f. fourth Gospel has, ‘in sufficiently modern 4 Lehrbegr. p. 181. fashion, relegated the future kingdom to
——————
CHAP. XIV., 4, 5. 409
Him in this déga in the Messianic kingdom.’ The explanation of a coming, only regarded as such more or less improperly, in order to receive the disci- ples by a blessed death into heaven,* isopposed to the words (comp. xxi. 22) and to the mode of expression elsewhere employed in the N. T. respecting the coming of Christ, since death does indeed translate the apostles and martyrs to Christ ;* but it is nowhere said of Christ that He comes (in order to be personally present at their dying bed (as Hengstenberg, indeed, thinks) and brings them to Himself. Except in the Paraclete, Christ first comes in His glory at the Parousia. But the understanding of the words here (acc. to vv. 18 ff.) only of the spiritual return of Christ to His own, and their re- ception into the full sacred fellowship of the Spirit of the glorified Christ,” * is ruled out by the fact that Jesus himself has in advance (ver. 2) required their reference to His actual return, and to local fellowship with Him (in vv. 18 ff. the entire contert is different). — xpdc éuavréy] spoken in the conscious- ness of the great value which the love of the disciples placed on fellowship with his own person. Only with Himself have faith and love the final object of hope, and their blessed reward ° in the Father’s house.
Vv. 4, 5. In order now to lead the disciples to that which, on their side, in respect of the promise contained in ver. 8, was the main practical matter, He says, arousing inquiry : And whither Igo... ye know the way (so, ac- cording to the amended reading, see critical notes) which leads thither, namely, to the Father. And the disciples, had they already been more susceptible to the communications of the Lord respecting His higher Messi- anic destiny, must have known Him—this way,—since Christ had already so frequently set Himself forth as the only Mediator of salvation, as in chap. vi., x. 1 ff., xi. 25, e¢ al. He means, that is, not the way to suffering and death, which He Himself is about to tread,® but the way designated in ver. 6 (He Himself is that way!) along which every one is directed who would attain to that glorious fellowship with the Father. — drov éyo iméyw is an anacoluthon, with the emphasis of the certainty of the near and blessed completion, and éyé has the accent of self-conscious and unique pre-emi- nence.—Thomas, as in xx. 25, speaks the language of sober, hesitating in- telligence, not of dejection at the approaching suffering of the Lord, as Ebrard thinks. He seeks information ; qeto yap aicOyrév eivai tiva Trézov, drov
1Comp. Origen and several others, in- Christ seeks in prayer eternal glory for cluding Calvin, Lampe, Luthardt, Hof- Himself as a reward, xvil. 4, 5, so He mann, Schrifibew. I. p. 194, Hilgenfeld, assigns !t to the disciples also as a reward.
Briickner, Ewald.
2Grotius, Kuinoel, B. Crusius, Reuss, Tholuck, Lange, Hengstenberg, and several others.
32 Cor. v. 8; Phil. 1.28; Acts vii. 50; see on Phil. {. 26, note.
‘ Liicke, Neander, Godet, comp. Olshau- sen, Ebrard.
* It Is incorrect to maintain that in John the notion of reward is entirely wanting (so Weiss in the Deutsch. Zettschr. 1858, pp. 825, 838, and in his Petr. Lehrdegr. p.55 f£.). As
See xvil. 24, xil. 25, 26, xi. 26. Here applies also the promise of ideiy ry BaccA. rod deou, ill. 8, 5, and the resurrection at the last day, v. 3, 29, vi. 40, 54. Comp. 1 John iit. 2 3, where the future transfiguration and union with Christ is expressly designated as the object of éAwis, as well as John viii., where even the expression psioddor wAjpy is em- ployed, and is to be understood of eternal blessedness (see Diisterdieck, II. p. 505).
¢ Luther, Jansen, Grotius, Wetatein, also Tholuck and Luthardt.
410 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
umdyet, Kat dddv dpotwe toratryv, Euth. Zigabenus. The heavenly rot, however distinctly Jesus had already designated it, Thomas did not yet know clearly how to combine with his circle’of Messianic ideas ; but he desired to arrive at clearness. That Thomas is here cited without the name Aidvyoc, which is added in xi. 16, xx. 24, xxi. 2, is accidental, and without the design which Hengstenberg imports (that he does not speak here according to his indi- cidual spiritual character). — rac, «.7.4.] ‘‘ Quodsi ignoretur, quae sit meta, non potest via sub ratione viae concipi,” Grotius.
Ver. 6. I (no other than I) am the way, on which men must go, in order to come to the Father in His heavenly house, vv. 2, 3, and the truth, and the life. But since no one, without going the prescribed way, without hav- ing appropriated to himself the truth, and without bearing in himself the life, can come to that goal, ovdeic, «.7.4., is thus the exponent to all three particulars, not merely to the first. The three terms lay down the propo- sition that no other than Christ is the Mediator of eternal salvation with God in the Messianic kingdom, under three several characteristic aspects which are co-ordinated, yet in such a way that the advance is made from the general to the particular. The characteristic of the mediation of salva- tion, in the first point, is designated with reference not to matter (as in 7 aAfdera and 7 Swi), but to form, in so far, namely, as the mediation of salva- tion itself is therein expressed in a specific figure (comp. x. 9). On indi- vidual points, note : (1) Christ is the Way, not because He trédecte trav dddv (Cyril., Melanchthon, and many others, departing from both the expression and the figure, and failing to observe the relation of things), but because in His personal manifestation the mediation of salvation is objectively given, absolutely the sole mediation for all men, but which has to be made use of subjectively, that is, by faith on Him, like the man who is aiming at a goal, and for that purpose must take and pursue the given way which is the means of its attainment. (2) Christ is the Truth, because He is the self- revelation of God which has been manifested (vv. 7, 9), the Light that is come into the world, without the appropriation of which salvation is not ob- tained. (3) He is the Life (Col. ili. 4), because He is the Principle and Source of eternal life (in its temporal development and future consummation) ; so that whoever has not received Him into himself by faith (vi. 50, 51, xi. 25, 26), has become a prey to spiritual and eternal death.' These three points are not to be separated according to time (Luther : beginning, mid- dle, end ; so also Calvin), but Christ is all three at once,—in that He is the one, He is also the second and the third,—although this cannot justify an arbitrary fusion of the three predicates (as would be the Augustinian vera ol vitae). — ovdeic Epyerat, x.7.A.] the Johannean sola fide. Note how ver. 6 is the summary of the most perfect self-confession of the Son regarding Him- self and His work.
Ver. 7. Had you known me (for they had indeed not known that He was the Way), you would also have known the Father (of their non-acquaintance
1 Comp. Ignatius, ad Trail. 9: ob xwpis rd adyndivoy Shy ovK exonev; ad Eph. 8: Xpuords rd abid«ptroy nuwy Cy.
——- =i,
CHAP, XIV., 8-11. 411
with whom their otx oidauev, rod imdyetc, ver. 5, had testified).—The empha- sis changes (otherwise in viii. 19) ; it lies in the protasis on éyvix., not on the enclitic ve ; in the apodosis on rt. war. yov. —xal an’ dptt, k.t.A.] and— which I can nevertheless now add—from henceforward (after I have told you in ver. 6 so definitely and fully what J am) you know Him, and hate (in me, ver. 9) beheld Him. This view of the meaning, which flows immedi- ately out of the context, vv. 6 and 9, the point of which is the idea of the adequate self-revelation of God in Christ, entirely excludes any interpreta- tion of the two verbs in a future sense,’ and the reference to a future ter- minus @ quo,* which is wont to be assumed as the time of the communication of the Spirit, nay, even a mentally supplied ‘‘ J hope” (de Wette), with amdpr:. The reference of adprz to the whole time of their fellowship with Christ since their conversion (Hengstenberg), is, even grammatically, impossible. See on xiii. 19, 1.52. In that case only viv could stand. Godet’s remark is also incor- rect: ‘‘at the point at which my teaching has now arrived,” as if apr: merely were expressed. — On xai, which, without altering its meaning, significantly subjoins an adversative clause (and... i.e. and nevertheless), see on vii. 28.
Vv. 8, 9. Philip, like Thomas in a certain hesitation, corresponding to his want of apprehension, has not yet understood the éwpdxare airév ; instead of seeing it fulfilled in the manifestation of Jesus Himsclf, it excites in him the wish that the Lord would effect a Theophany, perhaps such as Moses once beheld (Ex. xxiv. 9, 10), or desired to see (Ex. xxxiii. 18), or the prophets had predicted for the inauguration of the Messianic kingdom (Mal. iii. 1 ff.).—aGpxei xxiv) and then are we contented; then we sce tho measure of the revelation of the Father, given to us by Thee, fulfilled to such a degree that we do not covet a further until the last glorious appear- ance.—On the dative of duration of time, rocotry ypdévy (see critical notes).* cat oux éyv, we] And thou hast not known me? A question of melancholy sur- prise, and hence also in loving emotion, He addresses him by name. Had Philip known Jesus, he would have said to himself, that in Him the highest revelation of God was manifested, and the wish to behold a Theophany must have remained foreign to his mind. Hence-. fe who has seen me has seen the Father ; for He reveals Himself in me, I am afpjroo roxjoc cupdvic Evieoy eldoc Exuwv Bpotoedé popog, Nonnus. The proposition is to be left in objective generality, and éup. is not to be limited to believing seeing.‘ Hrery one has, if he has seen Christ, seen the Father obdjectitely ; but only he who has known Christ for that which He is, sudjectizely also, ‘‘ according to the sight of the Spirit and of faith,” Luther. Comp. i. 14, v. 87.
Vv. 10, 11. This language of thine amounts indeed to this: as though thou didst not believe that, etc. —ére é)a év r. zarpi, x.r.A.] On this mutual fellowship, which ‘‘ virtutis potius quam essentiae elogium est” (Calvin), see on x. 38. Comp. xvil. 21. Here the iyw é r. war. stands jirst, because
1 Chrysostom, Kulnoel, and many others. _[E. T. p. 186].
2? Chrysostom, Licke, Ewald, and several ‘Luther, Lacke, de Wette, and many others. others.
7Comp. Buttmann, V. 7. Gramm. p. 161
412 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the matter in question is the way which the knowledge has to take from the Son to the Father. — ra phyata . . . ta épya avrov] (see critical notes) : the proof of this union of mine with the Father is, that I do not speak from myself; but the proof for that (for this aw éuavrov ov AadAd) is, that the Father does His works through me. The dé is therefore continuative (autem), not antithetical. Further, we must neither say that the pjyuara are to be reckoned along with the épya, nor that ra épya signifies the business of teach- ing (Nésselt) ; but, from the fact that the Messianic works (see on v. 36) are the works of the Father, it is inferred, with necessary dialectic certainty, from whom also the discourses of Jesus proceed ; if the former are divine, the latter must be adequately related tothem. The first proposition is often arbitrarily supplemented from the second, and vice versed. This, however, does not agree with the Greek mode of allowing, in antithetic propositions, one clause to be completed from the other,” and would here run counter to the contert, since Jesus, ver. 11, desires to have deduced from the épya that which He had brought into light by ra p#uara . . . Acad. Hence we are not to escape the difficulty either by the assumption of an ‘‘ incongruity in the antithetic propositions” (Tholuck), or, with Lange, pronounce that the words belong pre-eminently to the Son, the works pre-eminently to the Father, which is not contained in the expressions, and would be an un- Johannean halving of the thought (v. 19, viii. 28, xii. 49) ; nor are we to assume, with Ewald, that @ lesser significance is to be ascribed to the works in opposition to the words. — é év éuoi uévov] expressing the 6 év éxu. dv as enduring (he who does not depart from me). According to the reading srocei T. épya avtov (see critical notes), the works of Jesus are set forth as the works of God, which the Father performs, that is, in virtue of His immanence in the Son, making them to operate in an outward direction. — Ver. 11. From Philip, Jesus now turns to the disciples collectively, and that with an exhortation to the faith, in reference to which He had been obliged to quwes- tion Philip in a manner implying doubt. — moreteré yor] namely,- without anything further, in addition to my personal assurance. — irc] not because (Bengel), but that, as in ver. 10. — dia ra épya avra] On account of the works themselves (in and of themselves), irrespective of my oral testimony, believe me in this. The works arc the actual proofs of that fellowship, v. 19, 20, x. 37, 88.
Vv. 12, 18. Truly, on the compliance with this mrioreteré yor there awaits & ministry like my own, yea, and still greater. What encouragement to fidelity in the faith | Schott, Opusc. p. 177, imports the meaning : ‘‘ neque ad ea tantum provoco, quae me ipsum hucusque vidistis perficientem, no,” etc. Comp. also Luthardt, according to whom Jesus proceeds to a still further demonstration of his fellowship with God. — 6 mor. cig tué] intended not universally, but for (comp. vv. 11, 18) the disciples. On cic éué, Bengel aptly remarks : ‘‘qui Christo de se loquenti (see wor. yar, ver. 11), in Chris-
1The words which I speak to you, I and does the works—de Wette, comp. speak not of myself; and the works which Bengel. I do, I do not of myself, but the Father 2 Kiihner, IT. p. 003 f.; Bernhardy, p. 455. who isin me. He teaches me the words,
CHAP. XIV., 12, 13. 413 tum credit.” —xaxeivoc] he also, in comparison, emphatically repeating the subject.'— xai] heightening the effect : and besides, indeed.* — neilova robrwr] greater than these, & éya roid, comp. v. 20, and on the thought, Matt. xxi. 21, 22. It is not, however, to be referred to single separate miracles, which are reported by the apostles ; Ruperti names the healing power of Peter's shadow, Acts v., and the speaking in foreign tongues, which latter Grotius also has in view ; Bengel appeals to Acts v. 15, xix. 12 ; Mark xvi. 17 ff. A measuring of miracles of this kind by their magnitude is entirely foreign to the N. T. Rather in peifova robruy is the notion of épya expanded, so that its predominant signification is not that of miraculous deeds in the narrower sense (as in 4 éy® ram), but in a broader sense, the world-subduing apostolic work in gencral, produced by the Holy Spirit (xvi. 18 ff.) in the diffusion of the gospel, with its light and life, amongst all peoples, in the conquest of Judaism and paganism by the word of the cross, etc. The history of the apostles, and especially the work of Paul, is the commentary thereon. These were Zpya of a greater kind than the miracles proper which Jesus wrought,* and which also, categorically, those of the apostles resembled. — itt, x.T.A.] assigns the reasons of the preceding assurance, ra fpya & ty rad . . « petl. tobr. rxooee (not merely the eifova, for which limitation no reason presents itself), and this statement of reason continues to the end of ver. 18, so that xai 4, re dv still depends on dr. Since He is going to the Father, and thus, elevated to the position of heavenly rule, will do all that they shall ask in His name, there can be no doubt that the assurance of those épya will be justified. So, substantially, Grotius, Lticke, Olshausen, de Wette, Ewald, Godet, comp. already Cyril. Considering the internal coherence, and the immediately continuative xa/, ver. 13, it is incompetent to separate ver. 18, as if it were independent, from ver. 12, whereby dr: ty apog t. ©. top. is taken either merely in the sense : tar Aouméy ore Td Oavpa- roupyeiv, éy yap arépxoua ;* or more correctly, because really assigning a reason, with Luther: ‘‘for through the power that I shall have at the right hand of the Father, . . . I will work in you,” etc.° — éyé] In opposition tothe miorenovtec, Who continue their activity on earth. — év 76 dvéuari pov] Comp. xv. 16, xvi. 23. The prayerful request to God (for it is to God that the absolute airfoyre refers, comp. xv. 16) is made in the name of Jesus, if this name, Jesus Christ, as the full substance of the saving faith and confession of him who prays, is in his consciousness the element in which the prayerful activity lives and moves, so that thus that Name, embracing the whole revela- tion of redemption, is that which specifically measures and defines the dispo- sition, feeling, object, and contents of prayer. The express wse of the name of Jesus thercin is no specific token ; the question is of the spirit and mind of
1 Xen. Afem. i. 2. 24.
2 8ee Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 145 f.
***For He assumed only a small corer for Himself, a little time for His preaching and working of miracles; but the apostles and their successors went through the whole world,” eto.—Luther.
¢ [‘‘ Yours is henceforth the province of
working miracles; for J go away.’”—K.] Chrysostom, so Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- benus, Erasmus, Wolf, Kuinoel, Ebrard, and several others.
‘Comp. Calvin and several] others, in- cluding B. Crusius, Luthardt, Hengsten- berg.
414 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
him who prays. The apostolic mode of expression is analogous : to be, have, say, do, anything, etc., éu Xpior@, év xvpiy.’ The renderings : invocato meo nomine (in connection with which reference is irrelevantly made to Acts iii. 6;? me agnoscentes mediutorem (Melanchthon) ; ut mea causa faciat (Grotius) ; per meritum meum (Calovius and several others) ; in my mind, in my affairs (de Wette), and the like, are partly opposed to the words, partly too narrow, and comprised inthe foregoing explanation. But if we pro- posed to interpret, with Godet : in my stead, that is, in such a way as though I myself were the subject that prays through you,’ the first person ro:fow would be inappropriate to a se/f-hearing ; and essential prayers like those for the forgiveness of sin would be excluded. — rovro rojow] nothing else. This definite and unlimited promise rests upon the fact that the petition of him who prays in the name of Jesus is in harmony with the will of Christ and of God, but in every case subordinates itself in the consciousness of him who prays to the restriction : not my, but Thy will ! hence also the denial of a particular petition is the fulfilment of prayer, only in another way. Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 8, 9.—That Christ asserts the doing of himself (xv. 16, and xvi. 23 of the Father), lies in the consciousness of His unity with God, according to which He, even in Fis exalted condition, is in the Father, and the Father is in Him. Hence, if, through the fulfilment of these petitions, the Son must be glorified, the Father is glorified in the Son; wherefore Jesus adds, as the final aim of the rovro rothow : iva dofachy 6 mar. tv TO vid. Comp. xiii. 31. The honour of the Father is ever the last object of all that is attained in the affairs of the Son, xii. 28, xi. 4; Phil. ii. 11; Rom. xvi. 25 ff.; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21. Note the emphatic collocation 6 zargp & r¢ vic, where, however, the main stress lies upon 6 warfp.
Ver. 14, Td avrd Aéyer BeBatdv padsora rdv Adyov, Euth. Zigabenus. But this is done to make it specially prominent that Ife is the active subject. Bengcl well remarks : ‘‘éyo hoc jam indicat gloriam.”
Ver. 15. A new exhortation—to keep His commandments in proof of their love to Him—in order, ver. 14, to attach thereto a new promise. But exhortation and promise are thus necessarily connected, as in vv. 11, 12 ff. Hence the latter not without the former. Comp. ver. 21. — Note the em- phatic zac gud : which you have from me ; they are not those of the O. T., but the completion of these. Comp. on xiii. 84.
Vv. 16, 17. The «ai is in both instances consecutive. On the succession of thoughts, see ver. 21. — éys] Emphatically introducing, after what He had required of the disciples, what He on His part will do as the Mediator of the divine love. The épwrfcw does not conflict with xvi. 26, 27, where there is 6 different relation of time. épwrav is in John the standing word in the mouth of Jesus, when He addresses the Father in prayer, xvi. 26, xvii. 9, 15, 20.
1 Comp. on Col. iff. 17, and see also Hof- mann, Schriftdew. II. 2, p. 357, and generally Gess, d. Gebet im Nam. Jesu, 1861.
2 Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Maldonatus, and several others. :
*So also Welss, ZLehréegr. p. 272, who regards the works only as the object of prayer. But for this the expression is too general; just as genera], xvi. 23 ff. The works are subsumed under the general statement.
CHAP. XIV., 16, 17. 415 < e But there is no difference of meaning from aireiv, see 1 John v. 16. — dAAov rapdaxAnrov] another Advocate (instead of myself), another, who will as coun- sellor assist you. The word is found in the N. T. only in John (xiv. 26, xvi. 7, 1 John ii. 1,) and the signification given holds good in Dem. 843. 10, Diog. Laert. iv. 50, Dion. Hal. xi. 37, and passages from Philo in Lves- ner, p. 496 f., both in the proper judicial sense (Advocate), and also in gen- eral as here.! With this agrees also the Talmudic propra.* Rightly, after Tertullian and Augustine, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wolf, Lampe, and several others, have most of the moderns so interpreted it.* See also Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 225. The equally ancient explanation : Comfort- er,‘ rests on a confusion, inadmissible on account of its passive form, with mapaxAfrup (LXX. Job xvi. 2) in Aquila and Theodotion, Job xvi. 2.° Equally incorrect is the rendering Teacher in Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ernesti,° Luthardt, Hofmann.’ — Observe on aAAov, that in 1 John ii. 1 Christ Himself might also be designated as rapdxAyro¢, without implying any difference of doctrine (Baur, Schwegler, Hilgenfeld). Nonnus aptly says : Xpror@ ofryyovoy GAAov. —iva 7 ue? iu. cig r. ai@va] inorder that He may ; notas I now, again be taken from you, but be with you (i.e. may stand at your side protecting, help- ing, strengthening you against all hostile powers ; comp. Matt. xxvili. 20) for ever. Comp. 2 John 2. In the Paraclete, however, Christ Himself is present with His own (Matt. xxviii. 20) ; for in the mission of the Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9 ; Gal. iv. 6), the self-communica- tion of the exalted Christ takes place (Rom. viii. 10 ; Gal. ii. 20), without, however, the Paraclete ceasing to be an 4220¢, another—although dependent on the Son—subject than He ;* the obscure idea that the Paraclete is ‘‘ the Christ transfigured to Spirit” (Tholuck) is un-Johannean and unbiblical generally. Comp. on 2 Cor. iii. 17. See also, against the blending of the idea of the Logos with that of the Spirit, in Reuss ; Godet, II. p. 480. —ro srveina tie aAnOelac] the Spirit of Truth, i.e. the Holy Spirit, who is Posses- sor, Bearer, and Administrator of the divineaAffeca. He is the divine prin- ciple of revelation, by whose agency in human hearts the redemptive truth
1So also Philo, de opif. m. p.4 E, and Letter of the Church of Vienne in Euseblus, v. 2.
2See Buxtorf, Ler. Talm. p. 1848, and generally Wetstein in loc. ; Dfisterdicck on 1 John ii. 1, p. 147 ff.
3 See especially Knapp, I. p. 115 ff.
4 Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Jerome, Erasmus, Cartalio, Luther, Maldonatus, Jansen, Lightfoot, and several others, including van Hengel, An- nott. p. 40 ff.
§ Certainly it is obvious that the inter- preter could not be responsible for this confusion which is opposed to the language; but for this he {is responsible, that he should not thrust it upon John, if another use of the word, grammatically correct, is undoubtedly before us. This in answer to
Hofmann's too readily adopted observation in his Schrifiew. II. 2, p. 16.—Luther has correctly explained the word itself by ad- cocate, but inconsistently translated it Comforter. The Vulgate has paracletum, the Codd. of It. in some cases the same, in others advocatum. Goth. has paraklétu.— Were the word not Advocatus, but the active form, it must have been, not sapa- nAyros, but rapaxAnrixds (Plato, Rep. p. 524D). Comp. éxceAnrinds, dvaxAnriaés, and others.— The usual designation of counsel in the Greek writers is, moreover, cvr8:xos OF cury- yopos. On wapd«Ayros, comp. Hermann, Staatealterth. § 142. 16.
© Opusc, p. 215.
T Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 17.
® Comp. W65rner, d. Verhditn. d. Geistes gum Sohne, p. 9.
416 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
given by God in Christ, i.e. the truth car’ ifox#v, is transformed into knowl- edge, made to be vitally appropriated, and brought to powerful moral expression. Nonnus : arpexinc oxernyév. Comp. xv. 26, xvi, 13. The oppo- site : rd rvevya tHe wAdvnc, 1 John iv. 6. —6 xdcpoc}] The unbelieving, as op- posed to Christ and His work. These are unsusceptible to the Spirit, because the capacity of inward vision (of experimental perception) of the Spirit is wanting to them ; He is to them something unknown and foreign, so that they have no subjective point of attachment for receiving Him. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 14. — ipeic dé, x.7.A.] The presents yindoxere and pévec' are as little to be taken as future as the presents in the first clause of the verse. They denote the characteristic relation of the disciples to the Spirit without refer- ence to definite time. They are absolute presents : but you know Him, since He has His abiding amongst you (not far from you, but in your midst, in the Christian community), and (the discourse now first enters the point of view of definite time) 2oil be in you (in your own hearts). This being the specific character of His relationship to you, how should He be an unknown Some- thingto you? Let the gradation be observed : rap’ tuiv. . . év tpiv. On the latter, Nonnus : dudoroAoy zora: tyuiv, wavrag Exov voepdv déuov. — Note, generally, the Trinitarian relation here and ver. 26, and particularly * the definitely expressed personality of the Paraclete.* But in passages, again, like i. 83, xx. 22, the presupposition of the personality, whose life and powers are communicated, is by no means excluded.
Ver. 18. Development of the consolatory element in this promised com- munication of the Spirit, onwards to ver. 21. — ov« agfow ip. dp9.] I will not leave you behind, as those who (after my departure) are to be orphans.‘ The expression itself (comp. rexvia, xiii. 88) is that of the warpix) evorAayxvia (Euth. Zigabenus). — fpyoua: rpdc tac] Without connecting particle (ydp) in the intensity of emotional affection. That Jesus means by this coming, i.e.in the connection, coming again (see on iv. 16), not the final historical Parousia,* is shown by the whole following context (quite otherwise, ver. 8). See, especially, ver. 19, where it is not the world, but the disciples who are to see Him, which is as little appropriate to the Parousia as the ére pexpév ;° vv. 20, 21, where spiritual fellowship is spoken of, the knowledge of which cannot begin with the Parousia ; and ver. 23, where pov? zap’ avt¢ rorgo. is not in harmony with the idea of the Parousia, since in this the disciples take up their abode with God (ver. 8, comp. 2 Cor. v. 8), not God with them, which takes place through the communication of the Spirit. Most of the older expositors refer to the Resurrection of Christ, and to the new union ith the Risen One." But vv. 20, 21, 28, xvi. 16, 22, 23, all point to a higher
Not manedit, with the Vulgate, and peve: With Ewald.
2 Against B. Crusfus and Tholuck.
? See Késtlin, p. 109; Hofmann, I. p. 192 f. : Melanchthon, in loc.
* Ver. 27; Mark xii.19; Tob. xi.2; Sir. vi. 2.1; Maco. xii.41; Soph. Aj. 491; Phil. 484. 5 Augustine, Beda, Maldonatus, Paulus,
Luthardt, Hofmann. * Without ground, 1 Jobn ii. 18, Rev. xxii. 7, 12, are appealed to for the setting aside
of this shortness of time. How much later .-
were these passages written than our ér pxpdéy was spoken !
7 So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zig- abenus, Ruperti, Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, and again Kaeuffer, Hilgen-
a _—
CHAP. XIV., 19. 41% spiritual fellowship,’ as the oix a9. tu. op¢. also already presupposes a new abiding union. Justly, therefore, have most of the moderns* understood the epiritual coming of Christ through the Paraclete, in whom He Himself, only in another form of existence, came to the disciples. It is not yet, indeed, the consummation of the reunion which takes place at the Parousia : till that time the state of orphanage relatively continues : the church seeks its Lord (xiii. 33) and waits for Him ; and believers have to regard themselves as éxdy- pouvrec Grd Tov Kvpiov (2 Cor. v. 6), whose life in Him with God is not yet revealed (Col. iii. 1-4) (in answerto Luthardt). Others explain it in a twofold sense, alike of Christ's Resurrection, and His spiritual return. So Luther, Beza, Lampe, Bengel, Kuinocl, de Wettc, Brtickner, Lange, Ebrard ; in which de Wette (as also Hengst.), assigns the first place to the spiritual return. But the bodily épxecba: is not indicated at all (as, in contrast with the mission of the Paraclete, would have been done by an added éy& avréc), and the entire promise of the Paraclete, of which the present passage is an integral part, transports to a time in which the Resurrection of Christ has long passed. And in general the maintenance of a double sense can be justified only by the demands of the connection.
OxnsERVATION.—That Jesus, according to John, does not speak at all in express terms of His resurrection, but only in allusions like ii. 19, x. 17, 18, is in en- tire harmony with the spiritual character of the Gospel, according to which the return of the Paraclete was the principal thing on which the hopes of the disciples had to fix themselves. From death to the défa, out of which Jesus had to send the Spirit, the resurrection formed only the transition, But that He also cannot have in reality predicted His resurrection with such definite- ness as it is related in the Synoptics, is clear from the whole behaviour of the disciples before and after the occurrence of the resurrection, so that in this point also the preference belongs to the Johannean account. See on Matt. xvi. 21.
Ver. 19. "Ere pexp.] ac. gore. Comp. xiii. 88, xvi. 16 ; Heb. x. 87; Hos. i. 4; Ps, xxxvii. 10. — obnére Aewpei] Corporeally. Comp. also Acts x. 41. — @cupeire] But you, whilst the world no more beholds me, do behold me, although corporeally I am no more present, through the experience of my spiritual presence ;* you behold me apiritually, in that you experience my presence and my communion with you, in the communication of myself, and in my working upon you by means of the Paraclete. The terminus a quo of the present tenses, which represent the near future as present, is, indeed, not
2 Licke, Tholuck, Olshausen, B. Crusius,
feld, Weiss, and, with a spiritualizing view : Frommann, Késtlin, Reuss, Maier, Baeum-
of the resurrection, Ewald.
2 Which historically took its beginning, not with the appearances of the Risen One, so enigmatic to the disciples themselves, removed and estranged from the old con- fidential relations, but first with the out- pouring of the Spirit. Thenceforward Christ lived fn them, and His heart beat in them, and out of them He spake.
lein, Godet, Scholten, but also already Cal- vin and several others.
§ Not: through the deing caught away to me at the Parowisa (Luthardt). The ovxére Sewpet and the dewpeire must certainly be con- femporaneous. Invisible forthe world (comp. vii. 88, 84), Christ is beheld by His own.
418 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
quite the same in frwpei and Gewpeire, since the 6 xéopuog pe ovxére Oewpet already begins with the death of Jesus, but the iyeic d2 Gewp. pe first after His return to the Father ; this distinction, however, disappears before the Johannean view of the death of Jesus as a departure to God. — dri ty (a, x. tu. Cnoecbe] Not : because I live, you also will lire (Nonnus, Beza, Godet), but, correspond- ing to the progress of the discourse (comp. ver. 17), a statement of the reason of what precedes : because I live, and ye shall live. [Note XLIV. p. 426.] Note the change from the present to the future, and that ( and (#0e00e cannot with- out arbitrariness be taken as essentially different in idea, but that (4 manifest- ly, since it exists without interruption (present), denotes the higher life of Christ independent of death, of Christ, who, by His departure to the Father, becomes a partaker of the heavenly glory. Christ lives, for He is, indeed, Him- self the Possessor and bearer of the true (wf (comp. v. 26). Death, which translates Him into the glory of the Father, by no means breaks off this true and higher life of His (although His life év capxi ceases), but is only the medium of the consummation and transfiguration of this His living into the everlasting heavenly (w7 and désa (comp. Col. iii. 8, 4). Out of this con- sciousness the Lord here utters the words : éyo (6. And He adds thereto: Kai tueig Chocobe : and you shall live, i.e. you shall be partakers (in its tem- poral development on to its glorious consummation) of the same higher life, liable to no death (xi. 26), under the life-giving (vi. 33) influence of the Spirit. ‘Stat enim illud fixum, nullam fore ejus vitam membris mortuis,” Calvin. Thus the life is in both essentially alize, only with the difference, that it is original in Jesus, and with his approaching departure is already at its glorious consummation ; but in the case of the disciples, being imparted by Christ in the Holy Spirit, who is the rveiua ri¢ GCuf¢ (Rom. viii. 2), it is first to be unfolded within (before the Parousia, as the living fellowship with the exalted Christ), in order to become, at the Parousia through the resurrection (Rom. vili. 11) and relative transformation (1 Cor. xv. 51, 52), the participation in His glory. Comp. the idea of the ovi#v rp Xpiorg in Paul, Rom. vi. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 11. The ground of the proof (ar) lies simply in this, that the above twofold ¢7v is the necessary condi- tion of the promised G@ewpeiré ve. If the higher (w4# belonged only to Christ, and not also thereafter (through the working of the Spirit) to the disciples, there could be no mention of a beholding of the Lord on the part of the dis- ciples. The paritaa rationis for the mutual relation would be wanting, and thereby the disciples would lose the capacity (the eye, as it were) to see Christ. But thus the living behold the Living One. The reference to the resur- rection of Jesus has led to interpretations like that of Grotius (comp. Euth. Zigabenus) : you shall see me actually alive (‘‘non spectrum”) and remain- ing in life amidst the impending dangers ; or (so Theophylact, comp. Kuinoel) : I shall, as having risen, be alive, and you shall be as newly made alive for joy! or: I rise again, and you shall (at the last day) arise (so Augustine). Again the interpretation of {7ceo6e in Weiss’ of the new life, which arises in the disciples through the reappearance of the Risen One, who
1 Lehrdegr. p. 70.
CHAP XIV., 20-22, 419
is recognized by them (as in the case of Thomas, xx. 28), is a forced expedi- ent, proceeding from an erroneous assumption, inappropriate to év éxeivy r7 juépg, ver. 20, which is definite and valid for all disciples, and to the inti- mate reciprocal confidence of vv. 20, 21; whence Weiss again, adding violence to violence, explains ver. 21 of the further unfolding of the new communion begun with the appearances of the Risen One (p. 276). Under- stood of the resurrection, the simplest explanation would be that of Kacuffer, p. 186: ‘‘quae instat fortunae vicissitudo nec me nec vos poterit pessum- dare !” but the thought becomes trivial, and the change of the tense mean- ingless. But if, according to the above, both {a and Cf#oecbe must embrace time and eternity, then de Wette has incorrectly limited ¢jceo8e to the life of faith with its joyous victory over death and the fear of death. Luthardt, on the other hand, ecrroncously restricts it to the life of transfiguration after the Parousia, on the ground that éyo (@ can only denote the glorified life,—an unsupported assumption, since the expression is not éy& Cjcouat.
Vv. 20, 21. On that day ;' in the historical fulfilment this was the day of Pentecost. Not: at that time (de Wette), or, as Hengstenberg changes it : in the period of time, beginning with the day of the resurrection (comp. Weiss) ; for a definite fact, marked off in point of time, is treated of, and this is the advent of Christ in the Paraclete. Comp. xvi. 23. — yrdcecbe, x.t.2.] This dynamic immanence of Christ inthe Father (see on x. 88), which exists even in His state of exaltation (Col. ili. 8), like the analogous recip- rocal relation between Him and the disciples, by which they live and move in Him and He in them (Gal. ii. 20), was to become for them a matter of experimental acquaintance through the Spirit. — Ver. 21. General moral condition of this promised yrdcec#e. Comp. ver. 15. — 6 éyuv, x.r.4.] Au- gustine : ‘‘qui habet in memoria ct servat in vita.” The éye:v, however, is rather the internal possession of the commandments, obtained by faith, the appropriated living presence of them in the believing consciousness, as the consequence of the axobecv. Comp. v. 88. — éxeivég éorev] with great and ex- clusive emphasis, — In ayarnfye. and ayarfow lies the peculiar mutual love. — kai éy® ayar.} w¢ Gugotlpwry ra aird OeAdvruw x. arodexoutven, Euth. Zigabenus. — ingaviow avtd éuavréy] corresponds to the yvdéceode, which was to commence through this very causing of Himself to appear in virtue of the communica- tion of the Spirit.* The expression is such, that it sets forth the relation of the self-demonstration of the Lord to His individual loving ones, not His manifestation at the Parousia, which certainly will be glorious and univer- sal (in answer to Luthardt). Those who explain it of the resurrection of Christ understand the appearances of the Risen One to be referred to, 1 Cor. xv.*
Ver. 22. Judas (Thaddaecus or Lebbaeus, Matt. x. 3; not, however, a brother of the Lord, Acts i. 13, 14, but son of one James, Luke vi. 16)* ex-
1 Luthardt, according to his view of the 2 On éudav., comp. Ex. xxxiif. 18, 18; Sap. entire passage, must understand the dayof 1.2; Matt. xxvii. 58. the Parousia, whereby he assigns to yre- ® Grotius, Hilgenfeld, and many others. oeode the moment of the completed know!l- ¢ Nonnus correctly remarks: vide "lance edge. Boro, x. ob dpacis ‘Ioxapwrys.
420 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
pects a bodily appearance of Christ in Messianic glory, has in this view mis- understood Jesus, and is therefore surprised that He has spoken of His éu¢a- vite éavrév a3 having reference only to the man who loves Him, and not also to the world of the unbelieving, on whom the Messiah when He appeared was in truth to cxecute judgment. — ri yéyovev] What has come to pass, in respect to the fact that, ctc.? What occurrence has determined Thee, etc. ?? The foregoing xai as in ix. 36. — The addition ovy 6 'Ioxap. was indeed, after xiii. 80, quite superfluous, but is to be explained as an involuntary outflow of the deep loathing felt toward the traitor of like name. The latter is not to be thought of as again present (Bengel).
Vv. 23, 24. Jesus repeats—and that was sufficient for the removal of such © misunderstanding —substantially, yet now at once placing love as the principal matter in the immediate foreground, the condition to which His self-revelation, ver. 22, is attached, by more closely defining it in its divine and blessed mode of existence ; and shows from this, and from the anti- thesis added in ver. 24, that the xéouoc—this xéouoe which hates Him and is disobedient to Him—is quite incapable of receiving that self-revelation. The more precise explanation, rpd¢ air. édevodu. x. porn rap! aire romodueha, is intended to make this very incapacity still more distinctly and deeply felt. At the foundation of the expression lies the theocratic idea, realized in this spiritual fellowship, of the dwelling of God amongst His people,? with which also the later representation of the dwelling of the Shekinah with the pious* is connected. This representation, however, is not to be assumed here, since Jesus means an invisible presence. In the plural of communion, éAevodueOa is the clear expression of the theanthropic consciousness, x. 80. — On the genuinely Greck expression povi roeiv, see Kypke, I. p. 404. The Middle (sce critical notes) : we will make to ourselves. — rap’ aizt@] The unio mystica, into which God and Christ thus enter with man through the Para- clete,‘ is presented in the sensuous form of the taking up an abode with Him (comp. vv. 17, 25), 7.6. in His dwelling (comp. i. 40, Acts xxi. 8, e¢ al.), under His roof. They come, like wanderers from their heavenly home (ver. 2), and lodge with Nim, ‘‘ will be daily His guests, yea, house and table com- panions,” Luther. — The Adyo:, discourses, are the individual parts of the collective 246)0¢, and the évrojai are its preceptive parts, and form, therefore, a more special conception than the Adyor. —xat 6 Adyo¢ by axotere, x.7.A.] and —from this you may infer how unfitted such a man is to experience that visitation—the word which ye hear (now, still !), etc. Comp. vii. 16, viii. 28, xii. 49, 50, ili. 34. He therefore rejects God Himsclf. The sccond person (axobere) is individualizing (not to be limited to what was said in vv. 23, 24, as Godet takes it), and makes the expression at the close of this portion of the address more lively. —
Vv. 25, 26. We are to suppose a pause before ver. 25 ; Jesus looks back
1 See Kypke, I. p. 403 f. Not: “in the divine elevation above 2 Ex. xxv. 8, xxix. 45; Lev. xxvi. 11,12; space and time” (Welss, LeArdegr. p. 276), Ezek. xxxvil. 26 ff. which introduces here a speculative idea
* Danz in Meuschen, WV. 7. ex Talm. ill. p. remote from the meaning. 701 ff.
CHAP, XIV., 27. 421
upon all that He has hitherto said to them at His farewell supper, and of which so much still remained to them enigmatical. and continues: ‘‘ These things hace I spoken to you, whilst I (still) tarry with you ; but the Paraelete who, after my impending separation from you, will have come to you from the Father, He will further instruct you,” etc. — év r@ ovdu. pov] Specific limitation of the act of sending. God sends the Spirit in the name of Jesus, i.e. 30 that what the name Jesus Christ comprises in itself, forms the sphere in which the divine thought, counsel, and will lives, and is active in the fending. Comp. on ver. 18. The name of Jesus is the only name which includes in itself the eternal salvation of men (Acts iv. 12) ; but God intends and designs, in the mission of the Spirit—of which the casua meritoria lics in this name, and its actual manifestation is connected with the glorifi- cation of Jesus (viii. 39)—nothing else than this Name, the complete saving knowledge of which, its confession, influence, glorification, etc., is to be brought about and advanced through the mission of the Spirit, as in general, all that He has done in the carrying out of His redemptive counsel, He has done év Xporg, Eph. i. 3 ff. The notion: at my request (comp. Godet : ‘‘in meam pratiam’’), is not contained in the words, although, according to ver. 14, the prayer of Jesus precedes (in answer to Liicke, de Wette, Ebrard, Godet, and several others). Better, but only an approximation, and want- ing in precision, is the interpretation of B. Crusius : in my affair, and of Melanchthon and several others : propter me. The rendering, in my stead,' is not appropriate, since, according to it, the Spirit would not appear as the Representative of Christ (comp. v. 43), but God, as in Christ’s stead, execut- ing the mission—which would be absurd. It should in that case run: & tAevorra: wapa Tov marpoc tv rh dvduari pov, comp. xvi. 7.—In the ministry of the Spirit tude diddgec wévra is the general feature : He will not leave you wuninstructed respecting any portion of the divine truth (comp. xvi. 18): to this the particular is then joined : xai trouvfoet, x.7.A. : and (and especially) acill He bring to your recollection, etc. To the first belong also new portions of doctrine, not yet delivered by Jesus (see on xvi. 12), also disclosures of the future (xvi. 13). On éropuvioe:, x.7.A.. comp. 6.g. ii, 22, xii. 16. & elzrov tuiv might also be referred to d:ddgee révra,* but xvi. 12, 18 justifies the ordinary reference, which also logically at once suggests itself, merely to the second rdyra, and nevertheless excludes the misuse of the present passage in favour of Catholic tradition (see on xvi. 12), as well as of the revelations of fanaticism. Of the actual fulfilment of the entire promise, the apostolic discourses and letters supply the full proof. — elrov] Not merely now, but generally, as the context, by the first révra, demands,
Ver. 27. ‘‘These are last words, as of one who is about to go away and says good-night, or gives his blessing,” Luther. — cipfery aginu tyiv] The whole position of affairs, as Jesus is on the point of concluding these His last discourses (ver. 31), as well as the characteristic word eip#vy, introduced without further preface, justifies the ordinary assumption that here there is
1 Enth. Zigabenus and others, including 2 Luther, Mclanchthon, Grotlus, Calovius, Tholuck, Baeumlein, Ewald, Weiss. and others.
422 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,
an allusion to the Oriental greetings at partings and dismissals, in which poe (i.e. not specially : Peace of soul, but generally : Prosperity) was wished. Comp. 1 Sam. i. 17, xx. 42, xxix. 5 ; Mark v. 34; Luke vii. 50, viii. 48 ; Acts xvi. 36 ; Jas. ii. 16 ; also the Syrian pacem dedit, in the sense of caledizit in Assem. Bibl. I. p. 376 ; and finally, the epistolary farewell- greeting, Eph. vi. 23; 1 Pet. v. 14; 8 John 15. That which men were wont to wish at departure, namely, prosperity, Jesus is conscious of leaving behind, and of giving to His disciples, and that in the best and highest sense, namely, the entire prosperity of His redemptive work, ‘‘ fore ejus benedictione semper feliccs” (Calvin), in which, however, the peace of reconciliation with God (Rom. v. 1), as the first essential element, is also included. To assume (with Lticke) in the expression a reference, at the same time, to the O. T. peace-assuring and encouraging address D2? plow (Gen. xiii. 23 ; Judg. vi. 28, e¢ al.), is less in harmony with the departing scene, and the remote py? rapacctcbu, x.T.A., a8 well as with the expression of this consolatory address. — eip. tT. Eun did. tu.) More precise designation of what has preceded. It is His, the peculiar prosperity proceeding from Him, which He gives to them as His bequest. Thus speaks He to His own, who, on the threshold of death, is leaving hereditary possessions : ‘‘I leave behind, I give,” in the consciousness that this will be accomplished by His death. §o also Jesus, whose diduu: is to be understood neither as promitto (Kuinoel), nor even to be conceived as first taking place through the Paraclete (who rather brings about only the appropriation of the salvation given in the death of Jesus),— Not as the world gives, give 1 To you! Nothing isto be supplied. My giving to you is of quite another kind than the giving of the (unbelieving) world ; its giving bestows treasure, pleasure, honour, and the like, is therefore un- satisfying, bringing no permanent good, no genuine prosperity, etc.’ Quite out of relation to the profound seriousness of the moment, and therefore irrele- vant, is the reference to the usual empty formulas of salutation (Grotius, Kling, Godet). — u) rapacotofu, x.r.A.] ‘‘ Thus does He conclude exactly as He first (ver. 1) began this discourse,” Luther. The short asyndetic (sup- ply in thought oiv) sentences correspond to the deep emotion. — deAdo (Diod. xx. 78) here only in the N. T., frequently in the LXX., which, on the other hand, has not the classical (dox:uérepov, Thomas Magister) arode- Ado.
Ver. 28. Instead of being terrified and alarmed, you should rejoice, that J, etc. Fxoboare, x.r.A. (ver. 18) prepares for this. —¢ qyar. ve] intended by Jesus to be understood in its ideal sense, of true, complete love, which consists simply and solely in entire self-surrender to Him, so that all other interests are subordinated to it. — dr: 6 rarfp pov peifwv pov éori] Statement of the reason for the joy which they would have felt (éydpyre) : since my Father is greater, as gencrally, so particularly, more powerful (comp. ver. 12, viii. 58, x. 29; 1 John iv. 4) than I; since I, consequently, through my departure to Him, shall be elevated in the higher fellowship with Him, to
1 Hengstenberg introduces quite groundlessly a reference to the dAtys which the world gives, according to xvi. 33.
CHAP. XIV., 29. 423
Sar greater power and efficiency for my aims, for victory over the world, etc. Comp. Melanchthon. In this gain, which is awaiting me, how should not he rejoice who loves me? Others find the motive to joy indicated by Christ in the glory and blessedness which awaits Him with the Father.’ But thus the motive would lie only in the departure to the Father generally (with which the attainment of the déga was necessarily associated), not to the Fa- ther’s superior greatness, irrespectively of the fact, that on this view the reference which Jesus would be giving to the love of the disciples would contain something selfish. Others make the occasion of joy lie in the more powerful protection which the yeifwv zar7p would assure to the disciples, beyond what He, during His presence on earth, was able to do.? But this does not apply to the condition of love to the person of Jesus, which this explana- tion transforms rather into love towards His tcork. Others, as Luther, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Lampe, mingle together in the determination of the cause of joy, the interest of Christ and of the disciples ; comp. Calvin : ‘‘ quia haec ultima est meta, ad quam tendere vos oportet.”” — The pecfovérie of the Father (formerly the point of controversy with the Arians, see Suicer, Thes. II. p. 1368) does not rest in the pre-eminence of the unbegotten over the be- gotten,* for which special expedient the text offers no occasion whatever, nor acain in the temporal humiliation of Christ,‘ since God is also greater than the ezulted Christ,* as He was also greater than the pre-existent Logos (i. 1- 3) ; but in the absolute monotheism of Jesus (xvii. 3) and of the whole N. T. (see on Rom, ix. 5), according to which the Son, although of divine essence, * and duooborog With the Father,’ nevertheless was, and is, and remains subor- dinated to the Father, the immutably Highest One, since the Son, as Organ, as Commissioner of the Father, as Intercessor with Him, etc., has received His whole power, even in the kingly office, from the Father (xvii. 5), and, after the complete accomplishment of the work committed to Him, will re- store it to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 28). The remark of Hengstenberg is incorrect : Only such a pre-eminence of greatness on the part of the Father can be intended, as came to an end with the departure of Christ to the Father.
Ver. 29. And now, even now, when my departure is approaching, J have said it to you, namely, dre ropeboya: rpoc Tr. 7., Ver. 28, not what was said in ver. 26, as Liicke thinks. — érav yévyra:] cum factum fuerit, namely, through my death ; comp. xiii. 19. — rcoreboyre] Not absolutely, so as simply to ex- press what is more precisely defined in xiii. 19 by dr: éy ecive 5 but: that
2So Cyril (raw idiay Sdfav avadnpduevos), and several, including Tholuck, Olshanusen, Kling, Késtlin, Mailer, Hilgenfeld, Heng- stenberg, Baeumlein, comp. Godet.
2 Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and sev- eral others, including Kalnoel, Lficke, de Wette.
* Athanasius, Faustinus, Gregory Nazian- zus, Hilarius, Euth. Zigabenus, and many others, including again Olshausen.
‘Cyril, Augustine, Ammonius, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Beza, Aretius, and
many others, inclading de Wette, Tholuck, and Luthardt.
§ See ver. 16, éperice, xvii. 5; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28; Phil. li. 9-11; 1 Cor. ill. 28, xi. 8, and generally throughout the N. T.
¢ This forms the previous assumption of the declaration, which otherwise would be without meaning and relevancy. Comp. on x. 30. In truth, from the mouth of an or- dinary human being it would be an utter- ance of folly.
71.1; Phil. ii.6; Col. 1. 15-18, ¢ ai.
424 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
you may believe it, namely, that I have gone to the Father. Comp. moreteré po, ver. 11. The point for the departing Lord was, that when His ap- proaching death should take place, the disciples should have the true be- lieving apprehension of it, namely, as His departure to the Father.
Ver. 80. Obxére 041d, x.7.A.] ‘* Quasi dicat : temporis angustiae abripiunt verda,” Grotius. — For the prince of the world (see on xii. 31) is coming (is already drawing near). Jesus sees the devil himself in the organs and ex- ecutors of his design (xiii. 2, 27, vi. 70 ; Luke iv. 13). — rot xédopzor] is here emphatically placed first in antithesis to év éuoi. —xai év éuoi ovx Exet ovdév] and in me (antithesis of the «éopyorc, xvii. 16) he possesses nothing, namely, as pertaining to his dominion, which more minute statement flows from the conception of the dpyur ; hence neither woeiv (Kuinoel), nor népos (Nonnus), nor ‘‘of which he could accuse me before God ” (Ewald), is to be supplied ; nor again is the simple sense of the words to be transformed into ‘‘he has no cluim on me” (Tholuck, Hofmann, and several others) ; comp. Luther : ‘‘cause and right.” In any case, Christ expresses the full moral freedom with which He subjects Himself to death (x. 18). The sinlessness, which Cyril, Augustine (‘‘in me non habet quicquam, nullum omnino seilicet pec- catum”), Euth. Zigabenus, Cornelius & Lapide, and many others, including Olshausen, here find expressed, certainly lies at the foundation as a neces- sary causal condition, since only provided that Jesus were sinless, could the devil have in Him nothing that was his, but is not directly expressed. That He has already overcome the world (xvi. 33) is not the reason (Liicke), but the consequence of His freedom from the prince of the world. — The xai is not : but (Ebrard, Godet) ; for the antithesis first follows with aAAd. Therefore : he comes, and is powerless over me (wherefore I needed not to surrender myself to him), but, nerertheless, that, etc., ver. 81.
Ver. 81. That the world may know, etc. (as far as obrw rod), rise (from table), let us go hence! In order to bring the world to the knowledge of my love and my obedience to the Father (‘‘ ut mundus desinat mundus esse et patris in me beneplacitum agnoscat salutariter,” Bengel), let us away from here, and go to meet the diabolical power, before which I must now fall according to God’s counsel ! The apodosis does not begin so early as kai xade¢ (Grotius, Kuinoel, Paulus), in which case cai would mean also, and a reflection less appropriate to the mood of deep emotion would result. If a full point be placed after xo,‘ which, however, renders the sentence heavy, and makes what follows to stand too abruptly, then after a4”’ a simple épyera: would have to be supplied. Comp. xv. 25. — After the sum- mons éyeipecbe, «.7.A., we are to think of the company at table as having risen. But Jesus, so full of that which, in view of the separation ever draw- ing nearer, He desired to impress on the heart of the disciples, and en- chained by His love for them, takes up the word anew, and standing, con- tinues to address chap. xv. and xvi. to the risen disciples, and then follows the prayer of chap. xvii., after which follows the actual departure, xviii. 1. This view* appears to be correct from this, that John, without any indica-
1 Benzel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Ewald. 2 Knapp, Lticke, Tholuck, Olshausen,
NOTES. 425 tion of a change of place, connects xv. 1 immediately with xiv. 31; while, that the following discourses, and especially the prayer, were uttered on the way,’ is neither in any way indicated, nor reconcilable with xviii. 1, nor psychologically probable. A pure importation, further, is the opinion of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, and several othcrs, thht Christ, xiv. 81, went with the disciples to a more secluded and safer place, where He (‘‘sur la pente couverte de vignes, qui descend dans la vallée du Cédron,” Godet) delivered chap. xv., xvi., xvii.; so also is Bengel’s harmonistic device, which Wichelhaus has adopted, that the local- ity of the discourse from xiii. 81 * to xiv. 81 had been outside the city, but that now He set forth to go to Jerusalem for the passover.* Others, while de Wette abides by the hypothesis of an hiatus between chap. xiv. and xv., the reason of which remains unknown, have sought to make use of the éyeipecbe, dywuev, Matt. xxvi. 46, Mark xiv. 42, in spite of the quite different historical connection in Matthew and Mark, in order to charge the author with a clumsy attempt to interweave that reminiscence in his narrative (Strauss, Scholten) ; in opposition to which Weisse, with equal arbitrariness and injustice, accuses the supposed editor of the Gospel with having placed in juxtaposition, without any link of connection, two Johannean composi- tions, of which the one closed with xiv. 81, and the other began with xv. 1. Baur and Hilgenfeld, indeed, make the synoptic words, divested of their more definite historical justification, stand here only asa sign of pause. The Johannean words, and those in the Synoptics uttered in Gethsemane, have nothing to do with one another ; but the apparent incongruity with the present passage speaks, in fact, in favour of the personal testimony of the reporter, before whose eyes the whole scene vividly presented itself. Comp. Bleek’s Beitr. p. 289.
Notes sy AMERICAN Eprror. XLII. ** Believe in God.’’ Ver. 1.
With Meyer also Weiss concurs (along with many others) in rendering the two verbs here both in the imperative, against our Received Version, which the Revi- sion follows. That the imperative construction of both is the true one seems to me almost certain. It suits better the turn of thought indicated and introduced by the preceding imperative (4) rapaccéoOw), and harmonizes with the direct and simple manner in which the Saviour would be likely to addrcss the disciples. They did, indeed, believe in God, as they also believed in Him, but their faith in both would well admit, as it also required, a deepening into that fuller and practical trust to which the Lord exhorts them, Dr. Schaff well says (Lange
Klee, Winer, Luthardt, Ewald, Brfickner, Bleek, following the older expositors, also Gerhard, Calovius, and Maldonatus.
? Ammontus, Hilarius, Beza, Luther, Are- tius, Grotius, Wetstein, Lampe, Rosenmtil- ler, Lange. Ebrard.
3 Bengel on xiii. 81: ‘Adyes: dicit postri- dic, nempe mane, feria VY.”
3So also again Répe, d. Mahi des Fuse- wasch., Hamb. 1856, p 2 f., who, following Bynaeus, assumes that in ¢yeipecde, «7 A. is contained the setting forth from Bethany for Jerusalem, and that chap. xv.-xvii. were then spoken at the paschal meal on the 14th Nisan, in reference to the institution of the
Supper.
426 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ii loco): Reading ‘‘morevere both times imperatively agrees best with the preceding imperative, and with the fresh, direct, hortatory character of the ad- dress. The other interpretations introduce a reflective tone. Our Lord ex- horts and encourages the disciples to dismiss all trouble from their hearts, to exercise full trust and confidence (morevere emphatically first and last) in God, who has in reserve for them many mansions in heaven, and conse- quently also to trust in Christ, who is one with the Father, and is going to pre- pare a place for them : faith in God and faith in Christ are inseparable (hence eic éué is placed before the second mcrevere), and the glorification of the Son is the glorification of the Father in the Son . . . There is here no addition of faith in Christ to faith in God (as Olshausen objects), nor a transfer of our trust from its proper object to another, but simply the concentration of our trust in the unseen God—who out of Christ is a mere abstraction—upon the incarnate Son, in whom this trust becomes real and effective.’’
XLII. ‘‘ In my Father's house.” Ver. 2.
According to Meyer this is not heaven in general, ‘‘ but the peculiar dwelling- place of the divine glory in heaven.’’ Weiss dissents, maintaining that ‘heaven is eo ipso the dwelling-place of God,” and that Meyer’s distinction is unfounded and arbitrary.
XLIV. ‘* Because I live and ye shall live.”’ Ver. 19.
So Meyer and his German editor Weiss agree, along with many others, against the common rendering (retained by the revisers), ‘‘ Because I live, ye shall live also.’’ The two renderings are grammatically equally possible. They object to the latter rendering that it does not assign any logical reason for the Gewpeiré pe which it apparently conditions. Still it may indirectly, though not directly, assign such a reason. The thought might run: ‘In the life which I live, triumphing over my impending death, ye shall have a moral and spiritual life, culminating finally in a spiritual and glorified corporeal life, in both of which you shall thus have that union with and vision of me which the world in its moral deadness will be unable to attain.’’
Still, Meyer’s construction I think more probable: ‘‘ Because I live and ye shall live,” thus giving the double condition under which the beholding of Him is possible. ‘‘The world beholdeth me no more”’ (evidently a bodily behold- ing). Icompletely vanish from its gaze. ‘‘ But ye behold me,” because I survive death. My life will not be buried inthe grave. This is one condition of their beholding Him. The other condition is that they also will live. But here the meaning of live obviously changes. His life is the divine-human, theanthropic life, over which death has no power. The life of the disciples is not their con- tinued existence : this they will share with the morally dead world. It is the spiritual life which the Spirit of the living Christ will impart to them, by which they will behold Him both corporeally—even for this the carnal world is utterly unprepared —and spiritually through moral communion. So, substantially, Weiss. But it is difficult to believe that this exhausts the Saviour’s meaning. His starting point is indeed onthe earth. The disciples, after His resurrection, will have a vision of Him of which the world will beincapable. Yet the thought surely goes beyondthat. He lives (the Present, (0, because His life is at bottom
NOTES, 427
changeless and eternal) a life which not only survives His death, but runs through the endless future. They too will live here in a spiritual life, which gives them here the vision and partial communion of their Lord, but by and by also in a glorified resurrection-body, in which their life will be consummated and their beholding of Him attain perfection. Such, with Meyer and partially against Weiss, I believe to be the thought.
428 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER XV.
Ver. 4. Tisch. has the forms vévy and pévyre ; similarly, ver. 6, zévy. Lachm. also has the latter and pévyre, ver. 4. Considering the divided state of the evidence (A. B. &. in particular agree in favor of pev.), no decision can be come to. — Ver. 6, 7rd zip] Elz. Lachm. have merely ip, against preponder- ating testimony. In the passage of similar meaning, Matt. iii. 10, vii. 19, Luke iii. 9, there is likewise no article found, which, consequently, was more readily omitted than added. — Ver. 7. airjoeobe] A. B. D. L. M. X. Curss. Verss. Chrys.: aitjoac§e. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. This preponderant attestation, the reference of the word to the fut., and the immediate proximity of the future tense, decide in favour of the genu- ineness of the aorist. — Ver. 8. yevjoeo$e] Rinck and Lachm.: yérnofe. The witnesses are greatly divided. But the conjunctive is a correction after gépyre. — Ver. 11. yeivg] A. B. D. Curss. It. Vulg. e al.: 3. Recommended by Griesb , adopted by Lachm. Rightly ; after the previous frequent recurrence of the verb pévu, velvg very readily and involuntarily arose here out of the last syl- lable of YMIN and the following 7. — Ver. 13. The deletion of r:¢ (Tisch.) is too weakly supported. It came to be passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 14. b0a] D. L. X. &.: cd. So Lachm. Tisch. The singular 4 is found in B. Codd. of It. Goth. Aeth. Cypr. Lucif. The witnesses alone are decisive, and that for the plural, more precisely for d.— Ver. 15. The order Afyw wuac (Lachm. Tisch.) is accredited by preponderating evidence. — Ver. 21. div] Lachm. and Tisch.: ei¢ ivde, after B. D.* L. &.** 1, 33, Verss. Chrys. Rightly ; the more current and customary dative flowed of itself from the copyists’ pens, as it was also added in xvi. 3. — Ver. 22. elyov] Here and in ver. 24 Lachm. and Tisch. have the Alexandrine form ¢iyooay, according to B. L. I1.** &. 1, 33, Or. Cyr. Not to be adopted, since this form appears certain only in Rom. iii. 13, in a citation from the O. T. (édoA:oveav), while here the evidence is not sufficiently strong (not found even in A.). Buttmann, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 491 f., supposes that elyooav arose from the original elyov dv. Yet of év no further trace is found in the critical witnesses, and its (rhetorical) omis- sion (see Buttmann, I.c. p. 489) is quite free from doubt. — Ver. 24. weroinxer]} A. B. D. J. K. L. X. TT. 8. Curss. Chrys.:, éroigcev. So Lachm. Tisch. The testimony in favour of this reading is decisive.
Ver. 1. Since the image is introduced altogether without any suggesting object, it is natural to assume some external occasion for it, which John has not related. That which most obviously suggests itself is the look at the cup of wine (comp. Matt. xxvi. 29: 1d yévoqua tov auréAov), which pre-
1 Almost throughout the entire chapter wanting, and this {s in keeping with deeply (as far as ver. 18) the particles of connec- stirred and intense emotion. tion between the individual utterances are
CHAP, XV., 2. 429 cisely at this supper had assumed s0 great significance.’ [See Note XLI. p. 403.] Had Jesus spoken what follows on the way (see on xiv. 31), or even, as G. Hier. Rosenmiiller? supposed, in the temple, then in the former case the walk through vineyards (comp. especially Lange, who assumes the ex- istence of garden-fires by night, and Godet), and in the latter case the gold- en vine at the gate of the temple,’ might be supposed to present a suitable occasion. Itis more arbitrary to suppose (Knapp, Tholuck) a vine whose ten- drils had crept into the room (comp. Ps. cxxviii. 8), or: that there was at full moon a view of the vineyards from the room (Storr), or of the golden vine of the temple (Lampe). Most arbitrary of all is the supposition that John may have placed the similitude, in itself genuine, here in the wrong place (de Wette). Ifthe thought of the cup at the meal just concluded did not so spontaneously suggest itself, it would be safer, with Liicke and B. Crusius, to assume zo external occasion at all, since the figure itself was so
frequent in the O. T. ;* and therefore (comp. Matt. xxi. 33 ff.) the disciples
who were standing around Him could immediately, and of themsclves, sce Jesus set forth under this venerable figure.* — 7 aAn&ivf] genuine, real, i.e. con- taining the reality of the idea, [Sec Note XLVI. p. 441] which is figura- tively set forth in the natural vine (comp. oni. 9, vi. 35), not in antithesis to the unfruitful vine, i.e. the degenerate people of Israel (Ebrard, Heng- stenberg), which is here remote, since the Lord is designating Himself as dumedoc, not His éxxAyoia (this regarded asin antithesis tothe Jewish). Christ is the Vine in relation to His believing ones (the branches), whose organic connection with Him is the constant, fruitful, and most inward fellowship of life. Quite similar as to the thing is the Pauline figure of the head and the members.* The vine-dresser’ is God ; for He has sent Christ, and estab- lished the fellowship of believers with Him (vi. 87, e¢ al.), and tends it in virtue of His working through Christ’s word, and (after His departure) through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Ver. 2. As on the natural vine there are fruitful and unfruitful branches, i.e. tendrila,* so there are in the fellowship of Christ such as evince their faith by deed as faith’s fruit, and thosc with whom this is not the case. — The latter, who are not, with Hengstenberg, to be taken for the unbelieving Jews (as is already clear from év ¢yvoi and from ver. 5), but for the lip-Chris- tians and those who say Lord! Lord ! (comp. those who believe without love, 1 Cor. xiii.), God separates from the fellowship of Christ, which act is conceived from the point of view of divine retribution (comp. the thing, according to another figure, viii. 85) ; the former He causes to experience His purging influence, in order that their life of faith may increase in moral activity and efficiency. This purification is effected by the aid, indeed, though not exclusively, of conflict and suffering. — 7av xAjyua
1 Comp. Grotius and Nisselt, Opuac. IT. p. §Luthardt and Lichtenstein, following
25 ff., also Ewald. Hofmann, also Ebrard. 2 In F. E. Rosenmiiller, Repert. I. p. 167 ff. * Eph. v. 30; Col. if. 19. ; § Joseph. Antt, xv. 11. 8, Bed. v. 5. 4. 7 yewpyos, Matt. xxi. 28, e¢ al.; Aelian,
4 Isa. v. 1 ff.; Jer. 11.21; Ezek. xv. 1ff., WN. A. vii. 28; Aristaen. j. 8. xix. 10 ff.; Ps. Ixxx. 9 ff. ; comp. also Light- ® Plat. Rep. p. 38 A; Pollux, vil. 14 foot and Wetstein.
430 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
év éuol] Nominat. absol. as in i. 12, vi. 89, xvii. 2, with weighty emphasis. —alpe] takes it away with the pruning-knife. It forms with xa@aipe a ‘¢suavis rhythmus,” Bengel.—rd xapz. gép.] which bears fruit; but pre- viously pu» ¢ép.: if it does not bear. — xa6aip.] He cleanses, prunes. Figure of the moral xafapiouds,—continually necessary even for the approved Chris- tian,—through the working of divine grace, xiii. 10. — Fora political view of the community under the figure of the vine, see in Aesch. adv. Ctesiph. 166 ; Beck.’
Ver. 3. Application of the second half of ver. 2 to the disciples, in so far as they belong to the xAfuara ; as a preparation for the exhortation in ver. 4. ‘* Already are ye clean” (such purified «Afyara); already there has taken place in your case, that which I have just said. The #7 iueic glances at the multitude of those who were yet to become xaSapoi in the future. That their purity originally is intended, not excluding the necessary continuance and practical further development of the relation (comp. xiii. 10), is understood. as a matter of course, and see ver. 4. The mundi cease not to be mundandi. — did tr. Adyov] d:d, a8 Vi. 57 of the ground; hence: on account of the word, z.e. because the word (‘‘ provided it be received and apprehended in faith,” Luther, comp. Acts xv. 9) is the power of God (Rom. i. 16), in virtue of which it effects its xafaipe:, ver. 2; Jas. i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23.2. The word, however, is the whole word, the entire doctrine which Jesus has delivered to them (comp. on viii. 43), not the utterance in xiii. 10 (Hilgenfeld, Ebrard).
Ver. 4. To this purity, however, must be added the continuous faithful persistence in my living fellowship. — év uot] here : on (not in) me, cupze- gvarec éuot (Nonnus), as is required by what follows, hanging on me as the branches hang on the vine, ver. 2. [See Note XLVII. p. 441.] Euth. Ziga- benus aptly remarks : ovyxoAAdpevoi por BeBatdtepov dtd miotews adwotdxtov Kai cxtcews apphxtov. — xaye év iyiv] to the fulfilment of the requirement? is at- tached the promise : and I will abide on you—ovvov 19 duvayer, Euth. Zigabe- nus—with the whole power of spiritual life, which I impart to my faith- ful ones ; I will not separate myself from you, like the vine, which does not loosen itself from its branches. On pevd as a supplement, sce Bornemann in the Sdchs. Stud. 1846, p. 56. The harsher mode of completing the sense : and cause that I abide on you (Grotius, Bengel), is not demanded by ver. 5, where 6 plvov . . . aire is the fulfilled peivare . . . tuiv. —éav py ueiva, x.t.A.] If it shall not have abided, etc., refers merely to ov divara: xaprov oéperv (a8 in v. 19), and is so far a more exact definition of the ag’ éavroi, ‘‘ vi aliqua propria, quam habeat extra vitem,” Grotius. — otrwe¢ oid? tipueic] so neither you, namely divaobe xapr. pépecv ag’ gaurd, 1.6. roreiv Te ywpi¢ enor, ver. 5. Bengel well remarks : ‘‘ Hic locus egregie declarat discrimen naturae et gratiae,” but also the possibility of losing the latter.
Ver. 5. Abide on me, I say, for J am the vine, ye the branches ; thus then only from me (not ag’ éavrév, ver. 4) can you derive the living power for bearing fruit. And you must abide on me, asI on you: 80 (ovro¢: he, no
1 dumeAovupyouci Tives Thy WAL, avaTeTpyKac’:)§=©— p. 197; N&gelsbach, z. Kias, p. 89 f., ed. 8.
wives Ta KAHMaTA Ta TOU Shpov. § Comp. Weiss, Lehrdegr. p. 74. 2 Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 162, I.
CHAP, XV., 6. 431
other than he) will you bring forth much fruit. In this way, by means of éy® . . . xAfpara the preceding év éuoi, and by means of 6 pévun, «.7.2., the preceding peivyre is confirmed and brought into relief. Hence also the em- phatic position of éyd and pévov. — xayw év avrg] Instead of nai &v @ ty péva, this clause—not relative, but appending itself in an easy and lively manner —is introduced.'—yupic éuov] ywprobévres ax’ éuov, out of living fellowship with me. [See Note XLVIII. p. 441.] Comp. Eph. ii. 12; Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. Antithetic to év éyol uévecr. — roreiv ovdév] effect nothing, bring about nothing, passing from the figure into the literal mode of presentation. The reference is to the Christian life in general, not merely to that of the apostles, since the disciples are addressed, not especially in respect of their narrower vocation, but generally as «Agata of Christ, which standing they have in common with all believers. The utter incapacity for Christian efficiency without the maintenance of the living connection with Christ is here decid- edly and emphatically expressed ; on this subject, however, Augustine, and with him ecclesiastical orthodoxy, has frequently drawn inferences too wide in favour of the doctrine of moral inability generally (see especially Calo- vius) ; since it is only the ability for the specifically Christian moeiv re (the kaprov gépecv) which is denied to him who is yupic Xpeorov. For this higher moral activity, which, indeed, is the only true one, he is unable (iii. 6), and in this sense it may be said with Augustine, that Christ thus spoke, ‘‘ ut responderet futuro Pelagiw ;” where, however, a natural moral volition and ability of a lower grade in and of itself? is not denied, nor its measure and power more exactly defined than to this effect, that it cannot attain to Christian morality, to which rather the ethical power of the living fellow- ship with Christ here depicted, consequently the new birth, is indispensable. Luther well says : ‘‘ that He speaks not here of the natural or worldly being and life, but of fruits of the gospel... And in so far ‘‘nos penitus privat omni virtute, nisi quam suppeditat ipse nobis,” Calvin.
Ver. 6. Nov Alyes nal rov kivdvvov tov pA év ain pevuvtos, Euth. Zigabenus ; and how terrible in its tragic simplicity |! — éav pf rig] nist quis manserit.* — £B8A%0n &&w, x.7.A.] The representation is highly vivid and pictorial. Jesus places Himself at the point of time of the execution of the last judgment, when those who have fallen away from Him are gathered together and cast into the fire, after they have been previously already cast out of His church, and become withered (having completely lost the higher true (wf). Hence the graphic lively change of tense : In case any one shall not hate abided on. me; he has been cast out like the branch, and is withered (already before the judgment), and (now what takes place at the last day itself) they gather them together, etc. The aorists therefore ncither denote what is wont to be (Grotius), nor do they stand for futures (Kuinoel, B. Crusius, and older ex- positors), nor are they to be explained, ‘‘ par la répétition de lacte aussi longtemps que dure l’opération de la taille” (Godet) ; nor are they designed, asin Matt. xviii. 15, to express that which is at once done or appointed to
? See on this classic idiom, Bernhardy, p. 2 Comp. Rom. if. 14, 15, vil. 14 ff. 304; Nagelsbach, z. Jiias, p. 6, ed. 8: Butt- 3 See Baeumlein, Furtik. p.2.9. Comp. ill. mann, JN. 7. Cr. p. 827 f. [E. T. p. &82]. 8, 5.
432 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
be done with the non-abiding.' To the latter interpretation is opposed the circumstance that, in point of fact, the being cast out and being withered cannot be appointed or effected immediately at and with the falling away, but that conversion and re-adoption must remain open (comp. 4 rpdcAmyue, Rom, xi. 15), if éav uf rec, x.7.4. is not to have in view the time of the judg- ment at the last day. The é8A#07, «.7.4. appears as a definite result and as a completed act of the past,* and that, as the further pictoral description, x. cvvdyovotv, x.T.2., Shows, from the standpoint ,of the last day (comp. also Heb. vi. 8, x. 27), and further in such a way that it is accomplished between the beginning of the falling away and the last day on which the gathering together and burning is now performed.* — d¢ 7d xAgua] as the branch, which has not remained on the vine, but has been broken off or cut off, and cast out of the vineyard. But the vineyard represents the fellowship of the Mes- sianic people of God, out of which he who has fallen away from Christ has been thrust. Hence éfw refers to the vineyard, so far as this is the church. Outside it, the life of the man who has fallen away, which he had de- rived from Christ, has completely perished and is dead. This is expressed by énpév6y, by which the man is identificd with the withered branch, which is hisimage. Euth. Zigabenus well remarks : axd2ecev fv eiyev tx rae pitye ixudda yapitoc. — xal cvvdy. ava, x.r.2..] Jesus now represents as present what is done with these cast-out and withered branches at the last day. The polysyndeton (comp. x. 8, 12; Matt. vii. 27, et al.) and the simply solemn expression has much in it that seizes the imagination. The subject of owdy. and 8444. is understood of itself ; in the jigure it is the servants of the yewpyéc, as to the thing, the aifépi dpyotipes (Nonnus), the angels, are in- tended (Matt. xiii. 41). — ei¢ 1d wip (see critical notes) : into the fire, already burning for this purpose, by which, in the interpretation of the figure, Gehenna is intended,* not also the fire of the divine anger generally (Heng- stenberg).—xai xaiera:] and they burn! The simple form (o0 yy xaraxaiovrae Euth. Zigabenus) as in Matt. xiii. 40. ‘*Magna vi positum eximia cum majestate,” Bengel.
Ver. 7. After thus deterring from non-abiding, in ver. 6, now again an inducement to abiding. But the jigure now ceases, and barcly still leaves in what follows some slight allusions (vv. 8, 16).— éav peiv. év éuoi] Still in the sense of the figure, as the branches on the vine ; but with xai ra pf. yp. év buiv (in animis vestris), expressing the necessary consequence of a man’s abiding on Jesus, the language at orce becomes proper, no longer figurative. — 4 édv Aé2,] stands first with emphasis ; but such an one wills and prays simply and solely in the name of Jesus (xiv. 13, 14), and cannot do other- wise.
180 most expositors, including Licke, Winer, Tholuck, de Wette, Luthardt, Welss, Hengstenberg ; comp. Hermann, de emend. Grammat. p. 192 f.; Buttmann, JN. 7. Gram. p. 172 [E. T. p. 199].
* Hence the aorist, instead of which the perfect was not required, as Luthardt ob- jects. The oy xdxpira of Ili. 18 is conceived
of differently.
*The reading «én (see critical notes) would not essentially alter the sense; it expresses: nisi quis manct, t.e. until the judgment.
4 Matt. xiii. 42, xxv. 41, ili. 10, vil. 19, v. 22, et ab.
ms ee ee
ee ee ll
CHAP. XV., 8-10. 433
Ver. 8. A further carrying out of this incitement to abiding on Him, and that by bringing out the great importance, rich in its results, of this grant- ing of prayer, which is attached to the abiding required. — év robry] Herein, to this a forward reference is generally given, so that iva, «.r.A. is the con- tents of rovro. But thus understood, since iva is not equivalent to dr, this iva would express, that in the obligation (you ought, ver. 12, comp. on vi. 29), or in the destination to bear much fruit, the déga of the Father is given. This is inadmissible, as it is rather in the actual fruit-bearing itself that— that déga must lie, and hence ér: must have beenemployed. To distinguish iva, however, merely by supplying ‘‘ as I hope” (Liicke) from dr, does not satisfy the telic nature of the word.' Hence (and not otherwise in 1 John iv. 17) év rotry, as in iv. 37, xvi. 80, is to be taken as a retrospective refer- ence (so also Lange), and that not to the pévecy in itself, but to the immedi- ately preceding @ édv BéAyre airhoacde x. yevho. ipiv, so far, namely, as it takes place in him who abides in Christ. Jn this granting of prayer allotted to the pévewv év éuot, says Jesus, a twofold result—and this a high incentive to that uéveer—is given, namely, (1) when what you ask falls to your lot, then in this result my Father has been glorified, * that you—for that is God's design in this His dofélea9ac—may bear much fruit (which is just to be the actual further course of that granting of prayer, comp. ver. 16) ; and (2) you will, in virtue of the fulfilment of all your prayers, become, in a truly proper and specific sense, my disciples, who belong to no other (note the emphatic possessive éyvoi, as in xiii. 85), since this hearing of prayer is the holy characteristic simply and solely of my disciples (xiv. 13, 14). — The future yevjoeode may depend on iva (comp. on idooua:, xiii, 40, see also on 1 Cor. ix. 18; Eph. vi. 8), as Ewald connects it ; independently, however, of iva, and therefore connected with év robry, the words convey more weight in the independence appropriate to their distinctive contents, The Lord, however, does not say Zceade, but He sees the full development of His dis- cipledom beginning with the é rofry.
Vv. 9, 10. But as disciples of Christ, they are the object of His love ; hence, to the general exhortation to abide on Him, is added now the particular one to abide in His love, which is done by keeping His commandments, accord- ing to the archetype of His harmonious moral relation to the Father. — As the Father has loced me, I have also loved you (aorists, because Jesus, at the boundary of His life, stands and looks back, xiii. 1, 34) ; abide (keep your- selves continually) in my love.* To extend the protasis to tac, and begin the apodosis with peivare (Maldonatus, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Olshausen, and several others), is opposed by the fact that between xadoc vyé7. ve 6 x. and ueivare, x.7.A. no correlation exists ; for the aydr7 # tuf is not love to me,‘ but : my love to you, as is clear from 7ydr7e0a tnac and from the analogy of
1 Cyril already rightly recognized that iva 3 Instead of xeivare, Ewald conjectures cannot be an explanation of éy rovrg, but peiynre, which he still makes depend on iva, only a statement of the purpose of éof.3 ver. 8; but this is unsuitable, since xcadws war. x. But quite irrelevantly be referred appears without «ai. é8o0f. 5 war. ». to the mission of the Son. 4Maldonatus, Grotius, Ndsselt, Kuinoel,
9 Z\Aaxe reef, Nonnus. Baeumlein, and several others.
434 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
§ xapa 4} éuf, ver. 11;°> comp. vv. 12, 18. Olshausen mingles the two together, the active and passive love. —év rg aydérg pov) = év 79 aydry TH éuy. But the latter purposely lays emphasis on the thought that it was nothing less than His love, that love so great and holy, as He had just expressed by xa¥ac fyan., x.7.A., in which they were to abide. — rer#pyxa] Self-witness in the retrospect which He takes of His whole ministry on the threshold of its ac- complishment. —«. yulvo avrov év rt. ayéry] Consequence of rerfpyxa. The prominent position of airov corresponds to the consciousness of the happiness and the dignity of abiding in the love which His Father bears to him (x. 17, xvii. 24). The present includes continuance also for the future ; hence it is not, with Ewald, to be accented yevo.
Ver. 11. Conclusion of the section vv. 1-10 (ratra). [See Note XLIX. p. 441.]—iva 4 yapd, x.r.A.] Note the juxtaposition of 7 tuf# and év tyiv ; that my joy may be in you, i.e. that the same joy which J have may be yours. The holy joyous tone of soul is intended, the conscious moral courage of joy, which rises victorious over all suffering, as Christ, in virtue of His fellowship with the Father and of His obedience towards Him, must and did possess it (comp. xvii. 18), and as it so often finds utterance with Paul in the spirit of Christ.* Yet 4 éuq7 1s not: the joy produced by me (Calvin, de Wette), or of which I have opened to you the spring (Tholuck), which is forcing a meaning on the simple possessive expression (comp. iil. 29, xvii. 18 ; 2 Cor. ii. 8), and does not satisfy the significant juxtaposition of 9 éuh and év tyiv (comp. 2 Cor. li. 8: dre } eu yapd mavrev tyev éorw). The explanations : mea de vobis laetitia (corresponding to yaipe év),* or even: gaudium vestrum de me,‘ are to be rejected because the correct read- ing is 9 (see critical notes). Luthardt: that my joy may have its cause and ovject in you (not in anything else). This is grammatically correct (év of causal foundation) : the 7A7pwty7, however, which is subsequently said of the joy of the disciples, presupposes that in the first clause the joy of the dis- ciples themselves, the consummation of which is intended, is already indicated ; aAnpwS% otherwise would remain without corresponding correlation. Had the object been merely to express the reciprocity of the joy, we should necessarily have expected in the second half simply : xa? } yapa tudv év éepol. See, in answer to Luthardt, also Hofmann.’—If Christ’s joy is in His own, their joy will be thereby completed (comp. iii. 29), developed to its full
measure in contents, purity, strength, victoriousness, etc.° Hence: «. 7 Aaa ty. TAnpurdh.
Vv. 12, 18. Now, for the purpose of furnishing a more exact guide to this joy, is given the precept of reciprocal love, founded on the love of Christ (xiii. 84), which ‘is the collective conception of the évrodaé, ver. 10, Jesus’ pecul-
1 That 7 ayarn 9 é4% may denote love fo me, should not have been called in question, as being. contrary to the genius of the lJan- guage. Comp. Aig 17 on, Xen. Anad. vil, 7,29: Thucyd. i. 187. 4: ded rv chy grriav, Rom. xi. 81. ;
31 Cor. vil. 30; 2 Cor. xl 11; Phil. IL 17, 18, iv. 4; Rom. xiy. 17;.Gal. v. £2
? So Augustine, Schoettgen, Lampe, Kuat- noel, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others.
‘ Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, Ndsselt, Klee, and several others.
5 Schriftbew. IT. 2, p. 895 b.
© Comp. xvi. 24; 1John fi. 4; 2 John 12
CHAP. XV., 14, 15. 435
tar, specific precept (4 uf). — iva] you should (see on vi. 29). — Ver. 18 char- acterizes the nadac wydr. ipac. A greater love than this (just designated by Kadac yar. tuac) no one cherishes ; it is the greatest love which any one can have, such as, according to the divine purpose, shall impel to this (iva), that (after my example) one (indefinite) should give up his life for the advantage of his friends. Fora like readiness to self-sacrifice the greatness of my love shall be the motive, 1 Johniii. 16. The ordinary interpretation which takes iva as expository of ratryc (See Note L. p. 441], does not correspond to the idea of purpose in iva, and the attempts to preserve this conception (¢.g. de Wette : in aydmy there lies a law, a will, comp. Luthardt, Lange ; Godet : the culminating point of loving effort lies therein) are unsatisfactory and forced expedients.' — The difference between the present passage and Rom. v. 6 ff.(irép aoeBov) does not rest upon the thing itself, but only on the dif- ferent point of view, which in Romans is general, and here is limited, in the special connection, to the circle of friends, without excepting the friends from the general category of sinners. To designate them, however, by that quality, was not relevant in this place. Against the weakening of the idea of gidwy: ‘those who are actually objects of His love” (Ebrard), ver. 14 should have been a sufficient guard.
Ver. 14. ‘‘ For his friends,” Jesus had just said. There was a presump- tion implied in this, that Hc also would die for His friends (Euth. Ziga- benus briefly and correctly points out the sequence of thought by supply- ing at the end of ver. 18: xoddg éyo rad viv). And who are these? The disciples (ipeic), if they do what He commands them.—The conception of the ¢fAo: is that of the loving confidential companionship with Himself, to which Christ has raised them ; see ver. 15. Later on, He designates them even as His brethren, xx. 17.
Ver. 15. The dignity, however, which lies in this designation “‘ friends,” was to become known to them. —oixér:] No longer, as before (xii. 26, xiii. 13 ff.). No contradiction to ver. 20, where Jesus does not anew give them the name of dovAn, but only reminds them of an earlier saying ; nor with Luke xii. 4, where He has already called them friends, which, however, is also not excluded by the present passage, since here rather the previous designation is only indicated @ potiori, and the new is intended in a pregnant sense, which does not do away with the objective and abiding relation of the disciples, to be dovAo: of Christ, and their profound consciousness of this their relation,* as generally Christians are at once dovAo: and dredet depos xvpiov (1 Cor. vii. 22), at once dovAn and yet His brothers (Rom. viii. 29), at once dovao: and yet His ovyxAnpovdéyor (Rom. viii. 16). — avrod 6 xtp.] Although he is Ais lord, — ri zovet] Not: what he intends to do (Grotius, Kuinoel, and several others), which ia not appropriate in the application to Jesus, whose work was in full process of accomplishment, nay, was so near to its earthly consummation, but the action itself’, while it is going on. The slave, although he sees it externally, is not acquainted with it, does not know the proper
1 On redévas 7. Yvy., 800 ON X. 11; on tis, 29, ed. 8. corresponding to the universal one (man, 3 Acts iv. 20; Rom. i. 1; Gal. 1. 10; Phil Ger.), any one, sec Nigelsbach, ¢. Jiias, p. £1, ah
436 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
nature of the action of his master,' because the latter has not taken him into his confidence in respect of the quality, the object, the means, the mo- tives, and thoughts, etc. ; ‘‘servus tractatur ut dpyavoy,” Bengel. — eipyxa] Ver. 14. — rdvra @ jxovea, x.r.A.}] docs not refer to all the doctrinal teaching, nor again is it elucidated from the quite gencral saying, viii. 26 (Tholuck) ; and just as little does it require the arbitrary and more exact limitation to that which is necessary to salvation (Calvin), to the principles (de Wette), to that designed for communication (Liicke, Olshausen), which thus seeks to avoid the apparent contradiction with xvi. 12; but? it alludes to that which the Father has laid upon Him fo do, as appears from the context by the correlation with 6r: 6 dovAoc ovx olde, x.r.A. He has made known to the disciples the whole saving will of God, the accomplishment of which had been entrusted to Him on His being sent from His pre-existent state into the world ; but this by no means excludes instructions standing in connection, which they could not bear at the present time, xvi. 12.
Ver. 16. Along with this dignity, however, of being Jesus’ friends, they were not to forget their dependence on Him, and their destiny therewith appointed. —égeAéEaode . . . eFeAeCaunv] as Master . . . as disciples, which is understood of itself from the historical relation, and is also to be gathered from the word chosen (vi. 70, xiii. 18; Actsi. 2). Each of them was a oxevoc éxAoyz¢ Of Christ (Acts ix. 15) ; in each the initiative of this peculiar relation lay not on his but on Christ’s side. Hence not to be taken merely in a general sense of the selection for the fellowship of love.* — £3nxa ipuac] have uppointed you, as my disciples, consequence of the éfeActduyy. The ‘‘do- tation spirituelle” (Godet) goes beyond the meaning of the word, although it was historically connected with it (Mark iii. 14,15). Comp. on ridévaz, instituere, appoint (not mercly destine, as Ebrard thinks), 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. i. 12; 2 Tim. i. 11; Heb. i. 2; Acts xx. 28, e al.‘ The rendering of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, is incorrect : I have planted you. The figure of the vine has in truth been dropped, and finds only an echo in the xaprdv dfpervy, which, however, must not be extended to 2dyxa, since the disciples appear not as planted, but as branches, which have grown and remain on the vine. Quite arbitrarily, Bengel and Olshausen see here a new figure of a fruit-tree. — iva tyeic indy.] that you on your side may go away, etc., is by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, in consequence of their interpretation of 237xa, erroneously explained by iva éxreivyode avFavduevor. Nor does it merely denote ‘‘ independent and living action ;” * comp. Luther : “‘that you sit not still without fruit or work”), or ‘‘continual movement” (Hengstenberg), with which sufficient justice is not done to the peculiarity of this point, which, in truth, belonged in the most proper sense to the disciples’ calling. According to Ebrard, it would even be simply an auxiliary verb,
3 Comp. Xen. ep. I. 3. others, including Luthardt, Lange.
* This, at the same time, in answer to Hom. Od. xv. 2338, J/. vi. 300; Dem. 822. Beyschlag, p. 101, vyho considers a reference 11, e¢ al. here to the pre-existent state as absurd. ® Xen. Oec. xix. 7, 9. Comp. also against the same, Johansson, de * De Wette, Liicke, Baumgarten-Crusius, Chr. praeexistentia, p. 14. Lutbardt, Godet,
?Euth, Zigabenus, Luther, and several
CHAP. XV., 17-20. 437
like ire with the supine. It signifies rather the erecution of the arooroag, in which they were to go away into all the world, etc. Comp. Luke x. 3; Matt. xxviii. 19. —uévy] comp. iv. 86. The results of their ministry are not to go backward and be brought to naught, but are to be continuous and enduring even into the aidv néAAuv.— The second iva is co-ordinated with the first. See on vv. 7, 8. It is in truth precisely the granting of prayer here designated which brings about the fruit and its duration in all given cases. Comp. the prayers of Paul, as in Col. i. 9 ff. ; Eph. iii. 14 ff. —é Te ovéu. p.] See on xiv. 138. ;
Ver. 17, At the close (comp. ver. 11) of this section, vv. 12-16, Jesus refers once more to its main point, reciprocal love. — ravra] points backwards, as in ver. 11, namely, to what is contained in vv. 12-16, so far as the con- tents are of a preceptive nature. And that which is therein enjoined by Jesus on the disciples has for its object (iva), etc., as He had in truth required this duty at the very beginning of the section. The remainder of the sec- tion (vv. 14-16) was indeed not directly of a preceptive nature, but in support and furtherance of what had been enjoined.
Vv. 18, 19. But now your relation to the world / as far as ver. 27. —In your fellowship, love; from without, on the part of the unbelieving, hatred toward you! Consolation for you : y:véonere (imperat.) bre éu2 prov tua (i. 15), uepionxev. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 12, 18. This hatred is a community of destiny with me. A further consolation : this hate is the proof that you no longer belong to the world, but to me through my selection of you (ver. 16) ; therein exists the reason for it. How must that fact tend to elate you ! Comp. 1 John iii. 18, iv. 5. —The fivefold repetition of xécyoc is solemn. Comp. ili. 17. — rd idsav] ‘‘ Suum dicitur pro cos, atque sic notatur interesse mundi,” Bengel. Comp. vii. 7. They have become a foreign element to the world, and therewith the object of its antipathy ; yaipe: yap r@ duoip rd éyvoor, Euth. Zigabenus. *
Ver. 20. A recalling of xiii. 16, presupposing, however, a different appli- cation than in that passage—namely, a slave has no better lot to claim than his lord (comp. Matt. x. 24, 25).—Jf they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you ; if they have kept my word, they will also keep yours. Which of these two cases will in general occur, Jesus leaves to the decision of the disciples themselves, since they in truth knew from experience how it had gone with Him. To take the second clause tronically,* is appropriate neither to the seriousness of the first, nor to the tone of the whole passage. Ols- hausen holds incorrectly (comp. B. Crusius, Maier, Godet), ‘‘ if many, etc.,” where, in the first half, according to Godet, we should have to think of the mass of the people. But the variation of the subjects is a pure importation. Finally, when Bengel and other older expositors (in Wolf) interpret rapeiv as watch, this is quite opposed to the Johannean usage of rdv Ady. rypeiv (viii. 51, xiv. 28, 24, and frequently), comp. ver. 10, and it would be too weak a conception after the first half of the verse. Irrespectively of this,
1Comp. Plat. Lys. p. 214 B; 71d Snocov re 2 “Quasi dicat: non est, quod hoc spere- bmoiy avdyxy act didoy civat, tis,’ Grotius, Lampe.
438 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. usage would not stand in the way of such rendering, Gen. iii. 15 (according to the usual reading).' .
Ver. 21. ’A424] antithesis of consolation against this state of persecu- tion [See Note LI. p. 441] : ratra rdvra 7. cic ou., however, presupposes that the second of the cases supposed in ver. 20 is not the actual one. The conso- lation lies in did rd Svoud pov: becguse my name is your confession. ‘‘ The name of Christ from your mouth will be to them nothing but poison and death,” Luther. Comp. Acts iv. 17, ix. 14, xxvii. 9. This thought : it is for the sake of Christ’s name that I suffer (Acts ix. 16), was to exalt the perse- cuted,? and did exalt them (Acts v. 41, xxi. 13, e¢ al.), and they boasted of these sufferings,* which constituted their holy pride (Gal. vi. 17) and their joy (Phil. ii. 17, 18). Comp. Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 9, v. 11. According to others,‘ bri ove oldact, «.7.4., has the emphasis. But in that case the thought 6:2 7d dvoué pov is arbitrarily thrust back, and rendered unnecessary, although throughout the whole of the following discussion the reference of the perse- cutions to Christ is the prominent and controlling point (sce especially vv. 25-27). Hence dre ov« oldac:, x.7.A., is to be taken as subordinated to dia 13 dvoué pov, 88 giving, that is, its explanation. Had they possessed the truc acquaintance with God, they would, because God has sent Christ, have also known Christ (comp. Luke xxiii. 84), and would not for His name’s sake have persecuted His disciples.
Vv. 22-24. Sinfulness, not of this non-acquaintance with God (Ebrard, Ewald, Godet), but, as vv. 23-25 show, of this hatred of the name of Jesus, in respect of which they are inexcusable, since He has come and spoken to them (vv. 22, 28), and done before their eyes His Messianic works (miracles), ver. 24. — duapr. ovx eiyov] For their hatred of my name would then be er- cusable, because, without my appearance and discourses, the true knowledge of Him who sent me—and the non-acquaintance with whom is in truth the ground of their hatred (ver. 21)—-would have remained inaccessible to them. My appearance and discourses ought to have opened their eyes, and brought them to the knowledge of Him who sent me ; but since this has not taken place, their hatred against me, which flows from their non-acquaintance with Him who sent me, is inexcusable ; it is the hatred of hardened blind- ness before God’s revelation of Himself in my advent and discourses. — The weight of the protasis lies in 7A0ov and 2141. abroic together (not merely in the latter) ; 7A Jor is the Messianic épyeoda, correlative to the preceding r. méupavté pe. The duapria, however, referable to the pzucety,® must not be re- ferred merely to unbelief, which reference does not correspond to the con-
1 Dem. 3817 ult., 1252. 8; Soph. O. 2. 808; Arist. Veep. 864; Thuc. iv. 108.1, vil. 80.1; Lys. iil. 84.
2 wpds rushy wey Vuiy TrovTO rotovory, AMMO- nius.
3 Rom. v. 8; 2 Cor. xi. 28 ff., xil. 10,11; 1 Pet. iv. 12 ff.
{Including Lficke, de Wette, Hengsten- berg.
’ Hence, too, on the question as to the
salvation of the heathen, to whom Christ has not been preached, nothing is to be gathered from the present passage; and one may now, with Augustine, decide in favour of miftiores poenas for them. or, in confirmation of their condemnation, pro- pose, with Melanchthon, to extend the words of Christ to the profrvangeium in paradise, and bring in at the same time the natural moral, law, Rom. fi.
CHAP, XV., 25-27. 439
text in vv. 19, 21, 28-25." The words duapr. obx 2xev, ix. 41, were spoken of unbelief. — The non-occurrence of dv with elyov is as in viii. 89. — viv dé] But as tt is, since I have appeared and have spoken to them. [See Note LII. p. 442. ] — mpdgaccr ovn Eyovo:, x.7.A.] In that supposed case they would have no sin, so far, namely, as their hatred would be only an excusable peccatum igno- rantiae ; but as the matter stands, they have no pretert in respect of their sin (to which they are subject through their hatred) ; they can allege noth- ing by way of escape. mpdpaccv Exev, to have evasions, exculpations, only here in N. T., very frequent in the classics.* Euth. Zigabenus well remarks : aroorepel Toc ’Iavdaioug dxdone ovyyvoune éSedoxaxovvracs. — Ver. 23. And how exceedingly great is this sin ! Comp. v. 23. — Ver. 24, parallel to ver. 22, as there from the discourses, which the unbelieving have heard, so here similarly from that which they have seen, revealing thcir guilt. — oidelc 4220¢] that is, in their nature and appearance divine works, v. 86, ix. 8, 4, x. 87, xiv. 10, e¢ al. — viv 02 nal twpdxac, x.7.A.] But as it is (viv dé, as in ver. 22), they have actually seen (as vi. 36), and yet hated both me and my Father. Not merely yeuc., but also éwpdéx., is connected with xai éné, x.7.A. 3 in the works they have seen Christ (x. 25) and the Father (xiv. 10) ; for both have revealed themselves in them, which, indeed, the unbelieving have seen only as an external sensuous occurrence, not with the inward un- derstanding, giving significance to the outward onyeia ; not with the eye of spiritual knowledge and inward being, vi. 26.
Ver. 25. Yet this hatred against me stands in connection with the divine destiny,* according to which the word of Scripture must be fulfilled by their hatred : they have hated me groundlessly. The passage is Ps, lxix. 4, or xxxv. 19, where the theocratic sufferer (David?) utters that saying which has reached its antitypical Messianic destination in the hatred of the un- believing against Christ (comp. on xiii. 18). The passage Ps. cix. 8, which Hengstenberg further adduces, does not correspond so literally, as neither docs Ps. cxix. 161 (Ewald). —aAa’] 8c. neusofxacly pe. as the ground- thought of what precedes. [See Note LIII. p. 442.] — dupedy] 030, immerito, according to the LXX., but opposed to the Greek signification (gratis).‘— The irony which de Wette discovers in év rd réup atrov: ‘they comply faithfully with what stands in their law,” is an erroneous assumption, since iva wAnp. is the usual formula for the fulfilment of prophecies, and since vdpu0¢ here, as in x. 84, stands in a wider sense, while avray is to be taken as ro tuetipy, Vili. 17 (see in loc.), comp. tuav, x. 84. Bengel well says : ‘‘tn lege corum, quam assidue terunt et jactant.”
Vv. 26, 27. Over against this hatred of the world, Jesus further appeals confidently, and in the certainty of His future justification, to the testimony which the Paraclete, and also the disciples themselves, will bear regarding
‘In answer to Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, cording to vv. 22-%, does not do away with Hengstenberg, and several) others. responsibility. Comp. Weiss, LeArdegr. p. ® Dem. 586. 15; Plat. Pol. v. p.460C; Xen. 181. Cyr. 1. 1.27. Antithesis : agerciy wpdpaccy, 4 Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 5; Ps. xxxiv. 7 (where Dem. 26. 2, 685. 24. Symmachus has dvairiws); Sir. xx. 21, xxix. 7 Which, asa matter of course, and ac- 6, 7.
440 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Him. The Paraclete was to give testimony of Christ through the disciples, in speaking forth from them (Matt. x. 20; Mark xiii. 11). But the testimony of the disciples to Christ was at the same time also their own, since it expressed their own experiences with Christ from the beginning onwards, i. 14; 1 Johni. 1; Actsi. 21, 22. Both were, in.so far as they, filled and enlightened by the divine Spirit, delivered His instructions (xiv. 26), and what they themselves had heard and seen of Jesus, both consequently év mveipatt, one witness ; it is, however, separated into its two actual factors (comp. Acts i. 8; Rom. viii. 16, ix. 1), and they are kept apart. —6v éyw réuyu vu. tapa tov marp.] How? see xiv. 16. As éyo is used with the weight of authority, so also has the determining expression : 76 rvetya rt. add. (see on xiv. 17), with its added 6 x. 1. arp. éxrop., in emphatic confir- mation of the above zapé rot rarpéc, the pragmatic weight of demonstrat- ing the truth and validity of the Spirit’s testimony, which thus goes back to the Father. But the general term éixrop. which is without definite limita- tion of time, refers not to the immanent relation of subsistence (actus hypos- taticus), but, in accordance with the connection, to the efficacious outward communication ' from the Father, through which, in every recurring case, the Spirit isreceived. ‘‘Itaque hujusmodi testimonia nec a Graeccis (against the jiliogue) nec contra Graecos (against the did rov vigv éx tov matpéc) . . . satis apposite sunt citata,”” Beza. For its dogmatic use in the interest of the Greek Church, see already in Theodore of Mopsuestia. Recently, Hilgenfeld especially has laid great stress on the hypostatic reference, in sup- port of the doctrine of a Gnostic emanation. — éxeivoc] opposed to the Christ- hating world. — rep? éuov] of my Person, my work, etc. Comp. 1 John v.6. —xai ipeic dé] atque vos etiam. Comp. on vi. 51, vili. 17. — papropeire] ye also are witnesses, since ye from the beginning (of my Messianic activity) are with me (consequently are able to bear witness of me from your experience). Jesus does not say papruphoere, because the disciples were already the wit- nesses which they were to be in future. They were, as the witnesses, already Jorthcoming. toré denotes that which still continues from the commence- ment up to the present moment. Comp. 1 John iii. 8. aprvp. taken as amperative would make the command appear too abrupt ; considering its importance, a more definite unfolding of it was to be expected, which, how- ever, is not missed, if the words are only a part of the promise to bear witness.* An echo of this word of Christ regarding the united testimony of the Spirit and the apostles is found in Acts v. 82, also in Acts xv. 28.
1 The Spirit goes out If He is sent, xiv. 16, Schriftdberw. I. p. 208 f. 26; Gal. iv.6. Comp. the figurative expres- 2 In answer to B. Crusius and Hofmann, sion of the outpouring. Seealso Hofmann, Schri/tbew. Il. 2, p. 19.
NOTES. 441
‘Notes sy American Eprror.
XLV. ‘‘Zam the true vine.”’ Ver. 1.
Weiss considers Meyer’s reference of the probable introduction of this meta- phor to the wine cup of the supper, as well as all the other modes of accounting for it, to be entirely without foundation. The familiarity of the figure in the O. T. abundantly explains it.
XLVI. ** The true vine.” ‘Ver. 1.
The genuine (4A70:y7) vine, that which corresponds to the idea. According to Weiss, this genuine, archetypal vine is not here opposed to the natural vine, which Meyer makes figuratively but imperfectly represent it. Rather, accord- ing to Weiss, Israel is the typical representation of this idea, while Jesus with His church stands in contrast (not with the unfruitful vine, the degenerate Israel, but) with the imperfect realization of the genuine theocracy in Israel. Thus Christ puts Himself with His church over against the imperfect Jewish church.
XLVII. ‘‘ Abidein me.” Ver. 4.
According to Weiss: ‘‘in me, not on me’’ (as Meyer), ‘‘inasmuch as the direction is in part independent of the image of the vine and branches, and partly also the branches root themselves in the vine-stalk, and only as the result of this are suspended from it.”’
XLVI. ‘* Without me.’’ Ver. 5.
«Not (as Meyer) xwprofévrec iuov, separated from vital communion with me. It corresponds not to the év éuot péverv, but to the zyd ev abry, as the new feat- ure, in the repetition : without me as Him who is ani works in you” (Weiss).
XLIX. raira. Ver. 11.
‘‘ raivra refers not (with Meyer, Liicke, etc.) to all from 1 to 10, but to v. 9 and foll. (de W., God.) as the clause of purpose, rightly taken, clearly implies’’ (Weiss).
L. tatrncg. Ver. 13.
‘‘ratrn¢ here does not refer back to the love expressed by thexafds fyarnoa tudo, but forward to the clause introduced by !va. Meyer explains the iva of the divine purpose in the fact of the transcendent greatness of His love, viz. that one must yield up His life. But the negative clause peifova aydnny ovdeic Ever is by no means equivalent to the positive statement which Meyer substitutes for it: the re¢ corresponding to ovdeic is not every one; and the context declares not why we must have the greatest love, but wherein the greatest love consists. All efforts to preserve the telic force of Iva are unsuccessful’’ (Weiss).
LI, daaé, bad. Ver. 21.
‘( @AAd introduces not the contrast of the consolation, against this state of perse- cution, but shows, in contrast with the previous supposition, that they will per-
449 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
secute the disciples for their own sakes, which is the deepest ground of their persecution” (Weiss). LIT. Vv. 22, 23. Observe the twice recurring logical viv dé, so frequent in the N. T., but as if is,
as the case stands. The uniform English rendering now is unidiomatic and often obscure or misleading (Luke xix. 42 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20).
LULL. GAA’ iva rAnpwby. Ver. 25.
Meyer and Weiss (Weiss hesitatingly) supply the ellipsis with pepronxaciy pe. Better, I think, roiro yéyovev, or some general expression like the Eng. Ver., this cometh to pass. See i. 8, and especially xiii. 18.
CHAP. XVI. 443
CHAPTER XVI.
Ver. 3. After rojo. Elz. has tuiv, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 4. 4 jpu} Lachm.: 4 dpa atray, according to A. B., a few Cursives, Syr.; also L., Cursives, Vulg. It. Arr, Cypr. Aug., who, however, omit the avrov that follows. This betrays an already ancient variation in the position of the once original avrav, which, placed before pynpyov., was readily drawn to dpa, and then also again restored after uynuov. D. 68, Arm. have no atréy at all, which is ex- plained from its original position after pynuov., in which it appeared super- fluous. — Ver. 7, éav ydp éya] eyé, which is wanting in Elz. Tisch., has impor- tant testimony against (B. D. L. &.) and for it (A. E. G. H. K. M. U. A. A.). It was, however, because unnecessary, and also as not standing in opposition, more readily passed over than added. — Ver. 13. ei¢ wdcav rv dAnbeav] Lachm.: el¢ tiv dAnO. maoav (A. B. Y. Or. Eus.); Tisch. : év rg dAnOeig xdog (D. L. ®&. Cursives, Verss. Fathers). The reading of Lachm. has stronger attestation, and is, in respect of the position of the words, supported by the reading of Tisch., which latter may have arisen through a comparison of the construction of dd7y. with év in the LXX. (Ps. Ixxxvi. 10, cxix. 35, ef al. ; Sap. ix. 11, x. 17). — Ver. 15. AauBdver] Elz. : Anpera:, against decisive testimony ; from ver. 14.— Ver. 16. ov) B. D. L. A. ®. Curss. Verss, (including Vulg. It.) Or. et al. : ovxért. Recom- mended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpretation in con- formity with ver. 10 and xiv. 19. — drt trdyw po tr. war.) is wanting in B. D. L. Copt. Sahid. Cant. Ver. Vero. Corb. Bracketed by Lxrchm., deleted by Tisch, An addition from ver. 17, whence also the eyo in Elz, after 6r:,—which éyw, however, isin ver. 17, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, in conform- ity with A. B. L. M. A. &. Curss. Verss., since it is supported by only very weak testimony in the above addition in ver. 16.— Ver. 19. After &)vw, Elz. Lachm. have av. A connective addition, instead of which dé is also found. — Ver. 20. The second dé has been justly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. in con- formity with B. D. A. &. 1, It. Copt. Arm. Syr. Goth. Cypr. It was added in mechanical repetition of the antithesis. — Ver. 22. The order viv pév ody Avr. Ex. is, with Tisch., to be preferred on preponderating testimony. But instead of ‘Eere, read with Lachm. ééere, after A. D. L. Curss. Verss. Fathers ; the present was mechanically introduced after 2y::, ver. 21, and on occasion of the viv. — aipe:] Lachm. : apsi, according to B. D.* Fr. Vulg. Codd. It. Cypr. Hil. Ex- planatory alteration in accordance with the preceding futures. — Ver, 23. dr: éoa dv) Many variations. As original appears the reading in A., 8 +: dy (so Lachm, in the margin), in connection with which copyists were induced, through the preceding A4éyw tiv, to take OTI (differently from xiv. 13) recita- tively, which thus led to the readings dy 7: (so Lachm. and Tisch., comp. xx, 23), ééy rr, boa dv, and thus the ér:, which had now become superfluous, disap- peared in many copies (not &., which has dr: 6 dv). — év TQ dvdu. pov] is placed by Tisch. after duce: vuiv, in conformity with B. C.* L. X. Y. A. &. Sahbid. Or. Cyr. Rightly ; the ordinary position after xarfpa is determined by xiv. 13, xv.
444 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
16, and appeared to be required by ver. 24. — Ver. 25. Before Zpyera:, Elz. and Lachm. (the latter in brackets) have a1’, contrary to important testimony. A connective addition. — Instead of avayyeAd, anayyess is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted on decisive testimony. The former flowed from vv. 13, 14, 15. — Ver. 27. Geov] B. C.* D. L. X. &.** Verss. Cyr. Did. : zarpéc. A gloss by way of more precise definition (Verss. have : a deo patre). — Ver. 28. rapa] Lachm. and Tisch. : éx, which is sufficiently attested by B. C.* L. X. Copt. Epiph. Hil. (in D. is wanting e&A8ov . . . xarpéc), and, in conformity with what immediately precedes, was dislodged by rapa. — Ver. 29. apjno.}] Lachm. and Tisch.: év refsno., in conformity with B.C. D. &. Rightly ; év, because unnecessary, after ver. 25, came to be dropped, and the more readily after NYN. — Ver. 32. vvv] is, in conformity with decisive testimony, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 33. éyere] So also Tisch. But Elz. Lachm. : é&ere only, after D. Verss. (including Vulg. It.) and Fathers. The present 1s so decisively attested, that the future appears to be simply a closer defining of the meaning (comp. ver. 22).
Ver. 1. Tatra 71d. tuiv] As the same expression, xv. 11, pointed back to the preceding section, vv. 1-10, and then ratra évréAAopzat tiv, ver. 17, to vv. 11-16, so here raira AeA. iu. refers to xv. 18-27, so that the substan- tial contents of this section are intended, namely, that which had been said of the hatred of the world. — iva yi oxavdaa.] Comp. Matt. xiii. 21, xxiv. 10, xi. 6. Prepared beforehand, and armed by Christ’s communications, they were not to be made to stumble at Him, but were to oppose to the hatred of the world all the greater efficiency and constancy of faith.
Vv. 2, 8. Of the ratra, ver. 1, He now gives certain concrete manifesta- tions, which might tend to their becoming offended. — arooway.] See on ix. 22, xii. 42. — aA2’] At, i.e. nay, yet more! it introduces the antithesis of a yet far heavier, of a bloody fate. Comp. on 2 Cor. vil. 11. To take azo- ovvay. too. tu. interrogatively (Ewald), is unnecessarily artificial. — iva] That which will take place in the dpa is conceived as the object of its coming: there is coming an hour, in order that, etc. Comp. on xii. 23. — rae é aroxr., x.7.2.] that every one, who shall have put you to death, may think that he offers a sacrificial service to God (namely, through the shedding of your blood). On Aarpeia, cultus,* here with rpoogépecv, the standing word for sacrifices (see Matt. v. 23, vili. 4; Acts vii. 32 ; Heb. v. 1; Schleusner, Zhes. IV. p. 504), in the special relation of sacrificial divine service, comp. Rom. xiii. 1 ; Heb. ix. 1, 6. The maxim of Jewish fanaticism is well known (and how often was the pagan enmity against the apostles no better !) : ‘‘ Omnis effundens sanguinem improborum, asequalis est illi, qui sacrificium facit.”* On this doxeiv, comp. Saul’s example, Acts xxvi. 9; Gal. 1.13, 14.— On ver. 3, comp. xv. 21. Jesus once more recalls with profound sadness this tragic source of such conduct, the inexcusableness of which, however, He had already decisively brought to light (xv. 22 ff.). The supposed purpose of making the adversaries contemptible in the eyes of the disciples (Calvin, Hengsten- berg) must have been indicated had it existed.
1 Plat. Apol. p. 23C, Phaedr. p. 224 EE; Rom. ix. 4. 2 Bammidbar Radda, f. 520. 1.
CHAP. XVI., 4-6. 445
Ver, 4. 'AAA6] But: breaks off the enumeration.’ Jesus will not go further into details, and recurs to the thought in ver. 1. The explanation : ‘although it is not to be expected otherwise, I have nevertheless foretold it to you” (Liicke, de Wette), is the less agreeable to the text, since raira 72442, had just been already said, and that without any antithetic reference of the kind. The explanations of Tholuck and Lange, again, are far- fetched : ‘‘but so little would I terrify (?) you by this, that I have only, (?) said it to you,” etc. — ravra] What was said in vv. 2, 8. — avrav, bri éye elrr. iu.] Attraction.* — ¢yé] with weighty emphasis: J, the Person, with whom your faith is concerned. Comp. ver. 1, iva py?) cxavdad. — if apxqc) xv. 27. The question, how this declaration of Jesus may be reconciled with the an- nouncements found in the Synoptics, even from the time of the Sermon on the Mount, of predestined sufferings,* is not solved by saying that here go3epdrepa éxeivuy ‘ are announced ; ° or that Christ spoke at an earlier period minus aperte et parcius (Bengel, comp. Grotius), and in much more general terms (Ebrard), but now morc expressly set forth in tts principles the charac- ter of the world's attitude towards the disciples (Tholuck, comp. Lange) ; or, that He has now stated more definitely the cause of the hatred (Lampe) ; or, that He utters it here as a parting word (Luthardt) ; or even. that at an earlier period, because the thoughts of the disciples had not yet dwelt upon it, it was ‘‘ for them as good as not said” (Hengstenberg). The difference lies clearly before us, and is simply to be recognized ;° to be explained, however, from the fact that in the Synoptics the more general and less definite allusions of the earlicr time appear with the more definite form and stamp of later utterances. The living recollection of John must here also preponderate as against the Synoptics, so that his relation to theirs here is that of a corrector. — dre pe tudv puny] It would have been unnecessary in the time of my personal association with you, since it is not till after my departure that your persecution (up to that time the hatred of the world affected Himself) is to commence. ‘‘ Because you have me with you, they cannot well but leave you in peace, and can do nothing to you, they must hace done tt to me previously, but now it will begin,” etc., Luther.” As yct they had suffered no persecution ; hence the thought, ‘‘I could console you,” ® is not to be introduced. The interpretation also: ‘‘now first, when I prom- ise you the Spirit, can I thus openly speak to yom (Bengel, Tholuck), is not in harmony with the words.
Vv. 5, 6. Now, however, this my being with you is past! Now Igo away to Him who has sent me, and in what a mood of mind are you at the prospect of this my impending departure | None of you asks me: whither dost Thou go away ? [Sce Note LIV. p. 457] but because I hare spoken this to you, namely, that after my departure such sufferings shall befall you, grief has jilled your
1 Bacumlein, Partik. p. 18. tom. 2 See Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. p. 625 ff.]. 5 See, on the contrary, Matt. x. 16-18, 28. 3 Matt. v. 10 ff.; Luke vi. 2 ff.; Matt. ® Comp. also Godet. x. 16 ff.; Lucke xii. 4ff.; Matt. xxl. 12 ff., 7 Comp. Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, xxiv. 9. Grotius. 4 Euth. Zigabenus, comp. also Chrysos- ® Licke, de Wette, and older expositors.
446 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
heart, 80 that you have become quite dumb from sorrow, and blunted to the higher interest which lies in my going home to Him who sent me. Accord- ing to de Wette and Liicke, there would seem a want of exactness in the entire presentation, resting on the fact that ver. 6 does not stand before xai ovdeitg¢. The incorrectness of this assumption, in itself quite unnecessary, lies in this, that the first proposition of ver. 5 is thus completed : ‘‘ But now at my departure I could not keep silence concerning it,” by which the 6th verse is anticipated. According to Kuinoel and Olshausen, a full point should be placed after réuy. ve, and a pause is to be assumed, in which Jesus in vain awaited a question, so that He continued subsequently with an interrogation: ‘‘ Nullusne vestrum me amplius interrogat, quo abiturus sim ?” But the assumption of pauses (others, including de Wette, make the pause after ver. 5) is, when the correlation of the conjunctions is so definitely progressive, unwarranted. — The fact that already in xiii. 36 the question had been put by Peter rot imdyee (comp. the question of Thomas, xiv. 5), does not stand in contradiction with the present passage ; but Jesus censures simply the degree of distress, which they had now reached, in which none among them fixed hiseye on the goal of the departing One, and_ could come to a question for more definite information respecting it. — 4 Abrn] simply, tn abstracto: sadness.
Ver. 7. Nevertheless, how should you raise yourselves above this sorrow ! How is my departure your own gain !_ Through it in truth will the Paraclete be imparted to you asa support against the hatred of the world. ([Sce Note LV. p. 457] — éyé] in the consciousness of the personal guarantee. — iva éy® aréfAYw] éyd in contradistinction to the Paraclete, who is to come in His place (xiv. 16) ; iva implies the dirine necessity, as in xi. 50. On the . dependence of the mission of the Paraclete upon the departure of Jesus, see On Vii. 39.
Ver. 8.’ The threefold ministry of the Paraclete towards the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Thus will He be your advocate against the «écpoc !— iaty&et] convict, namely, through His testimony of me, xv. 26. This convicting, of which the apostles were to be the bearers in their office, is the activity which convinces the person concerned (arguendi ratio exprobans), which reveals to him his unrighteousness, and puts him to shame,’ and the conse- quence of which may be in the different subjects either conversion (1 Cor. xiv. 24), or hardening and condemnation (Acts xxiv. 25; Rom. xi. 7 ff.). To apprehend it only of the latter side of the matter (Erasmus and many others, including de Wette, Briickner, and especially Wetzel, following the Fathers), is not justified by ep? xpicews, since the xpiow is intended, not of the world, but of the devil, and stands opposed to the Johannean view of the deliverance of the world through Christ ; the unbelieving world (ver. 9) is to be convicted of the sin of unbelief ; and this, to him who is not hardened, is the way to faith (comp. xvii. 20, 21), and therewith to separa- tion from the world. Godet well designates the threefold éecyéc as the
1 See Wetzel, 2d. d. Mlenchue des Paraki. 2 fff. 20, vill. 9, 46; 1 Cor. xiv. 24; Tit. 1.9;
John xvi. 8-18, in the Zeifachr. f. Luth. Theol. Matt. xviil. 15; Luke ili. 19, ¢¢ ad. 1856, p. 6% ff.
CHAP. XVI., 9, 10. 447.
moral victory of the Spirit through the preaching of the apostles. As the first prominent example, see the discourse of Peter, Acts ii., with its conse- quences. — epi dyuapriac, x.r.A.] The objective contents of the édeyéic set forth separately in three parts (themata). Sec, respecting the individual points, on vv. 9-11.
Ver. 9. First part : in reference to sin He will convince them. The more exact defining, as to how far He will convince them sep? duapriac ; 80 far as they, namely (drt, equivalent to ei¢ éxeivo dr, ii, 18, ix. 17, xi. 51), do not believe on me, which He will reveal to them as sin, and will bring them to a consciousness of guilt : drt duaprdvoves pi) miorebowres ett, Euth. Zigabenus. Following Calvin (comp. already Apollinarius, Ammonius, and also Luther), de Wette and Briickner (comp. also Ebrard) interpret not of the conviction of sin, so far as the undelief of the world will be brought to its conscious- ness as sin, but of sin generally (‘‘ qualia in se sit hominum natura,” Calvin), of the condition under the wrath of God, in which the world, as opposed to the ever-increasing multitude of believers, who are victorious through the power of truth, appears involved, because tt does not believe, for faith is the bond between the sinful world and God. Comp. Lange, who understands the rejection of Christ as the essential manifestation of all sin, as also Wet- zel and Godet ; which, however, does not correspond to the simplicity of the words.’ On the éAeyéic of the world wep? duap7., and that with regard to its converting power, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24, 25. Tholuck makes out of the simple duapriac the guilt of sin, and that the unpardonable (ix. 41). — Note further that dr: is the exponent, not of dyeprias, but of idé fee wept Gp.
Ver. 10. The second particular : in reference to righteousness, thus to the opposite of duapria. As, however, in dyapriag the subject of the éAeyé¢ is the world itself, so the subject of dixacootvy is Christ ; hence the more exact state- ment : in that Igo to my Father, and you see me no more ; d.ixaiov yap yvdpiopa rd ropebeadar mpdc Tov Vedv x. cvveiva: abr, Euth. Zigabenus; righteousness, since it thus, in virtue of the context, is necessarily an attribute of Christ, denotcs His guiltlessness and holy moral perfection. The unbelieving held Him to be a sinner (comp. ix. 24), and put Him to death as such (xviii. 80) ; He was, however, the righteous one (1 John ii. 1, 29, iii. 7 ; comp. Acts iii. 14, vii. 52; 1 Pet. iil. 18), and was proved to be such by the testimony of the Par- aclete, by whose power the apostles preached the exaltation of Christ to the Father (comp. Acts ii. 83 ff.), and thus convicting the world as guilty zepi dixatoobyync, the opposite of which the unbelieving assumed in Christ, and thought to be confirmed by the offence of His cross. 80 substantially Chrysostom ard his successors, Beza, Maldonatus, Bengel, Morus, Tittmann, and others, as Lficke, Kice, Olshausen, de Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Godet, Baeumlein. Since, after the analogy of the triple division, Christ must be the subject of righteousness, we on this ground must at once reject not only the
1 The sense would be this: Inreference this! for example, by: wept auaprias, in y to sin He will convince them that unbelief apapria ecriv § amoria. And such an expres- ta the true essence of sin. How easy would sion of the thought assumed would have it have been for Jesus to have actually said been quite Johannean.
448 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. interpretation of Grotius of the compensatory justice of God,' and that of the Socinians and Kuinoel, quod jus et fas est (Matt. xii. 15), but also that of Augustine, Erasmus, Luther,* Melanchthon, Calvin, Calovius, Jansen, Lampe, Storr, Hengstenberg, and others, who understand the righteousness of man through faith in the Pauline sense,’ which also de Wette (with the modification that it is its victorious power in the world which is spoken of) inappropriately mixes up with the other interpretation. The form given by Luthardt to the interpretation of Augustine, etc., that the passage does not indeed express that Christ has by His departure acquired righteousness, but rather has rendered righteousness through faith in Himself as unseen, possible, is likewise opposed by the fact that Christ would not be the subject of dixacootvy ; and the thought, moreover, is both artificial and inappropri- ate, since faith in Christ cannot be conditioned by His invisibility, although faith must exist in spite of His invisibility (xx. 29). The thought is rather : ‘‘The fact that I go the Father, and shall then be removed from your eyes, will serve to the Spirit in His é4eyé:¢ of the world as demonstration that I am dixaoc.”* And thus the by no means idle, but tender and sympathetic expression, x. obxére Seupriré ue, a8 Genoting the translation into the invis- ible world, is an outflow of the thoughtful and feeling interest of Jesus in the approaching pain of separation which the disciples were to experience, to whom this grief, in view of the higher object of that fcyéc of the world, could not be spared. A reference to the scorn of the world to be expected on the removal of Jesus, as if He were thereby to be manifested an impostor, * is remote from the connection. De Wette’s remark is incorrect : that «. iueic Yewpeire we was rather to be expected. That must have been expected if, with Tholuck, it had to be explained of the moral purity (= (wh) only to be found in Christ, the revelation of which was completed by the spiritual communication of the exalted One, who now may be contemplated spiritu- ally instead of bodily. But thus all essential points would be read between the lines,
Ver. 11. If the Paraclete by means of His testimony convinces the world of its sin of unbelief, and of Christ’s righteousness, than the third #cyfic
1*PDeum aequum esse rectorem, ut qui own only in an invisible manner. This
me extra omnem injuriae contactum in suae majestatis consortium receperit." Comp. also Ewald, Jahrb. VIII. p. 199, and Johann. Schr. I. p. 881.
2“ For Christians should know no other righteousness, as the ground of their standing in the sight of God ... than this departure of Christ to the Father, which is nothing else than that He has taken our sins on His neck,” eto.
§ Here also Ebrard's view comes in, who, indeed, considers the Pauline sense of &ixaroovvy to be remote, but explains it: of the righteousness, which the world should have and has not, since it has cast out the . Lord, and compelled Him to go to the Father, and to hold intercourse with His
interpretation is incorrect, for the reason that, in accordance with it, the dAcy£is wept Scxacootyns would substantially coincide with the edAcyéis wepi auaprias, Moreover, the rejection of Christ and His invisible intercourse with His society is an imported meaning.
4 What Wetzel finds over and above this in the words: that in Christ “al right- cousness rests, and from Him again all right- eousness proceeds,’ is indeed a correct dog- matic deduction from the present passage, but is not contained in the words them- selves as their meaning.
* Linder, in the Siud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 514 ff.
CHAP. XVI., 12. 449
cannot be wanting, which must refer to him, who rules the unbelieving world, and is the original enemy of Christ and His kingdom, to the devil. He is judged, i.e. actually condemned, by the fact that Christ has accomplished His world-redeeming work, whereby in truth every one who becomes a believer is withdrawn from tho sway of the devil, so that his cause in and with the fulfilment of the redemptive work is objectively a lost one. Comp. on xii. 80, 31. Of this the Paraclete will rebukingly convict the world, dependent on the dominion of the devil, in order that the world, in ac- knowledgment of the sinfulness of its unbelief (ver. 9), and of the holy righteousness of the Christ rejected by it (ver. 10), may turn its back in penitence on the prince of the world, over whom already sentence has been pronounced (ver. 10). Thus, through the apostolic preaching is accom- plished on the xdopoc the offictum Spiritus s. elenchticum.
Nore.—The three more precise statements with dr: (vv. 9-11) express the re- lations from the standpoint of the presence of the speaker. Hence, in ver. 9, the present mortevovory (which was altered at a very early period—so Vulg. and It, —into ériorevoayv) ; hence also in ver. 10 the present tréyw and the second per- son Gewpeire, because Jesus is speaking to the disciples, and it is in fact His de- parture from them which is filling His mind, which lively directness of style de Wette unjustly criticises as surprisingly inappropriate ; hence, finally, in ver. 11 the perfect xexpira:, because Jesus sees Himself at the end of His work, and therewith the actual condemnation of Satan already completed and secured. Comp. ver. 33.
Ver. 12. Jesus breaks off, and states the reason. —70A44] Much, that belongs to the entirety of the divine aA7dea (ver. 13). That He means only JSurther developments (Luther, Melanchthon, and many others, including Liicke, de Wette), is not to be deduced (see in loc.) from xv. 15, comp. xiv. 26. Nevertheless, the portions of doctrine themselves, which may belong to the roAAé, although they arc in general to be sought for in the letters and dis- courses of the apostics, cannot be completely determined ; but neither are they, with Grotius (comp. Beza), to be limited to the ‘‘ cognitio eorum, quae ad ecclesias constituendas pertinent” (spirituality of the kingdom of Christ, abolitior of the law, apostolic decrees), because we are not fully acquainted with the instructions of Jesus to His disciples. In gencral, it is certain that information respecting the further development of His work, and particu- larly matters of knowledge which, as history attests, still necessitated special revelation, as the immediate calling of the Gentiles, Acts x., and eschatologi- cal disclosures like 1 Cor, xv. 51, Rom. xi. 25, 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff., form part of their contents. The non-apostolical Apocalypse (against Hengstenberg and others), as likewise the aroxaA(wer granted to Christian prophets in the N. T., are here, where Jesus is concerned with the circle of apostles, left out of consideration. Augustine, however, is already correct generally : ‘‘cum Christus ipse ea tacuerit, quis nostrum dicat : illa vel illa sunt?” Since, however, we cannot demonstrate that even the oral instruction of the apostles was completely deposited in their writings (especially as undoubted epistles are lost, while very few of the original apostles left behind them any
450 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. writing), Tradition in and of itsclf (in thesi) cannot be rejected, although its reality in regard to given cases (in hypothesi) can never be proved, and it must therefore remain gencrally without normative validity.’ In opposition to tra- dition, Luther limited the many things, in entire contradiction of the context, to the sufferings that were to be endured. — éyw]I have in readiness, viii. 6 ; 3 John 12 ; 8 John 13. — BaordJewv] That which is too heavy, for the spiritual strength, for understanding, temper, strength of will, cannot be burne.* On the thing : 2 Cor. iii. 2. Note, further, Bengel’s appropriate remark, to the effect that the Romish traditions can least be borne by those who have the Spirit. —dpr:] at the end, as in xiii. 83.
Ver. 138. Td mv. r. ada.) See on xiv. 17. — ddyy. tu. cig tr. GA. racav] He will be to you a guide into all the truth. Comp. ver. 23 ; xacav, in its position after r. aA. (see critical notes), does not belong to the verb, as if it expressed the complete introduction (Liicke), but describes, as in v. 22, divine truth in its entirety, according to its collective contents." As to the thought, racav ryv adfSeav, Mark v. 83,‘ would not be different ; but the present construction makes GAfdea more prominent. — ov ydp, x.t.2.] Reason, from the origin and compass of His communications. — ag’ éavrov] abvroxéAevoroc, avfxooc, Nonnus. This negative statement is, indeed, the denial of anything conceived of after a human manner, which is absolutely out of the question,® but serves completely to set forth the unity of the Spirit's teaching with that of the Lord.* Comp. v. 19. —é0a av axotoy] All, whatsoever He shall have heard JSrom God, so that He will withhold from you nothing of that which has been divinely heard by Him.’ The Spirit, however, hears from God not ex- ternally as a Subject separated from God, but (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 11).through an interna acceptio ; for He is in God, and proceeds from Him, xv. 26. That the hearing from God, not from Christ,* is meant, is to be assumed on account of the absolute axotoy, and ver. 15 renders it certain. On dxoboy itself, comp. also Luther: Faith must make its way universally over all -creatures, and not cleave to thoughts of listening to bodily preaching, but ‘lay hold of a preaching, word, and hearing in essence.” — 1a ipydueva] So that you, through the revelation of the Spirit, will also become acquainted with the future,* the knowledge of which belongs to the whole aa40ea (par- ticularly the eschatological developments). Finally, ra épyéueva belongs also to that denoted by éca dy axobcy, and is related to it as species to genus,
1 Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 84.
2 Comp. Kypke, I. p. 404 f.
Comp. v. 2: 1. «xpiow wacay, Plat. Theaet. p. 147 E, rov aprduoy wavra dixa bseAd- Boxey; Kriiger, § 50. 11. 11.
4 Kriiger on Thue. vi. 87. 1.
5 “Spiritus enim, qui a semet ipso loqui- tur, non spiritus veritatis, sed spiritus est mendacil,” Ruperti; comp. already Igna- tius, ad Eph. interpol. 9.
€** Consequently He sets, for the Holy Spirit Himself, a goal and measure of His preaching, that He shall preach nothing new nor different from that which Christ and His word is, so that we may have a
certain mark of truth and touchstone, to . judge of false spirits,’ Luther.
7™When Godet says, on ver. 18: “* The word in xiv. 2% included the formula of the tnaptration of our Gospels ; ver. 18 gires that
. Of the inspiration of the Episties and of the
Apocalypse,” the simple addition must be made, “tn so far as and to the extent in which these writings are actually apostolic.”
® Olshausen, Kling, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet : from both.
9a 8 épyoudva potpa, Soph. Trach. 846.
10 Comp. Isa. xli. 22, 2%, xliv. 7, xlv. 11: Ta éwepydpeva,
CHAP. XVI., 14-18. 451 so that xal brings into relief from that which is general, something further that is particular.
Vv. 14, 15. For me, with a view to glorify me (éué, with emphasis), will the Paraclete, as is said in ver. 18, operate, for the advancement of my glory among mon, since He will announce to you nothing else than what is mine, what in the identity of its substance is my truth, of which J am the possessor and disposer.’ Justly do I designate the divine truth, which He is to announce, as my property, since all that the Wather has, i.6. according to the context, the whole truth possessed by the Father (Col. ii. 8), belongs properly to me, as to the Son, who was in intuitive fellowship with the Father (i. 18), went forth from the Father (viii. 42), was consecrated (x. 36) and sent for the accomplishment of His work, and, moreover, continu- ally lives and moves in the Father, and the Fatherin Him. Comp. xvii. 10. Calvin, in opposition to the ontological interpretation, well observes, that Christ speaks : ‘‘ de injuncto sibi erga nos efficio.” Note further, the emphat- ic, all-embracing wdvra dca, x.r.A., a8 Major premiss in the argument from the universal to the particular ; hence all the less is ver. 14 to be referred, with Grotius and Hengstenberg, merely to the announcement of what is Suture. — AauBéve:] Conceived as a constant relation.
Ver. 16. Soon, after a short separation, will this arrival of the Paraclete, and in it our spiritual reunion, take place. Comp. xiv. 19. — «x. dpeodé ye] As in xiv. 18, 19, not to bereferred to the resurrection’ [See Note LVI. p. 457], nor to the Parousia,* but to the spiritual vision of Christ in the ministry of the Paraclete, which they experience, and that without any double meaning. See on xiv. 18. — Were re tmdyw mpdc r. rar. genuine (but see the critical notes), it would assign the reason for the promise dyeo9é ye, since the seeing again here intended is conditioned by the departure to the Father (ver. 7).
Vv. 17, 18. Jesus makes a pause ; some of His disciples (é« r. nad. abr. se. tivéc, a8 in vii. 40) express (in a whisper) to one another, how enigmatic this language, ver. 16, is tothem. They indicate, accordingly (ver. 18), the puxpév that was mentioned as the point of unintelligibility : ‘‘ what shall this be, what does He mean by pixpév 2” Note rovro placed first with emphasis, as well as the article with z:xpév, pointing backwards, — xat ére drdyw mp. rt. nat. érc is recitative. Since the words in ver. 16 are not genuine, we must assume that the disciples place what Jesus said in ver. 10, in connection with these enigmatic words, ver. 16, and here include along with it the point there expressed in their seeing Him no more :—trdyw mp. r. rar. — in order to receive an explanation regarding it, probably feeling that this
1 Every claim that anything belongs to what Christ terms ra ¢nov must necessarily, according to the analogia Adei, be measured by His and His disciples’ extant word ; hence the present passage, in like manner, as ver. 18, excludes all the pretended claims of fanaticism.
2 As Lange, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Weiss still maintain, in spite of ver. 23, comp. with Acts i. 5, 6.
The wdéAww pexpév, which decidedly op- poses this interpretation, because it is en- tirely unrelated to the first uupdéy, leads Luthardt to the supposition that the return of Christ is here promised to the disciples in such a way, that they were to see in the transitory return of the risen one a pledge of the future Farousia. But of this Jesus certainly says nothing, either here or in what follows.
452 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
explanation must necessarily serve for the clearing up of the obscure words before them.
Ver. 19. Jesus observes what they would ask (comp. vi. 6), and .extracts from them (as one who knows the heart, ii. 25 ; see subsequently ver. 30) the inquiry, not, however, setting aside the point, which they had also in- troduced from His earlier discourse (imdyw mp. t. 7.) but deferring it till the solemn conclusion of His instruction, ver. 28.
Vv. 20-22. He gives no explanation of the meaning, but depicts the «- ternation of sorrow and joy, which the not seeing and seeing again will bring with them. In this way they might, with the correct apprehension and hope, advance towards the approaching development. — xAatcere x. Opnvia. tyetc] izeic¢ with peculiar emphasis, moved to the end, and placed immediately before 4 dé xéoz. The mourning and lamentation, this loud outburst of the Abwn of the disciples over the death of Jesus (not : ‘‘ over the church of Christ given up to death,”* Luthardt), becomes yet more tragic through the contrast of the joy of the world. —ei¢ yapav yevgoerac] will be turned into joy, namely, when that dyeodé we takes place. — Ver. 21. 4} yuv4] the woman; the article is generic, comp. 6 dovAoc, xv. 15. — drav rixry] when she is bringing JSorth. — 4 dpa airy] her hour of distress, dpa Bapvddivoc, Nonnus. Comp. afterwards r7¢ PAipeuwr, which denotes the distress during the occurrence of birth. — év3pwroc] a man. In this lies a sel/-consciousness of maternal joy. — ic tov xéop.] born and therewith come into the world (i. 9, xviii. 37). An appeal to the Rabbinical 071;'2 &3 is not required. — The picture of the woman bringing forth, to set forth the sorrow which issues in joy, is also frequent in the O. T. (Isa. xxi. 8, xxvi. 17, Ixvi. 7 ; Hos. xiii. 18 ; Mic. iv. 9, 10). Its importance in the present passage Jesus Himself states, ver. 22, definitely and clearly, and in regard to it no further exposition is to be attempted. In accordance with this view, the grief and the joy of the dis- ciples is the sole thing depicted, not also the passing of Christ through death to life (Britckner), as the birth of the new fellowship for the disciples, and the like. There is much arbitrary interpretation in Chrysostom, Apollina- ris, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Ruperti, and several others, including Olshausen, according to whom the death of Christ is said to appear as the sorrowful birth-act of humanity, out of which the God-man comes forth, glorified to the eternal joy of the whole ; evenin de Wette the living Christ is subjectively a child of the spiritual productivity of the disciples, Simi- larly Tholuck, also Lange, in conformity with his explanation of Christ's resurrection, understanding this as involving the birth of the new humanity out of the birth-sorrow of the theocracy ; comp. Ebrard, who finds depicted the resurrection of the Lord as the birth of the church, which is begotten and suckled from His heavenly life. And further, since the Parousia is not referred to, and the you, ver. 22, are the disciples, we must not, with Lu- thardt, explain it of the passing of the church into the state of glorification at the future coming of Christ (Rev. xxi. 4), so that the churchis to be thought of as ‘‘ bringing forth in its death-throes the new state of things. — Ver. 22. According to the amended reading (sce the critical notes) : you also will thus (corresponding to this zapoiia) now indeed (over my death, which is immedi-
P CHAP. XVI., 23, 24. 453 ately impending) hare sorrow ; but again I shall sce you, etc. That here Christ does not again say dpeocdé we, as in ver. 19, is only a change in the correlate designation of the same fact (Godet’s explanation is an artificial refinement), which, expressed in vv. 19 and 22 under both its aspects, is, by means of vv. 28 and 25, obviously designated, neither as the Parou- sia,’ nor as the return by the resurrection, or ut least as taking its begin- ning from this (see on xiv. 18), but as the communication of the Paraclete. The exalted Christ, returning to them in the Holy Ghost, sees them again. — alpec} represents the certain future as present. Climax of the representa- tion. Then your joy will be incapable of being taken from you, on account of the renewed fellowship, like this fellowship itself (Matt. xxviii. 20).
Vv. 28, 24. Happy result of this spiritual reunion in reference to the dis- ciples’ official relationship : il/umination—granting of prayer. — év éxeivg tr. ju.] On the day that I shall again be seen by you (spiritually), not : ‘If the disciples shall spiritually have given birth in themselves to the living Christ” (de Wette) ; not: on the never-ending day which is to begin with Easter in their souls (Lange), to which the interpretations of Ebrard and Hengstenberg also substantially amount, comp. Briickner.— éu2 ovx épur. ovdév) Because, the enlightenment through the Paraclete will secure you 80 high a sufficiency of divine knowledge, that you would have no need to question me (note the emphatic éu#) about anything (as hitherto has been the case so frequently and so recently, ver. 19). The discourse of Peter, Acts ii. 14 ff., is a living testimony of this divine certainty here promised, which took the place of the want of understanding.* Chrysostom, Grotius, and several others, including Weizsicker and Weiss, incorrectly take pwr. to mean pray. Comp. vv. 19, 80.— aun apfy, x.r.4.] The further good to be promised is introduced with emphatic asseveration in the consciousness of its great importance. — In adopting the reading déos: ipiv év rh dvdu. pov (see the critical notes), we must explain : He will give it you, én virtue of my name, by its power as the determining motire,* because you have not prayed otherwise than in my name (see on xiv. 18). The interpretation : in my stead (Weiss), yields a paradoxical idea, and has opposed to it ver. 24. — tue dpri, «.7.2.] Because, that is, the higher illumination was wanting to you, which belongs thereto, and which will be imparted to you through the medium of the Paraclete only after my departure. You are wanting up to this time in the spiritual ripeness and maturity of age for such praying, as the highest grade of prayer that may be heard. This reason appears in
2In interpreting it of the Puarousia, the assumption is forced on one, that with duv, duty Adye, «.7.A., a new section of the discourse commences, which refers to the intermediate tine until the Parousia. See especially Luthardt and Lechler, p. 23. This is certainly opposed, and decisively, by the ép dxelvy +r. Hudpq, Ver. 26, which is solemnly repeated, and points back to ver. 28. And the above assumption is, in and of itself, entirely arbitrary. Comp. the
amy, «.7.4., Ver. 22 In interpreting it of the Resurrection, Ebrard sees himself neces- sitated to give to on dperic. ovdér the Iimi- tation : in the sense Of ver. 19. A pure im- portation.
2 Scholten’s view is a misunderstanding of an enthusiastic kind, to the effect that this saying overthrows the entire Protes- tant principle of Soripture.
? Winer, p. 362 [E. T. p. 300].
454 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
harmony with the text from the reciprocal relation of év éxeivg r. guépa and éwe dori, if we note that by éu2 oix épwr. oidév that very divine clearness and certainty is expressed, which is still wanting to them éwc dprx. The reason, therefore, is not to be determined in this wise, that Christ had not yet been glorified (Luthardt), and had accordingly not yet become to the disciples that which He was to become.'— iva] Divinely ordained object of the Agyeode. —} yapa tu.] Ver. 22. It is to be filled up, i.e. to be complete, that nothing may be wanting to it. Comp. xv. 11. There is thus fulfilled in the disciples, after their reception of the Spirit through the granting of their prayers, the consolatory picture of the bearing woman in her joy after the sorrow she has surmounted. Luthardt also transposes vv. 23, 24 into the time before the last future ;- but necessitated to this, he should not have referred ver. 16 ff. to the Parousia.
Ver. 25. Tavru] that, namely, after which the disciples, in vv. 17, 18, had asked, and what He Himself, ver. 20 ff., had more fully carried out ; that, consequently, which had been spoken of His departure and of His being seen again, and its circumstances and consequences. He has uttered this in improper, allegorical expressions (év rapocu., comp. on x. 6, and on the generic plur., Mark xii. 1), proportioned to their capacity of compre- hension ; but when the hour of the fulfilment of the promise of the Para- clete shall have arrived, He will then, and that through the Paraclete, no longer speak to them under such sensuous veils of thought, but without cir- cumlocution, and directly, frankly and freely (reppycig, adverbial instru- mental dative, as in xi. 14), give them tidings of the Father. In answer to Luthardt, who refers ravra to all that was previously said, including the discourse on the vine (comp. also Godet), xvi. 1 is decisive, and the fact that before ver. 19 the disciples have spoken.
Vv. 26, 27. ’Ev éx. r. gu. év TQ Ov. pe. aitgo.] Because enlightened by the Paraclete. Comp. ver. 24. Bengel’s remark is apt: ‘‘Cognitio parit ora- tionem,” and that, the prayer to be heard in the name of Jesus.? —xal ov Aéiyw, x.T.A.] and I say not, etc.; I should therewith promise something for that coming time that may be dispensed with. For on my part (éyd) an in- tercession on your behalf in order to the hearing of these your prayers will not at all be needed, because, that is, they are precisely prayers tn my name (see on xiv. 14). The opposite meaning is deduced by Aretius, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel : that ob Aéyw iv. means : J will not mention at all, so that the intercession is thus designated‘as a matter of course. Against this the following aird¢ ydp, x.r.4., is decisive. There is no contradiction, how- ever, with xiv. 16, xvii. 9, since in these places the intercession of Christ belongs to the time prior to the communication of the Paraclete. — avré¢} ipse, from the proper divine impulse of love, without the need of my inter- cessory mediation. — gAci] ‘‘amat vos, adeoque vos exaudit,” Bengel. The present tense represents the future as present, They have then the
1 Hofmann, Schrifibew. IL. 2, p. 858, comp. announced to thee by the Holy Spirit what Hengstenberg. God's will and command is, which He has 2**For thou comest not in thine own _ performed through Christ,” Luther. name, work, or merit, but on this, that it is
CHAP. XVI., 28—30. 455
mvevua viodeciac, Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6; along with which, however, the intercession intended in 1 John ii. 1, Heb. vii. 25, Rom. viii. 34, on the part of the exalted Jesus, is not excluded. This intercession is not required in order to the hearing of prayer, if it is made in virtue of the Spirit in the name of Jesus, but rather generally in order to the continued efficacy of the atonement on behalf of believers. — The reason of that abrac. . . giAei tuac is: Sr: dueic, x.7.A.: ‘for He will not thus remove Himself out of the midst, that they should pray without and exclusive of Him,” Luther. Note tyeig éué : because ye are they who have loved me. regia. is placed Jirst as the correlate of g:42i ; and with logical correctness, since faith, in this definiteness of development (ar: . . . 27A49or), could in its progress gradually unfold itself only in their loving union with Christ, through the exercise and experience of this love. On the perfects, as the presents of the completed act, Bengel says, and rightly: ‘‘amore et fide prehensum habetis.” Hofmann’ incorrectly explains them from the standpoint of the Parousia, from which a glance is taken backwards to the love that has been borne to the close. The entire promise has nothing to do with the Parou- sia ; sec on vv. 16, 22, xiv. 18. — é&jAJov] See on viii. 42.
Ver. 28. With é&A¥ov, solemnly, and with still more definite precision by means of éx row zarpéc, a ‘fresh confirmation of these fundamental con- tents of faith is commenced, and the return to the Father is subjoined,— and with this a conclusion is made with the same thought,—now, however, through the intervening explanatory clauses, brought nearer to the under- standing of the disciples—from which the whole discussion, vv. 16, 17, took its rise. A simple and grand summary of His entire personal life.
Vv. 29, 80. The disciples, aroused, nay, astonished (ide), by the clearness of the last great declaration, now find the teachings contained in vv. 20-28 so opened to their understanding, and thereby the enigmatical character of vv. 16, 17 80 solved, that they judge, even now, that in this instruction just communicated He speaks so openly and clearly, so entirely without allegor- ical disguise, that He is at the present time doing for them (not merely 4 prelude thereof, as Hengstenberg tones down the meaning) that, for the at- tainment of which He had in ver. 25 pointed them toa future hour. But as He, by this teaching in vv. 20-28, had anticipated (ver. 19) the questions which they, according to vv. 16, 17, had upon their heart, they are also in this respect so surprised, that they at the same time feel certain that He knows all things, and needs not first to be inquired of, since He replies un- asked to the questions on which information was desired ; hence the future things promised by Him in the words év éxzivy to oidév, ver. 28, may like- wise already exist as present, on account of His unlimited knowledge. ‘*Exultant ergo ante tempus perinde acsi quis nummo uno aureo divitem se putaret” (Calvin) ; but however incomplete thcir understanding was as yet, it was sufficient for them to experience a deep and vivid impression there- from, and to lead up to the expression of the decided confession of faith, ev tolry miorebouev, «.t.A, Augustine exaggerates when he says: ‘‘Tili usque
31 Schriftdew, IT. 1, p. 548.
456 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
adeo non intclligunt, ut nec saltem se non intelligere intelligant. Parvuli enim erant.” Schweizer has very arbitrarily declared ver. 80 to be spuri- ous ; but Lange maintains that the disciples regarded a ray of light from the Spirit, which they now received as the beginning of an uninterrupted holiday of the Spirit. This is by no means to be established by éy rotre, x.7.2. — Ver. 29. viv] Now, what thou first didst promise as future, ver. 25. — Ver. 80. viv] What we, according to thy declaration, ver. 28, should first become aware of at a future time. The obvious retrospective reference, given in the words themselves that are employed, of ver. 29 to ver. 25, and of ver. 80 to ver. 23, is neither to be concealed nor denied. — iva] asin ii. 25. — év rotry] propter hoc, Acts xxiv. 16. Comp. év @, guoniam (Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 98). é» denotes causal dependence (Bernhardy, p. 211). Not now com- mences their faith, that (6r:) Christ came forth from God (see ver. 27), nor do they now first believe it because of His omniscience ; but for their existing faith in His divine origin they recognize in this discovered omniscience a new and peculiar ground of certainty ; comp. on ii. 11. Lange erroneously explains 7. as because ; ‘‘in this our faith is rooted, because Thou,” etc. The procession of Christ from His pre-human existence with God was indeed not the ground of faith (this were His words and works, xiv. 10, 11, x. 38), but the grand subject of faith (ver. 27, xvii. 8, xx. 81). Comp. 1 John iv. 2,8; 2John 7. According to Ewald, év rotry would express that in which they believe, namely, in the fact thaé (ér:), etc. But John never designates the object of faith by é (Mark i. 15) ; he would probably have written rovro aor, (Xi. 26).
Vv. 81, 82. Since dprz must bear the emphasis, and since Jesus could not and would not doubt of? the faith of the disciples at this moment, dpri mor. is not to be taken interrogatively? (according to the analogy of i. 51, xiii. 838, xx. 29), but concessively : ‘‘ Now, just now, ye believe, but how soon will ye become vacillating !”* The faith itself did not pass away (hence there is no contradiction to ver. 27, comp. Luke xxii. 82), but it did not stand the test of self-denial and of heroism. This must first appear in the school of conflict and experience. — xai é27Av3ev] 80 immediately at hand is it. — iva] See on ver. 2. —ei¢ ra idta] into His own, i.e. His own place of residence.* Opposite of the xocvwvia, which is thus rent asunder.* On the prediction it- self comp. Matt. xxvi. 31, and on its fulfilment xxvi. 56. — xai] The emphatic and . . ., which (with a pause to be supplied in thought) unexpectedly introduces the contrast. See on vii. 28. — oi eiut ydvoc, x.7.A.] The calm,
3“ He will not punish them nor discoun- tenance them, as those who are as yet weak and without understanding, but answers them in the most friendly manner, as though He should say: ‘ Ye are good pious children, you may probably imagine that you understand and believe, and it is indeed true that you now believe, as you in truth acknowledge from the heart that He went forth from God (which is ever the true faith), but ye know not how it will go, and how weak your faith is,"’ etc., Luther.
2 With Euth. Zigabenus, Calvin, Wetstein, and several others, including Kuinoel, Ols- hausen, de Wette, B. Crusius, Tischendorf, Hengstenberg, Ewald.
Sai Adyorres mcrevew devfecde picpdy Uorepoy, Kuvndeions Upiev Uwd Tov GdfBov THs swiorews, Apollinaris.
4 xix. 27; Plat. Pol. 8, p. 543 B.
§ awécovros GAAos an’ dAAov, Nonnus, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 502 E: évexa rou isiov Tov avrar bAtywpourres TOU KotvoU.
NOTES. 457
clear self-consciousness, elevated above all human desertion, of the Father's protection, comp. viii. 29. The momentary feeling which appears in Matt. xxvii. 46 is not in conflict with this.
Ver. 88. ‘' This is the last word given, and struck into their hand by way of good-night. But He concludes very forcibly with that for which he has made the entire discourse,” Luther. — ravra] pointing back, at the close of the whole discourses again resumed from xiv. 31, to chap. xv. 16. — év éuol eipfumy . . . ev TE Kécup DAixey] exact correlates : in me (living and moving), d4.e. in vital fellowship with me: Peace, rest of soul, peace of heart (comp. xiv. 27) ; in the world, i.e. in your intercourse with the unbelieving ; afflic- tion (xvi. 21, and see xv. 18 ff.). —éyo] Luther aptly remarks : ‘‘He does not say: ‘‘Be comforted, you have overcome the world ; but this is your consolation, that J, J have overcome the world ; my victory is your salva- tion.” And upon this victor rests the imperishability of the church. — vevix tr. xdou.) The Perf. declares the victory immediately impending, which is to be gained through His glorification by means of death, already completed. Prolepsis of the certain conqueror on the boundary of His work. Comp. xii. 31, xiii. 81. But if He has overcome the anti-Messianic power of the world, how could His own, in spite of all affliction, become disheartened, as though He would give up His work, which was to be continued through them, and suffer His victory to fall to the ground ? Comp. rather 1 John v. 4, 5, iv. 4. Therefore take away. Paul especially isa living commentary on this Sapoeiv. Seee.g. Rom. viii. 87 ; 2 Cor. ii. 14, iv. 7 ff., vi. 4 f£., xii.9, his dis- course before Fclix and Festus, etc. Comp. Luther's triumphant exposition.
Norges By AMERICAN Eprror.
LIV. Ver. 5.
Nov dé is not here, as often in John and elsewhere, logical, but as tt is; but strictly temporal, but now.—-And none of you asketh me. Generally taken as im- plying some censure, because they are not more ready toquestion him. Weiss holds that, because of the clear declarations already made, there was no room for further questioning, and the Saviour’s only meaning can be: You have no need of questioning ; you know, each of you, whither I go.
LV. ‘‘ It is expedient for you.’’ Ver. 7.
Meyer: because the Spirit assures to them aid against the hating world. Weiss: on account of His agency in the world, which Christ proceeds, in the following words, to unfold. Better still, perhaps, on account of the Spirit's entire minis- try, both in the disciples and in the world, which makes His coming more than & compensation for the personal presence of Christ.
LVI. “And yet a litile while, and ye shall see me.’’ Ver. 16.
Meyer makes this renewed vision refer, not to Christ’s reappearance in the resurrection or in the Parousia, but to the spiritual vision of Christ in the ministry of the Paraclete. Weiss dissents, and maintains (with Lange, Ebr.
458 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Hengst. Ew.) that it can refer only to his bodily reappearance after the res- urrection. So again in ver. 20, according to Weiss the sorrow and mourning of the disciples over the death of Jesus are turned into joy on His reappearance ; while Meyer refers the change to the coming of the Paraclete. Granting Weiss's rendering mainly correct, it should not, I think, be too closely pressed; the whole series of events hangs together, from the wailing of the disciples at the crucifixion, passing over into the ultimate glory of the Parousia, and the corre- sponding change from exultation to sorrow in the emotions of the world.
OHAP. XVII., 1, 2. 459
CHAPTER XVII.
Ver. 1. érjpe] B. C.* D. L. X. &. Curss. Or. Cyr. : érapac without the follow- ing xai. So Lachm. Tisch. A frequently-occurring improvement of the style. In like manner is the reading reAci:wouc, ver. 4, instead of éireAeinca to be re- garded. — iva xai] xaf is condemned by decisive witnesses. — Ver. 3. yivdoxwor} Tisch. : yrvdoxovorv, following A. D. G. L. Y. A. A. An error in transcription, instead of which Lachm., following B. C. E. &., has rightly retained the con- junctive. — Ver. 4. Between the forms dédwaaand édwxa, the Codd. in this chap. vacillate in various ways. — Ver. 7. écriv] Tisch. : eiotv, according to prepon- derant evidence. The Recepiais an attempted improvement. — Ver. 11. Instead of © Elz. has ofc, against decisive witnesses. The too weakly attested reading & (D.* U. X.), which is a resolution of the attraction, testifies also in favour of @. — Ver. 12. év rq xdopy) after airov, is wanting in the majority of witnesses ; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition after ver. 11. — Instead of ofc, Tisch. has g, according to B. C.* L. Mechanical repetition from ver. 11. — Ver. 16. The position of ov« elui after éys (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. — Ver. 17. After dAwGea the Edd., except Lachm., have cov, which must be deleted on the decisive testimony of A. B. C.* D. L. 1, Vulg. It. Goth. Sahid. Cyr. Did. Ambr. Aug. A more definite exegetical definition in accordance with what follows. Bengel aptly remarks in his Appar.: ‘‘persaepe verilas apad Joh... nunquam additur Dei.” —Ver. 19. The order cow xai avroi (Lachm. Tisch.) ‘is decisively attested. — Ver. 20. Instead of wicrevdvruv Elz. has morevodvrwy, contrary to decisive testimonies. — Ver. 21. ev fpiv vy dav) B. C.* D. Codd. of It. Sahid. Arm. Ath. Hil. Vig. Tisch. have merely év jyiv dorv. Lachm. has fv in brackets. This éy is a glossematio addition. — Ver. 23. xat tva] B, C. D. L. X. Curss. Verss. Fathers have merely iva. xai is rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation irrelevant to the connection, made without attending to the construction of ver. 21. — Ver. 24. cic] B. D. &, Copt. Goth. Vulg. ms.: 5. So Tisch. Considering the weighty attestation, and that oi¢ very readily suggested itself as an improvement, 46 must be regarded as the original reading. Comp. on ver. 11.
[See Note LVII. p. 476.] Vv. 1, 2.’ The parting discourses to the disci- ples are finished, and that with the words, giving assurance of victory, ‘yo vevix. t. x6dou. But now, before Jesus goes forth into the fatal night, as He casts a parting glance on His disciples, who are standing there ready to depart (xiv. 31), and on the whole future of His work, now to be complet- ed for the earth, Hiscommunion with the Father impels Him to prayer. He prays aloud (ver. 18) and long, on His own behalf (vv. 1-5), on behalf of His disciples (vv. 6-19), and on behalf of those who are to become believers at a latcr time (vv. 20 ff.), with all the depth, intensity, clearness, and re-
1 Luther's exposition of chap. xvii. belongs to the year 1534.
460 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
pose of the moral need and the childlike devotion of the Fulfiller. Be- cause He, by this prayer, prepares Himself for the high-priestly act of the atoning self-sacrifice (see especially ver. 19), it is justly termed the precatio summi sacerdotis (Chytraeus), an appellation which is arbitrarily explained by Hengstenberg from the Aaronic blessing (Lev. ix. 22; Num. vi. 22 ff.). Luther aptly says: ‘‘that He might fully discharge His office as our sole high priest.” — ravra tAddAnoev . . . wat... xai] Not negligence of style (de Wette), but solemn circumstantiality. — cic r. obp.] does not establish the point that Jesus spoke in the open air (see on xiv. 81; so Ruperti, Gro- tius, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and many others), nor necessitates the sugges- tion (Gerhard) that through the window of the room the heavens were ac- cessible to view, but the eye of one who prays is on all occasions raised toward heaven. Comp. Acts vii. 55. —9 dpa] The hour nar’ itoxty, t.¢. the hour of my death, as that of my passage to Thee, xiii. 1, xii. 23. [See Note LVIII. p. 476). — défacov . . . doféoy] The former’ through His elevation into the heavenly glory (comp. ver. 5), the latter through the rerelation of the glory of God, so far, that is, as the victory of the gospel in the world, and the entire continuance and consummation of the divine work of redemption was conjoined with the heavenly glorification and ministry of Christ. To refer défacov to the earthly, moral glorification of Christ in the recognition of Ilis Person and cause,' or to the communication of the true God-consciousness to humanity (Baur), is opposed to the context, which involves Christ’s glorifi- cation through His death, always in John the personal heavenly glorification. Note further gov rav vidv and 4 vid¢ cov ; the emphasis of the oov, which is moved to the first place, is related to the prayer as assigning a reason for tt ; it is in truth Thy Son whom Thou art to glorify. — Ver. 2 presents to the Father the definite motive for the fulfilment of that which was prayed for, and that in such a manner that xadoc . . . capxdc corresponds to the preced- ing dé£aaév aov rdv vidv, and iva way, x.7.2., Which contains the purpose of édwxag atr@ tove. mr. a., 18 correlative to iva 6 vide o. dof. oe.* — xaddc denotes the motive contained in the relation of fitness, in the measure that, according as, Comp. on xiil. 84. — Full power orer all men has the Father given to the Son on His mission (xiii. 3), for He has endowed Him as the sole Re- deemer and Saviour with power for the execution of the decree of salvation, which extends to all ; none is exempted from His Messianic authority. But this éfovcia He cannot carry out without returning to the heavenly glory, whence He must carry on and complete His work. By méoy¢ capxéc, how- ever, the whole of humanity—and that in its imperfection (see on Acts ii. 17), conditioned by the very fact of the odpé, ili. 6, by which it is destitute of eternal life—is, with a certain solemnity of the O. T. type (WW3 73), desig- nated. The expression is not elsewhere found in John, but it corresponds
1 Didymus, Nésselt, Kuinoel, de Wette, upon the earth.” But the periodic form Reuss. which thus arises is less in harmony with
2 Ewald beginsa new sentence with the manner of this prayer; and the change xadus, which is completed in ver.4,sothat of persons in vv. 2 and 4 betrays the want ver. 3 Is a parenthesis: ‘‘Zven as Thou of mutual connection.
gavest to Him full power... Iglorified Thee
CHAP. XVII., 3. 461 exactly to this elevated mood of prayer. — iva ray, x.r.A.] Not a mere state- ment of the contents and compass of the éfovoia (Ebrard) : no, in the at- tainment of the blessed design of that fulness of power (comp. v. 26, 27) lies precisely that glorification of the Father, ver. 1. Not all, however, without distinction, can receive eternal life through Christ, but (comp. ver. 6) those whom the Father has given to the Son (through the attraction by grace, vi. 37, 39, 44, 65) are such, designated from the side of the divine efficiency, the same who, on their side, are the believing (i. 12, iii. 15, e¢ al.), not ‘‘ the spiritual supramundane natures” whom Hilgenfeld here discovers. Comp. besides, on vi. 87, 39. — airoic] to be referred to the subjects of the absolute,’ collective rav (Bremi, ad Jeocr. I. Exc. X.). Note further the weighty parallel arrangement déduxac aire, ddcy avroic.* Not future con- junctive (Bengel, Baeumlein), but a corrupt form of the aorist.
Ver. 8. The continuative dé adduces, in the connection, a more precise definition * of {07 aidswoc (not a transposition of its idea, as Weiss holds), and that with a retrospective glance to the glorification of the Father in ver. 1, - On éoriv, comp. on Rom. xiv. 17; John iii. 19. — In this consists eternal life, that they should recognize (iva, comp. on vi. 29) Thee as the only true God (as Him to whom alone belongs the reality of the idea of God, comp. 1 Cor, vill. 4), and Thy sent one Jesus as Messiah. This knowledge of God here desired (which is hence the believing, living, practical knowledge, Kadi dei yvova, 1 Cor. viii. 2), is the [uy aidvoc, in that it is its essential subjective principle, unfolding this [wf out of itself, its continual, ever self- developing germ and impulse (comp. Sap. xv. 1, 3), even now in the tem- poral evolution of eternal life, and still yct after the establishment of the kingdom, in which faith, hope, and love abide (1 Cor. xiii.); the fundamental essence of which is in truth nothing else than that knowledge, which in the future aidy will be the perfected knowledge (1 Cor. xiii. 12), comp. 1. John iii, 2. The contents of the knowledge are stated with the precision of a Con- Jession,—a summary of faith in opposition ‘ to the polytheistic’ and Jewish xéouoc, which latter rejected Jesus os Messiah, although in Him assuredly was given the very highest revelation of the only true God. It isin tho third person, however, that the praying Jesus speaks of Himself from ver. 1 forwards, placing Himself in an objective relation towards the Father dur- ing the first intensity of this solemn mood, and first at ver. 4 continuing the prayer with the familiar zy4; nay, He mentions His name in ver. 8, because in His designation of Himself through the third person, it here speci/i- cally suggested itself, in correspondence to the confessional thought. —
1 Buttmann, V. 7. Gr. p. 8% (E. T. pp. 379, $80].
20On the form d&scy, see Buttmann, N. 7. Gr. p. 81 [E. T. p. 88].
* No formal definition. See the apposite observations of Riehm in the Stud. u. Arit. 1804, p. 539 f.
* An antithesis which might present itself naturally and unsought to the world-em- bracing glance of tho praying Jesus, on tho
boundary line of Mis work, which includes entire humanity. But He had also thought further of the dfoveia wdéons cap«és, which was given to Him. This likewise in opposition to Weiss,‘ Lehrbegr. p. 56, who considers the antithesis foreign to the con- nection.
Se. pdvoy dAnd. dedy, comp. V. 44; Deut. vi. 4; 1 Cor. vill. 5; 1 Theas. 1. 9.
462 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Xpcorév] is an appellative predicate : as Messiah, comp. ix. 22. To connect it as a proper name with 'I7o. (Jesus Christ, comp. i. 17), to ascribe to the evangelist an offence against historical decorum,’ and to see in this a proof of a later reproduction (comp. Tholuck and Weizsicker, p. 286 ; also Scholten, p. 238), would be to accuse the writer, especially in the report of such a prayer, of a surprising want of consideration. Luthardt also takes Xpioréy a8 @ proper name, which he thinks was here, in this extraordinary moment, used for the first time by Jesus, and thereby at the same time de- termined the use of the word by the apostles (Acts ii. 88). So also Godet, comp. Ebrard. But Jesus prayed in Hebrew, and doubtless said yw TWN, from which expression a proper name could by no means be recog- nized. The predicative view of r. udév. a2. dedv and of Xpioréy is also justly held by Ewald. [See Note LIX. p. 476.] — Although +. uévoy dard. Sedv refers solely to the Father, the true divine nature of Christ is not thereby excluded (against the Arians and Socinians, who misused this passage), all the less so as this, in accordance with His (Logos) relationship as depend- ent on the Godhead of the Father, forms the previous assumption in év anéore:Aac, as is certain from the entire connection of the Johannean Christ- ology, and from ver. 5.* Hence it was unnecessary,—nay, even & perver- sion of the passage, and running counter to the strict monotheism of John, when Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Beda, Thomas, Aretius, and several others explained it as if the language were: wt tect quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant solum verum Deum. Only One, the Father, can abso- lutely be termed the pévoc 4479. Sede (comp. 6 dv éxt wdvtwv Sedo, Rom. ix. 5), not at the same time Christ (who is not even in 1 John v. 20 the addivd¢ Sedc), since His divine entity stands in the relation of genetic subsistence to the Father, i. 18, although He, in unity with the Father, works as His com- missioner, x. 80, and is His representative, xiv. 9, 10.
Vv. 4, 5. Once more the prayer of ver. 1, défacéy cov rév vidv, but stating a different reason for it (‘‘ ostendit, non iniquum se petere,” Grotius), and setting forth the déga more definitely. — éyé ce dof. ixi r. y.] By what, is expressed by the following parallel proposition, which is subjoined with asyndetic liveliness. The Messianic work glorified God, to whose highest revelation, and therewith to His knowledge, praise, and honour it bore ref- erence. Comp. ver. 6. — The aorists idé£. and éredef. are employed, because Jesus stands at the goal of His earthly activity, where He already includes in this account the fact which puts a close to His earthly work, the fact of His death, as already accomplished. Christ is not passive in His sufferings ; His obedientia passiva is active, the highest point of His activity. — xai viv] And now, when I take leave of this my earthly ministry. — In what follows note the correlation of ve of with éyé ce, in which the thought of recompense (comp. 6:6, Phil. ii. 9) is expressed. The emphasis lies on éyé and ot, hence after ze nocomma should stand. — rapa ceavrq] so that I may be united with Thyself in heavenly fellowship (Col. iii. 8), corresponding to é7? +. yie. Comp. on xiii, 82. — The ééfa, which Jesus possessed before the creation of
1 Bretachneider, Liicke, de Wette. 2 Comp. Wetstein, and Geass, Pers. Chr. p. 162.
CHAP. XVII., 6-8. 463 the world, and thus in eternity before time was (elyov, which is to be under- stood realiter, not with the Socinians, Grotius, Wetstein, Nésselt, Létfer, Eckermann, Stolz, Gabler, comp. B. Crusius, Schleiermacher, ZL. J. p. 286 f., Scholten, ideally of the destinatio divina), was the divine glory, é.¢. the essentially glorious manifestation of the entire divine perfection and blessed- ness, the pop¢? Seod (Phil. ii. 6) in His pre-existent state (John i. 1), of which, He divested Himself when He became man, and the resumption of which in the consciousness of its once enjoyed possession,’ He now asks in prayer from God. That Christ contemplated Himself as the eternal archetype of humanity in His pre-historical unity with the proper personal life of God, and attributed to Himself in ¢his sense the premundane glory (Beyschlag, p. 87 f.), is contradicted by the expression elyov rapa coi, which so separates the possessor of the glory from the divine subject as to place it alongside of that subject ; and contradicted also by the prayer for the restored glory ; for the essence of this is the ofv8povay eiva: Seot, which must therefore have been also that of the earlier glory. Comp. on vi. 62. — For the fulfilment of this prayer: Phil. ii. 9; 1 Tim. iii. 16; Heb. i. 8,18; Acts ii. 34; 1 Pet. iii. 22, eal. The 66a, however, which His believing ones beheld in Him in His earthly working (i. 14), was not the heavenly majesty in its Godlike, absolute existence and manifestation,—that He had as Adyor¢ dcapxoc, and obtained it again in theanthropic completeness after His ascension,—but His temporal theanthropic glory, the glory of God present in earthly and bodily limitation, which He had in the state of xévworc, and made known through grace and truth, as well as through His entire ministry.
Vv. 6-8. Hitherto Jesus has prayed on behalf of Himself. But now He in- troduces His intercession on behalf of His disciples, which begins with ver. 9, by representing them as worthy of this intercession. — cov] With emphasis, . a8 opposed to roic avdpér., in the deep feeling of the holiness and greatness of the task discharged. — What the name of God comprises in itself and expresses (see on Matt. vi. 9), was previously made known to the disciples only in so far as it brought with it its O. T. imagery ; but the specific dis- closures respecting God and His counsel of salvation resting in Christ, and His entire redemptive relation to men, which Christ had given them by vir- tue of His prophetic office (the Christian contents, therefore, of the divine name), entitled Him to pray ; é¢avépwod cov r. bv., x.7r.A. Comp. Col. i. 26, 27. Av-reference to the Jewish practice of keeping secret the name of Jehovah (Hilgenfeld) lies entirely remote from the meaning. —ob¢ dédux. pot éx r. xéauov] Necessary limitation of roi¢ av3pdra (hence not to be connected with oot foav) ; whom Thou hast given to me out of the world (separated from
1 Not merely in a momentary anticipation, in which it appeared before the eye of His spirit (Welzsficker). Comp. on viii. 56. It isa perversion of the exegetically clear and certain relation when Weizsdcker finds in such passages, instead of the self-conscious- nees of Jesus reaching back into His pre- human state, only “‘the culmiuating point of an advancing self-knowledge.” But
that here, and in ver. 2%, different modes of apprehending the person of Christ are intimated (Weizsicker tn the Jahtrd. J. D. Th. 1862, p. 645 ff.), cannot be estab- lished on exegetical grounds. See on ver. 25.
2 Comp. on L. 14; see also Liebner, Christo. I. p. 398 f.
464 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
out of the unbelieving, xv. 19), that is, the disciples (see vv. 8, 11), as ob- jects of the divine counsel of salvation. God has given them through the attraction of His grace ; see on vi. 87. — coi] Possessive pronoun, as in ver. 9; they belonged to Thee, were Thine, ‘‘per fidem V. T.,” Bengel.! There- fore not in the sense of predestination (Beza, Calvin), but of motive, from which God, to whom they indeed already inwardly belonged, has drawn them to Christ. God knows His own. The non-ethical conception of property in general (Cyril. : ida yap ravra 3e@), or, ‘as Thy creatures” (Heng- stenberg), yields no special ground of reason. — xa rdv Adyov cov ternp.] and with what result gavest Thou them tome! On r. Adyov cov, comp. vii. 16, xii. 48, 49, and on reryp., they have kept Thy word (by faith and deed), vili. 51, xiv. 23. — viv éyvoxav, x.r.4.] Progress in the picturing of this re- sult, which is now advanced so far, that they have recognized (and do recognize, Perfect) all that the Father has communicated to Christ as that which it is, as proceeding from God. <All which Thou hast given tome points not merely to the doctrine (de Wette), but to the entire ministry of Jesus (Luthardt), for which He has received from the Father a commission, di- rection, power, result, etc. Comp. ver. 4, xii. 49, v. 86. A more definite limitation is arbitrary, because not demanded by what follows, which rather establishes the general expression (ver. 7) by the particular (ra pfyara). — Ver. 8 gives the causative (dr: because) information how they attained to the knowledge of ver. 7,2 namely, (1) on the part of Jesus, in that He communicst- ed to them the words given Him by God, i.e. that which He, as Interpreter of God, had to announce (nothing else) ; and (2) on their part (airof), in that they have adopted this,* and have actually known it (vii. 26). Thus with them that éyvweay of ver. 7 has come to completion. — xai avrot] is only to be separated by 8 comma from what precedes, and is connected with dre. The xai éviorevoav, x.7.A., parallel to éyvwoay &Ay9a¢, x.7.4., adding faith to , knowledge (see on vi. 69), and the above é&#ASov (comp. on viii. 42), lead- ing back tothe Fatherly behest, whereby it is accomplished, completes the expression of the happy result attained in the case of the disciples. Note, further, the historical aorists #4a3. and ézicr. in their difference of sense from the perfects.
Ver. 9. I pray for them! Both in zyé and in epi airy there lies a motive element in reference to God. That which lies in ep? atréy is then further made specially prominent, first negatively (ov . r. xéou. ép.), and then posi- tively (aAAd epi, x.7.2.). —ob wept Tov xédouov] has no dogmatic weight, and is therefore not to be explained in the sense of the condemnation of the world (Melanchthon), or of absolute predestination,‘ or of the negation of
1 Comp. 1. 87, 42, 46, 48, and generally vill. cated arrangement is neither necessary nor
47, vi. 87, 44.
3 Ewald begins with Sr: (because), a pro- tasis, the apodosis of which (/ therefore beq) follows in ver. 9, {n such a manner, bow- ever, that from ov wept rov «cocpov to épxomat, ver. 11, a parenthesis is introduced, and then first with rarep ay.e comes the supplica- tion conveyed by ¢épwra. But this compli-
appropriate to the clear and peaceful flow of the language of this prayer as it stands.
3i.e. They have not rejected the pijyzara, but have allowed them to influence them- selves. This is the necessary pre-condition of knowledge and of faith. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 28.
4 Calvin, Jansen, Lampe.
CHAP. XVII, 10, 11. 465
such intercession in gencral (Hengstcaberg), but refers simply and solely to this present intercession, which relates not to those who are strangers to God, but to His own, whom He has given to Jesus,—and should all the more move Him to fulfil the prayer. Prayer for the unbelieving has been enjoined by Jesus Himself (Matt. v. 44), and has been offered by Himself upon the cross (Luke xxiii. 84), and for them did He die, comp. also ver. 20; but here He has only the disciples in view, and lays them, by the an- tithesis ob epi +. xéozov, the more earnestly on the Father's heart. Luther well says: ‘‘At other times one should pray for the world, that it may be converted.” Comp. ver. 21. — dre coi eioc] Ground of the intercession : because they—although given to me—are Thine, belonging to Thee as my believing ones, since they were Thine (ver. 6) already, before Thou gavest them to me.
Ver. 10. Kal ra tua rdvra. . . ua] is parenthetic (on nai parentheticum, sec Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 13, p. 85), and xai ded6£. év avroic is still in connec- tion with é7:, ver. 9, containing a second ground of the intercession. — As regards the above parenthesis [See Note LX. p. 476], as Jesus prayed Src coi eiot, ver. 9, His glance extended itself from this concrete relation to the category, to the general reciprocal community of property, which, in matters relating to His work, exists between Him, the Son and plenipotentiary of the Father, and the Father. Both have the same work, the same aim, the same means, the same power, the same grace and truth, etc., in common ; neither has and works separate from the other, and for Himself; God in Christ, and He in God. Comp. on xvi. 15. Luther aptly remarks: ‘‘It were not so much if He simply said: All that is mine is Thine ; for that every one can say. . . it is much greater that He inverts the relation, and says: All that is Thine is mine ; this no creature can say in reference to God.” — ded6g. év att.] Iam glorified in them, in their person and activity, in so far as they are bearers and furtherers of my glory and knowledge upon earth, so precious and important, then, that I pray for them. What is already begun, and is certainly to be further accomplished in the near future, Jesus views, speaking in the perfect with prophetic anticipation, as completed and actually existing,’ and é» denotes the relation resting on, contained in them, as in xiii. 31, 82, xiv. 18.
Ver. 11. Before He now gives expression to the special supplication itself (wdrep ayte, t7pnoov, x.7.4.), He first brings forward the peculiar ground of need, connecting in profound emotion its individual members unperiod- ically by xai. — ov«ére ciui, x.r.A.} Thus He speaks, ‘‘nunc quasi provincia sua defunctus,” Calvin. — xai ovro:, x.r.4.] ‘hos relinquam in tantis flucti- bus,” Grotius. — dye] As in ver. 25, dixaze, 80 here aye is added signifi- cantly ; for to guarantee that which Jesus would now pray (r@pqoor, x.7.A.) is in harmony with the holiness of His Father, which has been revealed to Him in entire fulness, a holiness which is the absolute antithesis of the un- godly nature of the profane world.* Placed by their calling in this unholy
1 Ktihner, IZ. p. 72. celved of as dytos rod Xpiorov, which fs the
* According to Diestel in the Jahrb. f. completion of the N. T. dytos rod “Iopaya. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 45, God is here com- But of this there is neither any Indication in
466 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
xéouoc, they shall be guarded by the holy God so as to abide faithfully in His name. In harmony with this antithesis of the holiness of God to the nature of the world, stands the petition, ‘‘ hallowed be Thy name,” at the head of the Lord's Prayer. Comp. also 1 John ii. 20 ; Heb. xii. 10 ; 1 Pet. i. 16 ; Rev. vi. 10. Thus the Father discharges the obligation lying on Himself, if He keeps the disciples of the Son in His name. — éy r¢ dvéu. o.] Specific sphere, in which they are to remain through being so kept ; the name of the Father is made known to them (vv. 6, 26), and with a happy result (vv. 6-8); thus are they to persevere in Jiis living acquaintance and believing confession, not to depart out of this holy element of their life. — @ dédux. por] » by attraction, instead of 4, which, however, does not stand instead of cic,’ but : God has given His name to Christ, and that not in the sense of the divine nature entering into manifestation, as Hengstenberg here brings in from Ex. xxiii. 21, but rather in the sense of ver. 6, for revelation to the disciples ; He bas for such a purpose delivered His name to Him as the object of a holy commission. In conformity with this, the Lord prays that God would keep them in this His name, in order that they, in virtue of the one common faith and confession resting on the name of God, may be one (in the spiritual fellowship, of like mind and love, comp. vv. 22, 23), in conformity with the archetype* of the ethical unity of the Father and the Son (comp. the Pauline cic Gedg x. ratip mavruy, x.7.4., Eph. iv. 6). Hence iva expresses the object of rypycov, «.7.A., not of dédux. pot.
Vv. 12, 18. A more definite outpouring of heart concerning ver. 11. — bre funy, x.7.A.] AS in ver. 11, ovxére ciul év 7. xéouw, Jesus speaks as though He had already departed out of the world. ‘‘ Jam in exitu mundi pedem irrevocabilem posuerat,” Ruperti on ver. 11. —éyo] That which Thou mayest now do, ver. 11. — oie dédux. uot égvA., x.7.A.] Not a parenthesis, but a further expression of the rgpyorg just described, in which a sorrowful but telically clear and conscious mention of Judas obtrudes itself. — épfAaga] Through the ¢vAdocerv (custodire) is the rypeiv (consercare) accomplished.* The dis- ciples were handed over to Him for protection and guardianship, ut eos salcos tueretur. This He has accomplished, and none of them has fallen into de- struction (i.e. into eternal destruction through apostasy, which Iecads to the loss of faz), except him who belongs to destruction (Matt. xxiii. 15), 7.6. who is destined to destruction. Comp. vi. 64, 70. Jesus does not like to name Judas, who forms this tragical erception (ei u# ia not equivalent to a7.Aa, as Scholten thinks), but his destruction—and therein the purity of the consciousness of Jesus in the matter is expressed—is nothing accidental, capable of being averted, but is prophesied in the Scripture as a divine destiny, and must take place in fulfilment thereof. On account of xiii. 18, it is without warrant to think of another saying of Scripture than, with Luther, Liicke, and several others, of Ps. xli. 10 (Kuinocl refers it to the prophecies of the
the context, nor do we find at all the idea would read 4, sec the critical notes.
of God as of the aytos row Xprorov expressed. 2 Bengel: “ Illa unitas est ex natura, haec Hengstenberg refers too exclusively tothe ex gratia; igitur illi haec similis est, non power of the holy God. aequalis."*
1 Bengel, comp. Ewa!d and Godet, who 7Comp Sap. x.5; Dem. $17. ult.
CHAP. XVII., 14-17. 467
death of Jesus generally ; Lange,’ to Isa. lvii. 12, 13 ; Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius, and many to Ps. cix. 8, which passage, however, has its reference in Acts 1. 20). The designation of Antichrist by 6 vlog r. amwd., 2 Thess. ii. 8, is parallel in point of form. Inthe Hoang. Nikod. 20 (see Thilo on the passage, p. 708), the devil is so called.—Ver. 13. But now I come to Thee, and since I can no longer guard them personally as hitherto, I speak this (this prayer for Thy protection, ver. 11) in the world (‘‘ jam ante discessum meum,” Bengel), that they, as witnesses and objects of this my intercession, knowing themselves assured of Thy protection, may bear my joy (as in xv. 11, not xiv. 27) fulfilled in themselves. On this expression of prayer regard- ing the influence which the listening to prayer should have upon the listeners, comp. xi. 42. Luther well says: ‘‘that they, through the word, appre- hended by the ears, and retained in the heart, may be consoled, and be able cheerfully to presume thereon, and to say : See, this has my Lord Christ said, so affectionately and cordially has He prayed for me,” etc.
Vv. 14, 15. The intercession addresses itself to a particular, definite point of the rf#pyore prayed for, namely, ex row rovypov, ver. 15, and this is intro- duced, ver. 14, from the side of their necessities. — éyé] antithesis : 6 xéopoc. — pio. avtotc]) has conceived a hatred against them.* This hatred Luther terms ‘‘the true court colours of Christians that they bear on earth.” Further, see on xv. 18, 19. — The more precise defining of rg#pyore follows in ver. 15 negatively and positively. They are not (‘‘for I have still more to accomplish by their means,” Luther) to be taken out of the unbelieving world which hates them (which would take place by death, as now in the case of Jesus Himself, ver. 11), but they are to be kept by God, so that they ever come forth, morally uninjured, from the encompassing power of Satan, the Prince of the world. é +r. rovypot is not, with Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Olshausen, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg, Godet, to be taken as neuter, but comp. 1 John ii. 18 ff., iii. 12, v. 18, 19, iv. 4 ; Matt. vi. 18; 2 Thess. iii. 8 ; comp. on rnpeiv ex, Rev. iii. 10, also guadooey &€ Exc BovaAge in Themist. 181. 19 (Dindorf). Nonnus: daiyovoc apyexdxowo dvcavtitwy ard Veoudy.
Vv. 16,17. From the keeping hitherto prayed for, the intercession advances to the positive consecrating, ver. 17 ; and this part of it also is introduced in ver. 16, and that by an emphatic resumption of what was said in ver. 14 on the side of the condition jitted for the dydfecv. — dyiacoy airoic év 17 Ay. | The disciples were tn the truth, for since they had believingly accepted the word of God given to them by Christ, and had kept it (vv. 6, 12), the divine truth, the expression of which that word is, was the element of life, in which they, taken from the world and given to Christ, were found. Now He prays that God would not merely keep them (which He has previously prayed for), but yet further : He would procide them with a holy consecration (comp. on x. 86) in this their sphere of life, whereby is meant not indeed the translation into ‘‘ the true position of being” (Luthardt), but the equipment with divine illumination, power, courage, joyfulness, love, inspiration, etc., for their
IZ. J. Wp. 1412. ? Aor., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 197; Ktihner, ed Xen. Mem. |. 1. 18.
468 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
official activity (ver. 18) which should ensue, and did ensue, through the Holy Spirit, xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 7 ff. Comp. on é», Sir. xlv.4. Ordinarily it is taken instrumentally, in virtue of, by means of,’ but in arbitrary neglect of the analogy of the correlate rypeiy év, vv. 11, 12 ; whilst de Wette, B. Crusius, Baeumlein, just as arbitrarily here again mix up also the notion of typeiv ; **so that they remain in the truth,” whereby the climactic relation of rypeiv and dy:dZecv is misapprehended. When, with Luther, (‘‘ make truly holy") év r. aa70. is taken as equivalent to aAyfiac, of complete sanctification in contrast with their hitherto defective condition (Hengstenberg), against the view is decisive, not indeed the article,* but rather the following 6 Adyo¢, x.7.2. The reading év r. a. cov correctly, though in the way of a gloss, defines the idea. —6é Adyog 6 od¢ aA. tort] & supporting of the prayer, in which 6 odg has peculiar weight ; Thy word (xiv. 24, xii. 49, vii. 16), the word of no other, ts truth. How shouldst Thou, then, not grant the dyidSecv prayed for? That a6. is without the article, does not rest upon the fact that it is a predicate, but upon the conception that the essence of the Adyog is truth, s0 that 4270. is abstract, not a noun appellative. Comp. iv. 24, 1 John iv. 16. Vv. 18, 19. In support of the prayer for the consecrating of the disciples, there now follow further two motives for its being granted, deduced, (1) from the mission of the disciples into the world, on which account they need conse- cration ; and (2) from Christ’s own personal consecration for the purpose of their dy:aouéc, which purpose God will not be willing to leave unattained. — Kabog éné, x.7.2.] Placed first with pragmatic weight ; fur as He could not execute His mission without the divine consecration (x. 86), so neither could they who were sent by Him. — xayé] Not instead of otruc éyé (de Wette), but simply : Iadso have sent. Comp. xv. 9, xx. 21, et al. —aréore:Aa] The mission was indeed not yet objectively a fact (xx. 21; Matt. xxviil. 19), but already conceived in its idea in the appointment and instruction for the apostolic office (Matt. x. 5 ff.). Comp. on iv. 38. — Ver. 19. Note the emphatic correlation of airav. . . éya éuaurév. . . Kai avtoi. — The ay:dfw éuavréy, not including in it the whole life of the Lord (Calvin, Hengstenberg, Godct), but now, when the hour is come, to be carried out, is the actual con- secration, which Christ, in offering Himself through His death as a sacrifice to God accomplishes on Himself,* so that dy:dfw is substantially equivalent to mpoogépw coi Avatav (Chrysostom), comp. 4 Macc. xvil. 19, dy:dferv, wpa, is a sacred word for sacrifices in the O. T.‘ Christ is at once the Priest and the Sacrifice (Ep. to the Heb.) ; and for ® the disciples He performs this sacri- fice,—although it is offered for all,°—so far as it has, in respect of the disci-
1 Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Cal- vin, and many others, including Licke, Tholuck, Godet.
2 Comp. Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 10.
3 Comp. generally, Ritschl in the Jahrd. J. D. Theol. 1868, p. 240 f.
“See Ex. xiii. 2; Deut. xv. 19 ff. ; 2 Sam. viii. 11; Esr. v. 52; Rom. xy. 16; comp. also Soph. Qed. Col. 1491; Dion. H. vil. 2.
© Umdp, in commodum, xv. 18.
* Even this solemn iwép (vi. 51, x. 11, xi. 50, xv. 18, xvili. 14; 1 John iii. 16) should bave prevented ay:d¢m ex. from being under- stood in the ethical sense of the ripening to moral perfection through faithful, loving obedience towards the Father (so Wérner, Verhdlin. d. Geistes z. Sohne Gottes, p. 41 f.) Simply correct {fs Euth. Zigabenus, é¢yw éxovaiws Svatdsw émaurov.
CHAP. XVII., 18, 19. 469 ples, the special purpose: that they also may be consecrated in truth, namely, in virtue of the reception of the Paraclete (xvevparexg rvpi yvia AeAovpévor, Nonnus), which reception was conditioned by the death of Jesus, xvi. 7. The «ai has ity logical justification in the idea of consecration common to both clauses, although its special sense is different in each ; for the disciples are, through the sacrifice of Jesus, to be consecrated to God tn the sense of holy purity, en- dowment, and equipment for their calling. On the other hand, the self-con- secration of Christ is sacrificial,—the former, however, like the latter, the consecration in the service of Godand of His kingdom. Comp. on the self- consecration of Christ, who yields Himself voluntarily to be a sacrifice (x. 18, xv. 13), Eph. v. 2: rapéduxev éavrdy trip juav mpoagopay, x.7.2. ; that is the idea of the present passage, not that He renounced the mortal flesh, and entered fully into the divine mode of existence and fellowship (Luthardt). See also Heb. ix. 14. — év aAnfeia] Modal definition of gy:acuévo: : truly con- secrated, Matt. xxil. 16 ; 2 Cor. vil. 14 ; Col. i. 6; 1 Johniii. 18 ; 2 John 1; 8 John 1.' In the classics the mere dative and éx’ aAnfeiac are frequent. The true consecration is not exactly an antithesis in the Jewish sanctimonia ceremonialis (Godet and older expositors), to which nothing in the context leads, but simply sets forth the eminent character of the relation generally. As contrasted with every other aycér7¢ in human relations, that wrought through the Paraclete is the trueconsecration. Comp. Luther : ‘‘ against all worldly and human holiness.” §o0 substantially,* Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, and several others, including Hengstenberg, Godet. The interpretation which has recently, after Erasmus, Bucer, and several others, become current,’ that év a7. is not different from év +9 a/yOeia, ver. 17, is erroneous, because the article is wanting which here, in the retrospec- tive reference to the truth already defined with the article,was absolutely necessary ; for of an antithesis ‘‘ to the state of being in which the disciples would find themselves outside of this” (Luthardt), the text suggests nothing, even leaving out of sight the fact that a state of sanctification in such an opposite condition would be inconceivable. Without any ground, appeal is made, in respect of the absence of the article, to i. 14, iv. 24, where truth is expressed as a general conception (comp. viii. 44) (Sir. xxxvii. 15 ; Tob. iii. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii, 25, iii, 7), and to 8 John 8,‘ where év adn3. must be taken as equivalent to aA79d¢,° and consequently as in the present passage and as in 8 John 1.
2 See on 2 Cor. loc. eft. ; LXX. 2 Reg. xix. 17 (where, however, év is doubtful); Sir. vil. 90; Pind. O#. vil. 126.
® In so far as they understand ¢» aAyed. of the true aydgeo da, in which. however, they find an antithesis to the /ypical holiness of the O. T. sacrifice, as ¢. g. Euth. Zigabenus: iva cai avroi Sot redupdvos ev dAndiyy Ouaie: h yap voucnh Ovoia riwos hr, ox aAjdaca, Comp. Theophylact ; also Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenta. p. 421.
3 Liicke, Tholuck (?), Olshausen, de Wette, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Lange, Brickner,
Ewald.
“ Ver. 418, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be read éy rf aAnd.
* The passage means: “] rejoiced when brethren came and gave witness for Thy truth (i.e. for Thy morally true Christian constitution of life), as Thou truly (in deed) walkeat.”” xadwes, «.7.X., that is, not forming a part of that testimony of the brethren, gives to this testimony the confirmation of John himself. As the brothers have testi- fied for Galjus, so he actually walks. This John knows, and the brethren have told
470 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 20, 21. In His prayer for the disciples for their preservation and sanc- tification (vv. 11-19), Jesus now also includes aU who' shall believe on Him * through the apostles’ word (dia row xyptypatog airév, Euth. Zigabenus). The purpose for which He also includes these : that all (all my believing on the apostles and the others) may be one (ethically, in likeness of disposition, of love, of endeavour, etc., on the ground of faith, comp. Eph. iv. 3 ff. ; Rom. xv. 5,6; Acts iv. 32). — This ethical unity of all believers, to be specifical- ly ‘Christian,* must correspond as to its original type (xafdc) to the reciprocal Sellowship between the Father and the Son (according to which the Father lives and moves in the Son, and the Son in the Father, comp. x. 38, xiv. 10, 11,. xv. 5), the object of which, in reference to believers collectively, is, that in them also the Father and the Son may be the element in which they (in virtue of the unio mystica brought about through the Spirit, 1 John i. 3, iv. 13; 1 Pet. i. 4) live and move (iva x. avrol év Huiv dow).—This ethical unity of all believers in fellowship with the Father and the Son, however (comp. Xiii. 35), shall serve to the unbelieving world as an actual proof and ground of convic- tion that Christ, the grand central point and support of this unity, is none other than the sent of God. ‘‘ That is the fruit which must follow through and from such unity, namely, that Christ’s word shall further break forth and be received in the world as God’s word, wherein stands an almighty, divine, unconquerable power and eternal treasure of all grace and blessed- ness,” Luther, in opposition to which, Calvin (as also Scholten) gets into con- fusion by introducing the doctrine of predestination, making of moretery a reluctant agnoscere. Thus the third iva is subordinated to the first, as intro- ducing its further aim : the second, however, because defining specifically the aim of xa@dc, x.r.A., is related to the first explicatively.
Vv. 22, 23. What He on His part (¢y4) has done in order to bring about this unity of His believing ones and its object—a newly introduced and great thought of the power of His kingdom—not still dependent on dr: (Ewald). — rv défav] The heavenly glory. [See Note LXI. p. 476.] Comp. 1, 5, 24. This, once already possessed by Him before the incarnation, the Father has given to Him, not yet, indeed, objectively, but as a secure posses- sion of the immediate future; He has obtained it from God, assigned asa property, and the actual taking-possession is now for Him close at hand. In like manner has He giren this, His d6fa, in which the eternal (w#, vv. 2, 3, is consummated, to His believing ones (avroic), who will enter on the real possession at the Parousia, where they ovvdogafovra: (Rom. vill. 17), after that they, up to that time, had been saved in hope (Rom. viii. 24). Comp. on Rom. viii. 80. They arein Christ already His joint heirs, and the Spirit which they are to receive will be to them the appafav rij¢ xAnpovopiac (Eph: 1. 14 ; 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5) ; but the actual entrance on the inheritance is accomplished
him nothing new by that testimony, how- ever greatly he has rejoiced in the fact of receiving such a testimony concerning his Gaius. Therefore he adds, with loving reo- ognition, as thou truly walkest. That testi- mony therefore only corresponds to the reality.
1 Comp. Rom. x. 14.
2 wicrevoyvrwy, regarding the future as present.
3“*Non vult concordiam coetus humani, ut est concors civitas Spartana contra Athenienses,’"’ Melanchthon.
CHAP. XVIL., 24. 471 at the Parousia (xiv. 2, 8; Rom. viii. 11; Col. iii. 4). Yet this relation does not justify us in interpreting d:déva: as destinare (Gabler, B. Crusius), or at least déduxa as constitus dare (Grotius), while the explanations also which take dééa of the glory of the apostolic office in teaching and working miracles,' or of the inner glory of the Christian life,* of the life of Christ in © believers, in accordance with Gal. ii. 20 (Hengstenberg), of sonship (Bengel),* of love (Calovius, Maldonatus), of grace and truth, i. 14,‘ are opposed to the context. See immediately, ver. 24. —iva dow év, x.r.A.] For what a strong bond of unity must lie in the sure warrant of fellowship in eternal déga ! - Comp. Eph. iv. 4. — éy év abroig x. ot ev tuoi] Not out of connection with the construction (de Wette), since it fits into it ; nor again beginning a new proposition, and to be completed by ciy/,* since thus the discourse on the 66a would be, in opposition to the context (see ver. 24), interrupted ; but an appositional separation from syyeic, from which it is therefore, with Lach- mann and Tischendorf, to be divided only by acomma. In #yeic is con- tained : é)@ xai ov, and both are pragmatically, 7.e. in demonstration of the specific internal relation of the é» eiva: of believers to the oneness of the Fa- ther and the Son, thus expounded : J moving in them, and Thouin me. In accordance with this appositional, more minute definition, the iva dow ev is again taken up with’ liveliness and weight (‘‘ see how His mouth overflows with the same words,” Luther), and that in the expression containing the highest degree of intensity: iva dot rereAecopévor cig év, that they may be com- | pleted to one (to one unity), be united in complete degree. cic in the sense of the result.’ — iva y:vdoxy 6 xéapoc, «.7.A.} Parallel to iva 6 xdapuoeg morebon, ver, 21, adding to faith the knowledge connected therewith (conversely, ver. 8), and then completing the expression of the happy result to be attained by the designation of the highest divine love, of which the believer is conscious in that knowledge. We are not even remotely to think of the ‘‘ forced con- viction of rebels” (Godet) ; against this vv. 2, 8 already declare, and here the entirecontext. Note rather how the glance of the praying Jesus, vv. 21-23, rises to the highest goal of His work on earth, when, namely, the xéopoc shall have come to believe, and Christ Himself shall have become in fact 6 owrnp Tow kéopov (iv. 42, comp. x. 16). This at the same time against the supposition of metaphysical dualism in Hilgenfeld. —x. wyémnoag, x.7.A4.] and hast loved them (as a matter of fact, through this sending of me) as Thou hast lored me, therefore with the same Fatherly love which I have experienced from Thee. Comp. iii. 16 ; Eph. i. 6; Rom. v. 5, viii. 32.
Ver. 24. What He has already bestowed on them, but as yet as a posses-
1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, and, but with intermixture of other elements, Euth. Ziga- benus, Erasmus, Vatablus, Grotius, and several others, including Paulus and Klee.
* Olshausen, comp. Geass, p. 244.
2 Comp. Godet, who refers to Rom. vil.
29. ‘ Luthardt, Ebrard, a part also of Tho- luck’s and Brtickner's interpretation. *The &fe is explained away also by
Welzs&oker in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 18357, p. 181. It is said to be substantially the same as the Acyor, ver. 14.
* Augustine, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- benus, Beda, Bera, Bengel, and several others, fncluding Luthardt.
* Comp. passages like Plato, Philed. p.18B: Tedevray Te éx wavTey eis éy ; Dem. p. 968. 14: ais iy Pidioua ravrea wdyTa cuvecxevacay,
472 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
sion of hope (ver. 22), He wills (@éAw) that they may also partake of in reality. He does not merely wish it,’ but the Son prays in the consciousness of the authority bestowed on Him by the Father according to ver. 2, for the commu- nication of eternal life to His own. This consciousness is that of the most intimate confidence and clearest accord with the Father. Previously He had said épwrd ; ‘‘nunc inerementum sumit oratio,” Bengel. The idea of the jinal will, however (Godet), is not to be introduced here. — The relative defining clause is placed first emphatically, because justifying the 6¢20 in its contents. This is neuter (4, see the critical notes), by which the persons (éxeivor, 7.6, the disciples and all believers, ver. 20) are designated in abstracto, according to their category (comp. ver. 2, vi. 37), and the force of déduxdc pot, which is a motive cause to the granting of the prayer, becomes more prominent in and of itself. —iva] Purpose of @éAu (they should, etc.), and with this its contents; see on Luke vi. 81.— dmov ciui éyd, Kaneivor, x.7.A.] shall be realized at the Parousia.* See on xiv. 8, also on dvaorhow air, x.7.A., vi. 39. —Oewpdo1] may behold, experimentally, and with personal participa- tion, a8 ovvdogachévtec, Rom. viii. 17, 29, and ovuPaorevovrec, 2 Tim. ii. 12. The opposite : behold death, viii. 51.* Against the interpretation that the beholding of the glory of Christ in itself (its reflection, as it were) constitutes blessedness,‘ ver. 22 testifies, although it is also essentially included in it, 1 John iii. 2; Heb. xii. 14.—4v éduxdg pot, Sri, x.7.A.] Further added, in childlike feeling of gratitude, to ry éufy, and that proleptically (comp. isi), because the Lord is on the point of entering into this glory (ver. 1), as if He had already received it (comp. ver. 22): which Thou gavest me, because (motive of the édux.) Thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world (xpo xar. x. not belonging to édux. p., a8 Paulus and B. Crusius think). The défa of Christ, as the /éyo¢ dcapxoc (ver. 5), was, according to the mode of view and expression of the N. T., not one imparted to Him from love, but in vir- tue of the ontologically Trinitarian relation to the Father,® that which per- tained with metaphysical necessity to the Son in the unity of the divine nature, the pop¢?) Geov, which He as 6ed¢ Adyoc, i. 1, had, being from eternity eternally with the Father (ver. 5) ; whereas the glory ere intended is in His exaltation after the completion of His work, since it concerned His entire person, including its human side, that gicen to Him by the Father from love (Phil. ii. 9), from that love, however, which did not originate in time, but was cherished by the Father toward the Son before the foundation of the world. The dé&a possessed by Jesus before His incarnation, to which for the most part (as still Luthardt, Ebrard, Hengstenberg) reference is wrongly
1 Against Beza, Calvin, B. Crusius, Tho- Jack. Ewald.
2 The intermediate state denoted in Phil. i. 28 (see in loc.) is not meant (Hengstenberg), nor a pert of the meaning (Godet), but as what follows shows, the completed fellow- ship of glory. Comp. 1 John ili. 2.
® Baur thus explains away the historical sense: “They behold this glory, see it in reality before them, ff in them, through the cu:nmunication of the true God consclous-
ness, and of the eterna! life thereby condi- tioned, through which they have become one with Jesus and the Father, just as He is one with the Father, the divine principle (fo this, according to Baur, dé3wea, ver. 22, refers) has realized itself as that which it is in itself.’’
4 Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus.
6’ Comp. J. Miller, Ven der Sinde, M1. p. 183 f,
CHAP. XVII., 25, 26. 4%3
made, whereby, according to ver. 5, idwxac would have to be conceived of as brought about through the generation of the yovoyevfc, was the purely divine ; that given to Him through His exaltation is indeed the same, into which He now again has entered, but, because it isthe glory of the Adyoo évaapKoc, theanthropic in eternal perfection (Phil. ii. 9). Comp. on ver. 5, i. 14. Nowhere in the N. T. is the premundane dééa of the Son, designated as given to Him (Phil. ii. 6 ; Col. i. 15 5; 2Cor. viii. 9), although this would be imaginable in and of itself as an eternal sclf-communication of Fatherly love. Further, it is strangely incorrect that the déa, which the Father has given to the Son, has been explained here differently from that in ver. 22. — The love of the Father to the Son before the foundation of the world implies the personal pre-existence of the latter with God, but is not reconcilable with the idea of the pre-temporal ideal existence which He has had in God, as the archetype of humanity. This in answer to Beyschlag, p. 87, who considers the relation as analogous to the eternal election of grace, Eph. i. 4, Rom. viii. 29 ; which is not appropriate, since the clection of grace concerns those as yet not in eristence, namely, future believers, whom God rpoéyvw as future. The Son, however, whom He loved, must personally exist with the Father, since it was in Christ that the motive already lay for the election of grace (see on Eph. i. 4). Comp. also on ver. 5. To suppose that God, according to the present passage, had loved His own ideal of hu- manity before the foundation of the world, the idea consequently of His own thought, is an idea without any analogy in the N. T., and we thereby arrive at an anthropopathic self-love, as men form to themselves an ideal, and are glad to attain it.
Vv. 25, 26. Conclusion of the prayer : Appeal to the righteousness of God, for, after that which Jesus here states of Himself and of the disciples in Opposition to the world, it becomes the righteous Father not to leave un- granted what Jesus has just declared, ver. 24, to be His will (@é4u, iva, x.7.4.). Otherwise the final recompense would fail to come, which the divine righteousness (1 John i. 9) has to give to those who are so raised, as expressed in ver. 25, above the world ; the work of divine holiness, ver. 11, would remain without its closing judicial consummation and revelation. — xal 6 xéopoc, «.t.A.] The apparent inappropriateness of the xai, from which also its omission in D. Vulg. e¢ al., is to be explained, is not removed by placing, with Grotius and Lachmann, only a comma after ver. 24, and allowing xa) 6 xécpuog ce oix Eyvw to run with what precedes, since this thought does not fit into this logical connection, and the address rdrep dixace, accord- ing to the analogy of ver. 11, leads us to recognize the introductory sen- tence of a prayer. According to Bengel and Ebrard, xa?... xai, et... et, correspond to one another, which, however, is allowed neither by the antithetic character of the conceptions, nor the manifest reference of the second xaf to éy® dé Following Heumann, de Wette, Liicke, Tholuck
Comp. Brfiickner and Ebrard. Euth. the N. T. this mode of presentation is un- Zigabenus: rhv 8dfay ris Oedrnros, hv Sébuxag supported; in ver. 26, to which Johansson fot, ox ws éAdrrom % vorepoyeve:, AAA we appeals, éwxew fn truth refers first to tho a.Teos, etrovwy ws yeyvioas we. But in time of the sending into the worl.
Ata THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
make xai correspond to the following dé, so that two simultaneously occur- ring but contrasted relations' would be indicated : ‘‘ whilst the world knew Thee not, yet I knew Thee.” Not to be justified on grammatical grounds ; for ré... dé,” but never «ai... dé, is thus employed, and the passages of that kind adduced by Liicke from Plato® are not in point ; in other passages ‘ xai is the simply connective and, without reference to the subsequent dé. The xai in the present passage is rather the and serving to link on an antithetic relation (and notwithstanding), and is particularly fre- quent in John, see on vii. 28. Had Jesus said : rdrep, dixacog el, xai 6 xéopo¢, x.t.A., then xai would have been free from any difficulty. Neverthe- less, the connection and its expression arethe same. Christ is, in the address wdrep dixae, absorbed in the thought of the justice of God now invoked by Him, the thought, therefore, of this self-revelation of God, which was so easily to be recognized (Rom. i. 18 ff.), in spite of which the world, in its blinded security, has not known Him (comp. Rom. i. 28), and gives expression to this latter thought in painfully excited emotion (Chrysostom : duc yepatywr), immediately connecting it by xaf with the address. After dr. dixase we miay suppose a pause, a break in the thought : Righteous Father—(yea, such Thou art ') and (and yet) the world knew Thee not/* Luthardt also, with Briickner’s concurrence, takes xai as and yet, but so that it stands in opposi- tion to the revelation of God through Christ previously (see ver. 22) stated. Too indefinite, and leaving ‘without reason the characteristic rdrep dixace out of reference. —éyvw] namely, from Thy displays in my words and deeds ; éyvwy, on the other hand (Nonnus : obygurog Zyvwv), refers to the immediate knowledge which the Son had in His earthly life of the Father moving in Him, and revealing Himself through Him. Comp. viii. 54,55. Not with- out reason does Jesus introduce His éyd dé ce éyvwy between the xdéopoc and the disciples, because He wills that the disciples should be where He is (ver. 24), which, however, presupposes a relative relation of equality be- tween Him and them, as over against the world. — otra] Glancing at the disciples. — dre od pe azéor.] The specific element, the central point of the knowledge of God, of which the discourse treats ; deixvvocy évravOa, pndiva eidéra Qedv, aan’ h pdvov tovg tov vidv éreyvuxérac, Chrysostom. Comp. vv. 8, 28, xvi. 27, et al. —Ver. 26. Whereby this ¢ywoay has been effected (comp. ver. 7), and will be completely cffected (;»wpicw, through the Paraclete : wai . . . xai, both . . . and also), that (purpose of the yvupiow) the love with which Thou hast loced me (comp. ver. 24) may be in
1 Hence also the reading : «i cai 6 «. o. ove €yvw, add’ éyw, «.7.A., Which is found not merely in Hippolytus, but also in the Con- stitt, Ap. 8.1. 1.
2 Kfihner, ITI. p. 418: Hartung, Partikel. I. p. 92 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 741 f.
3 Jenex. p. 235 E (where «ai dAAovs means also others, and Zryz. p. 803 E (where «ai eAaxetora is only also the least.
4 As Soph. Ant. 428.
§ This interpretation Is followed also by Hengstenberg. But Ewald places «ai o
xéopos tO yvupiow, ver. 26, in a parenthesis, and then takes iva } aydry, «.r.A., still as the contents of 3éAw, ver. 24. How broken thus becomes the calm, clear flow of the prayer! According to Baeumlein, the parallel clauses would properly be xai é¢yss oé éyvwy Kai ovTo éypwcay; but there is thus interpolated before the first clause a con- trasted clause, which properly should have pév, 80 that then the main thought follows with 8é Alike arbitrary, but yet more contorted, is the arrangement of Godet.
CHAP. XVIL, 25, 26. AYS them, 4.6. may rule in their hearts,’ and with this—for Christ, communicat- ing himself through the Spirit, is the supporter of the divine life in believers, * —Iin them. On ayérny ayarav, see on Eph. ii. 4. So rich in promise and elevating with the simply grand ‘‘ and I in them,” dies away the word of prayer, and in the whole ministry and experience of the apostles was it ful- filled, As nothing could separate them from the love of God in Christ (Rom. viii. 89), Christ thus remained in them through the Spirit, and they have conquered far and wide through Him who loved them.
Nore.—The originality of the high-priestly prayer stands upon the same foot- ing with that of the longer discourses of Jesus generally in the Evangelist John. The substance of the contents is original, but the reproduction and vivid remodelling, such as could not come forth from the Johannean individu- ality, with which the recollection had grown up, otherwise than with quite a Johannean stamp. Along with this, however, in reference to contents and form, considering the peculiarly profound impression which the prayer of this solemn moment must necessarily have made upon the spirit and memory of that very disciple, a superior degree of fidelity of recollection and power of render- ing must be assumed. How often may these last solemn words have stirred the soul of John! To this corresponds also the self.consciousness, as childlike as it is simple and clear in its elevation, the victorious rest and peace of this prayer, which is the noblest and purest pearl of devotion in the whole N. T. ‘‘For plain and simple as it sounds, so deep, rich, and wide it is, that none can fathom it,’’ Luther. Spener never ventured to preach upon it, because he felt that its true understanding exceeded the ordinary measure of faith ; but he caused it to be read to him three times on the evening before his death, see his Lebensbeschr. by Canstein, p. 145 ff. The contrary view, that it is a later idealizing fiction of a dogmatic and metaphysical kind (Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Scholten), is indeed a necessary link in the chain of controversy on the originality of the Johannean history generally, but all the more untena- ble, the more unattainable, the depth, tenderness, intensity, and loftiness here sustained from beginning to end, must have been for a later inventor. But to deny the inward truth and splendour of the prayer (see especially Weisse, II. p. 294), is a matter evincing a critically corrupt taste and judgment. The con- Jlict of soul in Gethsemane, so soon after this prayer which speaks of overcoming the world and of peace, is, considering the pure humanity of Jesus (which was not forced into stoical indifference), psychologically too conceivable, not, indeed, as a voluntary undergoing in his own person of all the terrors of death coming from a world’s sin (Hengstenberg), but rather from the change of feelings and dispositions in the contemplation of death, and of such a death, to be made to pass as an historical contradiction to chap. xvii. See on Matt., note after xxvi. 46. John himself relates nothing of the crisis of this final agony ; but this is connected with the genera] character of his selection from the
3? Comp. Rom. v. 5. Bengel aptly remarks : “sl cor tpsorum theatrum sit et palacsira Aujus amoris,” namely, 6a sve¥paros ayiov, Rom. ic. According to Hengstenberg (comp. also Welss, p. 80), Jesus merely intends to say: “‘that Thou mayest love them with the love with which Thou hast
loved me.” But this does not sult the ex- pression éy avrois 3, either in itself or in the parallel relation to «déyw év atrois. An inward efficacious presence must be there- by intended.
3 xiv. Wff.; Rom. vill, 10; Gal. Hi. 2; Eph. ffi, 17.
476 ; THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
evangelical material, and he might be determined inthis matter particularly by the account already given of the similar fact, xii. 23 ff., which he only adduces, while the conflict in the garden was already a common property of scriptural tra- dition (comp. also Heb. v. 7), which he as little needed to repeat as the institution of the Lord’s Supper and many other things. That this final agony had not for John the importance and historic reality which it had for the Synoptics, is, considering the free selection which he has made out of the rich material of his recollection, a hasty conclusion.! The historic reality of the Gospel facts, if nothing essential is otherwise opposed to them, is not affected by the silence of John.
Nores By AMERICAN EpIror.
LVI. Vv. 1-8.
Meyer regards the prayer of Jesus for His glorification as extending from ver. 1 to 5; Weiss, with Liicke, de Wette, and Ebrard, regards it as extending to ver. 8, thus including the backward glance over the completion of His earthly work, upon which the prayer for His glorification rests.
LVI. ‘ The hour.’’ Ver. 1.
According to Meyer, the hour of His death (but as a transition to His Father). Weiss : not properly the hour of His death, but the hour upon which open the words now following, and in which His glorification finds its allotted place.
LIX. ‘ Thee the only true God . . . Jesus Christ.” Ver. 4.
Meyer takes these as predicative: ‘‘thee as the only true God. and Jesus as Christ.” Weiss, more correctly, I think, as apposition (as Eng. Ver.).
LX. ‘‘ And all mine are thine, and thine are mine.” Ver, 10.
This clause should, with Meyer, be placed in parenthesis ; it is an incidental expansion of the idea into universality. As it stands, the Eng. Ver. (including the Rev.) obscures or misrepresents the meaning of the following avroic, which certainly refers only to the disciples.—Observe the remarkable za oa éud, all thal is thine is mine—irreconcilable, it would seem, with anything but essential Deity.
LXI. ‘ And the glory which thou hast given me I have given them.” Ver. 22.
Meyer refers this to ‘‘ the heavenly glory” given in promise and anticipation to all His people. Weiss thinks that the perf. dédwxa, have given, precludes it from being applied to the zdvre¢ of ver. 21, and that therefore its only proper reference, as Christ’s revelation of His glory in His own works of power cannot be well called a giving (d:Séva), is to that wonder-working power which He has bestowed upon His disciples. Meyer's view seems right.
1 In answer to Baur, in the 7heol. Jahrd. 1854, p. 224.
CHAP. XVIII. 437
CHAPTER XVIII.
Ver. 1. The Recepta ray xédpwy has the preponderance of testimony, Griesb. Scholz, Lachm., following A. 8. 4. Verss. Hier. Ambr. have rou xedpov ; Tisch., following D. &. 2 Cod. of It. Sah. Copt. : rov xédpov. The reading rov xedpov is to be preferred, since we cannot suppose that John somehow connected the name {7111p with xédpo¢ or xédpoy, a8 was done in 2 Sam. xv. 23 and 1 Kings xv. 13, LAX. — Ver. 4. é&eA90y elev] B. C.* D. Curss. Verss. Or. Syr. Chrys. Aug. : Ef; A9ev nal Aéyer. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly ; the Recepia is an alteration after ver. 1, which was made, because what was intended by 飣770e» was not distinguished from that expressed by it in ver. 1. — Ver. 6. dr:] which, though deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., has very important witnesses for and against it ; yet how readily would it come to be omitted after ver. 5!—Ver. 10. driov} Tisch. : drdprov, after B. C.* L. X. &., which (comp. also on Mark xiv. 47) is the more to be preferred, that the better known orioy is found in Matt. — Ver. 11, After paya:p. Elz. has oov., against decisive witnesses, from Matt. xxvi. 52. — Ver. 13. uvrév] has against it witnesses of such importance, that Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. deleted it. But, unnecessary jn itself, how readily might it be passed over after the similar final sound of the preceding word ! — Ver. 14. azodéoSa:] Lachm. Tisch. ; dro$aveiv. The witnesses are very much divided. azo. is from xi. 50. — Ver. 15. dAAoc] Elz. Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. : 6 di40¢. The article is wantingin A. B. D. 8. Curss., but retains, notwithstand- ing, a great weight of testimony, and might readily come to be omitted, Rince it appeared to have no reference here. — Ver. 20. Instead of the first tAdAnoa, AeAdAnxa (Lachm. Tisch.) is so decisively attested, that the Aor. appears to have been introduced in conformity with the following aorists. — The article before cvvay. is decidedly condemned by the evidence (against Elz). — Instead of the second zdvrore, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have vdvrec, which is to be preferred, on account of preponderant testimony, und because raévrore might readily be mechanically repeated from the preceding mdévrore ; révrojev (Elz.) rests on conjecture (Beza) and Curss. —Ver. 21. éepur. ; éxepor.] The simple forms (Lachm. Tisch.) are preponderantly attested. The compound forms were readily introduced through the concurrence of the two E's («EEpor.),in recollection of ver. 7. — Ver. 22. Read with Lachm. Tisch., according to B. &. It. Vualg. Cyr. ele rapecr. roy in. Various transpositions in the Codd. — Ver. 24. After aréor., Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have otv, which has im- portant witnesses for and against it. Since, however, other Codd. read dé, and several Verss. express «ai, any particle is to be regarded asa later connective addition, — The same various connective particles are found inserted in Codd. and Verss., after #pvneuro, ver. 25, — Ver. 28. rput] Elz. Scholz: rputa, against decisive testimony. But how readily might the guite unnecessary Iva dis- appear ! — Ver. 29. After :Adrog Lachm. and Tisch. have ?fw (B. C.* L. X. &. Curss. Verss.), which other witnesses first place after airotc. This different position, and the importance of the omitting witnesses, show it to be an inter-
478 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
polation, with a view to greater definiteness of designation. — xard] is deleted by Tisch., according to B, %.* alone. Being unnecessary, it was passed over. — Ver. 34. avr after amexp. in Elz. is decisively condemned by the witnesses.— Ver. 37. éydé. "Eyo] The omission of one #0 (Lachm. has bracketed the second, Tisch. has deleted the first) is not sufficiently justified by B. D. L. Y. &. Curss. Verss. Fathers, since the omission was so readily suggested in copying, if the weight of the repeated éyo was not observed.
Vv. 1, 2. "E&9A6c] from Jerusalem, where the meal, xiii. 2, had been held. The dywpev évrevOev, xvi. 31, was now first carried out ; see in loc.: wépay rov yey. then expresses : whither He went ; see on vi. 1. —rov Kedpév] Genit. of apposition.’ It is a torrent dry in summer? ({)"7p, i.¢. niger, black stream), flowing eastward from the city through the valley of the same name.* As to the name, comp. the very frequent Greek name of rivers, MéAac.* — xgroc] According to Matt. xxvi. 36, a garden of the landed estate of Gethsem- ane. The owner must be conceived as being friendly to Jesus. — ar: roAAdatc, x.T.A.] points back to earlier festal visits, and is a more exact statement of detail, of which John has many in the history of the passion. We see from the contents that Jesus offered Himself with conscious freedom to the final crisis. Comp. ver. 4. — Typological references (Luthardt, after older exposi- tors : to David, who, when betrayed by Ahithophel, had gone the same way, 2 Sam. xv. 23; Lampe, Hengstenberg, following the Fathers: to Adam, who in the garden incurred the penalty of death) are without any indication in the text.
Ver. 3. The ozeipa is the Roman cohort,® designated by the article as the well-known band, namely, because serving as the garrison of the fort Antonia, distinguished by what follows from the company of officers of justice appoint- ed on the part of the Sanhedrim, and not to be explained of the Levitical temple-watch.* That Judas arrived with the whole orcipa is, as being dispro- portionate to the immediate object (against Hengstenberg), not probable ; but a division, ordered for the present service, especially as the chiliarch him- sclf was there (ver. 12), represented the cohort.” Of this co-operation of the Roman military, for which the Sanhedrim had made requisition, the Synop- tics say nothing, although Hengstenberg takes pains to find indications of it in their narrative. John’s account is more complete. — gavév x. Aaux.] with torches and lamps (the latter in lanterns ; Matt. xxv. 1 ff.).° Extreme precau-
12 Pet. if. 6, comp. réAts "A@yvey and the ness of popular information. We have
like.
2 ye(uappos, Hom. J2. xi. 498; Soph. Ant. 708; Plat. Legg. v. p. 786 A; Joseph. Anté. viii. 1. 5.
3 See Robinson, II. p. 81 ff.; Ritter, Zrdk. XV. 1, p. 598 ff.
‘Herod. vii. 58. 198; Strabo, vill. p. 386, et al.
5’ See Matt. xxvii. 27; Acts xxi. 81: Polyb- xi. 28, i. 6, xxiv. 8 ff.; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 458 f.
® Michaelis, Kuinoel, Gurlitt, Lect. in av, 7. Spee. TV. 1805, B. Crusius, Baeumlein.
™ This is quite sufficient for the inexact-
hence neither to understand a mantpulus (i.e. the third part of the cohort), for which an appeal is erroneously made to Polyb. xi. 28. 1, nor, generally, a dand, a detachment of soldiers (2 Macc. vii. 23, xii. 22; Judith xiv. 11). Not the latter, because it is Roman military that are spoken of ; not the former, because although Polybius elsewhere em- ploys omeipa as equivalent to manipulus (see Schweighiuser, Zex. p. 559), yet a whole maniple (some 200 men) would here be too many. , ® Comp. Dion. H. xi. 40.
CHAP. XVIII., 4—6. 479
tion renders this preparation conceivable even at the time of full moon. The arms are, as a matter of course, carried by the soldiers, not by the trnpéra:, and are mentioned as helping to complete the picture. — The xai’s are not accumulated (Luthardt), not one of them is unnecessary.
Vv. 4, 5. This advance of Judas occasioned (oiv) Jesus to come forth, since He knew all that was about to come upon Him, and at the same time was far removed from any intention of withdrawing Himself from His destiny, of which He was fully and clearly conscious. — ipyeo@a:, of destinies, happy (Matt. x. 13) and unhappy (Matt. xxiii. 35),’ in the classics more frequent- ly with the dative,* than with éxi. — éf7Afev (see the critical notes) :. from the garden, ver. 1, Nonnus : xjrov édoag. The context yields no other mean- ing, and ver. 26 is not opposed to it. Hence not : from the garden-house,* or from the depth of the garden,‘ or from the circle of disciples.* — elorhxec 5: xat "Iotdac, «.7.A.] Tragic feature in the descriptive picture of this scene, without any further special purpose in view. Tholuck arbitrarily remarks : John wished to indicate the effrontery of Judas ; and Hengstenberg : he wished to guard against the false opinion that the ¢yé ciuz was intended to convey to the officers something unknown tothem. This he could surely have expressed in few words, — The kiss of Judas (Matt. xxvi. 47 ff.), instead of which John gives the above personal statement (as Strauss indeed thinks: for the glorification of Jesus), is not thereby excluded, is too characteristic znd too well attested to be ascribed to tradition, and cannot have followed (Ewald) the question of Jesus (ver. 4), but, inasmuch as the immediate effect of the éyd eiue did not permit of the interruption of the kiss, must have pre- ccled, so that immediately on the coming forth of Jesus from the garden, Judas stepped forward, kissed Him, and then again fell back to the band. Accordingly, John, after the one factor of the betrayal, namely the kiss, had been already generally disseminated in tradition, brings into prominence the other also, the personal statement ; hence this latter is not to be ascribed merely to the Johannean Jesus (Hilgenfeld, Scholten).
Ver. 6. They gave way,—drew back (see on vi. 66), and fell to the earth, (yapuai = yayatle, very frequently in the classics also); this was regarded, first by Oeder,* and recently by most expositors,’ as a natural consequence of terror and of sudden awe, in support of which reference is made to the (weaker) analogies from the history of M. Antonius,® of Marius,® and even of Coligny ; while Briickner conceives of the effect at least as ‘‘ scarcely purely human.” Lange, in like manner, deduces it from terror of conscience, and finds the miracle only in the fact that it was not unexpected by the Lord, and not undesigned by Him. But, presumptively, the very falling to the ground, and the designating those who fell generally and without exception, thus including with the rest the Roman soldiers, justifies the ancient com-
1 Aesch, Pers. 436, 439; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. * Miscell. sacr. p. 508 ff.
I. p. 686 f. 7 Including Licke, Tholuck, Olshausen, 2 Thuo. vill. 96.1. . de Wette, B. Crusius, Ewald, Bacumlein. * Rosenmifiller, Ewald. ® Val. Max. vili. 9. 2. ¢ Tholuck, Maier, de Wette, Luthardt. * Vellelus Paterc. fl. 19. 3.
* Schweizer, Lange, Dengstenberg.
4S0 TIIE GOSPEL OF JOIN.
mentators, followed by Strauss (who, however, with Scholten, views the matter as unhistoricai), Ebrard, Maier, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet, in regarding it as a miraculous result of the power of Christ (Nonnus : oiotpybév- reg arevyxéi Aai2amt duvz¢). Christ wished, before His surrender, to make known His might over His foes, and thus show the voluntariness of His surrender. He could remain free, but He is willing to surrender Himself, because He knows His hour is come, xvii. 1.
Vv. 8, 9. Jesus guarded against the seizure at the same time of the dis- ciples. That hands had already been laid on them,' the text does not say. He should and would suffer alone. —iva rAnp. x.t.a.] Divinely-determined object of arexpify, in reference to the words ei ovv, x.7r.A. John discovers in the saying, xvii. 12 (the quoting of which, without verbal exactness, should be noted as an instance of the free mode of citation in the N. T.), a prophet- ic reference to the preservation of the disciples from being taken prisoners along with Him, in so far, that is, as the Lord, in virtue of this protection, brought none of them into destruction, namely, through the apostasy to which any captured with him would have been exposed. This prophetic reference (against Schweizer’s and Scholten’s severe judgment) is justified by the fact that Jesus, in xvii. 12, delivers a closing avowal of His acting on the disciples’ behalf ; consequently, that which is still further to be done on their behalf must be conformable to that declaration, and appear as the fulfil- ment, as the actual completion of what was therein expressed.
Vv. 10, 11. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 51 ff., and parall. —otv] In consequence of this danger, which he now saw for Jesus. On its position between Liz. and TWérp., comp. xxi. 7.—Only John here names Peter, and also Malchus,* Personal considerations, which may have kept the names so far away from the earliest tradition, that they are not adduced even by Luke, could now no longer have influence. — dovAov] slave, therefore none of the officials of the court of justice, ver. 3, but also not the guide of the temple-watch (Ewald). The slave had accompanied the rest, and had pressed forward. — td wrdéptov} not purposely (Hengstenberg), but the blow which was aimed at the head missed. — Cast the sword into the sheath! certainly more original than the calmer and more circumstantial words in Matt.’ In the classics, xo2eb¢.*— 7d xorfp.] Comp. Matt. xx. 22, xxvi. 89. The suffering of death which He must now, in accordance with God’s clearly recognized will and purpose (iii. 14, 15, vi. 51), approach, is the cup to be drunk, which the Father has already given to Him (into His hand) déduxe. — avrd, as in Xv. 2.
Vv. 12-14. Otv] Since no further attempt at resistance dared be made. In the complete statement : the cohort and the tribune,® and the servants, any special design (Luthardt : the previous occurrence, ver. 6, had for its result that now ail helped, in order to secure Him) is not to be supposed, since # oreipa, x.T.2., is the subject not merely of ovvéAaBov and édyoav, but also of anfyayov. Tholuck’s remark, however, is erroneous : that the soldiers had
1 Bongel, B. Crusius, and several others. interpretations.
2A name of frequent occurrence; see 8 On Onxn, sheatn, see Pou. x. 144. Wetstein. In Phot. Bidl. cod. 78, a Sophist 4 Comp. Hom. Od. x. 888 ; coAew pév dop Odo. isso called. Hengstenberg gives artificial 8 § xcAtapxos THs oreipys, Acts xxi. 81.
oo ce J 2 2 2
CHAP, XVIII., 15. 481
now first again (?) united with the Jewish watch. — cvvéAaBov, «.7.A.] A non-essential variation from Matt. xxvi. 50, where the capture takes place before the attempt at defence made on Peter’s part. For idycav, see on Matt. xxvii. 2.—On Annas, see on Luke iii. 1, 2. To him, which circumstance the Synoptics pass over, Jesus was first (rparov) brought, before He was con- ducted to the actual high priest, Caiaphas (ver. 24). An extra-judicial pre- liminary examination had first to be gone through. And Annas had been selected for this purpose because he was father-in-law of the actual high priest (#v yap reviepéc, x.t.2.) 5 thus they believed it to be most certain that he would so act in advance’ as to serve the ends of his son-in-law, who then had to conduct the proper judicial process in the Sanhedrim. Ewald’s assumption,” that Annas was at that time invested with the office of superior judicial examiner (jt IV3 *38), does not correspond to the fundamental statement of John, which merely adduces the relation of father-in-law ; and therefore, also, we are not to say with Wieseler and others (see also Lichten- stein, p. 418 f.), that Annas was president, Caiaphas vice-president of the Sanhedrin ; or that the former still passed as the proper and legitimate high priest (Lange) ; or even that John conceived of an annual exchange of office between Annas and Caiaphas.* Quite arbitrarily, further, do others suppose : the house of Annas lay near to the gate (Augustine, Grotius, and many), or: Jesus was led, as in triumph, first to Annas (Chrysostom, Theo- phylact, and several others). — Ver. 14 points back to xi. 50, on account of the prophetic nature of the saying, which had now come so near its ful- filment. Hence also the significant rov évavrov éxeivov is repeated.
Ver. 15. 'Hxo?0v6e:] correlative to the arfyayov, x.t.A., ver. 18, and the imperfect is descriptive. —6 GAA. yab.] The other disciple known to the reader, whom Ido not name. Self-designation ; not a citizen of Jerusalem (Gro- tius), not Judas Iscariot (Heumann), not some unknown person (Augustine, Calovius, Calvin, Gurlitt). Only the first rendering corresponds to the article, and to John’s peculiar manner. A tendency to elevate John above Peter is here as little to be found as in xx. 2, 8 (Weizsicker would conclude from this passage that a scholar of John was the writer) ; it is a simple re- production of the contents of the history. — yrucrdc] whence and how is unde- termined. Nonnus : '76uj36Aou rapa réyvnyc ; Ewald : because he was related to the priestly stock (see Introd. § 1) ; Hengstenberg : from earlier relig- ious necessities. yvworéc does not mean related. — 7 apyepei, and then rov apxteptwe, cannot, after any. avr. mpog "Avvav, ver. 13, and fxoAofOe, x.1.A., ver, 15, refer to Caiaphas, but, as Ewald also assumes, though Baecumlein groundlessly disputes it, only to Annas, as the high pricst (he had been so, and still enjoyed the title, see Luke iii. 2 ; Actsiv. 5), to whom Jesus was brought. The remark on the acting apyiep. Caiaphas (d¢ fv, vv. 18, 14) was only an intermediate observation, which the reference demanded by the course of the history of apzep. to Annas cannot alter. Accordingly, both the fol- lowing denial of Peter (vv. 16-18) and the examination (vv. 19-21) and
1 Comp. Steinmeyer, Leidenagesch. p. 115f. 3 Scholten ; comp. on xi 49. 9 Gesch. Chr. p. B02.
482 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the maltreatment (vv. 22, 23), took place in the dwelling of Annas. Of the synoptic examination before Cainphas, John gives no account, and only briefly indicates in ver. 24 that Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas ; a step which followed after the examination before Annas, presupposing as well known the trial before Caiaphas, which took place after this sending away. On the second and third denials, which are likewise to be placed in the court of Annas, see on ver. 25. This exegetical result, according to which John docs not give any account of the hearing in the presence of Caiaphazs, ‘ but indicates a; the locality of the three denials the court of Annas (see on Matt., note after xxvi. 75), is opposed to the older and modern system of harmonizing,* according to which, if one common court be not assigned to the dwellings of the two high priests (so again Hengstenberg in particular : comp. on ver, 24), the leading away to Caiaphas is already presupposed in ver. 15, and then ver. 24 is disposed of with forced arbitrariness, partly on critical, partly on exegetical grounds ; sec on ver. 24. The above exegetical conclu- sion is confirmed even on harmonistic principles, namely, from the side of the examination, by the fact that vv. 19-21 present no resemblance at all to the Synoptic examination before Caiaphas, as also that there is no trace in John of judicial proceedings before the Sanhedrim. Further, we are not to con- clude, from the silence of the Synoptics as to the examination before Annas, that they knew nothing of it (Schweizer) ; but because it was no judicial examination, it might casily fall into the background in the circle of tra- dition followed by them. On the other side, the credibility of John (against Weisse) must turn the scale as well in favour of the historical character of the above examination as of the occurrence of the three denials in the court of Annas, without granting that the Synoptic and Johannean denials are to be counted together asso many different ones, beyond the number of three (Paulus). But when Baur takes the account of the examination in Annas’ presence to proceed from the design of strengthening the testimony of the unbelief of the Jews by the condemnatory judgment of the two high priests, and* of bringing into prominence the surrender of Jesus by the
3 Considering that this examination was well known from the older Gospels, of which he was fully aware, it was quite suf- ficient for him to recall the recollection of it simply by the observation inserted in ver. 24—a proof of his independence of the Synoptics. Others have sought to explain the silence of John on the examination before Caiaphas differently, but in a more arbitrary manner, as ¢.g. Schweizer: that after ver. 14 this examination appeared to the apostle as a mere formality not worth consideration. But as the judicial process proper, it was nevertheless the principal examination. According to Brtickner, John has directed his principal aim to the denial of Peter and to the proccedings be- fore Pilate. But this needed not, neverthe- leas, to have led him to be entirely silent on the examination before Caiaphas. Accord-
ing to Schenkel, Jesus, according to the present Gospel, underwent no examinalion at all before Caiaphas. But why then does John relate that Jesus was led away to Caiaphas? According to Scholten, John has kept silence regarding the examination before the latter in order not to cause Jesus to make the confession that He was the (Jewish) Messiah, Matt. xxvi. 64. As if this would have required the omission of the whole history! And the confession of Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 64, ts sublime enough even for John.
2 Cyril, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others, including Lfiicke, Tholuck, Klee, de Wette. Maier, Baeumlein ; also Brandes, Annas ts. Pilat., Lemgo 1860. Seein opposition, Weiss in the Lit. Bl. d. alig. K. Z. 1860, Nr. 89.
3 Theol. Jahrod. 1854, p. 285.
—— Ve ore Ws 249 Oo =
CHAP. XVIIL., 16-21. . 483
Jewish authority into the hands of the Roman, as brought about by both high priests, this is opposed by the fact, setting aside the entirely inci- dental manner in which Caiaphas is mentioned, ver. 24, and the arbitrary character of such inventions generally, that John as little mentions a sen- tence delivered by Annas as by Caiaphas, which nevertheless suggested itself so naturally in ver. 24, and the place of which xi. 50 by no means supplies, as respects Caiaphas.
Vv. 16-18. Peter, who had no acquaintance in the house, had not been admitted into the court (avAf, ver. 15), but stood, after John had gone in with the procession, outside at the door ;* hence John obtains, by means of the portress (Joseph. Antt. vii. 2. 1; Acts xii. 13), permission to introduce him. The eio#yaye refers to John ; by Erasmus, Grotius, Ewald, and several others, it is referred to the portress, but in that way would give an unneces- sary change of subject. The portress at the gate within the court asks of Peter, when admitted : ‘‘ Thou art not also, (art thou) etc. ? The xai carries the presumption that John, whom she had nevertheless also admitted for acquaintance’ sake, was a disciple of Jesus ; the negatice question rests on the feeling that probably she ought not otherwise to have admitted him. [See Note LXII. p. 496. ] — rod avOp, rotrov] contemptuously, not compassion- ately.*— After the denial, Peter, whom, notwithstanding, his love to the Lord still detains at least in the open place, finds himself among the slaves (of Annas) and the officers of justice (the soldiers, ver. 3, appear to have gone with Jesus into the building as an escort), with whom he stands at the fire of coals in the court, and warms himself. Holding aloof, he would have been assailed. John, probably by help of his acquaintanceship, pressed with others into the interior of the house, not exactly into the audience- chamber.
Vv. 19-21. Otv] Again connecting the narrative with vv. 13, 14, after the episode of Peter. — repi r. pafyr. air. x. x. 7. dtdax. avrov] Annas?® then put general questions, in keeping with a private hearing of the kind, but well planned, so as to connect something further according to the eventual reply. —Jesus, as far as possible, not to inculpate His disciples (vv. 8, 9), replies, in the first instance (and further questioning was broken off, ver. 22), only to the second point of the interrogation, and that by putting it aside as something entircly objectless, appealing to the publicity of His life. — #ya mappnoig, «.T.A.] I, on my part, hare frankly and freely (comp. vii. 4, xi. 54) spoken to the world ; wappyo. is to be taken subjectively, without reserve, not : openly, which it does not mean, and which is contained only in r¢ xdéony. The xécpo¢ is the whole public, as in vii. 4, xii. 19. — év ovvay. x. tv 7. lepa] in synagogue (see on vi. 59) and in the temple. He appeals to His work of teaching not merely in Jerusalem, but as He has always carried it on, though He does not mean by zdvrore to deny His public discourses in other places
1 It was the street door of the court, the 3 Not Calaphas. Hengstenberg imagines avAcia Ovpa (see Dorvill, ad Char. p. 31, the situation: * Annas presides, as it were Amst.; Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. |. 19, p. 861). (?), at the examination, but Calaphas might
* Chrysostom, Theophylact, and scveral not hand over to him the properly judicial others, function.” So also Godet.
484 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(in the open air, etc.), but only to express that He never, in the course of His teaching, withdrew Himself from synagogues and from the temple. — utov xavrec, x.t.A.] refers to the temple. — kai iv xputr@ éAdA. ovdév] By which, of course, the private instructions given to His disciples (comp. also Matt. x. 27) are not denied, since it is the ministry of the teacher of the people that is here in question ; and besides, those private instructions do not fall under the category of that which is secret. —ri pe pwr.) For what object dost thou ask me? ué does not bear the emphasis ; otherwise éué would have been used. — The second ri, guid, depends on épéryoov. — épdr. tr. axnx.] ‘* Hoc jubet lex, a testibus incipi,” Grotius. — ovro:] The axyxodrec, not pointing to John and Peter (Ewald).
Vv. 22, 28. Admiopua] blow on the face, bor on the ear (so usually), or stroke with a rod (Beza, Bengel, Godct). [See Note LXIII. p. 497.] Comp. on Matt. li: 67. The former, because the blow was wont to be the chastisement for an impudent speech (comp. Acts xxiii. 2), is the more probable, and dépers is not opposed to it (2 Cor. xi. 20). That which here one of the officers of justice, who stood in waiting (sce the critical notes), takes upon himself for the honour of his master (‘‘ fortis percussor et mollis adulator,” Rupert.), can hardly be conceived as taking place in an orderly sitting of the San- hedrim before the acting high priest (in Acts xxiii. 2 it is done at the com- mand of the latter), but rather at an extra-judicial sitting. — obrwc) So un- becomingly.' — Ver. 23. Important for the ethical idea expressed in Matt. v. 39.* Comp. the note on Matt. v. 41. —papripyoov] bear witness. He must, in truth, have been an car-witness.
Ver. 24. By the incident vv. 22, 23, the conversation of Annas with Jesus was broken off, and the former now sent Him bound (as He was since ver. 12) to Caiaphas,—therefore now for the first time, not already before ver. 15. In order to place the scene of the denials in Caiaphas’ presence, it has been discovered, although John gives not the slightest indication of it, that Annas and Caiaphas inhabited one house with a court in common.’ In order, also, to assign the hearing of 19-21 to Caiaphas, some have taken critical liberties, and placed ver. 24 after ver. 14 (so Cyril, who, however, also reads it, consequently, a second time in the present passage, which Beza admits),‘ or have moved it back so as to follow ver. 13 (a few unimportant critical witnesses, approved by Rinck); some also have employed ezegetical violence. Ver. 24, that is, was regarded cither as a supplemental historical statement to precent misunderstanding ;* or the emphasis has been laid
1 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 150 f.; Bremi, ad 2Euth. Zigabenus, Casaubon, Ebrard,
Lys. et Aesch. p. 124, 255) ; comp. on 1 Cor. Vv. 3.
2 Luther: ‘* This thou shouldest therefore understand, that there Is a great difference between these two; to turn the cheek to the one, and with words to rebuke him who strikes us. Christ must suffer, but never- theless the word is put in His mouth, that He should speak and rebuke what is wrong. Therefore, I must separate the mouth and the hand from one another.”
Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Hengsten- berg, Godet.
4Comp. Luther, who, after ver. 14, com- ments: ‘‘ Here should stand the 24th verse. It has been misplaced by the copyist in the turning over of the leaf, as frequently hap- pens.”
® So Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius & Lapide, Jansen, and several others, including Licke, Tholuck, Krabbe, de Wette, Maier, Baeumlein.
CHAP. XVIII., 20—28. 485
on dedepévov, to which word Grotius ascribed a force explanatory of the fol- lowing denial, but Bengel one explanatory of the previous maltreatment. These exegetical attempts coincide in this, that azéore:Aev is understood in a pluperfect sense (miserat), and is regarded as supplying an omission.’ The aorist, in order to adduce this as a supplemental addition, would rather be : Annassent Him. But when the Aor. actually stands, making a supplemental statement, the context itself incontestably shows it,”.as in Matt. xiv. 3, 4 (not Matt. xvi. 5, xxvi. 48, xxvii. 27, nor John i. 24, 28, vi. 59). Here, however, this is certainly not the case (see rather the progress of the history, vv. 13, 24, 28), and it is only a harmonistic purpose which has compelled the interpretation, which is least of all justified in the case of John. John had the pluperfect at command just as much asthe aorist, and by the choice of the latter in the sense of the former he would, since the reader has nothing in the context to set him right, have expressed himself so as greatly to mis- lead, while, by the whole supplemental observations, he would have given to the narrative, which has flowed on from ver. 15 down to the present point, the stamp of the greatest clunisiness. The expedienta of Grotius and Bengel arc, however, the more inappropriate, the more manifest it is that dedenévov simply looks back to ver. 12, ééycev avrév. The sole historical sequence that is true to the words is given already by Chrysostom : élra, pd? obras evpioxovres te weéov, wéurrovery avtiv dedepivey mpo¢ Kardgav.
Vv. 25-27. When Jesus was scent to Caiaphas, Peter was still on the spot mentioned in ver. 18, standing and warming himsclf. There follow his second and third denials, which, therefore, according to the brief and accu- rate narrative of John, who relates the denials generally with more preci- sion, took place likewise in the court of Annas. The text gives no indica- tion that Peter followed Jesus into the house of Caiaphas.* For the agree- ment of Luke with John in the locality of the denials, but not in the more minute determination of time, sec on Luke xxii. 54-62. — eizov] Those standing there with him, ver. 18. — The individual, ver. 26, assails him with his own eye-witness. —¢;) I, for my part. —év 76 xfmy) se. dura. The slave outside the garden (for, sce on ver. 4) has been able, over the fence or through the door of the garden, to sce Peter in the garden with Jesus. When the blow with the sword was struck, he cannot (in the confusion of the seizure of Jesus) have had his eye upon him, otherwise he would have certainly reproached him with this act. —adéxrup] acck. Secon Matt. xxvi. 74. The contrition of Peter, John does not here relate in his concise account ; but all the more thoughtfully and touchinyly does this universal- ly known psychological fact receive historical expression in the appendix, chap. xxi.‘
Ver. 28. Ei¢ rd rpardpiov] into the praetortum, where the procurator dwelt,
1 So also Brandes, Annaa u. Filat, p. 18 f., * Comp. Olshausen, Baur, Bleek. who adduces many unsuitable passages in 4 Which, indeed (see Scholten, p. 882), Is proof. alleged to be a mistake of the appendix,
* The pluperfect usage of the aorist in the writer of which did not sce through the relative clauses, Kiihner, II. p. 79; Winer, (anti-Petrine) tendency of the Gospel. p. 238 [E. T. p. 275], is not relevant here.
486 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
whether it wus the palace of Herod (so usually), or, more probably, a building in the tower of Antonia (so Ewald). Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 27 ; Mark xv. 16. — pul] i.e. in the fourth watch of the night (see on Matt. xiv. 25), there- fore toward daybreak. Pilate might expect them so carly, since he had in fact ordered the ozeipa, ver. 8, on duty. —abroi] They themselves did not go in, but caused Jesus only to be brought in by the soldiers, ver. 3. — iva pH pravOaowv, GA?’ iva gay. Td x<é0xa] Emphatic repetition of iva, comp. Rev. ix. 5.1 The entrance into the pagan house, not purified from the corrupt leaven, would have made them levitically impure («aive, the solemn word of profanation),* and have thereby prevented them from eating the Passover on the legal day (they would have been bound, according to the analogy of Num. ix. 6 ff., to defer it till the 14th of the following month). [See Note LXIV. p. 497.] Since gayeiv rd réoyva throughout the N. T.* denotes noth- ing else than to eat the paschal meal, as NPT 538, 2 Chron, xxx. 18, comp. 3 Esr. i. 6, 12, vii. 12, it is thus clear that on the day, in the carly part of which Jesus was brought to the procurator, the paschal lamb had not yet been eaten, but was to be eaten, and that consequently Jesus was crucified on the day before the feast.' This result of the Johanncan account is undoubt- edly confirmed by xiii. 1, according to which pd ri¢ éopri¢ gives the author- itative standard for the whole history of the passion, and that in such wise that the Jewish Passover feast was necessarily still future when Jesus held His last meal with the disciples, with which latter, then, the seizure, con- demnation, and execution stood in unbroken connection ; further, by xiii. 29, according to which the Johannean Jast supper cannot have been the paschal meal ; finally, by xix. 14 and 31 (see on those passages), while, more- over, the view that the murdered Jesus was the antitype of the slaughtered paschal lamb (xix. 86), is appropriate only to that day as the day of His death, on which the paschal lamb was slaughtered, ¢.e. on the 14th Nisan.‘ Since, however, according alike to the Synoptics and to John (xix. $1), Jesus died on the Friday, after He had, on the evening preceding, held His last meal (John xiii.), there results the variation that, with the Synoptics the feast begins on Thursday erening, and Jesus holds the actual Jewish paschal meal, but is crucified on the jirst feast-day (Friday) ; while with John the feast begins on Friday evening, the last supper of Jesus (Thursday even- ing) is an ordinary meal,* and His death follows on the day before the feast (Friday). According to the Synoptics, the Friday of the death of Jesus was thus the 15th Nisan ; but according to John, the 14th Nisan. We can scarcely conceive a more indubitable result of exegesis, recognized also by Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, Neander, Krabbe, Theile, Sieffert, Usteri, Ideler, Bleck, de Wette, Brickner, Ebrard* (not in Olshausen, Jeidensgesch., p. 43 f.),
1 Xen. Bem. 1. 2. 48. xiv. 12; see also Ex. xii. 21; 2 Chron. xxxv. * Plat. Legg. Ix. p. &OR A; Tim. p. 69D; 13. Soph. Ané. 1081, LXX. in Sohleusner, IIT. p. * Tertullian, adv. Jud. 8: “* Passio perfec- 559 ta est die azymorum, quo agnum occiderent
? Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12, 14; Luke ad vesperam a Mose fuerat praeceptum.” xxif. 11,15: comp. erowsdgew rd wdoxa, Matt. & See Winer, Progr. : deixvor, de quo Joh. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxil.8; @vew xiil., ete., Lelps. 1847.
rd wa-xa, 1 Cor. v. 7; Luke xxif. 7; Mark * Krit. de Evang. Gesch., ed. 2
we .
CIIAP. XVIII., 28. 487
Ewald, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hase, Weisse, Riickert,’ Steitz, J. Miller, Koes- sing (Catholic),? Kahnis,*? Pressensé, Keim, and several others. Neverthe- less, harmonistic attempts have been made as far as possible to prove the agreement, either of the Synoptics with John’ (so mostly the older harmo- nists) ;* recently, especially Movers,* Maier,* Weitzel, Isenberg,’ and several others), or of John with the Synoptics (so most later harmonists).* Attempts of the first kind break down at once before this consideration, that in the Synoptics the last meal is the regular® and legal one of the 14th Nisan, with the Passover lamb, slaughtered of necessity on the se//-same day between the two evenings in the forecourt,’® but not a paschal meal anticipated by Jesus contrary to the law (abrogating, in fact, the legal appointment, see Weitzel), as Grotius, Hammond, Clericus, and several others thought, also Kahnis,“ Godet,"* who appeals specially again to Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, Marcker,* who thinks the non-legal character of the meal is passed over in silence by the Synoptics. Those attempts, however, which identify John’s account with that of the Synoptics,"* Lightfoot, p. 1121 ff., Reland, Bengel,
1 Abendm. p. 28°ff.
32 De Suprema Chr. coena, 1838, p. 57 ff.
3 Dogm. I. p. 417.
4 See Weitzel, Passahfeier, p. 305 f.
8 Zeitschrift f. Phil. u. Kathol. Theol., 1838, vil. p. 58 ff., viii. p. 62 ff.
6 Aechth. d. Hv. Joh., 1854, p. 429 ff.
7 D. Todestag des Herrn, 1868, p. 31 ff.
®§ Chrysostom gives a choice between the two attempts at reconciliation. Zither John means by .rd wdacxa: ri éoprny rh wacay -or, Christ anticipated the celebration on the day before the Passover of the Jews, Typey thy davtod ochayny T} TapacKev7, ON which the O. T. paschal meal was solem- nized. In this way Chrysostom already writes the programme for the whole of the later investigations on this point down to the present day. For the history of the controversy, see in Wichelhaus, Kommentar tiber d. Leidenegesch. p. 191 ff.
® The view which became current at the time of the Reformation and afterwards among the older theologiana, especially through Casaubon's and Scaliger's influ- ence, that the Jews Aad postponed the Pass- over for a day, was entirely baseless, but found all the more ready acceptance
because there remained thereby timein full .
accordance with the law for the observance of the paschal meal on the part of Jesus. Acoording to this view, which has again been recently supported by Philipp! (Glaw- benal. I. p. 966 f., ed. 2), the Jews, in order not to be bound for two days running to the strictness of the Sabbath observance, transferred the first feast-day, which at that time fell on the Friday, to the Sab- bath ; whereas Christ abided faithfully by the legal term ; the synoptical account goes
by this legal determination, but the Johan- nean by the former arbitrary one. From ée., Luke xxil. 7, no inference whatever can be drawn in favour of this harmonistic ex- pedient, which is without any historical support. Serno (d. Tag. d. klzten Passah- mahis, Berl. 1859) has sought, in a peculiar way, to confirm the correctness of both ao- counts by the doubling of the feast days during the diaspora. According to this, it may havecome about that for the Galileans in Jerusalem that was the first ‘day of the Passover, which for the Jerusalemites was but the day before the feast. In this way the twofold representation was stamped on the page of history. Against this it is decisive that the Galileans did not belong to the Giaspora. See, mvreover, Weiss, in the Liz. Bi. d. allg. K. Z. 1800, Nr. 42; Wieseler and Reuter's Z?-pert. 1860, p. 182 ff.; Ewald, Jahrd. XI. p. 233 f. On the above doubling of the feast-days, sec Ideler, Handbuch d. Chronol. I. p. 518 ff. According to Isenberg, .c., ‘many thousand strangers,” in order not to break in upon the Sabbath with the preparation for the Passover meal, held this meal already on the 18th Nisan. So also did Jesus, in order to institute the Lord's Supper as the fulfilment of the Pass- over feast, and to die as the Antitype of the Passover lamb. The above supposi- tion, however, is unhistorical. A paschal lamb on the 18th Nisan fs to the Jewish consciousness an impossibility.
1® Comp. Lightfoot, p. 450 f., 681,
1) Abendm, p. 14, Krafft, p. 180.
13 p. 629 ff.
13 Uebereinst. d. Matth, und Joh. p. 0 ff.
14 Bynueus, de morte J. Ch. III. p. 18 fff.
488 THE GOSPEL OF JOUN.
and several others ; latterly, especially Tholucl:, Guericke, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg,' Wieselcr,? Luthardt, Wichelhaus, Hofmann,?® Lichtenstein and Fricdlieb,* Lange, Riggenbach, von Gumpach, Répe,* Ebrard on Olshausen, Daeumlein, Langen,* arc rendered void by the correct explanation of xiii. 1, 29, xix. 14, 31, and, in respect of the present passage, by the following observations : (a) rd zdoya cannot be understood of the sacrificial food of the feast to the exclusion of the lamb, particularly not of the Chagigah (12°21), the freewill passover offerings, consisting of small cattle and oxen, according to Deut. xvi. 2, on which sacrificial meals were held ; see Lightfoot), as is here assumed by the current harmonists,’ since rather by ¢ayeiv is the Passover lamb constantly designated,® also in Josephus and in the Talmud (Noan DR), and consequently no reader could attach any other meaning to it ;° in Deut. xvi. 2, 8, however, MOD does not mean “as ® passover,”’”’ but likewise nothing else than agnus paschalis, from which, then, 1}23? {®¥ are distinguished as other sacrifices and sacrificial animals (comp. vv. 6, 7), whereby with roy, ver. 8, we arc referred back to the whole of the eating at the feast. 2 Chron. xxxv. 7-9 also (comp. rather vv. 11 and 13) contributes as little to prove the assumed reference of zdoya to the Passover sacrifices generally, as Ex. xii. 48 for the view that to eat the Passover signifies the celebration of the feast in general ; since, certainly, in the passage in question, the general rocjoae rs 7.(prepare) is by no means equivalent to the special éderac az’ airov."" (2) The objection, that entering the Gentile house would only have produced pollution for the same day (oY 2330), which might be removed by washing before evening, and there-
1 Jn loc., and in the Evang. K.-Zeit. 1838, Nr. 98 ff.
3 Synopee, p. 833 ff., and in Ilerzog’s Encykion. XXI. p. 550 ff.
3 Zeilschr. f. Prot .u. Kirche, 1833, p. 260 ff.
4 Gesch. d. Lebens J. Chr. p. 140 ff.
& D. Mahl. d. Fusswaschens, Namb. 1856.
6 Le(zte Lebenstage Jesu, 1864, p. 156.
7 Although the eating of the Chagigah Was not necessarily restricted to the 15th ‘isan, but might take place well cnough cn any of the following Passover feast- days ; hence a religious obligation as regards the 15th Nisan by no means lay in the way of their entering the Gentile house, ¢o that they might be able to eat the Chagigah. But the partaking of the paschal lamb was re- stricted toits definite day, the 14th Nisan.
€ Comp. generally Gesenius, 7hes. Il. p. 1115.
®° Paul also, in the Stud. u. Ari. 1866, p. 857 ff., and 1867, p. 535 ff., explains it of the eating of the Passover lamb, but thinks that they had not been able to accomplish the eating on the evening that preceded the spwi, and now “at the first gray of morning” desired to make up for that which was omitted in the urgency of their haste. What an irregular-
ity against the law (Lev. xxiii. 5, Deut. xvi. 7; Saalschiitz, Af. #2. p. 407 f.) and usage is thus imagined, without the slightest indi- cation in the text! And the thoughtof such a completely exceptional early eating could not be entertained by the Jews, moreover, for this reason, that they must indeed stand by, and did stand by their delinquent, could not leave him as he was, and go thence, in order to eat the neglected Passover.— Aberle, in the 7b. Quartalschr. 1868, p. 587 ff., admits indeed the difference of John's representation from that of the Synoptics, but thinks the Johannean day of death of Jesus appears through their account (in It- self correct), and that they intentionally expressed themselves in an ambiguous manner (incorrect). See against Aberle, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. O4 ff.
1° Hengstenberg, comp. Schultz on Deut. p. 471.
112 Chron. xxx. 22, where the eating of the feast sacrifices generally (1y'1311) ts spoken of, proves nothing whatever for the special expression: ‘‘eat the Pass- over,’’ rather is distinguished from it.
12 Judith xii. 7-9 proves nothing in this re- spect for our passage (against Hengsten- berg), where the evening bath of Judith
CHAP. XVIII., 28. 489 fore before the beginning of the new day, so that the Jews would have still been able to eat the Passover lamb, which was not to be partaken of till evening,’ cannot be proved from Maimonides.’ In view, rather, of the great sacredness of the Passover feast (comp. xi. 55), this must be regarded as invalidated by the present passage (at all events in reference to the time of Jesus), irrespectively of the fact that such a pollution would have been a hindrance to the personal slaughtering of the lamb, and certainly by the hierarchs, 2 Chron. xxx. 17, 18. (c) On the whole of the inadmissible plea, which has been raised from the history of the Easter controversies against the fact, that John places the death of Jesus on the 14th Nisan, see Introd. § 2. (d) It has even becn asserted, in order to make the account of John apply to the synoptic determination of time, that the time of the Passover meal was not the evening of the 14th Nisan at all, but the evening of the 13th Nisan (consequently the beginning of the 14th) ; 80, after Frisch, recently Rauch,* who understands our ¢ajeiv r. zaoyza of the eating of the dfuyua. But the evening of the 14th (consequently the begin- ning of the 15th) stands so unassailably firm on the foundation of the law, according to Jewish tradition, and according to Josephus,‘ that the above attempt is simply to be noted as a piece of history, as also that of Schneck- enburger,® which is based on the error that xix. 14 is the rapacxevy for the Feast of Sheaves. (ec) Had John conceived the last Supper to be the Passover meal, there would certainly not have been wanting in the farewell discourses significant references to the Passover ;° they are, however, entirely wanting, and, moreover, the gencral designation of the Supper itself, deixrvou ycvopévor, xxii. 2 (comp. xii. 2), agrees therewith, to remove from the mind of the un- prejudiced readcr the thought of the festival meal. — If, however, the differ- ence between John and the Synoptics is incapable of being adjusted, the question then arises, On which side historical accuracy lics? Those who dis- pute the authenticity of the Gospel could not be in doubt on this point. But it is otherwise from the standpoint of this authenticity, and that not of mediate, second-hand authenticity (assuming which, Weizsicker gives the preference to the synoptic account), but of that which is immediate and apostolical. If, that is to say, in the case of irreconcilable departures from the synoptic tradition, the first rank is in general, a priori, to be conceded to John, as the sole direct witness, whose Gospel has been preserved unaltered ; if the representation also by the Apostle Paul of Christ as the Passover Lamb applies only to the Johannean designation of the day of His death (see on 1 Cor. v. 7) ; and if, along with this, Paul’s account of the institution of the
falls at most (comp. Grotius) under the point of view of Mark vii. 4, where there is no question of any eating of a holy, festal character.
1 See especially Hengstenberg, Wieseler, and Wichelhaus, following Bynaeus and Lightfoot.
2 Pesach, iil. 1, vi. 1.
3 Stud. u. Nrit. 1932, p. 537 ff.
4 Sco doe Wette in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831,
4; Licke, IT. p. 728 ff.
5 Beitr. p. 4 ff.
6 This circumstance ts also decisive against. the Invention of an antictpated Passover. For precisely at a Passover feast of so exceptional a character the Pass- over ideas which furnished its motive would not have been kept at a distance by John, but would havo been brought by him into the foreground.
490 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Lord’s Supper does not run counter (in answer to Keim) to this Johannean date ; if, further, even the statement of the Judaism which was outside the church, that Jesus was executed tespera paschatis (NDDN AY), ¢.6. on the 14th Nisan, supports the account of John,’ where the fabulous element in the Talmudic narration of the circumstances attending the execution does not affect the simple date of time, if the conducting of a criminal trial* and execution on the first feast-day, even after the most recent attempts to show their admissibility,? is at least highly improbable,‘ and is opposed by Acts xii. 31 ff., and in the case before us would be regarded as an exception from the rule,* in fact, imprudent and irreconcilable with the great danger which was well known to the Sanhedrim (Matt. xxvi. 5); if, generally, the 15th Nisan, with its Sabbatic character, and as the legal day of the festive gathering in the temple, is altogether unsuitable to all the undertakings, processions, and parades which were set on foot by the hierarchs and by the people on the day of Jesus’ death, as well as to the taking down from the cross and the burial ; if, on the other hand, the custom of setting at liberty a prisoner (ver. 89) most naturally corresponds to the idea, and therewith to the day of the paschal lamb, to the idea and to the day of forgiveness ; if, finally, even in the Synoptics themselves, traces still exist of the true histori- cal relation, according to which the day of Jesus’ death must have been no first day of the feast, but a day of traffic and labour,* as, moreover, the opinion of the Sanhedrim, Matt. xxvi. 5, Mark xiv. 1: pa év rH éoprg ! corre- sponds to the Johannean account, and to the haste with which, according to the latter, the affair was despatched, actually still before the feast,—then all these points are so many reasons, the collective weight of which is decisive in favour of John,” without the further necessity of making an un- certain appeal to the present calendar of the feast, according to which the 15th Nisan may not fall on a Friday,® and to the prohibition, Ex. xii. 22, ugainst quitting house and town after the Passover meal.°— The question how the correct relation of time in the synoptic tradition could be altered by a day, withdraws itself from any solution that is demonstrable from history. Most naturally, however, the institution of the Lord’s Supper suggests the point of connection, both by the references, which Jesus Himself in His dis-
t See Sanhedr. 6. 2 f., 43. 1, in Lightfoot, ad Act. 1. 8.
ally took place, as in the case of Phocion (Plutarch, Phoc. 37), a great scandal ; see
2This difficulty drives Hilgenfeld (Pas- chastr. d. alten Kirche, p. 154, also in his Zeltschr. 1868, p. 838 ff.), after the precedent of Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 407 ff., to the desperate assumption that no actual crim. inal proceedings took place at all. Neither in Matt. xxvi. 3, nor xxvi. 57, and xxvii. 1, is an actual Synedrium intended, but only councils summoned by the high priest.
3 See especially Wieseler, p. 361 ff.
4 See Bleek, p. 189 ff. ; Ewald, Alferth. p. 415.
6’ Among the Greeks also, an execution ona feast day was regarded as a profana- tion and pollution, and was, if it exception-
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § 48. 12
¢ Matt. xxvi. 59, 60; Mark xv. 21, 42, 46; Luke xxiii. 26, 54, 56.
7 Here the appeal urged by Movers to 7¥. Sanhedr. f. 63. 1, is by no means required, according to which the members of the Sanhedrim might not eat anything on the day on which they had pronounced a sen- tence of death. On this showing, they ab- solutely could not have had the design of eating the Chagigah.
8 See against his application to that peri- od, Wieseler, p. 487 f.
®* See on Matt. xxvi. 30, and Wetstein on Mark xiv. 26.
_ =~ NHN KR = BE DO Mh BS Pw HE. OB Oo @& &R B
CHAP. XVIII., 29, 30. 491
courses connected therewith gave to the Supper in its bearing on the Pass- over meal, by the idea of which He was moved (Luke xxii. 15), as also by the view of the Supper as the antitypical Passover meal, which view must necessarily have been developed from the apostolic apprehension of Christ ns the Paschal Lamb (xix. 36 ; 1 Cor. v. 7), so far as He in the Supper had given Himself to be partaken of, Himself the perfected Passover Lamb, which He, simply by His death, was on the point of becoming. Thus the day of institution of the Supper became, in the antitypical mode of regard- ing it, an tdeal 14th Nisan, and in the tradition, in virtue of the reflective operation of the idea upon it, gradually became an actual one, and conse- quently the preparation which was firmly established as the day of death, became, instead of the preparation of the Passover (14th Nisan) as John has ugain fixed it, the preparation of the Sabbath,’ this Sabbath, however, re- garded, not as the first day of the feast, as in John, consequently not as the 15th Nisan, but as the second day of the feast (16th Nisan). — Nor is the deviation of John from the Synoptics to be made a reason for doubting the genuineness of the former. For it is wholly improbable that a late inventor, who nevertheless sought apostolic authority, would have run the risk of en- tering into conflict with the prevailing tradition in so extremely important a determination, and, in subservience to the idea of Christ as the perfected Passover Lamb,” to date back by a day the execution of Christ. Were the Johannean history, in so far substantially unhistorical, a production resulting from the idea of the Passover lamb, then certainly this idea would itself stand forth with far more of purpose and expression than it does (especially, for instance, in the farewell discourses), and would have been indicated, not merely on the occasion of the wound in the side, xix. 36, by one indivi- dual ; in that case one might believe oneself justified, with Weisse,* in laying to the charge of the writer of the Gospel that he had, in conformity with cer- tain presuppositions, in part put together for Himself the sequence of events in an accidental and arbitrary manner.
Vv. 29, 80. In the prudent, concessive spirit of Roman policy towards the Jews in the matter of religion, Pilate * comes forth to them, and demands
1 Moreover, the Faesorer meal, on the Friday evening, could by no means have been deranged by the dawning of the Sab- bath. For the slaying and roasting of the lamb took place before the dawn of the Sab- bath, and the pilgrims were wont to arrive early enough in Jerusalem (comp. xi. 55). The burning of the remains of the lamb was not, however, prevented by the Sabbath (Schoettgen, Hor. I. p. 121), and generally the rule held good; ‘‘ Si quis unum praccep- tum observat, ille ab obeervatione alterius praecepti liber est,”” Sohar, Deut. prine. f. 107, o. 427. This also in answer to Isenberg, i.c. Besides, the paschal lamb was a sac- rifice, the arrangements connected with which the Sabbath consequently did not prevent, even if the 14: Nisan itself was a
Sabbath.
2 See especially Baur, p. 272 ff., and in the Theda. Jahrb. 1854, p. 267 f.; Hilgenfeld, Fascha etreit d. alten KE. p. 221 ff. ; Schenkel, p. 862 f. ; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 188; Scholten, p. 282 ff.
® Erangelienfrage, p. 180.
4 The whole behavioar of Pilate fn all the following proceedings is depicted with such psychological truth, that the opinion that his interest In Jesus was ascribed to him only by the evangelist (Strauss, Baur, Sohenkel), can appear only as the conse- quence of presuppositions, which lie quite outside the history. Note particularly how just his suspicion against the Jews, owing to their personal behaviour, must have been from the first; and how, on the other hand,
492 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
first of all, in accordance with regular procedure, 1 definite accusation, although he knew it, ver. 88 ; ‘‘sed se scire dissimulabat,” Ruperti. But the hier- archical insolence, in its evil conscience, demands of him, contrary to all forms of legal procedure, to assume the delicering-up of the prisoner itself asa warrant of crime. Him who is not a misdoer, they reply, they would not have delicered up to the procurator. They had in truth themselves suffi- cient power to punish, although not extending to execution. If, therefore, the offence exceeds this power of theirs to punish, requiring a surrender to the procurator, this surrender is sufficient proof that the person is a crim- inal. The kind and manner of the crime (Tholuck : politico-criminal offence) is not yet defined by their words. Theidea: ‘‘one hand washes the other”’ (Lange), lies entirely remote. — xara tov dv6p. rotrov] is, further, uttered with indifference ; not, ‘‘against such a pious and renowned a man,” Luther. Ver. 31. Since they bring forward no definite charge, Pilate refers them to their own tribunal (the Sanhedrim). As he, without such an accusation, from which must arise his competency to act, could take no other course than at once refer the matter to the regular Jewish authority, he also incurred no danger in taking that course ; because if the xpivecv, i.e. the judicial proced- ure against Jesus, should terminate in assigning the punishment of death, they must still come back to him, while it was at the same time a prudent course (¢fdvov of vofaac, Nonnus) ; because if they did not wish to withdraw
with their business unfinished, they would, it might be presumed, be under
the necessity of laying aside their insolence, and of still coming out with an accusation. If xpivecv, which, according to this view, is by no means of doubtful signification (Hengstenberg), be understood as meaning to condemn, or even to evecute (Liicke, de Wette, who, as already Calvin and sevcral others, finds therein a sneer), which, however, it does not in itself denote, and which sense it cannot acquire by means of the following azoxreiva:, some- thing of a very anticipatory and relatively impertinent character is put in the procurator’s mouth. — iyeic] With emphasis. — The answer of the Jews rests on the thought that this xpivecy was, on their part, already an accomplished fact, and led up to the sentence for execution, which they, however, were not competent to carry out. They therefore understood the xpivey not as equivalent to amoxteiva:, but regarded the latter as the established result of the former. Any limitation, however, of jyiv oix éeoriv, x.7.2. to the punish- ment of the cross,' or to the feast day,” or to political crimes,* is imported into the words ; the Jews had, since the domination of the Romans (according to the Talmud, forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem‘), lost the just vitae et necis generally ; they could, indeed, sentence to death, but the confirmation and execution belonged tothe superior Roman authority.’ The
owing to Jesus’ personal bearing, his sym- pathy for Him must have developed and in- creased, so that in the mind of the procu- rator strength of character and of con- science alone was wanting, to prevent him, after perverted measures and concessions, from ylelding ignominiously at last. See also Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch. p. 148 ff.
1 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabe- nus, Calovius, and others.
2 Semler and Kuinoel.
3 Krebs.
4See Lightfoot, p. 455, 1138 ff.
5 See generally Iken, Zee. II. p. 517 ff. 3 Friedlieb, Archdot. p. 96 f.
CHAP. XVIII., 32-34. 493
stoning of Stephen, as also at a later period that of James, the Lord’s brother, ' was a tumultuary act.!
Ver. 32. The aim ordained in the divine purposc, why the Jews, in con- sequence of having lost the right of life and death, were obliged to answer 66 Nuiv ox éScoriy, x.7.A.” Otherwise, Jesus, as a false prophet and blasphem- er of God, would have been stoned (like Stephen, and comp. viii. 59, x. 31), but would not have been visited with the Roman punishment of crucifixion, namely, as one guilty of high treason, as He, with His pretensions as Mes- siah, could not but appear to be before the Roman courts ; and the word of Jesus, xii. 82, would have remained unfulfilled.
Vv. 38, 84. Pilate does not, indeed, enter at present into further discus- sion with the Jews, but, because he quite perccived that they had set their minds on the punishment of death, he returns into the praetorium, into which Jesus, ver. 28, was led, and causes Him to be summoned before him, in order personally to examine him (taking a sufficiently inconsistent course), instead of simply persisting in his refusal on account of the want of a defi- nite ground of accusation, and waiting for some further step on the part of the Jews. His question : Thou artthe king of the Jews? which has an air of contemptuous unbelief (he does not ask, for example, oi Afyecc, x.7.A., or the like), is explained, even without a xaryyopia on the part of the Jews, from the fact that the arrest, because made with the help of the ozeipa, ver. 8, could not have taken place without previous intimation to and approval by Pilate, who must therefore have been acquainted with its reason. We need not, therefore, with Ewald, assume the presentment ofa written accusation, or, as is ordinarily done, infer that the Jews, cven after ver. 31, came for- ward with the xarzyopia. This agrees with Luke xxiii. 2, but is not indi- cated by a single word in John, who could not have passed over, as a matter of course, so essential a point, which would yet have required but the bricfest allusion. By his counter-question, ver. 84, Jesus does not desire, as Ols- hausen, Neander, Godet, Ewald, and several others suppose, to gather the more exact sense of the question,—whether, namely, it is intended in a Jew- ish and theocratic or in a Roman and political sense (for such a separation of the ideas concerning the Messiah was neither to be presumed in Pilate, nor to be suggested by this question of Jesus),—but He simply claims the right to know the author of the accusation contained in the words of Pilate ; to know whether Pilate put to Him the above question at his own instance, and without foreign prompting, orat the instigation of others. That the latter was the case, He indeed knew ; the 4A4’a stood, in fact, before the door ; but Pilate should speak out and set forth clearly the status causae. It was this which Jesus could demand, and with the intrepidity of innocence did demand, without exactly intending to evoke a morement of conscience (Heng- stenberg), which He could not at this point expect in the cold man of the world ; or to call his attention to the suapicious source of the accusation (Lu- thardt, Tholuck, Briickner), to which the wholly impartial 4220 is not ap- propriate.
3 Josephus, Anit. xx. 9. 1). * Comp. also Kell, Archdol. II. p. 250.
494 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 35, 36. The answer of the procurator, irritatcd and haughty, gives in pote. . . etue an indirect denial of the first question, and with this an affirma- tion of the second. — pri éya "lovdaids ei] "Eyo with proud emphasis : you do not surely suppose that J, I your procurator, am a Jew? How should I of myself think of trying thee as a Jew, and as king of the Jews ? The empha- sis of éyS Nonnus denotes by : 7 yap “Iovdaiog xayw méAov ; The opposite of this : Thine own nation (16 tvoc 1d adv), and especially (xai) the high priesta, have delivered thee to me ; what hast thou done? No further ceremony ! — Jesus now confesses His kingship, but, in the first instance, only negatirely (positively : ver. 37): ‘‘The kingdom which is mine springs not (like other kingdoms) from this world (which endures only until the establishment of my kingdom); if the kingdom which is mine proceeded from this world, the servants whom J (oi évo/) have would assuredly fight that I should not be delivered (as was done, xix. 16) to the Jews (the hierarchical opposition) ; but as it is (since they do not fight for me), my kingdom is not from thence” (evreifev = ix tov xéop. tobrov). — Note in this Demonstratio ad oculos the solemn repetition of é& tov xédopour. and of # Baordeia 7 éuy, as well as that évrevOev, from here, hence, is expressed deictically, as a vivid opposition to that which is coelitus, and, finally, that in é« rot xécpov robrov, not rotrov, which might also have been omitted, but xécuov bears the emphasis. The t7pé-ae oi évol are not the servants whom He would have in the case supposed,” but He has His servants, they are His disciples and adherents (not the angels, as Luthardt thinks), xii. 26 ; 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; 2 Cor. vi. 4, xi. 28; 1 Tim. iv. 6; but these also not from this world (xvii. 16); they also do not jight, etc. [See Note LXV. p. 501.] Note how also the designation of His own 1 by umnpérae expresses his kingly consciousness.
Ver. 87. A Baotdeia Jesus had actually ascribed to Himself in ver. 36, which Pilate certainly did not expect ; hence he asks, in surprise and not without a flash of haughty scorn : Nonne igitur rex tu es? since thou, that is, speakest of thy Baordela.* [See Note LXVI. p. 501.] The sentence is an inference, but asking (48 i¢ not then true, that thou art a king?) whether the questioned person agrees. — 67] Confirmation of the assertion expressed by ob Afyerg (Comp. Matt. xxvi. 25). -— éyé] Corresponding to the contempt- uously emphasized of at the end of Pilate’s question, emphasized with noble self-consciousness, and still more emphatically brought into promi- nence by the éyé, which immediately begins the next sentence (‘‘ potens ana- diplosis,” Bengel); the repetition of cic zotro twice also adds weight. — yeyévy. and éAgd. ei¢ r. xéop.] with Grotius, Liicke, and de Wette, designate as the birth and the official appearance ; a separation which is not justified by the Johannean épyeo6az eic tr. xéou., in which the birth is substantially in- cluded (iii. 17, ix. 30, xi. 27, xii. 47, xvi. 28, i. 9), and which here renew- edly describes it in relation to its specific higher nature, as the entrance of
i @
1This confession must, according to several others.
Schenkel, have probably been spoken on 2 On ov«covv, not elsewhere found in the another occasion. Groundless supposition. N. T..see Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. Eee. Il. p. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 18, and Huther tn loc. 517 ff. ; Baeumlein, Partix. p. 198.
2 Lficke, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and
— — a we
CHAP. XVIIL., 38. 495
the sent of God into the world, so that the divine azooréAAew ei¢ trav xéopov (til 17, x. 86, xvii. 18) is correlative.’ The coming into the world is related to the conception of being born, as the leaving of the world (xvi. 28) and going to the Father to the conception of dying. — iva paprup. r9 aAnf.] He was to bear testimony on behalf of the divine truth, for He had seen and heard it with God. Comp. iii. 11, 82, 1. 17, 18. —6 dv éx +. aAn.] Genetic desig- nation (comp. on Gal. iii. 7) of the adherents of His kingdom ; their origin is the divine truth, i.e. their entire spiritual nature is so constituted, that divine truth exercises its formative influence upon them. These are the souls drawn by the Father (vi. 44 ff.), and given to Christ as His own. Comp. viii. 47. Bengel correctly observes : ‘‘ Hese ex ceritate praecedit, audire sequitur.” — axote pov r. duvij¢] heareth my voice, t.e. (otherwise, xii. 47), he gives ear to that which I speak, follows my call, command, etc. With this Jesus has declared Himself regarding His kingdom, to the effect partly that He is a king, and with what definition He is so, partly as to his subjects. He has thus completely answered the question, and has in no way, as Hengstenberg thinks, omitted to answer it as too difficult for Pilate’s comprehension, and expressed Himself instead concerning His prophetic ofiice. The rae é dv, x.7.A. marks an essential characteristic of His kingdom ; and any special purpose of the language, with reference to Pilate (an appeal to his religious consciousness, Chrysostom, Olshausen, Neander ; an expla- nation of the fewness of Christ’s adhcrents, Calvin ; a reminder for Pilate, how he would have to lay hold upon salvation), lies remote from the sense, equally remote with an appeal ‘‘a caecitate Pilati ad captum jidelium” (Bengel), or from the judge to the man (Hengstenberg).
Ver. 88. Pilate, now fully convinced that he has before him an innocent and harmless enthusiast, asks, with that air of contemptuous depreciation — which belongs to the material understanding in regard to the abstract and supersensuous sphere, What is truth? A non ens, a phantom, he thus con- ecives it to be, with which JZe would found a kingdom ; and weary of the matter, and abruptly breaking it off, he gocs straightway forth to the Jews, and declares to them that he finds no guilt in Jesus,*? from which definite declaration -we see that by the above question he does not mean at all to designate the matter mercly as not coming within his jurisdiction (Stein- meyer). Something of good-nature lies in this conduct, but it is the weak and shallow good-nature of the man of the world who is indifferent towards higher things ; nothing of the disconsolate tone of the searcher for truth (Olshausen). Against the view of Chrysostom, Theodorus Heracl., Euth. Zigabenus, Aretius, and several others, however, that Pilate had actually become desirous to be acquainted with the truth (Nonnus even thinks : xai
1 Calovius aptly says : Christ was so born, “ ut quum antes fuerit apud patrem, in tem- pore pascendo in mundum venerit, a patre in mundum missus.” Contrary to the words and the contex is Scholten’s view, that yeyévv. denotes the premundane procession from God.
2]Icre we are to think of the cendinz
away of Jesus to Herodes Antipas. See on Luke, note after xxifll. 12 But how could the fourth evangelist have omitted this epi- sode, had he been a Genille Christian, and Cesigned to concentrate the guilt of the death of Jesus as much as possible on the *"IovéSaioc? This in answer to Baur and Schenkel.
496 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
TeAdrog 6au.370¢) ; it is decisive that he immediately turns his back and goes out. — Whence did John learn of this conversation of Pilate with Jesus ? He can hardly have been himself an ear-witness of it.’ But whether we assume that Pilate communicated it to his own circles and that hence it reached John, or that some actual ear-witness reported it to John, the matter creates no difficulty (against Scholten). In no case have we the right to ascribe the account merely to the znrention of John (Strauss), and with Baur, for ex- ample, to find in the declarations of Pilate that he ‘finds no guilt in Jesus,” only the aim of the evangelist to roll the guilt as far as possible off from Pilate upon the Jews, which purpose also the question, What is truth? is in- tended to serve, into which Baur foists the sensc : how can one make a crime out of the truth ?
Vv. 39, 40. Instead of steadfastly protecting the innocence of Jesus, he secks, unwisely enough, in order not to be unpopular, a circuitous way, by which he practically surrenders the innocent one. — iva, «.r.4.] A custom exists amongst you: J am to release to you, etc. On the thing itself, see on Matt. xxvii. 15. — év rg rdoxza] Pilate could thus express himself as well on the 14th (against Hengstenberg), as on the 15th Nisan, but the releasing itself corresponds most naturally to the sacred significance of the 14th. Comp. on ver. 28. Moreover, it is in itself more probable that the state- ment of the time of this customary release as onc that was legally stationary is expressed also in the strict sense of rd xdoyxa (Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Num. xxviii. 16). — otArobe . . . aroAicw)] Do you wish that I release? Deliberative con- junctive. Comp. on Matt. xiii. 28.?— sav Baad. 7. 'Ievd.] Unwise and scornful bitterness. Hengstenberg imagines a serious view of the Messianic idea to which certainly Pilate was wholly unequal. — rdAcv] presupposes a general clamour already raised in vv. 30 and 31. — Bapaj3.] See on Matt. xxvii. 16. — 7 dé 6 B. Aygorgc] Tragical addition. The designation by Agorhe does not exclude the statement in Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19.° Ac- cording to Matt. xxvii. 17, Pilate offered a choice between Barabbas and Jesus ; Mark and Luke agree with John.
Nores By AMERICAN Eprror.
LXII. * Art thou also one of the disciples ?” etc. Ver. 17.
‘The negative question,’ says Meyer, ‘‘rests on the feeling that probably she ought not otherwise to have admitted him.” -It is difficult to see how the negative form of the question could express any such idea. It seems to be simply the expression of the portress’ modesty, at least of manner, in putting in a negative form what she believed to be the fact. She believed Peter to be one of Jesus’ disciples, but instead of saying, ‘‘ Art thou not one?” she said, ‘* Thou art not one, art thou?’ (See John iv. 29.)
1 80 Steinmeyer, Leidenegesch. p. 148. 3 Ayorai dovevover, Soph. O. P. 719. 2 Kiihner, II. § 464.
= ve re
NOTES. | 497
LXII. ‘Pémioua. Ver. 22.
Blow on the face with the hand, or stroke witha rod. 8o the Revised Version gives the two alternative readings in the text and the margin. Mr. Frederick Field (in his Otium Norvicense) seems to show satisfactorily that its meaning in later Greek is confined to a blow with the hand. He cites Phrynichus, who for- lids the use of Jamicua for a blow on the cheek with the open hand as not Attic, showing that it was so used in his time. Field quotes many passages for parifwand pdriopua (Isa. i. 6 ; Hos. xi. 5 ; Matt. v. 39; Jos. Ant. vii. 15. 4, comp. with 1 Kings xxii. 24). ‘Pazifw having come to be used for strike with the palm, instead of sirike with a rod (faBditw), gradually lost that earlier signification, and came to have only its later meaning.
LXIV. ‘‘ That they might eat the Passover.’’ Ver. 28.
Meyer and Weiss hold confidently (with many others) the opinion that John contradicts the Synoptists as to the time of the Lord’s last supper with His disciples. The Synoptical Gospels, it is universally agreed, place the Jast supper on the evening of the 14th Nisan, the regular time of the paschal meal, and make the crucifixion to occur on Friday, the 15th Nisan, the first day of the Passover festival. John, they maintain, on the other hand, places the last supper un the 13th, anticipating by a day the regular Passover celebration, and places the crucifixion still on Friday, but on the 14th, the day preceding the Passover. Affirming this contradiction, Meyer affirms likewise the su- perior credibility of John, and pronounces the Synoptists in error. It is indeed inconceivable that John should have been mistaken on so capital a point as to whether our Lord's last meal with His disciples coincided with or ante- dated the regular paschal feast, and the date which he unquestionably gives, it should seem, must be accepted. But it is equally inconceivable that the other Evangelists, one an Apostle and like John present at the supper, the other two, companions and friends of the Apostles, and thoroughly versed in the Gospel history, could have been mistaken on this point, and united in con- necting a miracle (which His instructions to the disciples, one of them John himself, regarding the place of the feast clearly involved) with an event that did not occur on the evening they assign to it, and that evening the most sacred in the Jewish calendar. A mistake on this point shakes the whole fabric of their historical credibility. As between any two ordinary evenings, a difference of recollection (apart from inspiration) would be easily enough supposable. But as between the evening of the Passover festival and any preceding evening (no matter how near), a mistake is wholly inexplicable. With the Synoptists the accompanying circumstances are given in minute detail. The disciples come to Jesus and volunteer the question (Matt. xxvi. 17) where he will have them make the preparations for the Passover. He sends Peter and John with minute instructions, involving miraculous prevision ; and when they are assembled at the appointed time and place he says, ‘‘ With desire have I desired to eat thia Passover with you before I suffer (Luke).’’ And yet this was not the Passover at all! The miracle, if it occurred, is misplaced, and the Lord's weighty and tender words were either not at all or mistakenly uttered! We caunot set aside such a narrative without the most irrefragable evidence. Do we have such evidence in our Gospel? So maintain Meyer and not a few
498 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
others ; but to very many the counter evidence seems wholly insufficient. Ad- mitting that our Gospel of itself seems to intimate an evening before the paschal meal, yet when brought into comparison with these full and clear statements of the other Gospels, have we reason to suppose that it is intended to contradict them ?
The intimations mainly relied on are four. One of them, the mpd ri¢ éopri¢ of xiii. 1, we have already considered. It is certainly too vague to be regarded as decisive, and if unsupported would probably never have been relied upon by any one for the point which it is adduced to sustain. It would seem almost cer- tain that when John came to the account of the last supper, if he did not mean merely to supplement the Synoptical record—if he meant to fix a date which both ran counter to the unanimous testimony of that record, and, in so doing, changed the very character of the meal, showing it to be no Passover supper at all—he would not in the first place pass in utter silence the Synoptical account, as if taking for granted its correctness, and then give his counter date under the vague phrase zo rio éopz7¢, Which might connect itself with eidac, denoting the time of His becoming aware of His approaching departure, or might be taken as nearly equivalent to rpordpriov, marking rather the initial part of the feast, and which in any case marks no definite period beforeit. Itsterms would be fulfilled even if the foot-washing were a ceremony prior and introductory tothe paschal feast, rather than an integral part of it. At all events this vague phrase, we may safely say, is not the only direct means which the Evangelist would employ for correcting an important error pervading all the Synoptics, and ran- ning like an intricate thread through all their various narratives, so that if they erred they, we must say, erred deliberately—an error affecting alike the date and the character of the feast, and requiring a more effectual extirpation than this mere npo rig éopri¢.
2. But it is said, xiii. 29, that when Judas went out from the supper the disciples thought that Jesus had said to him, ‘‘ Buy things which we have need of for the Passover,” or that he might give something to the poor; and this it is supposed on the ground that the Passover had not yet been slain, and the preparations were yetto be made. But if this was on the evening of the day preceding the Passover meal, then there was no such haste required. There were yet twenty-four hours hefore the paschal meal, during which the pur- chases might be made, and there would be no need of sending one of the band out from this sacred occasion for such o service. Besides, the idea that Judas might have gone ont for Passover purchases was with the disciples a mere un- certain conjecture: he might have gone out simply to give something to the poor. But if this was the evening of the paschal celebration, then for some of the numerous provisions of the following day (as for the chagigah), some haste might be required, at all events enough to originate such a conjecture on the part of the disciples. On the whole, this scene appears quite as com- patible—probably considerably more compatible—with the occurrence of the meal on the Passover evening than on the evening. preceding.
3. But another argument is drawn from the name given to the crucifixion day of rapacxev}) rov mucyxa (xix. 14), the preparation of the Passover, from which it is inferred that it was not the first day of the Passover, but the day before it. But as on the Passover, as on the other festivals, the preparation of food was allowed, there was no occasion of a day of preparation for it, and if there was one it would not be likely to occupy more than a small part of the day. On
NOTES. ; 499
the other hand, the Jaw strictly forbidding the kindling of fire and all prepara- tion of food on the weekly Sabbath, the preceding Friday was naturally, and indeed almost necessarily, devoted in part to preparation for it, and hence at last went by the name of ‘‘ the preparation.” Thus Matt. xxvii. 62 the Sabbath is spoken of as ‘‘the morrow which follows upon the preparation (mera rv sapackeunv) ;’? and so in John it is repeatedly (xix. 31, 42) called the “‘ prepa- ration,’’ and ‘‘ the preparation of the Jews,” evidently not with reference to the Passover, but to the coming Sabbath. There is therefore no good reason for taking itin ver. 14 in any different sense. It was the regular ‘‘ prepara- tion” day, but as occurring during the Passover, and thus having a double sacredness, John calls it the Preparation of the Passover, or the ‘‘ Passover. preparation,” such being a very easy and familiar use of the gen. in Greek. There seems to be no necessity for supposing this a day of ‘‘ double prep- aration,” but its occurring in the Passover gave it peculiar significance, just as the following Sabbath (Saturday) was a great or high day (xix. 3), not because it was the first day of the Passover, but because it was the Sabbath in the Passover, or the Passover Sabbath, and hence doubly consecrated. The fact, then, of this Sabbath beinga ‘‘great day’’ does not, as has been alleged, prove it to have been the first day of the Passover. The last day of the feast of the Tabernacles is called, ‘‘ that great day” (vii. 37), though having in itself nothing specially sacred.
4. But the passage most relied upon to prove John's difference from the other Evangelists on this point is xviii. 18. ‘‘The priests did not enter the Praetorium that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.”’ This certainly looks at first view as if the paschal supper was yet to be eaten, and as if therefore the Lord's supper of the preceding evening must have an- ticipated the regular Passover. Indeed it seems doubtful if, but for this pas- sage, any serious suspicion of a discrepancy between John and the Synoptics would ever have arisen. Yet it seems remarkable that the only passage on which the correction of so important an error was to rest, and by which it could really have been suggested, should have come in in a way so purely in- cidental. To explain it without involving the alleged discrepancy, we may adopt either one of two ways. We may either take gayeiv ré récya in the gen- eral sense of celebrating the Passover—a meaning which it has not elsewhere in the N. T. (being used exclusively of eating the paschal supper)—but which there is no special reason why it may not have, and which once at least its cor- responding Heb. term has 2 Chron. xxx. 22 (‘' for seven days they ate the Pass- over’), while rd sdoyve often denotes the entire Passover festival ; or, retaining the stricter meaning of ¢ayziv, it may refer to the feast of chagigah, eaten espe- cially during the first day of the Passover, and from which the priests there- fore would not exclude themselves by the pollution of entering the Gentile’s house. This explanation is tho more probable as this defilement was of a na- ture that would have terminated with the day, and they would therefore have been able at evening to partake the paschal supper, if this were the day before the Passover. Some scholars have preferred the explanation, that the priests, wholly absorbed on the preceding evening and night in the seizure and trial of Jesus, had foregone the paschal supper at the regular time, and were now look- ing forward to a later celebration of it. This explanation seems by no means impossible, but I think either of the others to be preferred as simpler.
It has been urged also that such a public act as the trial, condemnation, and
500 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
execution of Jesus would not have been performed on a festival day, or upon the Sabbath. To this we may reply: 1. that the execution took place under Ro- man authority, and with the whole affair the Roman power was mixed ; 2. that we are but very imperfectly acquainted with the extent of the licenses or re- strictions connected with festival days, and many things were permitted on them which were not allowed cn the Sabbath ; 3. that in the Jew’s hatred of Jesus they might easily deem themselves justified, and even doing God service, in transcending ordinary usages for the sake of destroying so heinous an of- fender, and that as matter of fact they did repeatedly endeavour to seize upon Him on festival days, as, at John xii. 32, 37, this was done by the assembled Sanhedrim ; and on another occasion (Matt. xxvi. 3-5) the objection was not any ecruples of conscience, but the fear of an uproar among the people. But the most decisive reply of all is that the Synoptists, about whose date of the cruci- fixion there is no doubt, do not hesitate to connect all these public acts with that day. They must assured)y have been competent judges as to the usages of their time.
I shall not dwell upon the intimations of ecclesiastical tradition in connec- tion with the later celebration of the Lord’s supper, tut merely remark that they furnish nothing unfavourable to the view here advocated. It remains but to say a word in regard to Meyer’s explanation of the way in which the strange discrepancy originated. It was forsooth so strongly impressed upon the minds of the church that the last supper ought to have been held upon the Passover evening, that at length it came to be be- lieved that it was so held, and it passed, in the Synoptic Gospels, from the sphere of imagination into the sphere of history! Nothing, it would seem, could be well conceived more preposterous ; and if a chain of logic is not stronger than its weakest link, it surely will not take long for the whole chain to fall to pieces. The Evangelists, or their authorities, came to imagine that the last supper occurred on the Passover evening, and in harmony with this to which this belongs invented the whole series of circumstances which were to ac- company it. They make the disciples come voluntarily to Jesus (Matt. xxvi. 17) and say, ‘‘ Where wilt thou that we prepare the Passover?’ They make the Lord, in reply, send Peter and John (Luke xxii. 8), saying, ‘‘ Goand prepare for us the Passover, that we may eat.’’ They make the Lord exercise His divine prescience in giving the directions. They make Him utter the intensity of desire with which He had desired to eat this Passover with them (Luke xxii. 15). And the whole of this was an illusion !
One word finally on the anticlimaz of the Jewish people's sacrificing (in the ordering of Providence) the real antitypal paschal lamb, and then sitting down on the evening after to partake of that typical meal whose significance and whose office had now been done away forever. In the Synoptical account it seems much more naturally ordered—the typical sacrifice on the preceding evening, and on the next day the efficacious sacrifice which forever supersedes it.
LXIVa. ‘If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants contend .. . but as it is, my kingdom is not of this world.” Ver. 36.
Meyer and Weiss, with many, understand ‘‘my servants’’ as those whom Jesus actually has, not as those whom He would have in the case supposed. But in the supposed case the conditions of the problem would be essentially differ-
NOTES, | 501
ent, and the servants whom he would then have would not be the ontwardly in- significant following that now wait on the spiritual Monarch, and whom it seems absurd to conceive of as arraying themselves against his powerful worldly enemies. I think, therefore, the other view more probable, and the statement a general one, that were he 4 secular monarch he would employ secular means of defending himself, and vindicating hisclaims. True, the Greek verb employed, aywvifoua, contend, struggle, is somewhat more favonrable to Meyer's view than that of our version, fight (as if it were wayoua:). His small band of followers might more easily be conceived as siruggling for their Master, than making a strictly armed resistance. ’Aywvifouat isa much more general word, and is often used where there is strictly no fighting in the case. Thus, 2 Tim.i.7, ‘I have fought the good fight,” implies no proper fighting at all. It is contending in the games, striving with competitors for a prize, not fighting with enemies for conquest or victory.
LXV. Nov dé, ‘‘ But as it (since they do not fight for me) my kingdom is not of this woorld.”’ Ver. 36.
Meyer (and ufter him Weiss) inverts the reasoning involved in the viv dé, It is not, ‘‘If my kingdom were of this world my servants would contend ; but they do not contend, and therefore my kingdom is not,” etc. It is rather, ‘If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would contend ; but now, bul as it is, it is not of this world (and therefore they do not contend).” Such is the uniform use of this viv dé both in the New Test. and in the classics (in the latter more generally in the form of vuv) dé, in the N. T. almost invariably wiv dé). Thus John xv. 22: ‘If I had not come and spoken to them, they had not had sin ; Ind as it is (I have come and spoken to them, and therefore) they have no cloak for their sin.” See John iv, 41 ; 1 Cor. xii. 19 ; Luke xix. 42.
LXVI. ‘Art thoua king?” Ver. 37,
Erroneously, I think, Meyer and Weiss agree in rendering ‘‘ Art thou nol, therefore, a king ?’’ which would require otkovy, not ovxovv, The latter, I think, with Winer and Buttmann can here be rendered only, ‘‘ Art thou, therefore, a king ?"’ The negative force seems to have dropped out from ovxoiv, from its having been first used in an affirmation (it is nol, therefore), and then as a question, in which what was before denied categorically (it is not, therefore) is denied interroga- tively (is it, therefore? No). The meaning ‘Art thou not then a king?’’ seems an unnatural reply to a declaration of Jesus in which He had virtually affirmed His kingship. Pilate in surprise naturally asks, ‘‘Art thou then a king?’’ and this is the regularly established use of ovxciv (with accent on odv) in distinction from ovxovy, with accent on ovx, ;
502 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
CHAPTER XIX.
Ver. 3. wal éAeyor] B.L. U. X. A. II. 8. Curss., most Verss. Cyr. Nom. Aug. : nai ypyovTo Tpo¢ avrov kai éAeyov. Rightly adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepia originated in a mechanical way, just as readily through an erroneous transition from the first airéy to the second, as through the apparently un- necessary, indeed unsuitable, character which fpy. mp. uit. might possess.— édidovv] Lachm. and Tisch. : tdidecav. But see on xv. 22.— Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz: é&726er otv. Lachm.: «ad é7A9ev. The witnesses are very much divided, but there is preponderant testimony in favour of xai éf7A0. (A. B. K. L. X. Il. Curss. Syr. Aeth. Cyr.). Nevertheless, considering the frequency of such insertions, the omission of the particle (Griesb. Tisch.) is sufficiently justified by D. T. ¥. Curss. Verss. — éy avr. otd, air. eip.] Very many variations, amongst which the simple air. wy eip. would, with Tisch., be preferable, if it were not that it has only %.* in its favour, — Ver. 6. avrov] is omitted after the second cravp. in Elz. Tisch., but has the preponderance of testimony in its favour, for amongst the Uncials only B. L. omit it. Nevertheless, the addition was so easily suggested of itself, and through Luke xxiii. 21, Mark xv. 13, John xix. 15, that it is to be regarded as a supplement. — Ver. 7. #01] is wanting in B. D. L. A. &. Vulg. It. Or. Hil. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But how easily might its omission have been caused, partly by the preceding syllable MON, partly by its being apparently superfluous !— Ver. 10. After Aéye:, Elz. Lachmn. have otv, which, indeed, is wanting only in A. 8. Curss. Syr. Perss. Copt. Arm. Slav. Cyr. (deleted by Tisch.) ; considering, however, the appro- priateness of the connection which it expresses, it would hardly have been
“ omitted had it been genuine. The copyists can scarcely have felt that there was anything cumbrous (in answer to Liicke, de Wette) in the expression. — Ver. 11. elyecg] A.D. L. X. Y. A. II. &. Curss. : Zyvece. Defended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 485 ff., adopted by Tisch. An old copyist’s mistake, which is supported by none of the Verss. except Copt., and by none of the Fathers, which, however, crept in readily enough after the shortly preceding Exyw. — Ver. 12. éxpafov] Lachm. Tisch. : éxpavyafoy, according to important witnesses, indeed, but derived from vv. 6, 18, 40, whence B. D. Curss. have directly repeated éxpavyacav. — Ver. 13. rovrov rv Adyov] The genit. plur., and that either rudrwy trav Adywr, or, more strongly still, rav Adywy rovTwr, 18 80 decisively attested, that the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted. The Recepta is derived from ver, 8. — Ver. 14. Instead of dé after dpa, Lachm. and Tisch. have 7, on decisive testimany ; dé is a stylistic correction. — é«r7] D. L. X. A. &.*#* Curss. Chronic. alex. (the latter appealing to the axp:37 cvriypaga, nay, even to the ididyecpov of John !) Nonn. Sev. ant. (appealing to Euseb.) Ammon. Theophyl. : rpérn, An old harmonistic alteration in conformity with Mark xv. 25 (comp. Matt. xxvii. 45 ; Mark xv. 33 ; Luke xxiii. 44). — Vv. 16, 17. Instead of #yayov, Elz. has dryyayoy, against decisive testimony. But B. L, X. Curss, Codd. N. Copt. Cyr. entirely omit xai f#yayov. So Lachm. and Tisch.
CHAP. XIX., 1-5. | 503
But if the continuation had here been supplied from the parallel passages, not hyayov, but amnyayov (comp. Matt. xxvii. 31; Luke xxiii. 26), would have the pre- ponderance of testimony. Kai #yayorv, however, might easily have disappeared in the course of transcription, owing toa transition having been at once made from the first xai to the second, — rév oraup. atrov} Lachm. : avrg r. or. (B. X.); Tisch. : éavtg 7. or. (L. &. Or.). The latter, in favour of which D. also testifies with éavrov, isto be preferred. The reflexive pronoun was frequently neglected. The Recepia is un alteration in conformity with the most current mode of ex- pression. — Ver. 20. The order of the words ‘Ejp., 'Puz., ‘EAA. (so Tisch., according to B. L. X. ¥*. Curss. Copt. Sah. Aeth. Cyr.) has probability, con- sidering the standpoint of Pilate, in its favour. — Vv. 26, 27. Instead of idot, we should, in conformity with important testimony, read both times with Lachm. and Tisch. ide, frequent in John (he has /dov only in iv. 35, xvi. 32, and from the LXX. xii. 15), though we are not to assume any difference of meaning between the two forms. — Ver. 29, ot] is wanting in A. B. L. X. Codd. It., whilst a few other witnesses (including %.) have dé. Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch, —ol d2 rane. oxdyy. 6€ kai] Lachm. : oxédyy. ovv peordy tov dfovc, according to B. L. X. &. Curas. Verss. Cyr. Hilar. So also Tisch., but without tov, which X. &. do not contain. The Recepia is shaped in conformity with Matt. xxvii. 48, Mark xv. 36, where of dé was readily suggested as an insertion on account of the change of persons. — Ver. 31. Instead of éxeivov, Elz. has ixeivn, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 35. xai deic} Elz. has merely tyeic. But «el is so strongly attested, and might be so readily omitted as being with- out reference, that it must be preserved. — Ver. 40. év d9ov.] The mere dGor. (Elz. Lachm.) is very strongly attested (B. K. L. X. Y. II. &.), but the super- fluous & might readily be passed over, comp. xii. 44, especially as the pre- ponderance of parallel passages presents the mere dative.
Vv. 1-3. Ov] After the miscarriage of this attempt at deliverance, Pilate will at least make the further trial whether the compassion of the Jews may not be awakened. Ilicnce he causes to be inflicted on Jesus the seourging, to which in any case, if He were to be crucified, We must be subjected ; and hopes, in the folly of his moral vacillation, by means of such maltreat- _ment, although inflicted without sentence and legality, to satisfy the Jews, and avert something worse. Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 26. With a like pur- pose in view, he also gives Him up to the contumclious treatment of the soldiers, who deck Him out as king (xviii. 89) with a crown of thorns (see on Matt. xxvii. 29) and a purple mantle (comp. on Matt. xxvii. 28 ; Mark xv. 17). —2éafev] shows the simple style of the narrative.—«. fpy. mp. air.] See the critical notes. It is a pictorial trait. He stands arrayed before them ; they go up to Him and do obeisance to Him !— Jaricuara] As in xviii. 22. Codd. of It. add in faciem.
Vv. 4, 5. Wd%v] For, according to xviii. 40, Pilate has returned into the praetorium, and has caused Jesus to be scourged, ver. 1. The scourging was certainly carried out so that the Jews could see it. The prisoner, scourged and arrayed in the caricature of a king, he causes to be led forth with him. — tiv] Vodis; what follows gives the more exact explanation of this reference. — iva yrore, «.r.2.] For had he found Him guilty, he would certainly not make the repeated attempt, implied in this leading forth and
504 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
presentation of Jesus to them, to change the mind of the Jews, but would dispose of the matter by ordering execution. — Ver. 5. é#A@ev . . . idriov is not a parenthesis, but the narrative, according to which Jesus comes forth in the train of Pilate, proceeds without interruption, in such a manner, how- ever, that with Aéye: (Pilate) the subject suddenly changes.! — gopav] not gépuv ; for the kingly attire is now to the close of the proceedings His per- manent garb.* — The short significant ecce homo! behold the man, whose case we are treating | has its eloquent commentary in the entire manifesta- tion of suffering in which the ill-treated and derided one was set forth. This suffering form cannot be the usurper of athrone ! The words are gen- tly and compassionately spoken, and ought to excite compassion ;* in ver. 14 he first says with bitterness : ide 6 Bactdeic tudv.
Vv. 6-8. Of the presence of the people (who perhaps kept silence, Liicke thinks ; comp. Luthardt, according to whom the high priests desired to forestall any possible expressions of compassion on the part of the people) the text says nothing ; the "Iovdaio, xviii. 31, 38, were pre-eminently the apxtepetc of the present passage. — dre obv eidov] The spectacle, instead of calming their bitterness, goads them on. — Adfere avrév tyeic, x.7.A.] A para- doz, amounting to a peevish and irritated refusal, since the Jews did not possess the right of execution, and crucifixion was certainly not a Jewish cap- ital punishment. Crucify him yourselves, if you will have him crucified ! —Now, however, they introduce the authority of their law, according to which Jesus (as being a blasphemer, namely, of God, Lev. xxiv. 16 ; Matt. xxvi. 63, 64) must die. They thus prudently give to their demand another legal basis, to be respected by the procurator in conformity with Roman policy, and to the accusation the corresponding religious sanction. An admission, however, that their political suspicion of Jesus had only been a pretext (Stcinmcyer), is not contained in this ; it is only another turn given to the charge. — uric] With haughty emphasis, opposed to the preceding fy... airiav, On bre vidv, «.7.2., comp. Vv. 18, x. 88. — nadArov égof.] His Tear only became the greater (ua2/., see v. 18), namely, of suffering Jesus to be executed. To the previous fcar of conscience was now, in truth, added the fear of the cengeance of a God, namely, of Jehovah, the God of the Jews, — in case the assertion mentioned should turn out to be true. He explained to himself the vid¢ feov after the analogy of pagan heroes, like the cen- turion, Matt. xxvii. 54. That he was moved by the idea of the unity of God (Hengstenberg) has nothing to support it ; nay, viewed in the light of the wanton words, xviii. 38, very improbable.
Vv. 9, 10. He therefore took Jesus again away with him into the praeto- rium for a private audience. — wé6ev] asks after His origin, but not in the sense of the place of birth (Paulus), but in the sense occasioned by vidv Geoi, ver. 7, in order to obtain a declaration frum Jesus on this point, whether He were of human or divine origin. Comp. on viii. 14 ; Matt. xxi. 25. — azénp. ovx édwx. att¢] Both this observation, as well as the peculiarity of Pilate’s
1 See Heindorf, ad Plat. Futhyd. p. 275 B; 2 Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 585. Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8. 3 Comp. already Chrysostom.
tt.
Oe
‘gs “SOS.
CHAP. XIX., 11. 505
question, betraying a certain timidity, zé#ev el of (how entirely different is his question, xviii. 33 ; while here he shrinks from asking directly), has the stamp of originality. Jesus is silent ; for what He would have had to say would only have been misunderstood by Pilate, or not understood at all (xvii. 25; Matt. vii. 6). Moreover, He had already in truth sufficiently in- dicated His heavenly origin, xviii. 86, 37, had Pilate only possessed suscep- tibility for the truth. But as it was, he was unworthy of further discussion, and in the silence of Jesus are seen precisely the self-assurance and majesty of the Son of God. Luthardt explains it from the assumption that Jesus will not give Pilate occasion to release Him from motives of fear, and thereby to interfere with the will of God. But on that supposition He must also have withheld the great and bold words, ver. 11. A resolute opposition on the part of the sceptical man of the world to the desire of the Jews, Jesus as- suredly neither hoped nor feared. — Ver. 10. Ka? goeiras nat goBei, Euth. Zigabenus. — éuot ov Aadeic;] évoi bears the emphasis of mortified power, which then also attempts alike to terrify and to entice. To mention at jirst the cravpacai ce, and then, not before, the amoAvoai ce, corresponded to the state of the procedure. But A. B. E. x. Lachm. Tisch. have the converse order, which would meanwhile more readily suggest itself to the mechanical copyist. The repeated éfovc. éxw is weighty.
Yer. 11. With a clear and holy defiance, to defend against this assertion of personal power at least the supremacy of His Father, Jesus now speaks His /ast word to Pilate. He points the latter, with his éfovoia which he has thus asserted in his cravpdcai oe, to the supreme authority which has invested him with that éforcia, but at the same time, with conciliatory mildness, deduces from it a standard to diminish the guilt of the judge. The saying breathes truth and grace. — ovn eixec] Thou wouldst not have.' ‘‘Indicativus imperfecti sine 4v h. 1. in firmissima asseveratione longe est aptissimus.” * — dedouévov] Namely, the éfoverdiew nar’ évov.* Not: the defi- nite act of condemnation (Steinmeyer). — dvuhev] i.6. from God, iii. 8, 81. This even the heathen could understand. Had Jesus said é« rod marpéd¢ por, he would not have understood it. Pilate stands before Jesus with the éSovoia to destroy Him ; but he has this power from God, and he would not possess it if God had not appointed him for the fulfilment of His destiny concerning Jesus. For this reason, however (é:4 rowro), that is, because he here acts not in independent self-determination, but as the divinely-ordained
! Buttmann, on account of the absence of dy, would interpret the reading eixes as follows: ‘“ Thou hadst, 4.e. when thou didst receive the accusation against me... no power over me, unless it was giren to thee by God for that purpuse.”” See Siud. w. Krit. 1858, p. 501. But irrespective of the dragging in, in this forced manner, of thiz exacter definition of time in elxes, it is in truth precisely the undoudled possession of the éfoveia which forms the presuppost!- tion of the &da rovro «.r.A. that follows. With the reading ¢x «1s, which Buttmann
prefers, he explains: “thou hast no power over me, if it had not been given thee from above,” p. 494 But why in that case should the pluperf. wv 8e8oudvor stand? Instead of jy, «ort must have been used, in conformity with the sense.
3KOhner, ad Xen. Anad. vil. 6.21. See also Stallbaum, ad Plat. Sympos. p. 190C; Breml, ad Lys. Ere. IV. p. 488 ff.; Winer, p. 286 [E. T. p. 808}.
3 See Kihner, II. sec. 481; Bernhardy, p. 835.
506 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. organ of the procedure which is pending against Him, he is not indeed free from sin, since he condemns Jesus contrary to his own conviction of Hisin- nocence ; but greater is the guilt of him who delivered Jesus into Pilate‘s hands, since that divinely-bestowed éfovsia is wanting to the latter. The logical connection of the did rovro rests on the fact that the rapadidotr nu coz is the high priest, to whom, consequently, no power is given by God over Him, the Messiah, who in truth is higher than the high priest ; to Pilate, on the other hand, the Roman potentate, this power is lent, because, as bearer of the highest magisterial authority, he derives his warrant from God (comp. Rom. xiii. 1), to decide concerning every one who is brought before his court, and therefore also concerning the Messiah, who has been accused and delivered up asa pretender to acrown. This power Pilate possessed simply as a Roman potentate ; hence this point of view does not confuse the matter (Luthardt), but makes it clear. As dedoz. is not to be transmuted into the notion of permission (Chrysostom), so also there is nothing to be found In dia tovro which is not yiclded by the immediate context. Hence we are not to understand with Euth. Zigubenus (comp. Theophylact) : dedéri éfoveiav Eyetc xal ovx arroAbeg ye, 80 that the lesser degree of guilt rests on the weak- ness and timidity of Pilate (comp. Luther) ; nor with Grotius :' because thou canst not know so well as the Jews (to whom 6 zapad. is referred) who I am; nor with Lampe : because the Jews have received no such power from God, have rather assumed it to themselves (Luthardt) ; but solely in harmony with the context : because thou hast the disposal of me, not from thy proper sovereignty, but from having been divinely empowered thereto. — 6 rrapadidoie } he who delivers me up to thee ; the affair is still in actu, those who deliver Him up stand without ; hence the pres. The expression itself, however, cannot, as elsewhere in John,* denote Judas, who here lies entirely remote from the comparison, especially since oo is used with it, nor (with most inter- preters) be understood collectively of the Jews. It is rather the chief of the Jews, the high priest Caiaphas, who is meant,* who ought to have recognized the Messiah, and not to have assumed to himself any power over Him. — peiCova] compares the sin of the zapadcdot¢ with that of Pilate, not with itself so as to designate its guilt as aggravated by the misuse of the éfovcia of Pilate.‘ The guilt which belonged to the zapad:dofc in and by himself, was in truth not aggravated by the delivering over into the hands of the regular magistracy, which was rather the orderly mode of procedure.*
Ver. 12. Ex robrov] Not: from this time forward (so usually) ; for ere,
1 Comp. Bengel, Baeumlein, and already Raperti.
2 xviii. 2, xifl. 2, xi. 21, xfl. 4, vi. 64,71; comp. Mark xiv. 21.
3 So also Bengel, and now Ewald; comp. Luthardt, Baumgarten, p. 388, Hengst.
4 Calvin, Wetstein, Godet, also Baur. Baur in the Theol. Jahrd. 1854, p. 288: **Since thou hast in my case the magiste- rial power over life and death, those who surrender me to thee, incur by their action, in itself immoral, all the greater guilt, if
they abuse the magisterial authority given to thee for their own objects.
§ According to Steinmeyer, p. 156, Jesus would say: “Thy power, on the other hand, to release me, {fs already as good as wrested from thee on the part of the wapaéé. ud cor; but on that very account thy sin is the less.» But this interpretation of 6a rovro is in truth altogether untextual, as the entire conception to which it would refer is foreign to the connexion.
CHAP. XIX., 13. 507 «.7.4., ig @ particular act, which is immediately answered by the Jews with loud outcries ; but: on this ground, as vi. 66, occasioned by this speech of Jesus.’ — él7ret, «.7.4., he sought to release Him.” In what this attempt, which, though made, yet remained unaccomplished (hence imperf.), may more definitely have consisted, John does not say, and therefore it was, probably, only in his making renewed representations. That which is usu- ally supplied, as though »a//ov, as in v. 18, were expressed therewith : he sought still more, he sought most earnestly (‘‘ previously he appears to John rather to have played with the matter,” Liicke), and the like, is capriciously imported, as also the rendering : now he demanded peremptorily, etc. (Stein- meyer). — With éay toirov, x.r.A., the Jews cunningly enough again return to and fasten upon the political side of the accusation, d¢ ob raporriov TH Ttdry da rov ard tov Kaicapoc ¢6Bov, Euth. Zigabenus. How greatly must he, who in so many features of his administration had anything but clean hands,* have desired to avoid an accusation before Tiberius, so suspicious and jealous of his authority ! ‘— ¢idoc rov Kaic.] Not in the titular sense of amicus Caesaris, as high officials bore this title,’ in which, however, the sense of confidant (counsellor) of Cacsar exists ; but faithful to the emperor, friendly to him, and devoted to his interests.*— He who makes himself a king, by the fact, that is, of declaring himself to be such (comp. x. 88), thereby declares himself (avriAéyer) against the emperor. Accordingly, avri- Aéyec has not the more gencral mcaning : he opposes ;" but the emphasis lies upon the corrclates fao:Aéa and Kaicapi.
Ver. 13. These speeches penetrate the mind of Pilate, dismayed at the thought of Rome and the emperor. He will now, formally and solemnly, deliver the final sentence, which must be done, not én the practorium, but outside in the open air ;° he therefore causes Jesus to be brought out, and seats himself, taking his place on the judicial seat, at the place which is called Li- thostroton,but in Hebrew, Gabbatha. — ini rov Bhuarog] Modal defining of éxdé. ei¢ térov. — Since rézoc here denotes a definite and distinguished place, the article is as little required as with méArc, aypéc, and the like in such cases.° — The place where the tribunal stood, before the praetorium in Jerusalem, bore the Greck name, derived from its Mosaic floor,” of Aciéarpurov, 1.6. stone-strown, but in the Aramaic dialect that of *31, arising from its elevated position; two different names, therefore, derived from different properties" of the same place. The place is mentioned neither in Josephus nor in the Rabbins. The name 1,33, is not to be derived from 3733, Aill
1 So also Luthardf and Lange.
2x.80; Luke v. 18, xill. 24, xix.3; Acts xxvii. 80, ef ai.
3 Josephus, Anti. xvill. 8.1 ff. ; Philo, de kegat.ad Caj. p. 1088.
* Suetonius, 77d. 58; Tacitus, Ann. It!. 88. Comp. Hausrath, Christ. Zeiigesch. I. p. 812 ff.
5 See Wetstein; Grimm on 1 Macc. fi. 18.
¢ Xen. Anad. fli. 2. 5.
7 Grotius, de Wette, Mailer.
® See Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 3, if. 14. 8.
®*Comp. Matt. xxvil. 83; Kihbner, IL p. 129.
16 See Wetstein and Krebs, p. 158 f.
11 Ewald attempts to refer reaffada also back to the signification of A:\dderpwrov by assuming a root j/3), but in the significa- tion of PAD (Aram. : insert). Too bold an hypothesis. In the LXX. Ardoorp. (Cant. iii. 10; 2 Chron. vil. 3: Esth. 1. 7 corre- sponds to the Hebr. hy".
508 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
(Hengstenberg), against which would be the double £,' but from 2), ridge, hump.* Ver. 14. Day and hour of the decisive moment, after which the narrative then proceeds with kal Aéye:, «.7.A., without the necessity of placing qv d2 . éxr7 in a parenthesis (rather, with Lachm. and Tisch., between two points). — wapaox. tov técxa] That the zapacxevf may not be understood of the weekly one, referable to the Sabbath,* but may be referred to the Pass- over feast-day, of which it was the preparation-day, John expressly subjoins tov madcxa. It was certainly a Friday, consequently also a preparation-day before the Sabbath ; but it is not this reference which is here to be remarked, but the reference to the paschal feast beginning on the evening of the day, the first feast day of which fell, according to John, on the Sabbath. The expression corresponds to the Heb. NDT Iz, not indeed verbally (for mapacKevg = RNIN), but as to the thing. Those expositors who do not rec- ognize the deviation of John from the Synoptics in respect of the day of Jesus’ death (see on xviii. 28), explain it as: the Friday in the Passover week. * But it isin the later ecclesiastical language that wapaox. first denotes direct- ly Friday,* as frequently also in the Constitt. ap., and that in virtue of the reference to be therewith supplied to the Sabbath ; which, however, cannot be here supplied, since another genitival reference is expressly given. An appeal is erroneously made to the analogy of Ignat. Phil. 18. interpol, where it is said that one should not fast on the Sunday or Sabbath, rAjv Sse oafifarov tov méaya ; for (1) o43farovin and of itself is a complete designation of a day ; (2) 04,3. rov xéoyva here denotes by no means the Sabbath in the Easter-tide, but the Sabbath of the Kaster-day, i.e. the Saturday which pre- cedes Easter-day, Easter-Saturday. And the more decidedly is this harmon- istic and forced solution to be rejected, since the remaining statements of time in John place the death of Jesus before the first feast-day ;° and since John, if he had had the first feast-day before him as the day of death, would not have designated the latter (subtle evasions in Hengstenberg), with such a want of distinctness and definiteness, as ‘‘the Friday in Passover” (which in truth might have also been any other of the seven feast-days), especially here, where he proceeds with a precision that stateseven the hour.” Against Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 1 ff., who, by referring wapack. to the feast of harvest, likewise brings out the 15th Nisan as the day of death, but makes it a Wednesday, see Wieseler, p. 888 f. —éxry7] According to the Jewish reckoning of hours, therefore twelve o’clock at noon,—again a deviation from the Synoptics, according to whom (see Mark xv. 25, with which also Matt. xxvii. 45, Luke xxiii. 44 agree) Jesus is crucified as early as nine o'clock in the morning, which variation in fixing so important a date includes much
1 Comp. rafada, Josephus, Anil. v. 1.29, Wichelhaus, p. 200 f., and Hengstenberg tn
vi. 4. 2. loc., also Riggenbach.
3 See generally Fritzsche, Verdienste Tho- § See Suicer, Thesaur. duck’s, p. 102; Tholuck, Bei/r. p. 119 ff. * See on xill. 1, xviii. 2.
8 Vv. 81, 42; Luke xxiii.54; Mark xv. 42; 7 Comp. further Bleek, Befér. p. 114 f.; Matt. xxvii. 62; Josephus, Ané?. xvi.6.2, Rtickert, Abendm. p. 81 ff.; Hilgenfeld, et al, Paschastr. p. 149 f., and in his Zeilschr. 1867,
See especially Wicseler, p. 336 f.; p. 190.
CHAP, XIX., 14. 509 too large aspace of time to allow us to resolve it into a mere indefinite- ness in the statement of the hour, and, with Godet, following Lange, to say lightly : ‘‘the apostles had no watch in hand,” especially as according to Matt. and Luke the darkening of the earth is expressly ascribed to the sixth hour. Since, however, with Hofmann,’ with whom Lichtenstein agrees, we cannot divide the words : 7 62 rapacxev, rot rdoxa Opa fy O¢ éxrn, but it was preparation-day, it tcas about the sizth hour of the paschal feast (reckoned, namely, from midnight forwards), which forced and artificial explanation would absolutely set aside rapaoxev#, in spite of rot réaza therewith expressed, and would yield an unexdmpled mode of computation of hours, namely, of the feast, not of the day (against i. 40, iv. 6, 52) ; since, further, the reading in our present passage is, both externally and internally, certain, and the already ancient assumption of a copyist’s mistake ® is purcly arbitrary ; since, further, as generally in John (comp. oni. 40, iv. 6, 52), the assumption is groundless, * that he is reckoning according to the Roman enumeration of hours ;‘ since, finally, the quarter of a day beginning with this hour cannot be made out of the third hour of Mark,* and just as little (Hengstenberg, comp. Godet) can the sixth hour of John (comp. iv. 6) be taken into consideration only as the time of day in question ; ‘—the variation must be left as it is, and the pref- erence must be given to the disciple who stood under the cross. Nor isthe Johannean statement of the hour in itself improbable, since the various pro- ceedings inand near the praetorium, in which also the sending to Herod, (Luke xxiii. 7 ff., is to be included (see on xviii. 88), may probably have extended from poi, xviii. 28, until noon (in answer to Brtickner) ; while the execution, on the adjacent place of execution, quickly followed the ju- dicial sentence, and without any intermediate occurrence, and the death of Jesus must have taken place unusually carly, not to take into account the space which doei leaves open.” For the way, however, in which even this statement of time is deduced from the representation of the paschal lamb as
2In the Zeitechr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1853, Oct. p. 260 ff., and Schrifibew. II. 2, p. 204 f.
* Eusebius, Beza, ed. 5, Bengel; accord- ing to Ammontus, Severinus, reves in Theo- phylact, Petavius: an interchange of the numeral signs y and ¢.
?In fact, it is precisely In the present passage that the inadmissidility of the Roman enumeration of hours in shown. For if Jesus was brought wpet, xvill. 24, to the praetorium. it is impossible that after all the transactions which here took place, including the scourging, mocking, and also the sending to Herod (who questioned Him dv Adéyars ixavoig, Luke xxiii. 9, and derided Him). the case can have been matured for sentcnoe as early as six o'clock in the morning, that is, at the end of about two, or at most three hours.
* Rettig, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, Hug, Maier, Ewald, Isenberg ; substantially so Wicselcr, p. 414, who calls to his aid the
first feast-day, Ex. xil. 29, which begins precisely at midnight.
5 Calvin, Grotius, Jansen, Wetstein, and others, comp. Krafft, p. 147; see in opposi- tion, Mark xv. 838, 34.
* On this theory Hengstenberg forms the certainly very simple example: the com- bination of the statements of Mark and John yields the result, that the sentence of condemnation and the leading away falls tn the middle, between the third and sixth hour, therefore about 10.30 o'clock. Were this correct, the statements @f doth evange- lists would be incorrect, and we should avoid Scylla to fall into Charybdis.—Godct only renews the idle eubterfuge that in Mark xv. 2% the crucifixion is reckoned Jrom the scourging forwards.
7 Comp. Marcus Gnost. fn Irenaeus, Haer. §. 14.6: rw éxrny apay, dv § wpoonAwdy ry tidy.
510 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
an attempt to bring out the OI YN fa, Ex. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Num. ix. 3), see, in Weisse, Erangelienfrage, p. 131. —ide 6 Beord. tudv !] Pilate is indeed determined, on ascending his judicial seat, to overcome his senti- ment of right ; but, notwithstanding, in this decisive moment, with his moral weakness between the twofold fear of the Son of God and of the Caesar, he still, before actually yielding, makes the bitter remark against the Jews : see, there is your king! imprudently, ineffectually, but at least satisfying in some degree the irony of the situation, into the stress of which he sees himself brought.
Vv. 15, 16. The bitterness is still further embittered. To the impetuous clamour which demands crucifixion, the question of Pilate : your king shall I crucify ? is only the feeble echo of ide 6 3ee. iu., whereupon, with the decisive oix Zyouev Baordéa, x.t.A.,—decisive, though treacherously denying the claim of the Hierarchy,—the again awakened fear of the emperor at last completely disarms the procurator, so that now thus (rére ofv) comes out the tragic and ignominious result of his judicial action.’— atroi¢] to the chief priests, ver. 15. To these Jesus was gicen orer, and that as a mattcr of fact, not merely by the sentence of itsclf (Hengstenberg), that He might be crucified under their direction by Roman soldiers.* Comp. viii. 28 ; Acts li. 23, ili. 15. sapéd. does not signify to yield to their desire (Grotius, B. Crusius, Baeumlein).—On crucifixion in general, see on Matt. xxvii. 35.
Vv. 17, 18. The subject of capé2a30v, which is correlative to rapfduxer, ver. 16, and of 7)ayor, is necessarily, according to ver. 16, the apxtepeic, not the soldiers (de Wette, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, and older ex- positors). The former are the persons * who act, which does not exclude the service and co-operation of the soldiers (ver. 23). — Saor. éavrg Trav oravp. (see critical notes) : bearing for Himself the cross.‘ See on Matt. xxvi. 32. and Charit. iv. 2; and on Golgotha, on Matt. xxvii. 33. — évrei@. x. evretO.] Comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 5.6 On the thing itself, comp. Luke xxiii. 33. John gives peculiar prominence to the circumstance, adding further, pécoy ‘é 7. Ino. Whether, and how far, the Jews thus acted intentionally, is un- determined. Perhaps they scornfully assign to their ‘‘ king” the place of honour! That Pilate desired thereby to deride them, in allusion to 1 Kings xxii. 19 (B. Crusius, Briickner, Lange), we are not to suppose, since the subject of éoratp. is the Jews, under whose direction the crucifixion of the principal person takes place, and, at the same time, the two subordinate persons are put to death along with Him. Pilate first appears, ver. 19. Of special dirine conceptions in the intermediate position assigned to the cross of Christ (see Steinmeyer, p. 176), John gives no indication.
Vv. 19, 20. "Eypaye] Not a supplemental statement: he had written (de
1 Xptcrov exwy adcwv adixe wapésmner bAEd py, Nonnus.
2 Ver. 28, comp. Matt. xxvii. 26, 27.
3 By which also the fact is confirmed that John had not in his mind the first feast- day, which certainly possessed the aathor- ity of the Sabbath.
4 The assistance of Simon in this, John,
who here gives only a compendious account, has passed over as a subordinate circum- stance, not, as Scholten thinks, in con- formity with the idea that the Son of God needed no human help.
8 évdey xai évdey, Herod. iv. 173; Soph. Aj. 725; Xen. Cyr. vi 8, 8; 1 Macc. vi. 88, ix. 45: 3 Mace. fi. 22, not Rev. xxii. 2.
CHAP, XIX., 21-24. 511
Wette, Tholuck), but : he wrote (caused to be written), while the crucifixion took place without ; and when it had taken place, he caused the rirdoc (solemn Roman expression for a public inscription, particularly for the tab- lets, naming the criminal and his offence, see Lipsius, de cruce, p. 101, and Wetstein), to be placed on the cross. He himself was not present at the crucifixion, Mark xv. 43, 44.—6 Bao:d. rév *Iovd.] Consistent bitterness in the designation of Jesus. Ver. 20. ray 'Iovdaiwy] of the hierarchic party. — Eyyitc¢ qv, «.7.2.] See on Matt. xxvii. 33. — nal qv yeypaup., «.7.A.] No longer dependent on art, since réav ’Iovdaiwy, ver. 20, unlike ver. 19, is not to he taken in‘a general sense. It rather attaches to the first point, which explains the proposal of the dpycepeic, ver. 21, to Pilate (rovrov. . . 'Iovdaiwy, ver. 20), a second circumstance assigning its reason, namely: i¢ (that which ran on the rirdoc) was written in three languages, so that it could be read by every- body, including foreigners. For an inscription, even in four languages, on the tomb of Gordian, see in Jul. Capitolin. 24.
Vv. 21, 22. The Jewish opponents of Christ have, with hierarchic tact, deciphered the resentful bitterness in the rirdoc, hence the chief priests among them suggest to Pilate, ctc. The expression ol apytep. r. "Iovd. docs | not stand in contrast to the Baoi2ci¢ r. 'Iovd. (Hengstenberg, Godet), but the high clerus of the opposition desired not to see the ancient sacred de:- ignation of Messiah profaned. — 4) ypdége] The writing, because still capable of being altered, is conceived as not yet concluded. — 8 yéypaga, yéypada] Formal way of designating that with what is written the matter is unalter- ably to rest. Analogous formulae from the Rabbins, see in Lightfoot. Comp. also 1 Macc. xiii. 38 ; é0a éorfxapev . . . garyxe. Now, too late, he who was previously so weak in character stands firm. In this subordinate point at least he will have his own opiniop, and not expose his weakness.
Vv. 28, 24. Oty] again connects the history, after the intermediate narra- tive respecting the superscription, with ver. 18. — ¢orabpwoav] For they were the erecutioners of the crucifixion. — ra iudr. atrov] His garments, with the exception, however, of the y:rév, which is afterwards specially men- tioned, the shirt-like under-garment. The account of John is more exact and complete than that of the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 85 ; Mark xv. 24 ; Luke xxiii. 84), — réocapa] There were accordingly four soldiers, the ordi- nary retpddiov orpa riwtav (Acts xii, 4). — éx rev dvulev toavrig dt’ bAov] From the top (where the button-hole was, az’ aiyévoc, Nonnus) woven quite through, throughout, so that thus the garment was a single texture, woven from above entirely throughout, without seam, similar to the priestly vestment in Joseph. Antt. iii. 7. 4.1— iva 4 ypagf, x.7.4.] This casting of lots for the xirov, after the division of the iudria, was not an accidental occurrence, but was in connection with the divine determination for the fulfilment of Script- ure, which says, etc. The passage is Ps. xxii. 19, closely following tlc LXX. The suffering of the theocratic sufferer, in this psalm, is the pro- phetic type of the suffering of the Messiah. ‘‘ They have divided my gar-
18ee Braun, de restitu Hebr. p. M2 ff.; 1; Plut. Mor. p. 605f.; Bernhardy, p. 235; Rosenmiiller, Morgent. V. p. 278f. On the also &’ daw, Plat. Soph. p. 258 C. adverblal 5’ cAov, comp. Asclep. 16; Nicand.
~ 512 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ments with one another (éavr. = aAdApaove, comp. Luke xxii. 17), and cast lots over my raiment,”—this complaint of the Psalmist, who sees himself as being already subjected to the death of a criminal, and the division of his garments among his executioners therewith connected, has found its Mes- sianic fulfilment in the corresponding treatment of Christ, in so far as Jote have also been cast over His raiment (in reality, over His under-garment). In this fulfilment the y:roy was that portion of His clothing on which the éxi tov iuariopdéy pov 2Badov xAjpov was historically carried out ; but we are not, for this reason, to say that John took rév iuarioudy as equivalent to r. xitéva (Liicke, de Wette.) — ol yév otv orpar. r. éxoi] Simple (reminding one of Herod., Xen., and others) concluding formula for this scene of the sol- diers proceedings. On pév obv, see on Luke iii. 18. — ravra] That related in vv. 23, 24. <A secret allusion,’ in these closing words (Hengstenberg, Godet), is arbitrarily forced upon them.
Vv. 25-27. Another narrative, selected by John, and peculiar to him, as clevated and striking in its contents as it is simple and tender in form, and all the more unjustly relegated to the inventions made (Strauss, Baur, Schenkel) in the interest of John, although in the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40) the women mentioned stand at a distance, which stand- ing at a distance is to be placed «after the present scene, not before, as Liicke and Olshausen, in opposition to the synoptical account, are of opinion. — ) whtnp abrov . . . MaydaAnvj] Are only three women here named (usual opinion), so that Mapia 7 rov KAwra is in apposition to 7 adeAgh, x.7.A. 3 OF are there four,*so that Mapia 7 rov Kjwra is to be taken by itself, and the women are brought forward in two pairs? The Syr. already interpreted in the latter mode, and hence inserted a xai before Mapéa (as also Acth. and Pers.) ; so also have Lachm. (ed. min., not in the large edition) and Tisch. interpunctuated (without acomma after KA4wra). As it is highly improba- ble of itself, and established by no instance, that two sisters bore the same name,—as, further, it is in keeping with the peculiarity of John not to mention his own name, if he also does not mention his mother,* or even his brother James, by name (see on i. 42), and as, according to Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, Salome was also among the above-named women, Wieseler’s view, which is absolutely not opposed by any well-founded doubts,‘ is to
1 Hengstenberg: ‘‘ But the occupation that consequently a hesitation might not
itself stands .under a secret direction, and sacred irony passes over trony to the side of profane irony.” Here Scholten coincides with Hengstenberg, supplying : “* who knew nothing of the O. T. etc.”
2 Wicseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. G48 ff., Liicke, Lange, Ewald, Laurent, -Veut. Stud. p. 170 f.
3 IIe does, indeed, hame in xxi. 2 his Sather. But the latter appears so without participation in the evangelical history, that he might appear to John's mind in his Christian relation, especially in the late period of the composition of the appendix, chap. xxi., more foreign and remote, and
cxist in reference to naming him, as there did in the case of the mother, founded on a delicate and more spiritual considera- tion. — Scholten changes the mother into an allegorical person, in whom the Church is represented, to care for which was to be incumbent on John, not on Peter. So sub- stantially also Spath in Hilgenfeld, Zei/schr. 1808, p. 187.
4Insufficient objections in Luthardt, Briickner, Baeumlein, Welzs&cker, and others. According to Euth. Zigabenus, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others, abeAdy would signify sister-in-law.
CHAP. XIX., 28. 513 be deemed not ‘‘a mere learned refinement” (Hengstenberg), but correct, so that thus the unnamed 4 adeA7 r7¢ pytpd¢ airov is Salome, the mother of John. — } tot Kawa] The wife of Klopas, according to Matt. xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, Luke xxiv. 10, mother of the younger James, hence Klopas is to be taken as Alphaeus, ‘pon, Matt. x. 8. According to Ewald, on the other hand, the mother of Kleopas, Luke xxiv. 18, and according to Beza : the wife of this Kleopas. — Maydaa.] See on Matt. xxvii. 56. — That Jesus enjoins on John to care for Mary, although the latter had several sons of her own, is not sufficiently explained by the unbelief of the brothers (vii. 5), for His speedy triumph over this (Acts i. 14) could not be hidden from Him (ii. 24, 25) ; but it presupposes the certainty in His mind that generally to no other’s hand could this dear legacy" be so well entrusted. That Mary had no other sons (see in opposition to this vii. 8, and on Matt. i. 25) is, indeed, still inferred by Hengstenberg. For ybva:, comp. on ii. 4. — The words to the disciple, behold thy mother, meet no stumbling-block in the fact that he had his own actual mother, nay, that she herself was also present (see on ver, 25), but leave his relation to the latter untouched, and form with the ide 6 vidg cov & parallelism, which expresses the filial care and protection which Mary, on the one hand, was to erpect from John; which John, on the other hand, was to exercise towards Mary. —xal an’ Exeivne tig Opag, x.7.A. | Not to be regarded as a parenthesis ; to be taken with strict literality, that John forthwith, after Jesus had accomplished His end upon the cross, en- tered on his charge. Whether and where he possessed a property of his own is matter of conjecture. If he received Mary into his dwelling, into his fam- ily circle, formed by Salome, and perhaps by his brother, ei¢ ra ida (comp. xvi. 82), is the correct expression. Ewald well remarks on such traits of individual significance in the Gospel of John: ‘‘it was for him at a late period of life a sweet reward to call up reminiscences of all that was most vivid, but for the readers it is also, without his will, a token that only he could have written all this.” If, indeed, the designation of the disciple beloved by Jesus as a sel/-designation were a vanity (Scholten), nay, an arro- gant and scornful self-eraltation (Weisse), then it could not have been he who wrote all this. But the consciousness of pre-eminent love on the part of the Lord, true, clear, and still glowing with all intensity and strength, in the heart of the old man, is inconceivable without the deepest humility, and this humility, which has long since ceased to have anything in common with the feeling evinced in Mark x. 85 ff., Luke ix. 54, has precisely in that most simple of all expressions, dv 7ydza, its most correspondent expression and its necessary and sacred justification, which is as little to be passed over in silence, or to be denied, as is the consciousness of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 10. Ver. 28, Mera rovro] Not indefinitely later, but after this scene with Mary
1 This noblest blossom of dying piety !s violently removed into a sphere foreign to it, if it is transported into dogmatic ground, as Steinmeyer, p. 200. does. According to him, the death of the Atoner for all men, as such, has completely cut asunder the
tie that hitherto existed; by this death Jcsus departed out of every naturally-con- ditioned individual fellowship, and like Melchizedek must also appear as amprep. Of such a meaning, John gives not the slightest indication.
514 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN.
and John. — cidéc, x.7.A.] as He was aware (xiii. 1) that his death was already at hand, that with this all was now accomplished for fulfilling the predictions of Scripture regarding His earthly work, He now still desires, at this gaol of accomplishment, a refreshment, and says: J thirst. Accord- ingly, iva rea. 4 ypagf is to be referred to mdvra #dy reréA.1 And this, because sdvra idéy rteviA. allows no fulfilment of Scripture still remaining behind, and thus ereludes the conncction of iva rea. 9 yp. with Aéyee ; because reAeioOn is selected simply for the sake of its reference to reréA. (it is the 7A#- pwoe Of Scripture, to which now nothing more is wanting) ; and because John never makes the clause of purpose, ‘‘ that the Scripture might be fulfilled, ~’ precede the clause of fulfilment, and even where a single definite fact is the . fulfilling element, always actually adduces the passage of Scripture in question (xvii. 12 is a retrospective indication of a passage already before adduced). We must abandon, therefore, the ordinary interpretation,* which refers iva red., «.7.A. to Aéyee’ dea, as containing the scriptural ground of the thirst, to which Jesus gave expression, and of the drinking of the vinegar which was given to Him, and finds in Ps. Ixix. 22 the passage intended ; where, moreover, the vinegar is the gift of scorn and malice, while here simply the quenching of thirst immediately before death is in question, with no ulterior purpose. — rdvra 4dy reréA.] rovrlotiy ire obdév Agimer TH oixovapig, Chrysostom ; 467 (already) points to the very early occurrence of His death (Nonnus : doar).
Vv. 29, 80. "Execro] as in ii. 6. The yessel was in readiness for the purpose of quenching the thirst of those crucified (who had always to suffer much therefrom), with sponge and stalk of hyssop, which were to serve for handing it up. — dgvvc] vinegar, i.e. small sour wine (from the skins of grapes already pressed), which served as a drink for labourers and soldiers. * Of the bitter stupefying drink, which Jesus had disdained to receive,‘ John says nothing. On the drink tendered to him, Luke xxiii. 86, see in loc. — The subject of oréyyov, x.r.4. is not named ; yct there can be no doubt about who are meant, the soldiers. — tcodm| More exactly than in Matt. xxvii. 48, and since the hyssop grows stalks from 1 to 1} feet high,® such an one was fully sufficient to reach to the mouth of Jesus on the not lofty ° cross.’ — abrod T@ aréyati] to His mouth. That the stalk was preciscly of hyssop, is accidental ; as hyssop of scorning, in opposition to the hyssop of reconcilta- tion, Ps. li. (Hengstenberg), it is not to be thought of, since the tender of the drink in the present passage is certainly not an act of scorn. Moreover,
3? Wetstein on Matt. xxvii. 84; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 26. 10.
1 Cyril (?), Bengel, Michaelis, Semler, Thalem., van Hengel (Annot. p. 62 ff.),
Paulus, Tholuck, Hofmann, ( Weissag. u.Erf. II. p. 146. On the other hand, Hofmann, in ‘the Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 814, has altered his views, and connects tva eA. 7» yp. with Adye), Luthardt, Lange, Baeumlein, Schol- ten, Steinmeyer.
2 Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Ziga- benus, Ruperti, and many others, Including Liicke, de Wette, Brfickner, Strauss, B. Cru- sius, Baur, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet.
4 Matt. xxvii. 34. 85; Mark xv. 28, 24.
® Bochart, Hieroz. I. 2. 50; Celsius, Hiero- bot. I. p. 407 f.
¢ Salmasins, de cruce, p. 264.
7 Least of all with a dogmatic background, although Steinmeyer assumes that supe is a request to His enemies, and thereby illustrates the love, which completed the act of atone- ment. This request, he thinks, only the dying Mediator could have made.
“=~. ws w=
en) ee ee on
CHAP, XIX., 31. 515
it is precisely such non-essential special statements as these which have flowed from the most vivid recollection of an eye-witness. — reréAeorac] Quite as in ver. 28, to be referred to the werk of Jesus. Comp. xvii. 4. It is by Him brought to completion with this act of the last death-suffering. Further, Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ hoc verbum in corde Jesu crat, ver. 28, nunc ore profertur.*’ — zapéd. rd wv.] LHe gate over (to God) His spirit, char- acteristic designation of dying, in conformity with that which dying was in Jesus’ casc. It is the actual surrender of His self-conscious Ego on the decease of the body ; the verdal surrendcr, Luke xxiii. 46,’ appears, since John has, instead of it, the simply grand concluding word reréAJeora:, to belong to the enlarging representations of tradition, but would, after the bowing of the head, be no longer suitable, and hence have to be assumed as following reréAcora:. — Note further, that the elvaz cig r. xéArov tov rarpd¢ of i. 18 did not now take place, but through and after the ascension (xx. 17).
Ver. 31. Otv] Therefore, since Jesus was already dead. Their object was already attained ; so now the Sabbath also should still have its rights. ‘‘ Magnifici honoratores Dei, cum in conscientia mala reposuissent sanguinen justi,” Ruperti. —iva py? peivy, x.t.2.] Contrary to the Roman custom, of leaving the corpse to putrefy on the cross (comp. on Matt. xxvii. 58), onthe part of the Jews, the injunction has to be applied respecting the removal of the hanged person, Deut. xxi. 22, 23," especially in the present case where with sunset the Sabbath began, and this a great Sabbath, and therewith a wish was expressed to see the crucified ones removed and interred in the interval before the beginning of the holy day. — rapacxev4] Because it was the day of preparation, namely, rov oa3,3érov, for the Sabbath. This refer- ence of rapaox. necessarily follows from év rq ca3fdry. But the parenthesis qv ydp peydAn, x.7.2. indicates why they wished not to have the Sabbath, especially on that occasion, desecrated by the bodics remaining on the cross ; because great, i.e. pre-eminently holy (comp. vii. 37; Isa. i. 13), was the day of that Sabbath, because, that is, it was (not mercly generally a Sab- bath in the Passover feast time, but) at the samc time the first day of Pass- ocverthe 15th Nisan. It was thus a Sabbath with twofold authority, since the first feast-day also had the character of a Sabbath (Lev. xxiii. 7-15). With a Quartodeciman usage of speech (Hilgenfeld) the designation of the Sab- bath in the present passage has nothing to do.* As the second feast-day, however, which is the day that results from the attempts at harmonizing (sec on xviii. 28), it could only be termed peyéAy, for the reason that on this day, 4.6, the 16th Nisan, the feast of Sheares took place, Lev. xxiii. 10 ff. (see especially Wieseler, p. 885 f., 344). But how could John have presupposed, in his readers, without any indication, a reference to this? These could explain to themselves the peyadtdra¢ of that Sabbath only from ver. 14, from
1Of the seven words on the cross, only 48, 46), and John likewise three (xix. 26, 27, Matt. xxvii. 46, according to Schenkel’s too 28, 30). rash conclusion, is to be considered as alto- 2 Comp. Joseph. Bell. tv. 5. 2 gether beyond doubt. Mark also has only 3 See Steitz in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. this onc (xv. MH), Luke has three (xxill. 31, 1861, p. 113 ff.
e
516 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
the fact, namely, that the rapacxer? rot oafSérov of which John speaks was at the same time, according to ver. 14, rapaoxers) rod mdoxva. —iva xateay@ou x.t.a.] For two were, indeed, still living, and also with respect to Jesus they had at least no certainty that He was actually dead. On the apparent contradiction with Mark xv. 44, see on ver. 88. The crushing of thelegs with clubs (crucifragium, oxedonovria) was to accelerate death (as John also mani- festly views it, comp. ver. 33), and that in a barbarous manner, in order to take nothing from the severity of the punishment.’ It also appears as a punishment by itself.?_ The addition of a finishing blow, by which (there- fore not by the crucifragium in itself) death was brought about, cannot be shown, least of all, from ver. 34, against Michaelis, Semler, Kuinoel, Hug.?
Vv. 32, 83. To assume, on account of Mark xv. 89 (comp. Matt. xxvii. 54), that these soldiers were others (sent out by Pilate) than those who had crucified Jesus,‘ is indicated by nothing in the text, where rather oi orpa- ri@rae are those already known. The A6o» is only pictorial, and the centurion does not come into consideration with John. — Since they came to Jesus last, we must suppose that two each began on the two sides of the three crosses.
Ver. 34. The soldiers, when they saw, etc. The death of Jesus, in Keep- ing with their attitude of indifference in the matter, had therefore been unobserved by them (in answer to Hengstenberg); they now omitted the leg-breaking in His case, as aimless in the case of one already dead. But one pierced Him with a lance in the side. Wherefore? Not in order to ascer- tain whether He was actually dead ; for, according to the context, the thrust took the place of breaking the legs. Hence it must be assumed, according to the analogy of the latter, that the object of the thrust was to make quite sure of the death of Jesus, i.e. in case He should not yet be altogether dead, to put Him completely to death. —airod r. rievpdv] His side. Which? is not clear ; but the deft, if he who dealt the thrust stood before the cross, was
‘was most naturally at hand. — évvge] Neither the word itself (since véccedw ordinarily denotes violent thrusting or stabbing ; especially frequent in Homer,‘ nor the person of the rude soldier, nor the weapon (lance, belong- ing to the heavy armour, Eph. vi. 11), nor the purpose of the thrust, nor the palpable nature of the opening of the wound, to be assumed, according to xx. 27, nor éfexfvrnoav, ver. 37, admit the interpretation, which is implied in the interest of an apparent death, of a superficial seratch (Paulus) —aixza x. idup] is, considering the difference and significance of the two substances, certainly not to be taken asa hendiadys (‘‘a reddish lymph, Paulus *).
1 See Lactantius, Jnstit. div. iv. 26; ® To this conclusion Hofmann also (Weis Lipsius, de cruce, ff. 14. sag. u. Erfill. I. p. 148 f.) again involun- * Suetonius, Aug. 67; Seneca, de tra, fil. tarily returned, understanding wundecom- 82; and see generally Wetstein, also Lipsius, posed, still flowing blood, as a sign that the ad Plaut. Asin. il. 4. 68. body of Jesus was exempt from corruption. On the aorist form with syllabic aug- See, in opposition, also Luthardt. But Hof- ment. from xcarayvvms, see Winer, p. 68(E.T. mann, in his Schriftbew. IT. 1, p. 490, has re- p. 70]. nounced the above interpretation, and now 4 Storr, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Maier, Lange. has represented the matter thus: the bleed- 5 See Duncan, ed. Rost, p. 796, ing away of the dead one had been so com-
CHAP. X1X., 34. - 517
Whether the blood and water issued forth contemporancously or after one another, does not appear from the words. In the natural' mode of regard- ing this twofold issue, it is thought either (1) that Jesus was not yet dead, but simply died in consequence of the thrust, which pierced the pericardium with its watery lymph, and at the same time the chamber of the heart, from which the blood welled,* to which, however, the mode of viewing it of the entire apostolical church is opposed, which was certain, and has the personal testimonies of Christ Himself to the fact, that in His crucifixion itself the putting to death was accomplished. Or (2) it is assumed that the blood had been decomposed in the corpse (Hase, Krabbe, and several others), so that serum, bloody water, and placenta, clots of blood, separately issued forth ; which separate outflow, however, of the constituent parts of blood cannot, in the case of a fresh body that had been healthy, be anatomically established. Or (8) the Aeart is considered, just as the Gruners suppose, as having been pierced through, though the death of Jesus is assumed to have already previously taken place,* as also Ewald,‘ the death of Jesus was a sudden breaking of the heart), holds to be most probable. Not substantially different is the view of the English physician William Stroud,° comp. Tho- luck, who, besides the cavity of the hcart, brings into consideration also the two bags of the diaphragm, with the fact of their fluidity in corpses. This mode of regarding the matter renders unnecessary the entirely arbitrary theory of Ebrard, p. 568 ff., of extravasations and sugillations which the thrust occasioned,* and would be quite satisfactory if John had desired to give an account generally of a natural, physiological effect of the lance-
thrust. But apart from the fact that he adduces nothing which would
plete, that at last not blood, but water flowed, and this was to the apostle a proof that Jesus’ corpse remained exempt from corruption, which begins with the decom- position of the blood. Comp. also Baum- garten, p. 498 f., and Godet. But so physio- logical an observation and conclusion is not to be adopted without some more precise indication; and of the complete bleeding away on which, Anally, wuter flowed, the text says nothing, but speaks simply and solely of blood and water, which issued forth.
1 In a natural way, but in a higher sense, Lange, II. p. 1614 f., explains the phe- nomenon from the process of change through which the body of Christ was pass- ing. A precarious expedient, in which not only is the possibility of a clear representa- tion wanting, but also the essential and necessary point of the reality of the death, as of the condition of separation from the body, is endangered, and instead of the death, the beginning of another modality of corporeal /ife is concelved; while, generally also, the process of this assumed change must have been passed through in a very
material way. Besides, the body of the Risen One had not yet been transformed (He still eats, still drinks, etc.), though altered and become more spiritual, but the transformation first begins at the ascension (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 51-58). A possible prepa- ration for this transformation from the moment of death onwards is beyond the scope of any more exact representation, and very precipitate is the conclusion that this preparation must also have announced itself by some sign in the wounded body.
£80 the two physicians Gruner in the Commentat. de Jesu Chr. morte tera non stmu- lata, eto., Halle 1805.
*? Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wetstein, and several others.
4 Geswch. Chr. p. 584.
8A Treatise on the physical cause of the d-athof Christ, London 1847.
* They originated, he thinks, through the distension of the muscles, and from them the water issued ; but in penetrating deeper the lance also touched places of fluid blood. — But in this way not alua cai véap, but vowp cal alua would havo issued forth.
518 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
allow us to think in idup not of actual eater, but of lymph (ixép), he desires to set forth the phenomenon manifestly as something entirely unerpected (note also the civic), ertravrdinary, marrellous. Only thus is his solemn asseveration in ver. 85, and the power of conviction for the Messiahship of Jesus, which he finds in the truth of the (£7A6cv, «.7.4., to be comprehended. To him it was not a subsidiary circumstance,’ which convinced the soldier who gave the thrust of the death of the Crucified One, but a miraculous onycior, which further set forth that the corpse was that of the divine Messiah,? of whose specific calling and work, blood and water are the speaking symbu/s, in so far, that is, as He has by blood brought the redemptive work to com- pletion, and by means of water (i.e. by means of the birth from above, which takes place through baptism, iii. 5) has appropriated it; a significance which Tholuck also esteems probable in the mind of the Evangelist. Comp. also Steinmeyer, who, however, ascribes to the water only the subordinate pur- pose, to place the blood under the point of view of the definite (purifying) operation. Luther: ‘‘ our redemption lics hidden in the miraculous work.” Comp. 1 John v. 6, where, however, rd idwp, agreeably to the standard of the historical point of view (é4@év) stands first.» We must ubide by this exegetical conclusion ‘ (comp. Hengstenberg on ver. 87), and must renounce the demonstration of natural connection not less than in other miraculous phenomena of the evangelical history.* The jigurative interpretation or explaining away of the fact itself (Baur, p. 217 ff.: by reference to vii. 38, 39: it is the representation, contemplated in a spiritual manner by the writer, of the idea that with the death of Jesus there immediately begins the fulness of spiritual life, which was to proceed from Him on behalf of the world) is only possible on the assumption that neither John nor He gave an historical account, as further Baur (see p. 272 ff.), whom Scholten follows, refers the entire narrative of the omission to break the legs, and of the side- thrust, simply to the dogmatic purpose of representing Jesus as the true Paschal lamb, and thereby the turning-point at which the O. T. economy of
1Ebrard, comp. Liicke on ver. 85, and Baeumlein.
2 rpavins SSdoxov, Ste Urép AvOpwmroy d vvyeis, Euth. Zigabenus.
3 See also Weiss, Lehrbdegr. p. 255.
4Fathers and artists have decked it out in monstrous colours, ¢.g. Nonnus, 8édvpacs - AiBadeoou, first blood, then @QécxeAov védwp flowed; Prudentius. Enchir. 42: both sides were pierced; from one blood, from the other water flowed. See also Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. p. 587 f. In the two substances the two sacraments were symbolically scen, as Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others ; Tertullian, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others saw therein the baptism of water and the baptism of blood. Comp. Cornelius & Lapide in loc. Baptiam and the Lord's Supper have also recently been found set forth in several ways in water and blood.
See particularly Weisse, FI. p. 826 f. In this way historic truth is of course given up. Hilgenfeld, Zeang. p. 317: ‘The redemp- tive death is the condition of the Christian sacrament generally, which here fn its two- fold form figuratively flows forth from the body of the crucified One.” This, he thinks, naturally suggested itself to John, since ac- cording to his representation Jesus was the true paschal sacrifice, the recognition of which in the Gentile world is brought into view by the lance-thrust of the Roman soldier. Other arbitrary explanations in Strauss.
5 The symbolic signification in regard to the true expiatio, and the true /aracrum, is also assumed by Calvin ; but he disputes the supernatural element in the fact: ‘‘ natvrale enim est, dum coagulatur sanguis, omisso rubore fier! aquae stmilem.”
CHAP. XIX., 35. 519
religion ceased to cxist, and the new began, the essence of which is con- templated in the outflowing blood and water.’
Ver. 85. After uaprvpia a comma only should be placed, and nothing should be put within a parenthesis, neither «ai aapOiay . . . Aéyee (van Ifengel), nor «x. aA7i&v) . . . oidev (Schulz), since the discourse progresses simply and without interruption by «ai.—6 éwpax.] placed first with great emphasis ; the correlate xaxeivoc has subsequently the like emphasis. He who has seen it, not heard only from others, but himself has been an eye-witness, has testified wu (herewith, ver. 84), namely, this outflow of blood and water. This was indeed the apparently so incrediblo thing, not also the omission of the leg-breaking. In the third person, in which John here speaks of himsef while passing over His name, commentators have found betrayed the difference of the writer and the witness.? Yet this is simply a misapprehension, discountenanced by the xaxeivog oldev, x.7.A., of the circumstantially solemn style that corresponds to the extraordinary importance which John attributes to the phenomenon. The éxeivoc, that is to say, is the speaking subject himself presented objectively, identical therefore with the éwpaxec, which clearly appears from the context by the pres. Aéye:, and the final clause iva x. ig. mior., especially also by the correlation of xat vuei¢ With the subject. Comp. on ix. 87. Hence we are by no means to assume that the secretary of the apostle speaks of him by éxeivog as of a third person,” but the apostle himself presents himself objectively as the ile, like a third person ; he may at the same time have employed another as amanuensis (which does not follow even from chap. xxi.)or not ; comp. xxi. 24. — aAnfivf] placed with emphasis at the head of the clause (avrod has then the next em- phasis) ; not, however, equivalent to aanfizc, as is usually assumed, contrary to the constant usage of John (and the attribute of aA#fea follows subse- quently), but : a genuine testimony is Ais witness, which corresponds in reality to the idea of a paprvpia—namely, for the very reason that he himself has seen what he testifies. Comp. on viii. 16.— iva] Neither to be taken as dependent on 6 éup. ueuapr. (Liicke), nor as independently : ‘and therefore should,” ete. (de Wette), but, as the position of the words requires, stating the purpose of 4é)e : he knows that he says the truth—says that you also (his readers) may beliere, as he himself has believed through that miraculous appearance, namely, on Jesus the Son of God. As frequently in John (comp. on ii. 11), meorefecv is also here not the entrance into faith, but a higher and stronger degree of faith, which one experiences, the moretey in a new and exalted potency. Comp. xxi. 81. Others, as Baeumlein, still have incor- rectly referred zor. mercly to what was last mentioned as object, whereby in truth the comparison with John himself, which lies in xai tueic, would not be at all appropriate, because John has sacen (not merely believed) what took place. The solemn absolute mioretecv, with its destination of purpose, makes the assumption of special designs, which have been ascribed to John in his testimony of the outflow of blood and water, appear unwarranted,
2 Bee In opposition to Baur: Grimm In 2 Welsse, Schweizer, Kéetlin, Hilgenfeld, the Stud. u. Avrit. 1847, p. 181 ff., and 1849, p. Tobler, Weizsacker. 285 ff. 3’ Ewald, Jahrb. 10, p. 88
520 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,
namely, that he desired to prove the actual death of Jesus,’ especially in opposition to docetic error.* Doubts of a naturalistic and docetic kind might rather have derived support than been precluded by the enigmatic outflow, which excited the derision of Celsus, in Or. ii. 86. The Valentinians main- tained : éfextvryoay dé ré daivduevor, 6 7 caps Tov Wrycxor.*
Vv. 36, 87. Not without scriptural ground dol say : iva x. tei riorebore 5 Sor that is accomplished, which I have just testified, vv. 33, 34, concerning the lance-thrust, which took the place of the omitted leg-breaking, in the con- nection of the divine determination for the fulfilment of the scriptural saying (ypadf as in xiii. 18) : @ bone of Him shall not be broken (Ex. xii. 46 ; Num. ix. 12). To John as to Paul (1 Cor. v. 7) Christ is the antitype of the pas- chal lamb intended in the historical sense of that passage, in which Baur and Hilgenfeld of course find the jformatire factor of the history. Ps. xxxiv. 21 (Grotius, Briickner), because the passage speaks of the protection of life, cannot here be thought of.—The second passage of Scripture, to which, moreover, the reader himself is left to supply the samc telic connection, which was previously expressed by iva } yp. rAnp., contains the O. T. pre- diction of the lance-thrust which has been narrated, so far as it concerned precisely the Messiah: they will look on Him whom they have pierced,—an ex- pression of the future, repentant, believing recognition of and longing for Him who previously was so hostilely murdered. The subject of the two verbs is the Jews (not the Gentiles), whose work the entire crucifixion gen- erally (comp. Acts ii. 28, 36), and thus indirectly the éxxévryorc also is. The passage is Zech. xii. 10, where the language is used of a martyr, who at a later time is repentantly mourned for. The citationis freely made from the original (so also Rev. i. 7), not from the LXX., who take 10) improperly : xatupxhoavto, have insulted. John also follows the reading rox, * which Ewald also prefers. — cic év}] Attraction = cig ixeivov dv, comp. vi. 29. To make cic 6y dependent on ééexévr’ corresponds neither to the original, nor to the Greek construction, according to which not éxxevreiv cic teva, but exe. riva is said.* It always denotes pierce, stab. So also here. Jesus was not indeed killed by the lance-thrust, but this thrust formed, as its conclusion,
} Beza, Grotius, and many others.
* Hammund, Paulus, Olshausen, Ammo- nius, Maier, and several others.
8 Fire ex Theod. €2.
* As regards its essential substance quite undestroyed, not like a profane dish of roast méat with bones broken in pieces, was the paschal lamb to be prepared as a sacrifice to God (Ewald, Alterth. p. 467 f.; Knobel on Lev. i. 7). Any peculiar sym- volical destination in this prescription (Bahr and Keil: to set forth the unity of those who eat) cannot be established, not even by a retrospective conclusion from 1 Cor. x. 17.
§ Aquinas, Theodotus, and Symmachus have also ¢fexévrncay, and rightly.
6 Not son Umbreit's observation in the
Stud. u. Krit, 1849, p. 104, that the passage of Zech. has a Johannean element for the idea of the Messiah, because God identifies Himself with the Messiah, applies only to the reading song, which further Hofmann, Weissag.u. Erf. 1. p. 152 f., has sought, ina very tortuous way, to unite with the fol- lowing accus. WR DR : he is followed by Luthardt : “* They will longingly look up to me, after Him (i.¢. expect, entreal of me Him) whom they,” etc.
7 Luther, after the Vulgate: “they will see into whom they have pierced ;” Baur: “that they have, namely, pierced into Him from whose side blood and water flowed.”’
® Rev. i. 7; Judg. ix. 54; 1 Chron. x. 43 Isa. xiv. 19: 2 Macc. xil.G; Volyb. v. 36.12% xv. 33. 4, xxv. 5. 6.
CHAP. XIX., 38, 39. 521
a part of the whole act of putting to death, and formed, therefore, the Mes- sianic fulfilment of the prophetic word.’ The LXX. have éx:3Aépovrac mpés. The time of the fulfilment of this prophetic éporra:, x.7.2., 18. a8 also in the original, that of the beginning of repentance and conversion ; comp. viii. 28, xii. 32 ; not the day of judgment,” to which dpovra:, with the mere accus., as in Rev. i. 7, not with eic, would be appropriate. — A word of Scripture, speaking specially of the outflow of blood and water, does not, indeed, stand at the command of John ; but if the facts themselves, with which this out- flow was connected, namely, the negative one of the non-breaking of the legs (ver. 86), and the positive one of the lance-thrust (ver. 87), are predicted, s0 also in the miraculous onyeiov, by which the thrust was accompanied, is justly, and on the ground of Scripture (ydp, ver. 86), to be found a special awakening of faith (ver. 35).—Schweizer, without reason, considers vv. 85- 37 as spurious.
Vv. 38, 89. Mera raira] Vv. 82-84. The request of Joseph of Arima- ‘thaea (sec on Matt. xxvii. 57), that he might take away (gpy) the corpse, does not conflict with ver. 81. For let it be noted that the expression in .ver. 81 is passive, not stating the subject who takes away. The Jews, who make the request, presume that it would be the soldiers. Pilate had granted the request in ver. 31, and had charged the soldiers with its execution, con- sequently with the breaking of the legs, and removal. The breaking of the leg they have in fact executed on the two who were crucified with Him, and omit it in the case of Jesus ; and as Joseph requests from the procurator that he may take away the body of Jesus, and obtains permission, the order for removal given to the soldiers was now recalled in reference to Jesus, and they had to remove only the other two. It is, however, very conceivable that Joseph had still time, after vv. 32, 34, for his request, since the soldiers after the crucifragium must certainly await the complete decease of the shattcred bodies, because it was permitted to remove only bodies actually dead from the cross. Thus there is neither here, and in ver. 31, a contra- diction with Mark xv. 44 (Strauss); nor does vera raivz7a form, as de Wette finds, ‘‘a great and hitherto unnoticed difficulty; ” nor are we, with Liicke, to understand ¢gpy and pe of the fetching away of the bodics (which the eoldiers had removed), which involves a groundless departure from the sense riven in ver. 81, and an unauthorized variation, from Luke xxiii. 58 ; Mark xv. 46.—1d wpdrov] The first time,? iii. 2. Comp. x. 40. It does nt exactly presuppose a subsequent still more frequent coming (in vii. 50 nlso there is only a retrospective reference to what is related in chap. iii.), but may also be said simply with reference to the present public coming to the dead person, so that only the death of Jesus had overcome the previous fear of men on the part of Nicodemus. Myrrh-resin and aloe-wovd, these fragrant materials (Ps. xlv. 9) were placed ina pulverized condition be- tween the bandages (ver. 40); but the surprising quantity (comp. xii. 8) is
1On dpde «is, look upon,in the sense of Kihner, ad Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 2. rezard, desire, hope, etc., comp. Xen. Cyr. 2 Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, and several iv. 1.3%; Soph. Fv. 913; Stanley, ad Aesch. others, comp. already Barnab. 7. Sc. 100. Just so awoBaAdwew eis or wpds: 2 (Rather, at the first.— K.]
522 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
here explained from the fact that extraordinary reverence in its sorrowful excitement does not easily satisfy itself ; we may also assume that a portion of the spices was designed for the couch of the body in the grave, 2 Chron. xvi. 14.
Vv. 40-42. "Ev oBoviowe] In bandages, so that He was enveloped thercin.' — xaflag éoc, x.r.A.}] The custom of the Egyptians,* ¢.g., was different ; amongst them the practice was to take out the brain and the intestines, or at least to deposit the body in nitre for seventy days. — év r@ réry] in the district, in the place. On éré#y, used of the interment of bodies, comp. Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 469 B.— The garden with the new grave, which as yet had been used for no other burial (and thereby worthy of the Messiah, comp. Luke xxiii. 53, xix. 80; Mark xi. 2), must have belonged to a pro- prietor, who permitted, or himself put it to this use. According to Matt. xxvii, 60, it belonged to Joseph himself ; but see ¢n loc. — dtd rv mapaox. | Thus, on account of the haste, which the nearness of the commencing Sab- bath enjoined. Retrospect of ver. 831. — On the relation of the Johannean account of the évragiacuds of Jesus to Matt. xxvii. 59, and parallel * passages, sce on Matt.
Nore By AMERICAN Eprror.
LXVIa. ‘‘ For this reason, he who delivereth thee to me hath greater sin.” Ver. 11.
Not “ the greater sin” (as in the Rec. Ver.), which suggests, though it does not require, 8 comparison of the person’s sin not with that of another, but with his own under other circumstances. Here the former is the only right idea. The sin of the Jewish priest Jesus declares to be greater than that of Pilate ;—for the one who delivers Him up is here not Judas, but the high priest, Caiaphas. Meyer explains the difference in their guilt on the ground that while the Roman is an officer of government, one of the divinely ordained powers that be, to whom therefore it properly falls to sit in judgment upon Jesus, whom he knows merely as a common man, the high-priest, though also divinely ordained, has no rightful authority over Jesus, who, as Messiah, is his superior. This seems far-fetched and unsatisfactory. Rather, I think, Jesus recognizing Pilate an a duly authorized, and so to speak divinely commissioned magistrate, and thus standing on a level with the Jewish high-priest, and both being persons who would properly have cognizance of his case, the difference lies in the manner in which they execate their respective functions. In this the advantage lies decidedly withthe Roman. He acts but passively and reluctantly in the matter. Hesimply receives for trial one whom the Jewish ruler has deliv- ered overto him. His conduct, though criminal, is far less criminal than that of the hierarchical zealot who has taken the initiative, who has thrown into unwill- ing hands, and given over for trial and condemnation, one whom he knew, or ought to know, to be innocent of crime.
1 Plato, Legg. ix. p. 882 B; Pol. vill. p. 567 the apostolical origin of our Gospel, Nico- C; Judith xvi. 8. demus is identical with Joseph of Arima- 2 Herod. fi. 86 ff. thaea, and the évradcaguds in the present ® According to Krenkel, in Hilgenfeld, passage is unhistorical. Zeitschr. 1805, p. 438 ff., implying a denial of
CHAP. Xx., 1, 2. 523
CHAPTER XX.
Ver, 11. ry pvquely instead of the Recepia rd pvnpeiov, is decisively attested. — éw] stands in B. O. X. A. &.** 1, 33, Verss. Fathers before xAaiovoa, but is wanting in A. ¥.* Verss. Lachm. It is to be placed before xAaiovoa ; 80 also Tisch. Being unnecessary in itself, it came to be readily passed over, consid- ering the like final vowel of 7@ uvnueip tf, and partially again restored in the wrong place. — Ver. 14. ravra] Elz. : xai raira, aguinst decisive witnesses (of which L. has raira dé). — Ver. 16. ‘ESpaiori] is wanting in Elz., and bracketed by Lachm., but so strongly attested, that it was far more probably passed over as superfiuous and self-intelligible, than added to the text. — Ver. 17. vov] after the first +urépa is wanting in B. D. &. Codd. It. Or. (twice as against thrice) Chrys. Epiph. Deleted by Tisch., bracketed by Lachm. Was more readily added from the surrounding context than omitted, hence the omitting wit- nesses are strong enough for its deletion. — Ver. 18. drayyéAAovoa] Lachm. and Tisch. : ayyéAAovea, according to A. B. J. X. ¥. Codd. It. Since other impor- tant witnesses have avayyéAA., and copyists were not conversant with the simple form (it is not elsewhere found in the N. T.), ayyéAA. is to be preferred. — Ver. 19. ovynypévor] after xaf. is by Lachm. and Tisch. deleted, on decisive testimo- nies. A more exactly defining gloss. — Ver. 21. 6 ’Inovtce] is omitted by Tisch., and, considering the frequency of the addition on sufficient testimonies, justly. — Ver. 23. dgievrac] Lachm. : agéwvrat. The weight of testimony is very much divided ; é¢éwyra:, however, was the more readily introduced for the sake of uniformity with xexpdr., the more familiar it was to copyists from the Synop- tics. — Ver. 25. Instead of the second ru:rov, Lachm. and Tisch. have rérov. So A. J. Curss. Vulg. Codd. It. Syr. Pers. Or. Hil. Ambr. Aug. Correctly ; riov was mechanically repeated, while the design of the different words was left unnoticed. —Vv. 28, 29. Before azexp., Elz. has xai: before Ouwudg : ©; and before rerior., Quud. Merely additions contrary to decisive witnesses, as also avroi also after nafnr., ver. 30, is, on important testimonies, to be, with Lachm. and Tisch., deleted.
Vv. 1, 2. On the designation of the first day of the week by pia réy oa,3;3., as well as on the irreconcilable deviation of John,* who (‘‘ for brevity’s sake |” Hengstenberg, indeed, thinks) makes only Mary Magdalene go to the grave, from the Synoptics, see on Matt. xxviii. 1. Of a hastening beforehand on the part of Mary, in advance of the remaining women (Luthardt, Lange, Ewald). there is no trace in the text. But when Luthardt even is of opinion that John, from the point of view of placing over against the consummation of
1 In no section of the evangelical history ment of the differences between John and have harmonists, with their artificial mo- the Synoptics, as also between the latter saic work, been compelled to expend more amongst themselves, is impossible, but the labour, and with less success,than in the grand fact itself and the chief traits of the section on tho resurrection. The adjust- history stand all the more firmly.
524 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Jesus Himself the perfecting of the disciples’ faith, coudd not well have mentioned the other women (zy not ?), this would be a very doubtful com- pliment to the historical truth of the apostle ; and equally doubtful, if he left othcr women without mention only for the reason that he heard the jirst in- telligence from the mouth of the Magdalene (Tholuck). The reason, borrowed from oidayzev, for the supposed plurality of the women is abundantly out- weighed by oida, ver. 13. — oxoriag érc oban¢] Consequently not after sunrise, Mark xvi. 2. Seeiniloc. ‘‘ Ostenditur mulieris sedulitas,” Grotius. — ei¢ r. pnp. to the grave ; comp. xi. 81, 88. — ix roi prqp.] The stone had jilled the opening of the grave outwards. — xai rpic, x.7.A.] From the repetition of rpdc, * Bengel infers : ‘‘non una fuisse utrumque discipulum.” ?— dv épiAec] Comp. xi. 8, of Lazarus. Elsewhere of John: 4 7ydxa, xix. 26, xxi. 7, 20. With égiazec the recollection speaks with more feeling. —oidayzev] The plur. does not presuppose that Mary had gone not alone to the grave, which is opposed to the account of John, but in her excitement she includes also the disciples, with whom she was speaking, and generally those also who stood nearer to the Crucified One, along with herself, although they as yet knew nothing of the removal itself. She speaks with a certain self-forgetfulness, from the con- sciousness of fellowship, in opposition to the parties to whom she attributes the ypav. Note, further, how the possibility of His having arisen remains as yet entirely remote from hermind. Not a word of any angelic communication,* ctc., which some, of course, seek prudently to cover by an intention on John’s part to be concise (see especially Hengstenberg). — The harmonists, who make Mary to have only hastened on before the rest of the women, must lead them to Peter and John by another way than that which she followed. But surely it would have been most natural. for her, in the first instance, to run to meet her companions who were following her, with the marvellous news, which, however, with Ewald, who makes the plur. oidayev indicate this, could only be read between the lines.
Vv. 3, 4. Note the alternation of aorists and pictorial imperfects ; comp. iv. 80. — Luke xxiv. 12 mentions only Peter ; but comp. also Luke xxiv. 23. Sce in loc. The more rapid running of John, and then, again, the greater boldness of Peter, vv. 5, 6, are individual traits so characteristically original, that here (comp. on xviii. 15) it is highly inappropriate to charge the writer with an intention to place John before Peter (Strauss), or with the endeavour at least not to allow John, as opposed to Peter, to stand in the background (Baur).* — réycov rov II.] Love impelled both, and gave wings totheir steps ; but the youthful John ran more quickly forwards * than Peter, whose consciousness of guilt (Lampe, Luthardt), especially after Lis bitter repentance, hardly restrained his running, as little as it withheld l:im, ver. 6, from stepping before John. Euth. Zigabenus is simply cor- roct : &¢ axuaidrepog tov Tévov Tov odparoc.
1 But comp. ver. 8, and see, generally, 4 ff., xxiv. 23. Duttmann, Veut. Gr. p. 208 f. [E. T. p. 340 3 This also in answer to Sp&th In Hilgen- ff.]; comp. also Kfihner, ad Xen, Mem.i.2. = feld, Zeilach7. 1868, p. 189 f. 62, {. 3. 8. 4 xpudép., comp. Xen. Anad, iv. 7. 10.
2 Matt. xxvill. 2; Mark xvi. 5; Luko xxiv.
CHAP. XX., 5, 10. 525
Vv. 5-8. John is withheld by natural terror (not dread of pollution, as Wetstein, Ammon, and several others think) from going in at once ; the bolder and older Peter, however, goes in, and then, encouraged by his ex- ample and presence, John also enters. — Note how earnestly the fourth Gospel also states the fact of the empty grave, whichis by no means veiled in the darkness of a twilight investigation, and of the reports of the women (Weizsiicker). — Aire, he sees ; on the other hand, ver. 6, @ewpei, he contem- plates.’ — 7a o66va] The handkerchief (ver. 7) must consequently have so lain, that it did not meet the eye of John, when he, standing before the grave, bent down (rapaxbwac), 4.e. bowed his head forward through the low entrance in order to see within.? Observe, further, that ra o66y. here in ver. 6 is placed first (otherwise in ver. 5) in contrast with rd covddpiov. — rb covdap. | xi. 44 ; Luke xix. 20. — ywpic] used adverbially (separatim) only here in the N. T.; very frequent in the Greek writers. — cig éva térov] belongs to évre- Tuliyp. : wrapped up* in one place apart, so that it was not, therefore, lying: along with the bandages, but apart in a particular place, and was not spread out, but folded together. In so orderly a manner, not in precipitate confu- sion, did that take place which had becn here done. In éva is implied that the 66éa and the handkerchief occupied to places. How thoroughly docs this whole pictorial representation, comp. with Luke xxiv. 12, reveal the eye-witness | — cide] Namely, the state of matters in the grave just related. — triovevoev] that Jesus was risen. Comp. ver. 25. This, the grand object of the history, taken as a matter of course, and, from these unmistakable indicia, now bringing conviction to the disciples, and see ver. 9. Hence neither gencrally : he believed on Jesus as the Christ, as in xix. 85,‘ nor merely : he believed that which Mary, ver. 2, had said.* The articles left be- hind in the grave and laid aside, as related, in so orderly a manner, testificd, in truth, preciscly against a removal of the corpse.* The singular only satis- fies the never-to-be-forgotten personal expericnce of that moment, but does not exclude the contemporaneous faith of Peter also (in answer to Hilgen- feld and others), as is, moreover, unmistakable from the following plur. gideccay, although even Hengstenberg makes Peter, in conformity with Luke xxiv, 12, remain standing only in amazement (in which Godet also substan- tially follows him), but of which John says never a word.
Vv. 9, 10. T'dép] Had they already possessed this understanding of Script- ure at that time, the inspection made in the empty grave would not have been needed, that there might be faith in the accomplishment of the resur- rection. — dre] cic exetvo, bre. See on ii. 18, ix. 17, xi. 61, xvi. 9. —dei] Divine necessity. Comp. Luke xxiv. 26, 44, ix. 22. This knowledge of Scripture (comp. 1 Cor. xv. 4) first arose in their minds by means of the Risen Onc Himself,’ and subsequently in completeness through the outpour-
! See Tittmann, Synon. p. 111 f., 120 f. Clarius, Grotius, Bengel, Ebrard, Baeum- *Luke xxiv. 12; Sir. xxi. 28, xiv. 28; lein, and several others, following Augus- Lucian, Paras. 42, e al., Aristoph., Theocr., tine and Theophylact.
Plutarch, eto. * See Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Non- § Aristoph. Flut. 682; Nub. 988. nus. * Hengatenberg, Godet. 7 Luke xxiv. 27, 46 ff.; Acts 1. 3
® Erasmus, Luthes, Aretius, Jansen,
526 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
ing of the Spirit (Acts ii. 24 ff.). Moreover, the personal previous declara- tions of Christ concerning His resurrection first became clear to them ez ecentu (ii. 21, 22); hence they are not indeed to be called in question, but they (comp. x. 17, 18) cannot have been so definitive in their purport as in the Synoptics (see on Matt. xvi. 21). —oiv] Since they had now convinced themselves of the fact of the resurrection, they must now await further events. —mpé¢ éavtoic] home, xpi¢g tiv éavtév xataywyfv, Euth. Zigabenus, Comp. Luke xxiv. 12 and Kypke thereon, also Wetstein on the present pas- sage,
Vv. 11-13. Mary has followed to the grave the two disciples who ran before, but does not again meet them, (they must have gone back another way), and now stands weeping at the grave, and that without, for she dares not go further. Yet she bends down in the midst of her weeping, involun- tarily impelled by her grief, forward into the grave (see on ver. 5), and be- holds two angels, etc. On the question of these : ri xAaiecc, AMMonius cor- rectly observes : épwrac dé, ot'y iva pabwot, GA’ iva caverta. — Appearances of angels, whom Schleiermacher indeed was here able to regard as persons commissioned by Joseph of Arimathaea,’ are certainly, according to Script- ure, not to be relegated into the mere subjective sphere ; but they communicate with and render themselves visible and audible simply and solely to him for whom they are real, while they are not perccptible by others (comp. xii. 29); wherefore we are not even to ask where the angels may have been in the grave during the presence of Peter and John (Griesbach thought : in the side passages of the grave). —év Aevxoic¢] Neut.: in white. That iudria are meant is a matter of course.? Clothed in white, the pure heavenly appearances, in keeping with their nature of light, represent themselves to mortal gaze.*— sre npav] Because they, etc. As yet the deep feeling of grief allows no place for any other thought. Of a message from angels, already received before this, there is no trace in John. The refrain of her deeply sorrowful feeling : they have taken aay my Lord, etc., as in ver. 2, was still unaltered and the same.—On the number and position of these angels the text offers no indications, which, accordingly, only run out into arbitrary invention and fancy, as e.g. in Luthardt : there were to in an- tithesis to the two jointly-crucified ones ; they had seated themselves because they had no occasion to contend ; seated themselves at the head and at the feet, because the body from head to fcet was under the protection of the Father and His servants.
Vv. 14, 15. Her conversation with the angels is interrupted, as she turns round and—sees Jesus standing by, but unrecognized by her. — éorpéd¢y etic 7. omiow| Whether accidentally only, or as secking after her Lord, or because she heard the rustle of some one present, is not clear. Unauthor- ized, however, is the view of the scene adopted by Chrysostom, Theophy- lact, and Euth. Zigabenus, that the angels, on the sudden appearance of Jesus, had expressed their astonishment by their mien and gestures, by
12.7. p. 471. ; stein én loc. 28See Winer, p. 550 [E. T. p. 801]; Wet- 3 Comp. Ewald, ad Apoc. p. 126 f.
CHAP. Xx., 16-18. 527
which Mary’s attention had been aroused. —xai otx yder, x.7.A.] The un- familiar clothing, her own troubled and weeping look, and, along with this, the entire remoteness from her mind of the thought of the accom- plished resurrection—all this may have contributed to the non-recognition. The essential cause, however, is to be found in the mysterious alteration of the corporeity and of the appearance of Jesus, which manifests itself from His resurrection onwards, so that He comes and disappears in a marvellous way, the identity of His person is doubted and again recognized, etc. See on Matt. xxviii. 17. That John imagined a withholding of her vision, as in Luke xxiv. 16,’ is in nowise indicated. Again, the év éripg popet, Mark xvi. 12, does not apply here. — 6 xyroupéc] Naturally, since this unknown person was in the garden, and already so early. Quite unnecessary, however, is the trivial assumption that He had on the clothing of the gardener,’ or : He was clothed with the lin-cloth, a piece of raiment used for field and garden labour, in which He had been crucified (altogether without evidence, comp. on xxi, 18).?— xipe] Address out of her deeply prostrate and helpless grief. — ci] With emphasis, in retrospect of ver. 13. — avrév] She presumes that the supposed gardener has heard her words just spoken to the angels. — kay avr. apa) in order to inter Him elsewhere. Her overflowing love, in the midst of her grief, does not weigh her strength. ‘‘ She forgets every- thing, her feminine habits and person,” ctc., Luther.
Ver. 16. Jesus now calls her by name. Nothing more. By the voice, and by this voice, which utters aloud her name, she was to recognize Him. — orpageica] She had therefore, after ver. 14, again turned towards the grave. — paBBovvi] Sce on Mark x. 51. — The ‘Efpaiori is, indeed, matter of course, and in itself is superfluous ; but in this circumstantiality there lies a certain solemnity in the delineation of the impressive moment. Note how, on the mention of her name, there follows nothing further on her side also, except that she utters the expressive Rabboni! More she cannot in the press of her joyful surprise. Thus took place the i¢dévy mrpérov Mapig r9 Mayd., Mark Xvi. 9.
Vv. 17, 18. Mary sees: itis the Lord. But affected and transported in the highest degree by His miraculous appearance, she knows not: is it He bodily, actually come forth out of the grave,—again become corporeally alive and risen? Or is it, on the other hand, His glorified spirit, which has been already raised up to God, and which again has descended to appear to her, so that He has only the bodily form, not the corporeal substance ? Therefore, to have the certainty which her love-filled heart needed in this moment of sudden, profoundest emotion, she would take hold of, handle Him, in order by feeling to obtain the conviction which the eye alone, in presence of this marvellous happiness, could not give her. This, however, Jesus prevents : touch me not / and gazing into her soul, gives her, by His own assurance, the certainty which she seeks, adding, as a reason for that repulse : for I am not yet ascended to the Father, thercfore, as yet, no glori-
1 Calvin, Grotius, comp. already Ammo- others. nius. 3 Hug'’s invention tn the Fretd. Zetischr. 2 Kuinoel, Paulus, Olshausen, and several VII. p. 162 ff., followed by Tholuck.
528 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
fied spirit who has again come down from hcaven whither he had ascended.’ [See Note LXVII. p. 537.] She would touch the Lord, as Thomas did sub- sequently, not, however, from unbelief, but because her faith strives after a definiteness with which her love cannot dispense. Only this interpretation, which is followed also by Baeumlein, strictly corresponds to the words gen- erally, especially also to the ydép, which assigns a reason, and imports no scenic accompaniments into the incident which are not in the passage ; for arrov leaves the reader to suppose nothing else that Mary desired to do, save simply the mere dmreo@a:, therefore no embracing and the like. But scenic accompaniments are imported, and go far beyond the simple arrov, if it is assumed that Mary clasped the knees of Jesus,* and desired, as suppler, to manifest her rpooxivnotg to Him, as to a Being already glorified and returned from God,’ or as tenerabunda.‘ This could not be expected to be gathered by the reader from the mere noli me tangere ; John must, in that case, have said, 4) arrov pov yovatwy, OF ui) yovurérec pe, OF ua) Tpooxbynady pot, or the like, or have previously related what Mary desired,® to which it may be added, that Jesus elsewhere does not refuse the zpooxivyorg ; Comp. especially Matt. xxviii. 9. He does not, indeed, according to Luke xxiv. 39, repel even the handling, but invites thereto ; but in that instance, irrespective of the doubt- fulness of the account, in a historical point of view, it should be noted (1) that Jesus, in Luke, loc. cit. (comp. John xx. 24 ff.), has to do with the direct doubt of His disciples in the reality of His bodily appearance, which doubt he must expressly censure ; (2) that in the present passage, a troman, and one belonging to the narrower circle of His loving fellowship, is alone with Him, to whom He might be disposed, from considerations of sacred decorum, not to permit the azreofa: desired in the midst of overflowing excitement. How entirely different was the situation with the sinning woman, Luke vii. 87 (in answer to Briickner’s objection) ! Along with the correct interpretation of drreo#a:, in itself, others have missed the further determining of the sense of the expression, either in this way : Jesus for- bade the handling, because His wounds still pained Him (Paulus) ! or : because His new, even corporeally glorified life was still so delicate, that He was bound to keep at a distance from anything that would disturb it (so Olshausen, following Schleiermacher, Festpred. V. p. 308) ; or : because He was still bodiless, and only after His return to the Father was again to
1In otww ydp, x.7.A., 1s expressed, there- fore, not ‘the dread of permitting a con- tract, and that which was thereby intended, before the ascension to the Father should be accomplished” (Brickner); but Jesus means thereby to say that Mary with her anxtrecOa already presupposed in Him a con- dition which had not yet commenced, be- cause it must have been preceded by His ascension to the Father.
2 Comp. the frequent awrec8at yovvwr in Homer, Od. a. 512, 0. 76, >. 65, . 857, ef al.
8 My first edition.
4So Lticke, Maier, Lange, Hilgenfeld,
comp. Ewald.
§ This also in answer to Baur, who thinks that Jesus was precisely on the point of ascending (see on ver. 18), and therefore did not wish to allow Himself to be detained by Mary falling at His feet. Comp. Késtlin, p. 190; Kinkel in the Stud. u. Krit. 1841, p_ 597 ff.— Among the ancient interpreters I find the strict verbal rendering of axrecOar most fully preserved in Nonnus,. who even refers it only to the clothing: Mary had approached her right hand to His garment ; then Jesus says: ¢uar ni Pave xcrwvwr,
CHAP. XX., 17, 18. 529 obtain a body (Weisse). There is thus introduced what is certainly not con- tained in the words (Paulus), what is a thoroughly imaginary supposition (Paulus, Olshausen), and what is in complete contradiction to the N. T. idea of the risen Christ (Weisse). Others take the language as an urging to hasten on ‘with that which is immediately necessary ;' she is not to detain herself with the Grrecfa:, since she can see and touch Him still at a later period ;* by which, however, an arbitrarily adopted sense, and one not in keeping with the sub- sequent avafaivu, x.r.A., would be introduced into the confirmatory clause, nay, the prospect opened up, in reference to the future tangere, would be inappropriate. Others, that Jesus demands a greater proffer of honour ; for as His body has already become divine, the ordinary touching of feet and mode of intercourse is no longer applicable (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, and several others). How inept in itself, and illogical in reference to the following obwu yap, x.t.A. ! Others: it was a refusal of the enjoyment now sought in His appearance, which as yet is untimely, and is to take place not ‘‘terrestri contactu,” but spirituali,* by which, however, the proper contents, consti- tuting the essence of the supposed sense, is arbitrarily read between the lines. Others still differently, as 6g. Ammon : Jesus desired to spare Mary the touch of one levitically unclean ! and Hilgenfeld, Hoang. p. 318: the refusal of the reverential touch was made by Jesus, for the reason that He was not yet the man again united with the Logos, but at present only the Man raised again from Elis grave.‘ Both interpretations are entirely foreign
1 At this conclusion Hofmann also arrives, Schrifibew. II. 1, p. 524: Mary is not, in her joy at again having Jesus, to approach and hang upon Him, asif He had appeared tn order to remain, but was to carry to the dis- ciples the joyful message, etc. But even with this turn the words do not apply, and the thought, especially that He had ap- peared not fo remain, would be so enig- matically expressed by ovwe yap, «.7.A., that it could only be discovered by the way, in nowise indicated, of an indirect conclusion. That dwrec@ac may denote aftach oneself, Sasten oneself on (comp. Godet : *'s'‘attacher &"), is well known; but just as frequently, and in the N. T. throughout, it means take hold af, touch, handle, also in 1 Cor. vil. 1; 1 John v. 18.
* So, with a different explanation In other respects of awrec@a: itself, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius & Lapide, Bengel, and several others.
® Melanchthon, Calvin, Aretius, Grotius, and several others; substantially also, but under various modifications, Neander, de Wette, Tholuck, Luthardt, Lange, Baum- garten, Hengstenberg, Godet. Melanch- thon: ‘“Reprehenditur mulier, quod de- siderio humano expetit complexum Christ! et somniat eum revixisse ut rursus inter amicos vivat ut antea ...; nondum acit,
fide praesentiam invisibilis Christi deinceps agnoecendam esse."’ So substantially also Luther. According to Luthardt, Mary would grasp, seize, hold Jesus fast, in order to enjvuy His fellowship end satisfy her love. Thia Jesus denies to her, because at present it was not yet time for that; abid- ing fellowship as hitherto will first again commence when He shall have ascended, consequently shall have returned in the Paracelete ; it will not then be brought about corporeally, but the fellowship will be in the Spirit. According to Baumgar- ten, a renewed bodily fellowship is promised to Mary, but completely freed from sin, and sanctified by Christ’s blood. Accord- ing to Hengstenberg, Mary would embrace Jesus in the opinion that now the wall of separation between Him and her has fallen ; but the Lord repels her, for as yet His gio- ification {s not completed, the wall of sepa- ration still in part subsists, etc. Godet: **It is not yet the moment for thee fo alt/ach thyself to me, as if I were already restored to you. Forl am not as yet arrived at the state in which I shall be able to contract with my disciples the superior relation which I have promised to you ;” thus sub- stantially like Luthardt.
4In his Zetéschr. 1868, p. 436, Hilgenfeld modifies his interpretation to the extent that
530 " THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
to the meaning. Scholten’s view (p. 172) is also an impossibility, as if Jesus had said ofr pév ydp, x.t.A., a8 one already glorified. Conjectures even have been attempted ; Vogel : 9 ot rréov, Gersdorf and Schulthess : pov Grrov, OF ab pov arrov. — mpeg Tove adeAd. pov] This designation of the disciples as His beloved associates in the filial relation to God, to His now fulfilled earthly work (comp. mpéc r. rarépa, x.7.A.), is not at all intended to serve the purpose of tranquillizing them on account of their flight (Bengel, Luthardt, comp. Luther). Of this the text contains no indication, all the less that the expression is found only in the address to Mary, but not as to be communicated to the disciples. Rather has the designation its reference to Mary herself, who isto gather from it, that the loving fellowship of the Lord with His own, far removed from being dissolved by the new condi- tions of this miraculous manifestation, rather continues, indeed, now first (comp. xv. 15) has its completion. Note the like expression in Matt. xxvili, 10, where, however (see in loc.)., the pointing to Galilee is an essen- tial variation in the tradition ; against which Luthardt, without reason, objects that Matt. xxviil. 10 refers to the promise, xxvi. 32. Certainly ; but this promise already has, as its historical presupposition, the appear- ance of the Lord before the disciples, which was to be expected in Galilee, as this is, xxviii. 16 ff., in fact set forth as the first and only one in Matthew. — avafaive, x.7.A.] The near and certain future. To announce this consequence of His resurrection to the disciples, must be all the more on His heart, since He so frequently designates His death as His departure to the Father, and had associated with it the personal hope of the disciples. This was not to be changed by His resurrection ; that was only the passage from death to the heavenly glory. As to the mode and way of the ascension avaf. contains nothing. The added x. rarépa tydv and x. Gedy tudv was, however, intended to confirm the hope of the disciples in respect of their own ovrde- fao07var, since in truth, in virtue of their fellowship with Christ, the Father of Christ was also become their Father, the God of Christ (to whom Christ solely belongs and. serves, comp. Matt. xxvii. 47, and sec, in detail, on Eph. i. 17) also their God (comp. on Rom. i. 8) ; this is now, after the execution of the redemptive work, entirely accomplished, and will one day have also the fellowship in défa as its final result, comp. Rom. viii. 17, 29. Note in rpc rav warépa, x.t.A., that the article does not recur, but embraces all in the unity of the Person. To understand the pres. dvaf., however, of that which ensues forthwith and immediately, and in the following way’ that already the appearance that follows isto be placed after the ascension (comp. ‘Ewald, who understands the pres. of the ascension as already impending), is decisively opposed by the fact of the later appearance, vv. 26, 27, unless we surrender this as actual history, or, with Kinkel, resort to the extravagant notion of many ascensions.
Jesus, as the Risen One, did not as yet desire fore His believing ones as Dispenser of the to be the object of the reverence which be- Spirit (vi. 62, 63). But even thus the points longed to Himas Lord of the Church (Phil. to be understood are quite too far-fetched. #1. 10). This was then first to begin, when, 1 Baur, p. 222 ff.,and Neutest. Theol. p. 381, after His ascension, He should appear be- Uilgenfeld, and others.
CHAP. xx., 19, 20. 531
Vv. 19, 20. Comp. Luke xxiv. 36 ff., where, however, handling and eating is already added from tradition. The account in Mark xvi. 14 is different. Schweizer's reasons against the Johannean origin of vv. 19-29 amount to this, that, according to John, the resurrection of Jesus was no external one on this side of the grave, and that consequently the appearances covid only be visionary. Against this ii. 21, 22, x. 17, 18 are decisive, as well as the faith and the testimony of the entire apostolic Church. — r. Opa xex2etou.] can all the less be without essential significance, since it is re- peated in ver. 26 also, and that without dca rév ¢6fov r. 'Iovd.]. It points to a miraculous appearance, which did not require open doors, and which took plate while they were closed. The how does not and cannot appear ; in any case, however, the dgavrog éyévero, Luke xxiv. 31, is the correlate of this im- mediate appearance in the closed place ; and the constitution of His body, changed, brought nearer to the glorified state, although not immaterial, is the condition for such a liberation of the Risen One from the limitations of space that apply to ordinary corporeity. Euth. Zigabenus : &¢ Aerob 1,67 nai xoigov Kai aGxnparov yevopévoy Tov cduatog avrov. More minute information concerning this change withdraws itself from more definite judgment ; hence, also the passage can offer no proof of the Lutheran doctrine of ubiquity, especially as the body of Jesus is not yet that which is glorified in déga. According to B. Crusius, and already Beza and several others,’ the doors must have sud- denly opened of themselves. But in this way preciscly the essential point would be passed over in silence. According to Baeumlein, nothing further is expressed than that the disciples were assembled in a closed room.? But how easily would John have known how actually to express this | As he has expressed himself, r. Gvpav xexAecou. is the definite relation, under which the pifev, x.t.A. took place, although it is not said that He passed did r. Ovp. kexA., a8 many Fathers, Calovius and others, represent the matter. — eic rd péoor] into the midst, after for, a8 in Herod. iii. 180, and frequently. Comp. on ver. 7, xxi. 8. — cipfvy tuiv] The usual grecting on entrance : Peace to you! This first greeting of the risen Lord in the circle of disciples still re- sounded deeply and vividly enough in the heart of the aged John to lead him to relate it (in answer to Tholuck) ; there is therefore no reason for im- porting the wish for the peace of reconciliation (comp. eipfry } éuh, xiv. 27). — &decéev airoic, x.t.a.] In proof of the corporeal identity of His Person ; for on the hands and on the side they must see the wounds. This was sufficient ; it was not also required to exhibit the feet. Variation from Luke xxiv. 40, where the feet are shown instead of the side, the piercing of which is not related by the Synoptics. Altogether groundlessly then is the present pas- sage employed against the nailing of the feet (sce generally on Matt. xxvii. 35) ; equally groundless also is the opinion that the flesh of Christ was only
1 Comp. also Thenius, Erange. der Eran- gelien, p. 45.
2 Schlelermacher, L. J. p. 474, does not make the room at all, but only the ovse to be closed, and says there “may also have been somebody who had been appointed to open.”* Schenkel, to whom the Risen One
is ‘* the Sptrié of the Church," can, of course, only allow the entrance through closed doors to pass as anendlen. Scholten, who considers the appearances of the Risen One to be ecafalic contemplations of the glorified One, employs the closed doors also for this purpose.
532 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. the already laid-aside earthly envelope of the Logos (Baur). Comp. on i. 14. — otv] In consequence of this evidence of identity. Terror and doubt, certainly the first impression of miraculous appearance, now gave way to jey. And from out their joyful thoughts comes the utterance of John : idév- Tec Tov Ki:plov.
Vv. 21, 22. Oiv] For now, after the joyful recognition, He could carry out that which He had in view in this His appearance. Hence He began once again, repeated His greeting, and then pursued His further address. The repetition of eipivy iziv is not a taking leave, as Kuinoel, Liicke, B. Crusius, and several others, without any indication in the text, still think, which brings out a strange and sudden change from greeting to departure, but emphatic and elevated repetition of the greeting, after the preliminary act of self-demonstration, ver. 20, had intervened. Hengstenberg makes an arbitrary separation : the first cip.iuiv refers to the disciples, the second to the apostles as such. — xafac aréoraixe, x.7.2.] Comp. xvii. 18. Now, however, and in fact designated a second time, according to its connection with the proper divine delegation, the mission of the disciples is formally and sol- emnly ratified, and how significantly at the very first meeting after the res- urrection, to be witnesses of which was the fundamental task of the apostles !?— évegtonoe] To interpret it merely as a symbol of the impartation of the Holy Spirit, under the relationship of breath and spirit (comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 5 ff.; Gen. ii. 7), neither satisfies the preceding méurw wtpac, nor the following 14fere, «.r.4. ; for, in connection with both, the breathing on the disciples could only be taken as medium (medians) of the impartation of the Spirit, i.e. as rehicle for the reception, which was to take place dy means of the breathing, especially as 74fere (mark the imperat. and the aor.) cannot merely promise a reception belonging to the future,* but expresses a reception actually present. 8o substantially Origen, Cyril, Melanchthon, Calvin, Calovius, and several others, including Tholuck, Lange, Briickner (in answer to de Wette’s symbolical interpretation), Hengstenberg, Godet, Ewald, and several others ; while Baur considers the whole occurrence as being already the fulfilment of the promise of the Paraclete,‘ which is thus an anticipation, and inapplicable to the idea of the sending of the Paraclete. . The later and full outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, by which Christ returned in the Paraclete, remains untouched thereby ; more- over, we are not to understand merely the in-breathing of a ydpec dexrenf for the later reception of the Spirit (Euth. Zigabenus). An actual jirst fruits of the Holy Spirit is imparted to the disciples on account of a special aim belong- ing to their mission. Bengel well says: ‘‘arrha pentecostes.” It belongs to the peculiarities of the miraculous intermediate condition, in which Jesus
1 Acts i. 22, lf. 82, Iv. 2, ef a.
2 Augustine, De trin. lv. 29, and many others: ‘“‘demonstratio per congruam sig- nificationem.”'
* Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Grotius, Kuinoel, Neander, Baeumlein, and several others.
4Comp. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1868,
p. 488, according to whom here, as in ver. 17 the ascension, the feast of Pentecost should be taken up into the history of the Resurrection. The originally apostolic idea of apostles is, 80 soon as Paul is called by the Risen One, ‘‘ adjusted according to the Pauline conception.
CHAP, XX., 23. 533 at that time was, that He, the Bearer of the Spirit (iii. 84), could already impart such a special jirst fruits, while the fulland proper outpouring, the ful- filment of the Messianic baptism of the Spirit, remained attached to. His ex- altation, vii. 89, xvi. 7. The articleneeded as little to stand with rvetua ay. as ini, 88, vii. 89 ; Acts i. 2, 5, and many other passages. This in answer to Luthardt, who lays the emphasis on ayvv ; it was a holy spirit which the disciples received, something, that is, different from the Spint of God, which dwells in man by nature ; the breath of Jesus’ mouth was now holy spirit,’ but this is not yet the spirit of the world-mighty Jesus ; it is not as yet rd rvedua ajtov, but nevertheless already the basis of it, and stands inter- mediately between the word of Jesus on carth and the Spirit of Pentecost. Such a sacred intermediate thing, which is holy spirit and yet not the Holy Spirit, the new living breath of the Lord, but yet only of like kind to the Spirit of God (Hofmann), cannot be established from the N. T., in which rather rvevua aycov with and without the article is ever the Holy Spirit in the ordinary Biblical dogmatic sense. Comp. on Rom. viii. 4 ; Gal. v. 16. The conceivablencss of the above intermediate Spirit may therefore remain undetermined ; it lies outside of Scripture. — airoic] belongs to évedionoe. Comp. Job iv. 21.
Ver. 23. The peculiar authority of the apostolical office, for the exercise of which they were fitted and empowered by this impartation of the Spirit. It was therefore an individual and specific charismatic endowment, the bestowal of which the Lord knew must be connected with His personal presence, and was not to be deferred until after His ascension,* namely, that of the valid remission of sins, and of the opposite, that of moral disciplinary power, consisting in the authority not only to receive into and expel from the church,*® but also to exercise pardoning or penal discipline on their Jellow-members. The apostles exercised both prerogatives, and it is without reason to understand only the former, since both belonged essentially to the mission (réuxw, ver. 21) of the apostles. The promise, Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18, is similar, but not equivalent. The apostolic power of the keys in the sense of the Church is contained directly in the present passage, in Matt. only indirectly. It had its regulator in the Holy Spirit, who separated its exercise from all human arbitrariness, so that the apostles were therein organs of the Spirit. This was the divine guarantee, as the consecration of moral certainty through the illumination and sanctification of the judgment
1 Comp. also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 58f.; Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 21; Welss, Lehroegr. p. 28.
7 Hence the objection: “they required at present no such Impartation” (Hof- mann), is precipitate. They made wee of it firat ata future time, but the desforral was still to take place face to face, in this last sacred fellowship, in which a quite pe- cullar distinction and consecration was given for this gift.
3 This in answer to de Wette and several others, including Ahrens (Amt d. Scid Gasel,
1864, p. 81), who explains it of the reception or non-reception to baptism, and to the for- giveness of sins therewith connected. So also Steitz In the Stud. wu. Krit. 1866, p. 480. But baptism is here, without any Indlca- tion of the text, imported from the Inst!- tution, which is non-relevant here, in Matt. xxvill. 18 ff. On the apostolic penal disci- pline, in virtue of the xcparey rag auapriac, on church members, comp. the apostolic handing over to Satan, and see on 1 Cor. v. 5.
534 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
in the performance of its acts.'— dgievra:] They are remitted, that is, by God. — xparyre] He abides by the figure ; opposite of loosing : hold fast.* — xexpér. ] They are held fast, by God. Here the perf. ; for the «pareiv is on the part of God no commencing act (such is the agéva:). — That upon Thomas, who was . at that time absent (ver. 24), the same full authority under the impartation of the Spirit was further particularly and supplementarily (after ver. 29), bestowed, is, indeed, not related, but must be assumed, in accordance with the necessity which was involved in the equality of his position. — The objections of Luthardt against our interpretation of this verse are unim- portant, since in reality the eleven are thought of as assembled together (vv. 19, 24) ; and since the assertion, that all charismatic endowments date only from Pentecost, is devoid of proof, and is overthrown precisely by the present passage ; comp. also already Luke ix. 55. Calovius well says : ‘ut antea jam acceperant Spiritum ratione sanctificationis, ita nunc accipiunt ratione ministerii ecangelici.”” The full outpouring with its miraculous gifts, but for the collective church, then follows at Pentecost.
Vv. 24, 25. Owuas . . . Aidvuoc] Sce on xi. 16.—ovx Hw per abrav, eixac yap, avrév uera Td dtacxopmicbyva: Tove pabyrag . . . ubrw cvveaBeiv avroic, Euth. Zigabenus. There may also have been another reason, and conjectures (Luthardt : melancholy led him to be solitary, similarly Lange) are fruitless. — Thomas shows himself, ver. 25 (comp. on xiv. 5), in a critical tendency of mind, in which he does not recognize the statement of eye-witnesses asa sufficient ground of faith. From this, however, we perceive how com- pletely remote from his mind lay the expectation of the resurrection. In the fact that he wished to feel only the wounds of the hands and of the side, some have found a reason against the nailing of the feet to the cross (sostill Liicke and de Wette). Erroneously ; the above requirement was sufficient for him ; in feeling the wounds on the feet, he would have required something which would have been too much, and not consistent withdecorum. Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 35. —-rizov is then interchanged with réroy (see critical notes), as correlative to seeing and feeling. Comp. Grotius: ‘ rioc tidetur, téroc impletur.”’ — Baw tiv yeipd pov, x.t.A.] is regarded as a proof of the peculiar greatness of the wound. But he would lay his hand in truth notin the wound, but in the side, in order, that is, there to touch with his fingers the wound on the mere skin, but which, at the same time, must have been even then considerable enough. — Note, further, the circumstantiality in the words of ‘Thomas, on which is stamped an almost defiant reliance in his un- belief, not melancholy dejection (Ebrard).
Vv. 26, 27. ‘‘Interjectis ergo diebus nulla fuerat apparitio,” Bengel. This appearance is contained only in John. — wdc joav tow) points back to the same locality as in vcr. 19. Wetstein, Olshausen erroneously transfer the appearance to Galilee. They were again within, namely, in the house known from ver. 19 (comp. Kypke, I. p. 412), and again from a like self- intelligible reason as in ver. 19, with closed doors. But that they were gathered
1QOn av instead of édvy, see Hermann, ad 2 Polyb. vill. 20.8; Acts il. 24. Viger. pp. 812, 822 ; frequent in Greek prose.
CHAP. XX., 28, 29. 535
together for the celebration of the resurrection-day (Luthardt, Lange), and that Jesus desired by His appearance to sanction this solemnity (Hengstenberg), is without any indication. The direction, ver. 27, presupposes an im- mediate knowledge of what is related in ver. 25, which in John least of all required to be indicated (in answer to Liicke, who, as also Schlei- ermacher, supposes a communication of the disciples to Jesus). — Bengel, moreover, well remarks: ‘‘8i Pharisaeus ita dixisset : nisi videro, etc., nil impetrasset ; sed discipulo pridem probato nil non datur.”—¢épe . . . xa ide] The wounds in the hand he is to feel and see ; the wound in the side, under the garments, only to feel. Observe the similarity in circumstantiality and mode of expression of the words of Jesus with the expression of the disciple in ver. 25. — «at py) yivov amiorog, aAAd mor.] Not: be, but : become not unbelieving, ctc. Through his doubt of the actual occurrence of the resurrection Thomas was tn danger of becoming an unbeliever (in Jesus gen- erally), and in contradistinction to this his vacillating faith he was, through having convinced himself of the resurrection, to become a believer.
Vv. 28, 29. The doubts of Thomas, whose faith did not now require actual contact (hence also merely éipaxas, ver. 29), are converted into a straightforward and devoted confession ; comp. xi. 16. —6 xbpide pov x. 6 Bed: pov} is taken by Theodore of Mopsuestia’ as an exclamation of astonishment directed to God. So recently, in accordance with the Socinians,* especially Paulus. Decisively opposed to this view is elev aitG, as well as the neces- sary reference of 6 «tp. ov to Christ. It is a confessionary intocation of Christ in the highest joyful surprise, in which Thomas gives the fullest expression of profound emotion to his faith, which had been mightily ele- vated by the conviction of the reality of the resurrection, in the divine nature of his Lord. For the doctrinal conception, the vehement emotion cer- tainly seems in itself scarcely calculated to produce this exclamation, which Ewald even terms eztracagant ; but this is outweighed (1) partly by the account of John himself, who could find in this exclamation only an echo of his own Vedc tv 6 Adyoc, and of the attestations of Jesus to His own divine nature ; (2) and chiefly by the approval of the Lord which follows. Eras- mus aptly says : ‘‘ Agnovit Christus utique repulsurus, si falso dictus fuissct Deus.” Note further (1) the climag of the two expressions ; (2) how the amazed disciple keeps them apart from one another with a solemn emphasis by repeating the article* and the pov. This pov, again, is the outflow ‘‘ex vivo et serio fidei sensu,” Calvin. — Ver. 20. The 6 xipide pu. x. 6 Sede pov was the complete and highest confession of Messianic faith, by the rendering of which, therefore, the above pu? yivov . . . moréc was already fulfilled. But it was the consequence of his having seen the Risen One, which should not have been required, considering the sufficient ground of conviction which lay in the assurance of his fellow-disciples as eye-witnesses. Hence the loving reproof (not eulogy, which Paulus devises, but also not a confir- mation of the contents of Thomas’ confession, as Luthardt assumes, which is
1“quasi pro miraculo facto Deum col- 9 See against these Calovius. laudat,” ed. Fritzsche, p. 41. 3 See Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 374.
536 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
implied only in paxdpeor, x.7.4.) for him who has attaincd iu this sensuous way to decisive faith, and the aseription of blessedness to those who, without such & sensuous conviction, have become bclievers, —which is to be left asa general truth, and not referred to the other disciples, since it is expressed in a general way, and, in accordance with the supersensuous and moral nature of faith, is universally ralid. In detail, note further : (1) to read zeriorevxag tnterrog- atively (with Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Ewald) makes the element of reproof in the words, indicated by the emphatic (comp. i. 51) precedence of dre édp. pe, appear with more vivid prominence ; (2) the perf. is: thou hast become believing and believest-now ; the aor. participles idévrec and moreic. do not denote wont (Liicke), which usage is never found in the N. T., and would here yicld no suitable meaning, but those who, regarded from the point of time of the paxapiérn¢ predicated of them, have not secn, and yet have believed ; they have become believers without having first secn. (3) The point of time of the paxaprdra¢ is, in correspondence with the general propo- sition, the universal present, and the paxap.érne itself is the happiness which they enjoy through the already present, and one day the eternal, possession of the Messianic (04. (4) The paxapidry¢ is not denied to Thomas, but for his warning the rule is adduced, to which he also ought to have subjected himself, and the danger is pointed out to him in which one is -placed who demands sight as a way to faith, as he has done. (5) The antithesis in the present passage is, therefore, not that of faith on account of that which has externally taken place, and of faith certain in itself of its contents (Baur, comp. Scholten), but of faith (in a thing that has taken place) with and without a personal and special perception of it by the senses. (6) How significant is the declaration paxépo, x.7.A., standing at the close of the Johannean Gospel ! The entire subsequent historical devclopment of the church rests in truth upon the faith which has not seen. Comp. 1 Pet. i. 8.
Vv. 80, 31. Conclusion of the entire book (not merely of the main portion of it, as Hengstenberg maintains) ; for chap. xxi. is a supplement. — roAAa pév obv] Multa quidem igitur.’— cai 4A2a] On the well-known xai after woAAd (ct quidem alia), see Baeumlein, Partik. p. 146. Comp. Acts xxv. 7. — onueia] miraculous signs, by which He has proved Himself to be the Messiah, the Son of God (ver. 31). Comp. xii. 37. To this corresponds in general also the conclusion of the appendix, xxi. 25.7. Justly might John, looking back upon his now finished {:fA/ov, adduce as its contents from the begin- ning of his history down to this conclusion, @ potiori, the onueta which Christ had wrought, since these form the distinguishing characteristic in the working of Jesus (comp. x. 41), and the historical basis, with which the rest of the contents (particularly the discourses) are connected. Others have taken oyyeia in exclusive, or at least, like Schleiermacher, pre-eminent reference to the resurrection: documenta resurrectionis (comp. Acts i. 8).°
1 It serves as a concluding summary, so as to prepare the way fora thought intro- duced by &¢. Comp. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 178. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 663.
2 Correctly so, by way of suggestion, Euth. Zigabenus, further Calvin, Jansen,
Wolf, Bengel, Lampe, Tholuck, de Wette, Frommann, Maler, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, Hengstenberg, Godet, Baeum- lein, Scholten, and several others.
3So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Ruperti, Luther, Beza, Calovi-
NOTES. 5357
But to this corresponds neither the general and absolute onyeia in itself, nor the predicate zoAAd x. 42a, since Christ, after His resurrection, both in | accordance with the accounts in the Gospels, and also with that of 1 Cor. xv., certainly appeared only a few times; nor, finally, éwoincev and éy rw B:Ba. tobrw, which latter shows that John (for évir. +r. padn7r., moreover, does not point to another writer, against Weizsicker) has in view the con- tents of his entire Gospel. — ivor. r. nad.] So that thus still many more onucia might have been related, as by an eye-witness, by John, who, in truth, belonged to the pa¥yrai ; hence this addition is not to be employed as a ground for the interpretation by Chrysostom, etc., of ozpeia, because, that is to say, Jesus before His death performed His signs in the sight of the people, etc. (comp. xii. 37). — ravra dé] 8c. ra onueia, namely, those recorded in this book, this selection which composes its contents. — iva moreie.] refers to the readers, for whom the Gospel was designed. ‘‘ Scopus evangelii,” Bengel.' Of the conversion of the Gentiles (Hilgenfeld) to the faith, there is no mention. — 6 vldg r. Yeov] in the Johannean sense. Without Being this, He would not be the promised Messiah. — morebovres] in your believing. Thus, then, the (wiv éyerv is conceived of as a possession already beginning with faith ; faith, however, as a subjective principle of life, quite as with Paul, although the latter more sharply separates from one another, as con- ceptions, justification, and life.* — év r@ dvéu. aitoi] belongs to fui ty. In the name of Jesus, as the object of faith (i. 12), the possession of life is causally founded. — Baur, in accordance with false presuppositions, holds vv. 80, 31 to be spurious, because the previously related appearances (which, according to Baur, took place from out of heaven) must in themselves so bring to a close the appearance of the Risen One, that we cannot think of further appearances of this kind (woAAa x, dAAa),
Nore sy American Eprror.
LXVIL. My pov drrov. Ver. 17.
The first question, in this disputed passage, is of the meaning of drrov, whether it is simply equivalent to 0:yydvu, touch, or has its more full and proper meaning of fasten oneself upon, hold on to, eling. Both the present tense and the connection seem to me to point to the latter. For simply touch we should naturally have the aor. diac, and merely to touch the Lord would surely not be forbidden to Mary.
As to the reason for the prohibition, omitting several of those invented by German ingenuity, we may mention three or four which have been alleged. First, the incidental reasons, as (1) That our Lord was on His way to His ascension and could not be detained, for which certainly there seems no sufficient ground. The arguments for repeated ascensions, one immediate, are by no means con- vincing. (2) That Mary would not delay in her execution of His message to the
us, Maldonatus, Semler, and several others, 2 Comp. Jntrod. § 5. See also, as regards including Kulnoel, Lficke, Olshausen, morevo., on xix. 85. Lange, Baur, Ewald, and several others. 2 Comp. Schmid, Bibl. Theol. II. p. 891,
538 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Apostles—which, however, seems hardly an adequate reason for such a demand —besides which, Christ does not give this as the real reason. (3) That the lan- guage is a familiar hyperbole for ‘‘I do not go immediately,’’ as we say ‘‘T am not yet gone,’’ which may relieve Mary from the anxious endeavour, by her clasp, to detain Him. I may- mention (4) the quasi indecorum which Meyer finds in His receiving the touch (for He holds it as no more) of a woman, which I think, with Weiss, nearly fanciful.
The real or essential reason for the repelling of the clasp is given not very intelligibly by Meyer, as ‘‘ I am not yel ascended to my Father, therefore, as yet no glorified spirit who has again come down from heaven, whither He had ascended.” More satisfactorily, perhaps, Meyer says in his note, ‘‘ Jesus inti- mates that Mary’s drreoGac presupposes in Him a condition which has not yet commenced, because it must have been preceded by His ascension to His Father!"’
Better, I think, Weiss: ‘The prohibition lies simply in this, that He,
although His ascension is not yet accomplished, is on the eve of ascending, and thus His appearance cannot have the purpose to renew His earlier inter- course with His friends.” _ To the same effect Luthardt: ‘It is not the one who has already ascended who is standing before her ; and accordingly it is not yet the time of which He had spoken, when He declared that He would go away to the Father, and then come tothem. The time has not yet dawned at which their fellowship with Him is to come to the goal ofits completion. . . . The time directly at hand is for the disciples as little as for Mary, a time of external sensible fellowship ; it is the time of the departure and distance of Jesus in which they can be sure of Him only by belief.’’ .
The single article with avafaivw mpdc tév, etc. makes the clause equivalent to ‘‘Him who is my Father and your Father and my God and your God,”’ at once putting them and Him in a common relation to God, and yet by not saying ‘‘ our Father and our God’? (rév warépa juov «, Tov Oedv fudv), keeping them dis- tinctly separate.
CHAP. XXI. 539
CHAPTER XXI.
Ver. 8. Instead of évéBnoav, Elz. has avéByoav, against decisive testimony. — After rAviov, Elz. Griesb. Scholz have : ev@u¢, which is condemned by decisive testimony. — Ver. 4. yevou.] Tisch. : yevou., which is to be preferred, since to the witnesses C.* E. L., A. B. with yecvou. are to be added ; though with the copyists yerou. was more current. — cic) Lachm. Tisch. : eri. The Codd. are very much divided ; é7i came to be more readily added as a gloss than ¢eic. Comp. Matt. xiii. 2, 48 ; Acts xxi. 5. — Ver. 6. icxvoay] Tisch. : icyvov, accord- ing to preponderant testimonies. The aorist form was involuntarily suggested from the surrounding context (é8cdov, éAxicac). — Ver. 11. émi rig yo] Lachm. Tisch. : e¢ r)v y7v, according to A. B. C. L. &., etc. Nevertheless, the Recepta is to be retained. ‘Ex? rv y. (so D. Curss.) was written as a gloss in some in- stances,—in others, after ver. 9, ei¢ r. y. was written. — In vv. 15, 16, 17, as in i. 43, instead of 'Iwvd, we are to read : "Iwdvvov. — Ver. 17. rpd3ara] A. B.C. : mpopdtia. Rightly adopted by Tisch. The Recepia is a repetition from ver. 16. Tisch. has, indeed, even already in ver. 16, mpo3arrca, but only according to B. C., so that the testimony of A. appears only for ver. 17. — Ver. 22. Read with Lachm. Tisch., oe dxoAov6e..— Ver. 25 is wanting in &.*, is explained in Scholia as an addition, and has in detail the variations d (Lachm. Tisch.) instead of 0a; Xprorog "Incoic¢ (D.), in one Cod. of It. with the addition: quae non scripta in hoc libro; oid' (Lachm. Tisch.) instead of otdé; yuproew (Tisch. ac- cording to B. C.* &.** Or.) ; at the conclusion ayu7v (Elz.).
Chap. xx. 30, 31, bears so obviously the stamp of a formal conclusion worthy of an apostle, while chap, xxi., moreover, begins in a manner so completely un- expected, that this chap. can appear only as a supplement. The question is, however,! whether this supplement proceeds from John or not. This question first became a subject of investigation from the time of Grotius, who saw in the chapter a supplement of the Ephesian church, composed after the apostle’s death by the bishop (perhaps by John the Presbyter). Since all witnesses contain the chapter, a judgment can only be pronounced from internal grounds. These, however, decide only against ver. 25, which contains an exaggeration so surpris- ing, unapostolical, and in such absolute contradiction to the Johannean sim- plicity, intelligence, and delicacy, that it is impossible that it can have pro- ceeded from the pen of the apostle, but must appear probably as a later, although very ancient, form of conclusion, an apocryphal and inharmonious echo of xx. 30. The omission * of ver. 25 in &*, and its suspicious character in the Scholia,
1 See generally Hoelemann, der Eptlog des
Evang. Joh., \n his Bidelstudien, II. p. 01 ff. * According to the usual statement, ver. 25 should also be wanting {n Cod. 68. This, however, Tisch. (Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verf. p. 127, ed. 4) declares to be an error. On ver. 3 in &. Tisch. passcs
this Judgment : the copyist of this Cod. did not find the verse in his copy, and therefore did not add it ; but the words are supplied, ‘“ab eo qui eadem aetate totum ltbrum rv- censebat ac passim ex ali exemplari corri- gebat atque augebat,”’ Cod. &. ed. Lips. p. LIX.
540 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
rests upon a@ correct critical feeling. On such feeling, however, also rests the fact that this omission and suspicion have not likewise affected ver. 24, which contains absolutely nothing that John could not have written, but rather forms a worthy conclusion to the entire supplement of chap. xxi., and does not by oidayev betray the work of a strange hand (see the exegetical notes). The grounds, moreover, brought forward against the authenticity of vv. 1-23 are untenable. For (1) it by no means follows from ver. 23, that at the time of the composition the apostle was already dead (Weizsiicker, Keim, and others), since the speech there mentioned required precisely the correct historical explana- tion for the eventuality of his still future death. Comp. Ewald, Jahrd. IT. p. 172. (2) The advent of Christ, mentioned in vv. 22, 23, is without any rea- son declared to be non-Johannean. See on xiv. 3. Just as little is (3) the self- designation, ver. 20, un-Johannean ; it corresponds rather just as well to the importance which the recollection, therein expressed, of the never-to-be-for- gotten moment must have had for John, in and of itself, as also to the connec- tion into which it is interwoven. See on ver. 20. Further, (4) the individual expressions! which are designated as non-Johannean (as e.g. ver. 3, épyecGue ovv instead of dxodovSeiv ; ver. 4, mpulac you. instead of tpui; ver. 12, rozpav and é&erule:v ; ver. 18, dépecy instead of dye) are, taken together, phenomena so unessential, nay, having for the most part in the sense of the context so natural a foundation, that they, especially in consideration of the later time of the composition of the supplement, leave behind them no serious difficulty whatever, and are far outweighed by the otherwise completely Johannean stamp, which the composition bears in itself, in the language, in the mode of presentation, and in the individual features which betray the eye-witness (how entirely different is the section concerning the adulteress !). For, in particular, (5) the alleged want of Johannean clearness and demonstrativeness is removed partly by correct exposition, partly in the question as to the genuineness, ren- dered ineffective by the fact that John, even in the earlier part of the Gospel, does not always narrate with equal clearness and perspicuity. (6) It is not correct to say that with the spurious conclusion the entire chapter also falls to the ground,’ since the non-Johannean conclusion may have been added to the Johannean chapter, especially as, on the assumption of the gennine- ness of ver. 24, the appendix itself did nct go forth without a conclusion from the hand of the apostle. In accordance with all that has been ad- vanced, the view is justified, that John by way of authentic historical explanation of the legend in ver. 23, some time after finishing his Gospel, which he had closed with xx. 31, wrote chap. xxi. 1-24,3 as a compleme::t of the book, and that this appendiz, simply because its Johannean origin was immediately certain and recognized, already at a very early period, whilst the Gospel had not yet issued forth from the narrower circle of its first readers (Einl. sec. 5), had become an inseparable part of the Gospel ; bul that simply owing to the fact that now the entire book was without a principa: con-
1 For a minute discussion of the peculiar- ities of language in chap. xxi., and their va- 1iation from the Gospel, see in Tiele, Anno- titio in locos nonnull. ev. Joh. ad vindicand. huj. ev. authent., Amst. 1858, p. 115 ff. In answer to Scholten, who believes he has found most linguistic deviations, see Hil- genfeld in his Zei/schr. 1868, p. 441 ff.
2 Much more correct would it be to say:
the chap. partially betrays, in so striking a manner, the Johannean delicacy and orig- inality (pre-eminently vv. 15-17), that with this the thole stands as a production of the apostle.
3 Vv. 1-14 hardly have an object unknown to us (Briickner), since they are In simple objective historical connection with what follows,
CHAP. XXI., l, 2. 541
clusion, the apocryphal conclusion, ver. 25, exaggerating the original conclusion, xx. 31, came to be added. This addition of ver. 25 must have been made at a very early date, because only a few isolated traces of the spuriousness of ver. 25 have been preserved, which, however, by the evidence of &.* go back to a very ancient time ; while, on the other hand, in reference to vv. 1-24, not the faint- est echo of a critical tradition is found which would have testified against their genuineness. Tisch. also designates only ver. 25 as spurious. — The apostolic origin of the chapter was controverted, in connection with very various theories, especially its derivation from the author of the Gospel, after Grotius, by Clericus, Hammond, Semler, Paulus, Gurlitt,! Liicke, Schott, de Wette, Credner, Wieseler? (John the Presbyter wrote the chap. after the death of the apostle), Schweizer, Bleek, Schwegler, Zeller, Baur (because it is not in keeping with the main idea of the whole), Késtlin, Keim, Scholten, and several others ; Briickner has doubts. In opposition to Baur’s school, according to which it would seem designed, along-with the entire chap., for the purpose of exalting the apostle of Asia Minor over Peter, see especially Bleek. — The Johannean origin, or at least the derivation from the writer of the Gospel, is defended, but in such a way that recently vv. 24, 25 bave been for the most part rejected by Calovius, Rich. Simon, Mill, Wetstein, Lampe, Michaelis, Krause,*? Beck,* Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Hug, Wegscheider,* Handschke, * Erdmann,’ Weber,® Guerike, Redding (Dispw. Groning. 1833), Frommann, Tholuck, Olshausen, Klee, Maier, B. Crusius (not decidedly),® Luthardt, Lange, Laurillard (Disp. L. B. 1853), Ebrard (on Olshausen), Hengstenberg, Godet, Hoelemann, Schleiermacher (at least in respect of the contents). According to Ewald,’ a friend of the apostle (probably a presbyter at Ephesus), of whose hand, probably also of whose art, John availed himself in the composition of the Gospel, wrote the appendix for himself alone at a later date, without desiring in the slightest degree to conceal that it was by a different person. In his Johann. Schrifien, I. p. 54 ff., Ewald ascribes the composition to the same circle of friends, in which the Gospel may have remained perhaps for ten years before its publication ; that the apostle himself, however, permitted the publication with this appendix (inclusive also of vv. 24, 25) before his death. Similarly Baeumlein. — Very superficially and peremptorily does Hengstenberg designate the entire view that chap. xxi. is a supplement, as leading to a view of the accidental nature of the authorship, which is unworthy of the apostle, and in conflict with the character of the Gospel. Hilgenfeld assigns the chap., with inclusion of vu. 24, 25, to the evan- gelist, who, however, was not the apostle. Comp. also Bretschneider, p. 182.
Vv. 1, 2. Mera ratrva] Referring, in conformity with the nature of a sup- plement, to the /ast narrative before the conclusion in xx. 80, 81. — égavépworv éavrév] Comp. the passive expression, Mark xvi. 12, 14; the reflexive form of construction, however, is decidedly Johannean, see vii. 4. It presup-
2 Lection. im N. T. Spec. V1. Hamb. 1805, ™ Bemerk, %d. Joh., Rostock, 1821. Bertholdt, Seyffarth (Beitr. zur Speciaichar- 8 Authentia... argumentor. intern, usu vin-
akt. der Joh. Schriften, Lpz. 1828, p. 271 ff. Gic., Hal. 1823. 2 Diss. 1839. * He, as also Lange, Hengstenberg, Hoele- 3 Diss. Viteb. 1798. mann, ascribes also vv. 24, 2% to the apos- 4 Lips. 1795. tle, in opposition to which Luthardt regards ® Kinl. in d. Ev. Joh. 24, 25 as a testimony added from the Ephe-
© De avOcvriq c. 21 er. Joh. e sola orat.indole sianchurch. Stud. u. Krit. 1840, p. 601 ff. dijud., Lips. 1818. 10 7.¢., comp. also Jahrb. X. p. 87.
542 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN,
poses a state of concealment, from which He now again (xé2.1 points back to ver. 14, to the two preceding appearances, xx. 19, 26) came forth and made Iimself manifest to His disciples, brought Himself into view,—not a spirit- ual existence (de Wette), not ‘‘a sphere of invisibility, in which He moves by Himself (Luthardt, comp. Tholuck), but rather a wonderfully altered existence, no longer belonging to ordinary intercourse, brought nearer to a state of glorification, yet still material, d:d rd Acurév agdaprov civac td c@pa Kat axypatov, Chrysostom. — éi ri¢ dad.) on the lake, because the shore is over the luke.’ It belongs to égav. — égarvipwoe 62 otc] 8c. Eavrdév, not, as Hengsten- berg borrows from ii. 11, r#v dégav abrov. Further, an tteration of this kind, in simple, continuous narration, is not elsewhere found in John. But he may here have purposely written in so diffuse a manner as a set-off to the distortions of actual fact in tradition (comp. ver. 23).— Of the seven dis- ciples, ver. 2, the two last remain unnamed. Hence they are probably (vi. 60, vii. 3, viii. 31, xviii. 19) to be deemed disciples in the wider sense, with which ver. 1 does not conflict (in answer to Hengstenberg, who con- jectures Andrew and Philip), since the two unnamed are simply subordinate persons. That of the disciples in the narrower sense the sons of Zebedee are mentioned Jaat, accords with the composition of the narrative by John himself. Not any deeper or emblematic significance is to be sought as lying behind the succession of the names, or behind the number seven. Another author would probably have placed the sons of Zebedee immedi- ately after Peter. — dard Kava r. Tad.] added, without any special design, in this supplement of late composition. According to Hengstenberg, the rep- resentative of the first miracle (chap. ii.) could not but be indicated, which is pure invention. — oi rot Zefedaiov] does not occur elsewhere in John ; but, at the same time, it is only here that the occasion presents itself to him to mention in a series of names himself ? and his brother along with others. — On the tradition recorded by Luke, which is altogether irreconcilable with Galilean appearances of the Risen One, unless upon arbitrary harmon- istic assumptions (such as even Luthardt entertains), see on Luke xxiv. 50. Acts i. 4 does not, however, necessarily presuppose, in reference to the ap- pearances, that none took place in Galilee. Matthew, onthe other hand, ex- cludes the appearances which took place before the disciples at Jerusalem, which are related by John xx. See on Matt. xxviii. 10. Harmonistic ex- pedients also in Hengstenberg and Godet.
Vv. 8, 4. "Epydp. x. jueic ov coi] John has not employed beciasben nor said dywyev x. gucic (xi. 16), because he has thought just what was said. — The circumstantiality is not un-Johannean (Liicke), but comp. e.g. i. 39, 40, ix. 1-12. In particular, moreover, the tréyo dete is only the simple language of familiar association, in which neither a ‘‘ brusque tone,” nor ‘‘an internal impulse, a presentiment ” (Godet), is tobe recognized. The disci- ples desire again to pursue their earthly employments, ‘‘ quod pricatos homines decebat,” Calvin. — £776ov] from the place indicated in ver. 2, prob-
1 Comp. on Matt. xiv. 26; Xen. Anab. iv. 2Hence Nathanael cannot be John 3. 28: ért tov worapov, and passages from (Spith); comp. on {. 46. Herodotus in Schweighduser’s Lex. p. 245.
CHAP. XXI., 5-7. 543 ably Capernaum, out to the lake, ver. 1. — By night fishing was productive.’ But they caught nothing. How entirely different was it afterwards, when they cast out at the bidding of the Lord ! — orn] Expressing the sudden ap- pearance. Comp. xx. 19, 26. —ei¢ r. aiy.] Comp. xx. 19, 26. —ov pévror, x.T.4.] To be explained from the entirely altered condition and appearance of the Risen One. Chrysostom assigns the reason to the will of Jesus : obx« etOéwe éavrov deixvvory, comp. also Luthardt and Hengstenberg, of which John, how- ever, gives no indication. Comp. rather on xx. 14.
Vv. 5, 6. Macdia] Not un-Johannean (1 John ii. 14, 18), although in xiii. 83 rexvia is used. — yh te xpoogay. Exere] The emphasis lies, as frequently, on the concluding word : you are not, I suppose, (already) in possession of some- thing to eat? The question presupposes the opinion of the questioner, that they had probably as yet taken nothing, as well as the thought that in the opposite case He need not step in. That, however, He designates exactly Jishes by rpocgdyiov, is grounded on the fact that He intends to take a break- Jast with the disciples on the fishes, after which He inquires.*— The dis- ciples simply answer: no; they have therefore taken Him for an entire stranger, who perhaps wishes to buy fishes for breakfast. The radia, intended by Jesus in the sense of fatherly love, they may have regarded, in the mouth of the unknown, as a friendly designation of the state of service (Nonnus : maideg dAdc dpnatgpec ; Euth. Zigabenus : rot¢ épyarixotc). Comp. on vi. 6. —ic 7a de€ta w.] They had the net then in the lake, on quite another side of the boat. — obxérc] no longer, as previously, when it was empty and light. Observe the pictorial imperf. Iozvov (see the critical notes). — éAxtoa:] draw, draw up the submerged net. On the other hand, ctipovrec, ver. 8 : tugging, dragging forth.* —aré] on account of.‘—To regard the above fruitless toils (on the left, it is thought), and this abundant taking on the right, as a figure of the apostolic ministry, in relation first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles, is too special, and not even accordant with history (Gal. ii. 9; Acts xxii. 20, e¢ al., comp. Luthardt), without prejudice, however, to the symbolism of the draught of fishes in itself ; see note after ver. 14:
Ver. 7. Wédev ra idtauara rav oixelov énideixvevrat tpérwv of pabyrai Térpog kai 'Iwdvync. 'O pév yap Oepudrepoc, 6 62 tynAdrepog qv" Kai 6 mév OgbTrepog qr, 6 dé dtoparex@repoc. Ara rovro 6 pev "ludvene mpdtog érbyrw tov 'Inootv’ 6 d2 Tlérpog mpatog #ANe zpd¢ avrév, Chrysostom. Comp. xx. 8 ff. — rév érevdtrry dteCdoaro] He had laid aside the érevd(rn¢, and was in so far unclothed, which, however, does not prevent his having on the shirt, y:rwvioxoc, according to the well- known usage of yuuvdc,* nudus, and 0353." In order, however, not to appear
2 Comp. on Luke v. 5; Aristot. H. A. vit. 19. 20On wpooddy. itself, which Is, like the Attic 5por, nsed especially of fishes (comp. tpocddynua, Moeris, p. 204. 24; xpordyyna, Athen. iv. p. 162 C, vil. p. 276 E) see Sturz, Dial, Al. p. 101; Fischer, de vitiis, Lex. p. 697 f.
® See Tittmann, Synon. p. 57 f.
€ See Bernhardy, p. 224.
§ Grotius, Weitzel, Hengstenberg, Godet, Hilgenfeld, and several others.
* This alsoin opposition to Godet, accord- ing to whom Peter was quile naked. This would have been disgraceful even amongst barbarians. See Kriiger on Thuc. 1. 6. 4.
™$See Perizonius, ad Ae. V. H. vi. 11; Cuper. Odss. |. 7, p. 89, Inlerpp. zu Jes. XXX. 2; Grotius in loc.
544 TIIE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
unbecomingly in his mere shirt before Jesus, he girded around him the éxevdbrne, otergarment, i.e. he drew it on, and gathered it with a girdle on his body. Hengstenberg says incorrectly : he had the érevdtr. on, and only girded himself in the same (accus. of closer definition), in order to be able to swim the better. The middle with accus. of a garment always denotes to gird oneself therewith (Lucian, Somm. 6, de conserib. hist. 3). Comp. ceplovvveba, Rev. i. 138. The érevdtryc is not equivalent to x:rdy,’ but an ocerwrap, an overcoat. Any garment drawn over may be so called ;? it was, however, according to Nonnus and Theophylact, in the case of fishermen, and according to the Talmud, which has even appropriated to itself the word €N7)1DK, in the case of workmen generally, a linen article of clothing (possibly a short frock or blowse) which, according to the Talmud, was worn, provided with pockets, over the shirt (according to Theophylact, also over other articles of clothing). See especially Drusiusin loc. Accord- ing to Euth. Zigabenus, it reached to the knees, and was without sleeves. — yvuvéc] He had, in point of fact, no other clothing on except the mere shirt ;? for precisely dia tiv yizvwow ‘he quickly put on the érevdiryc, which had been laid aside during his work. — He reached the land swimming, not walking, on the water (Grotius and several others), which is a fanciful addition. The éfadev éavréy graphically represents the rapid selj-decision.
Vv. 8, 9. To xAcap.] in the little boat, on board of which they remained ; local dative. Comp. Herod. v. 99: amixéaro eixoo: vyvoi. See generally Becker, Homer. Bldtter, p. 208 f. — The ydép in the parenthesis states the reason why they did not quit the vessel ; they could in this way also quickly enough reach the shore, which was very near (200 cubits = } stadium, 300 feet).*— On the form rnyav instead of the Attic ryyéwv, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 245f. On ard, see on xi. 18. — 1d dixrvov rév i x6.) the net, which was filled eith the fishes (ver. 6).°— Ver. 6. BAémovory, x.r.Aa.] John relates simply what they saw on landing, namely, a fire of coals lying there, and food lying thereon (z.e. a mess of fish, see on vii. 9; the singul. not of a single fish, as Beza, Hengstenberg, Godet, and others think, but collectively, as also dprov,’ and bread. That this preparation for the breakfast to be given was made by Jegus, would be understood by the reader as matter of course (sec vv. 12, 13). But how He brought together the materials, and who kindled the fire, cannot be determined ; He might, before He called to the disciples, have Himself, or by other hands, made the preparations. Hence the narrative yields no miracle (bringing forth out of nothing, thought Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, Calovius, Maldonatus, and several others ; but Nicephorus, Jansen, Luthardt : the angels had provided Him therewith ; finally, Hengstenberg, Godet : without more precisely defining the marvellous How), nor even the appearance of such (Liicke). But
1 Fischer, Kuinoel, Bretschneider. 6’ See Wurm, de ponder, etc., p. 195; Her-
2 See the LXX. in Schleusner, Ties. IT. p. mann, Privatalterth. § 46. 7. 436; Soph. fragm. in Pollux, vii. 45; Dind. € Comp. on this genit., Niagelsbach, z. 891, comp. éwévévue in Plut. Alex. 82. Iitas, p. 31, ed. 8.
Comp. Dem. 6588. 21: yvuvoy & ro 7Comp. Polyb. xxxiv. 8. 6: 7d OaAdrreop xitwvioky. Sor,
* Theodoret, Heracleus.
CHAP. XXI., 10-13. 545
wherefore did Jesus make this preparation? Because the disciples were to eat with Him thé early meal, with which He designed to connect so signi- ficant a transaction as that related in vv. 15 ff. ; He willed to be the gicer of the meal. Much that is irrelevant in the older expositors. According to Luthardt, the design is to depict how Jesus, without requiring their aid, knows how to feed the disciples from His own resources. But to what purpose any such further representation, when He had long ago miracu- lously fed thousands before the cyes of the disciples ?
Vv. 10, 11. ’Evéyxare, x.7.A.] for the completion, in accordance with their needs, of the dish of fish already found upon the fire of coals. That the cating of Jesus and of the disciples was no material, but a spiritual one (the enjoyment which Jesus has from the labors of His apostles), is a fiction of Hengstenberg’s. — According to ver. 11, Peter alone draws the full net to land, which, of course, since it hung on the vessel, that lay on the shore, was easier than to draw it up out of the water into the boat. ver. 6. According to Hengstenberg, he is, indeed, named only as being the chief person, because he had been the instrument of the spiritual fishing. The statement of the number of the fishes is as little an apocryphal trait as the statement of the number of those who were miraculously fed, vi. 10, and the less, since it is not a round number which is named. The peydAuv heightens the miracle, —xat rocobruwy bvrwy, x.t.A.] Regarded by John us incomprehensible, and as effected by Christ; by Strauss, as mani- festly legendary, as well as the number of the fishes, which, however, might surely well be to the minds of the disciples, in this miraculous experience, important enough, and such as never to be forgotten. On the allegorical interpretations of the number 153, see note after ver. 14.
Vv. 12, 18. "Apcorov is, as little as in Matt. xxii. 4, Luke xi. 88, the prin- cipal meal, which, in spite of ver. 4, Hengstenberg suggests in the interest of allegorical interpretation, but breakfast. —iréAua] dared, presumed. Although, that is, it had been possible for them, in respect of the external appearance, to doubt whether He was the Lord, they were nevertheless con- vinced of His identity, and hence dared not to ask Him: Who art thou ? Reverential awo (comp. already iv. 27), in presence of the marvellous ap- pearance of the Risen One, deprived them of the courage to do so. Accord- ing to Augustine, Beda, Jansen, and several others, they dared not doubt, which however, is not expressed. Chrysostom aptly remarks : obxére yap r9v aur rappyoiau eizov' . . . THv d2 popdiy aAdourtpay dpavres nat ToAARG éxrAh- fewg yluovoayv, ogédpa foav xaramerAnypévot, nat EBobAovro te wept aitig Epwrav’ GAAG 1d dlog nai rd cidévar avrotc, dre ovx Erepde tig Hv, GAY airéc, éreixov Tv porno. — éEerdoa) to explore sciscitari ; strong expression from the point of view from which the respectful timidity of the disciples regarded the daring nature of the question. — cidérec] Constructio xara ofveow.* — Ver. 13. dpzerac] The deire, ver. 12, has summoned the disciples to the place of the meal where the fire of coals was ; Jesus Himself, who had therefore -
1 Matt. iL & x. 11; Sir. xi. 7, xilf. 11, fre- 4 See Kihner, IT. § 419a; Kriiger, $58. 4. 5. quent in the classica.
546 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
stood at some distance therefrom, now steps forward, in order to distribute the breakfast. — rdy dprov] points back to ver. 9, but rd dydpeov to vv. 9 and 10 : the bread lying there, etc. Both areagain collective. Itis not merely one loaf and one fish which Jesus distributes, as Hengstenberg, for the purpose of symbolically interpreting it of a heavenly reward of toil, assumes ; see ver. 10.—A thanksgiving before the didworw is not related, not as though Jesus omitted ré axfpériva (Euth. Zigabenus) ; nor as though He did not desire positively to offer Himself to their recognition (Lange, in opposition to ver. 12); nor, again, as though the meal was to bea silent’ one (Lu- thardt, who adds : ‘‘ for such is the table fellowship of Jesus and His own in the present acon”) ; nor, again, because the meal represented future bless- ings (Hengstenberg),—but because here it is not a question of any proper meal, as in Luke xxiv. 20, but rather only of a breakfast, of a morning meal, partaken of only while standing (there is no mention, nioreover, of a lying down), which also was not to have, like that early meal of Paul, Acts xxvii. 85, a character of solemnity. It was not this breakfast in itself, which Christ prepared for the disciples, but that which preceded (the draught of fishes) and succeeded (vv. 15 ff.), that was the object for which the Risen One here appeared.
Ver. 14. Toiro #dn tpirov] This already for the third time. See on 2 Cor. xiii. 1. — 457 presupposes, on the one hand, that, according to John, until now any other appearances before the disciples had not taken place, with the exception of the three related (xx. 19 ff., 26 ff., xxi. 1 ff.) ; but, on the other hand, that at a later date several other appearances occurred. Since he, moreover, refers his rpirov only to the appearances that were made to the circle of disciples (not to individual persons), a wider scope is thereby given to harmonists ; in no case, however, can they succeed in reconciling the three appearances with the statements of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff., espe- cially as there elra and érecra (in opposition to Wieseler) denote chronological sequence. The Apostle Paul is charged, on the supposition that his ac- count is to be understood in an internal way, with a great arbitrariness, when it is asserted that the three appearances related by John are comprised in elra roic d&dexa In Paul (Luthardt, Lange). Not even can o&¢@, Kynd¢ in Paul be reconciled with John. To John, however, must be accorded the preference over the tradition followed by Paul, so far as the latter does not agree with the former.
Note.—To the draught of fishes, to contest the historical truth of which, in a manner which evinced arbitrariness, and in part even malice, the similarity of the earlier history, Luke v. 2 ff., afforded a welcome opportunity (Strauss, Weisse, Schenkel, and several others), a symbolical destination has, since the most ancient times (Chrysostom and his followers, Cyril, Augustine, and many others), been ascribed, and in general justly, since the word of Jesus, Matt. iv.
1 That the meal passed generally in entire tation of details, a gloomy and monstrous silence, as also Hengstenberg suggests, as character is given to the incident. But the little appears from the text as that Jesus text breaks off with the distribution of the did not Himself partake of it (Hengsten- bread and of the meas of fish, and it says berg). In favour of asymbolical interpre- nothing of the progress of the breakfast.
CHAP. XXI., 14. 547 19, parall., gives, naturally enough, the psychological solution why He, as the Risen One, performs, precisely in this fashion, a miraculous work in the pres- ence of His disciples. The tradition in which, from the above word, the draught of fishes, Luke v., took shape (see on Luke v. 1 ff.), has, although pushing hackward the later occurrence, nevertheless apprehended with right feeling the idea which it contained. The disciples themselves could not but find in the words of that first call, Matt. loc. cit., the key to the symbolical significance of the miraculous fact, in which that word, which Jesus had spoken at the beginning, was now, on the boundary of their earthly intercourse with Him, and before the restoration (a renewed calling, as it were) of Peter, set forth and sealed as a fact with the highest appropriateness. Only in the interpretation of this symbolism, we have no right to go beyond Matt. iv. 14, and read in it more than the rich blessing of the apostolical office, of which the men fishers of Jesus were to be the possossors. To go further, and, with Augustine, expound all the individual features of the history allegorically,! is groundless and arbi- trary, and without any definable limits. Especially unauthorized is an interpre- tation of the fish meal that refers it to the heavenly supper,” ‘‘ which the Lord prepares for His own with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God,’’ 8 since that supper of the kingdom does not concern the apostles as such, and foreign elements would mix themselves with the reference. The meal of our passage is only an dpcoroy, a breakfast, serving merely as an occasion for the appearance, and for the draught of fishes, as well as for the further scene with Peter. In a manner which serves as a special warning have the allegorical tendencies of the Fathers, in respect of the number of fishes, displayed them- selves. Thus, Severus,Ammonius, Theophylact (also r:véc in Euth. Zigabenus) see depicted in the 100 fishes the Gentiles, in the 50 the Jews, and in the 3 the Trin- ity. Jerome, followed by Kostlin 4 and Hilgenfeld, recognizesin the 153 fishes, ‘in spite of the fact that they were large ones only, all genera piscium, and thereby the universality of the apostolic activity,* which Ruperti even derives from the text by an arithmetical analysis * of the number ; whilst Hengstenberg, on the other hand (after Grotius), finds the key in the 153,600 strangers,” making John count a fish for every thousand (with which the surplus of 600 falls away) ! — That John says nothing regarding the symbolical purpose of the draught of fishes, is sufficiently explained from the fact that Jesus Himself does not expressly de- clare it, but allows the thing to speak for itself its silent symbolical language, as He also has not Himself interpreted the symbolism of the withered fig-tree (Matt. xxi. 21).
1So recently, especially Weltzel in the Stud.u. Krit. 1849, p. 618 f., Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg.
2 Even the Lord’s Supper was found by Augustine to be signified, and he went so far asto say: “ piscis assus Christus est pas seus,"
* Olshausen, after Augustine.
* Theol. Jahrb. 185 1, p. 198.
® Tilgenfeld in his Zettschr. 1868, p. 446: “‘The copious draught. .., 1.4, the spiritual harvest from the Gentile world, \s now added to the provision of fish and bread already lying ready, I think, for the feeding of the Jewish poople (comp. John yi 12)... The
fundamental thought fs, he thinks, fn x. 16
* Recently enigmatic numeration has been attempted in the case of these fishes, so that according to the Hebrew numerical let- ters 1184-3 = 7" [Pow is = Siner ‘leva. See Theol. Jahr’. 1834, p. 185; on the other hand: Ewald, Jahrd. vi. p. 161. Volkmar also (Mos. Prophedtie, p. 61f.) gives the enig- matic solution of the number as “ Simeon Bar Jona Kepha.”—Calvin already correct- ly observes : “‘ quantum ad piscium numer. um spectat, non est sublime aliquod in eo quaerendum mysterium.”
¥ 2 Chron. iL. 17.
548 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Vv. 15-17. The thrice-repeated question : ‘ut illi occasionem praeberet, triplicis abnegationis maculam triplici professione eluendi,?’ Wetstein, which Hengstenberg arbitrarily denies. — Zizuw "Iwévvov] Thrice the same complete mention of the name with a certain solemnity of deeply-mored affection. In the use of the name Simon Joh. in itself, we are not to recognize—since cer- tainly it is not at all susceptible of proof, that Jesus elsewhere addressed the apostle by the name Peter or Cephas—another and special purpose as in view, either a reminiscence of the lost confidence (de Wette), or of the human condition of the apostolical calling (Luthardt), or a replacement into his natural condition for the purpose of an exaltation to the new dig- nity (Hengstenberg). The name of Peter is not refused to him (Hoele- mann). — ayaz.] He does not ask after his faith ; for this had not become wavering, but the lore proceeding from the faith had not been sufficiently strong. [See Note LXVIII. p. 555]—rotruv] 4 otro, than these my other disciples. They are still present > comp. on ver. 20. Peter had given er- pression, in his whole behaviour down to his fall, to so pre-eminent a love for Jesus (bear in mind vi. 68, the washing of the feet, the sword-stroke, and xiii. 37), and in virtue of the distinction, of which Jesus had deemed him worthy (i. 43), as well as by his post at the head of the apostles (comp. on Matt. xvi. 18), into which he was not now first introduced (Hengst.), so pre-eminent a love was to be expected from him, that there is sufficient occa- sion for the rAciov robrwv without requiring a special reference to Matt. xxvi. 33 (from which, in comparison with John xiii. 37, a conclusion has becn drawn adverse to the Johannean authorship). — Peter in his answer substi- tutes for the ayaz. (diligis) of the question, the expression of personal heart emotion, g:Ad, amo [See Note LXIX. p. 556] (comp. xi. 3, 5, xx. 2), by which he gives the most direct satisfaction to his inmost feeling ; appeals, in so doing, in the consciousness of the want of personal warranty, to the Lord's knowledge of the heart, but leaves the rAcioy robrwy unanswered, because his fall has made him humble, for which reason Jesus also, in tender for- bearance, omits that sAziov robrwy in the questions that follow—vivid origi- nality of the narrative, marked by such delicacy of feeling. — Béoxe rd dpvia pov] Restoration to the previous standing, which the rest of the apostles did not require, therefore containing the primacy of Peter only in so far as it already previously existed ; see on Matt. xvi. 18. —apvia] Expression of tender emotion : little lambs, without obliterating the diminutive significa- tion also in Rev. v. 6; Isa. xl. 11, Aq. The discourse becomes firmer in ver. 16, where rpéBara, and again, more emotional, in ver. 17, where rpo- Barta, little sheep (see the critical notes), is found. By all three words, the apxroiuny * means His believing ones in general (1 Pet. v. 4), without making a separation between beginners and those who are matured,* or even be-
1 To apply the sense of the thrice-uttered behest so differently: duty of individuals; care for the whole ; bringing in of individu- als for the whole (Luthardt),—Is a separa- tion of the idea which cannot be proved by the change of the words, and is entirely out of keeping with the mood of emotional
feeling. In each of the three expressions lies the whole duty of the shepherd. ‘‘ Quam vocum vim optime se intellexisse Petrus demonstrat, 1 Pet. v. 2," Grotius.
* Euth. Zigabenus, Wetstein, Lange, and
« several others.
5 ef :
a ry ar rn y w pes
CHAP. XXI., 18. | 549
tween laity and clergy. Maldonatus aptly remarks : the distinction is non in re, sed in voce, where, notwithstanding, he, with other Catholic exposi- tors, groneously lays emphasis on the fact that precisely to Peter was the whole flock entrusted ; the latter shared, in truth, with all the apostles, the same office of tending the entire flock. — rdA:v detrepov] See on Matt. xxvi. 42, — solya:ve] More universal, and more expressive of carefully ruling activ- ity in general* than Séoxe, in which rather the special reference of nourishing protective activity is brought out.* The latter, therefore, corresponds to the diminutive designations. —In His third question, ver. 17, Jesus takes up the g:Ae ce of Peter, and cuts, by means of the thus altered question, still more deeply into his heart. Peter was,troubled about this, that Jesus in this third question appeared to throw doubt even upon his g:A%eiv. Hence now his more earnest answer, with an appeal to his Lord’s unlimited knowl- edge of the heart: ov révra oidac, x.t.2., Which popular and deeply emotional expression is not to be interpreted of absolute omniscience (Baur), but ac- cording to the standard of xvi. 80, ii. 25, iv. 19, vi. 64, 1. 49 f.
Ver. 18. With the thrice-uttered Péoxe ra rpo3azia pov Peter is again in- stalled in his vocation, and with solemn earnestness (auf, ayufy, x.T.7.) Jesus now immediately connects the prediction of that he will one day hare to endure in this vocation. The prediction is'clothed in a symbolic form. Comp. Acts xxi. 11. —4re fe vedrepoc] than now. Peter, who had been al- ready for a considerable time married (Matt. viii. 14), was at that time of middle age. In the contrast of past youth and coming old age (ynpdonc) the present condition certainly remains without being characterized ; but this, in the vivid delineation of the prophetic picture, must not be pressed. Every expression of prophetic mould is otherwise subject to its ‘‘ obliquity” (against de Wette). But the objection of the want of a simplicity worthy of Jesus (de Wette) is, considering the entire concrete and illustrative form of the prophecy, perfectly unjust. Note, morcover, that dre fo vedrepog. . . 7Orre¢ is not designed with the rest for symbolical interpretation (as refer- ring perhaps to his self-willedness before his conversation, Euth. Zigabe- nus, Luthardt, or in the earlier time of youth, Lange ; to the autonomic energy in his calling, Hengst.), but serves only as a plastic preparation for the prediction (érav dé yypdoyc) from which, as a background, the pre- dictive figure stands out more vividly. — exreveic rag xeip. cov] Feebly stretch- ing them out to the power of strangers, and therewith surrendering thysclf to it. Then will another (undefined subject of the hostile power) gird thee, i.e. surround thee with fetters, as with a girdle, bind thy body around with bonds, and conrey thee away, tchither thou wilt not, namely, to the place of er- ecution (comp. Mark xv. 22); for with d7ov ob Bihee: tig gioewg Abyer Tb cupTadi¢ kai THE GapKos Tv avdyKim, Kai Ste dKorea aTopphyrvtat Tov OW"ATOC 1; yvxh, Chrysostom. Note further, that as with the three clauses of the first half of the verse there is a complete correspondence formed by means of the
1 Eusebius, Emiss, Bellarmine. and foexnya, rictws, and the compounds like 2 Acts xx. 28; 1 Pet. v. 2; Rev. ff. 27, vil. -ynpofooxeiy, ef al. see also Philo, deter. inaicd, 17, and see Dissen, ad Pind. Ol. x. 9. pot. I. p. 197; Ellendt, Lez. Soph.1I. p. 312 f,
7 Hom. Od. u. 97, §. 102, ef al. ; comp. Beers,
550 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
three clauses of the second, namely (1) by drav dé ynp.; (2) by aAAog oe Sdcee 5 and (3) by oice: Sov ov Vitec, the words éxreveic rag zeipds cov form no inde- pendent point, but only serve for the illustration of the second, graphically describing the surrender into the power of the &AAoc, who will perform the Cwoee (not the joy at being bound with fetters, Weitzel). Erroneously, then, do the Fathers, and most later expositors,’ make éxrev. r. yeip. o. the charac- teristic point of the prediction, and interpret it of the stretehing out on the transcerse beam of the cross. In this case unless (with Hengst.) we volatilize aZAog oe Céce into the mere general idea of passivity, we must refer the caec to the binding to the cross before the nailing,’ or (with Brickner and Ewald) to the girding with the loin cloth (which can by no means be histor- ically proved by Er. Nicod. 10).* It is decisive against the entire explana- tion, referring it to the crucifixion, that oice: ézov ot Side, not before but after the stretching out of the hands and girding,‘ would be wholly incon- gruous, and we must then understand it of the bearing to the cross by the executioner’s assistants,* in which, however, in spite of this very special in- terpretation, we again give up the reference of the stretching out of the hands to the crucifixion, and leave only the above doubtful binding of the girdle round the loins as a specific mark of crucifixion. Others (so especially Gur- litt and Paulus) have found nothing morc than the prediction of the actual ereukness of old age, and therewith made of the saying so weightily intro- duced a mere nullity. Olshausen refers to youth and old age ir the spirit- ual life;* Peter, that is to say, will in his old age be in manifold ways hindered, persecuted, and compelled against his will to be active here and there, of which experiences his cross is the culminating point. Ina simi- lar manner Tholuck: the apostle is given to understand how he, who had been governed in the earlier period of his life more by self-will, will come
more and more under a higher power, and will submit himself at last even’
with resignation to the martyr-death destined by God. Comp. Lange, and even Bleek, p. 235 f., who by the 422o¢ actually understands Jesus ; a mis- taken view also in Mayerhoff.” All such spiritual allusions fall to the ground in virtue of ver. 19, as also érov ot 3izeg is not appropriate to the supposed representation of complete surrender, which should rather have required perhaps d7ov dpre ob Siterc. Unsuitable also would be drav j7pdonc, since in truth that spiritual maturity of the apostle could not first be a sub- ject of expectation in his old age. Beza is correct : ‘‘ Christus in genere pracdicat Petri mortem ciolentam fore.” Nonnus: ’Oye d2 yypdoxwv ravicerc
1Including Tholuck, Maler, de Wette, binding round the body, would be an inap-
Brtickner, Hilgenfeld, liengstenberg, propriate figure of the attaching the hands. Baeumlein. —Logical subtleties cannot succeed in put- 3 Tert. Scorp. 15. ting right the incongruity above alluded to,
3 See Thilo, ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 582 f.
4A resource has indeed been sought with Casaubon by referring éxt.7. xetp. ¢. to the circumstance that before the crucifixion took place the cructarii were carried about ‘**collo furcae inserto et manibus dispeasis etad furcae cornua deligatis,"" Wetstein. But the girding, as it necessarily points to
although Briickner has made the attempt.
5 Ewald, comp. Bengel.
*Comp. Eath. Zigabenus: to the life of Peter under the law, fn which he has acted with self-will, the full maturity of the jAuca wvevparccy is opposed, in which he will stretch out his hands for crucifixion, etc.
7 Petr. Schr. p. 87.
CHAP. XXI., 19-21. 551
ato xeipac avdyny’ | kal oe meptogiyfovow apedbes avéipes dAdo, | cig tiva yapov ayovrec, bv ov ato Oupds avéye. Beyond this we cannot go without arbitrari- ness. Comp. also Luthardt and Godct.
Ver. 19. A comment, quite of Johannean stamp, on the remarkable utter- ance. Comp. xviii. 32, also xii. 88. — moip Oavdry] t.e. by what manner of death, namely, by the death of martyrdom, for which Peter, bound round with fetters, was conveyed to the place of execution. John, who wrote long after the death of Peter, presupposes the details as well known, as also Clem. Cor.I.5. Peter was crucified, as tradition, from the time of Tertullian,’ and Origen in Eusebius, credibly relates ; the reader had therefore to take this special element of the ro:ér¢ of the execution from history, as the fulfilment of the less definite word of prophecy, in addition to, but not to derive it from, the words of Christ themselves. — dofdce r. Oedv] For such a death tended to the glorifying of God, in whose service he suffered for the revela- tion of His counsel and for the victory of His work (comp. xvii. 4, 8) ; hence dofécecv r. Oedv became ‘‘magnificus martyrii titulus,” Grotius.* — axorotfee pot] [See Note LXX. p. 556.] On the announcement of the martyr- dom which is destined for Peter in his old age, there now follows, after a pause, the summons thereto, and that in the significant form : follow me! Comp. xiii. 86 ; Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24. This, then, refers, according to the context, to the following of Christ in the like death that He had died, 7.e. in the death of martyrdom, which Peter is to undergo. Luther: ‘‘give thy- self willingly to death.” Too special is the interpretation which refers it to the death of the cross, since this was not expressly characterized in ver. 18.” In opposition to the context (sce also ver..22), others, after Chrysostom and Theophylact, have referred it to the appointment to be vecumenical bishop. The reference to the guidance of the church is by no means to be connected with that to the death of martyrdom,‘ since axod. is the opposite of pévec, ver. 22. Others divest the words of all significance : Jesus had something particular to speak of with Peter, and hence summoned him to go with Him. So Kuinoel, Paulus, and even Tholuck and Schleiermacher, while Grotius, Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg, Briickner, Baeumlein, Godet blend together the proper and symbolical meaning.
Vv. 20, 21. From axoscvfoivra—which here, as belonging to the narratire, is, a8 8 matter of course, not to be taken in the significant sense of the axodotGe: belonging to the language of Jesus, ver. 19—it results that Jesus, - during the preceding conversation with Peter (not now first, as assumed by Luthardt, in accordance with axoAot3e: por, ver. 19, which is to be left purely | in its higher sense), has gone away with him a little distance from the dis- ciples. Peter, engaged in walking with Jesus, turns round® and sees that John is following them. — bv 7; 47a 6 Inaot¢] Not to be connected with axoAov). (‘‘he knew that Jesus loved his company,” Ewald, loc. cit.), but comp. xiii.
1 Scorp. 15, ‘‘ Tune Petrus ab altero cin- * Against Euth. Zigabenus and many gitur, cum crucl adstringitur,” de praescr. others. 85. 4 Ewald, Jahrd. Ul. p. 171. 2 8ee Sulcer, Thes. I. p. 949. Comp. also § emiotpadets, comp. Matt. ix. 22. Phil. 1. 20; 1 Pet. iv. 16; Acta y. 41.
552 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
23, — 8¢ xa? avérecev, x.7.A.] Retrospect of the special circumstance, xiii. 25 ; hence, however, not : who also luy at table, etc. (Hengstenberg and others), but : who also laid himself down (with the head) at the well-known Supper (év r@ deixvy) on the breast of Jesus. “Og . . . wapad. ce is not to be placed tn a parenthesis, since ver. 21 begins a new sentence. The subjoining of this observation is not intended to state the reason for John, as the confidant of Jesus following Him ;* but to prepare the way for the following question of petty jealousy, in which lies the point of the further narrative, while it indicates the consideration which determines Peter to put this question, whether possibly a destiny of suffering might not in like manner be contemplated Jor the disciple so pre-eminently beloved and distinguished by Jesus, this érioriyS we of the Lord. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euth. Zigabenus (similarly Olshausen), its purpose is to remind the reader how far bolder than at the Last Supper Peter has now become after his restoration. But the subsequent question neither presupposes any special boldness (comp. on ver. 22), nor, considering the peculiar situation of the Last Supper, was a want of boldness the reason why Peter did not himself put the question, xiii. 25. The xaf after d¢ expresses the relation corresponding to év 7ydra.* —otrTo¢ J? ci] se. Zora.* Nonnus : xai rh reAgaaec ovrog éudc ovvdeddoc ; but what will become of this man if the result is to be such for me? Will the issue be other- wise with him ? ov« axoAovPfoe coe 5 ot Ty abriy yuiv éddv tov Savdrov Badzei- vat; Euth. Zigabenus. The rendering : but what is this man todo? Shall he now be with us (Paulus and several others), a part of the false expla- nation of axoAotde: wor, ver. 19. On the neut. ri, comp. Acts xii. 18.‘
Ver. 22. Jesus gives, in virtue of His personal sovereignty over the life and death of His own (comp. Rom. xiv. 9), to the unwarranted question, put by Peter, too, not merely out of curiosity, but even from a certain jeal- ousy (Chrysostom, Erasmus, Wetstcin, and several others conceive : out of particular love to John),° the answer: that it does not at all concern him, if He have possibly allotted to John a more distant and happier goal, and leads him, who had again so soon turned away his gaze from himself, im- mediately back to the task of dxodZoiSe: wor imposed upon him, ver. 19, — uéverv] Opposite of the axo2ovdeiv, to be fulfilled by the death of martyrdom ; hence : be preserved in life.* Olshausen (and so substantially even Ewald) arbitrarily adds, after Augustine, the sense : ‘‘to tarry in quiet and peacc- ful life.” *— éu¢ épyouac] By this Jesus means, as the solemn and absolute
1 Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, Godet.
2 Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152.
3 See Buttmann, Neul. Gr. p. 888 [E. T. p. 894].
4Xen. Hell. il. 8. 173 €vorro y woActeia; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. B2E.
5 Comp. Luthardt: ‘‘ only loving interest for his comrade," to which, however, the reproving ti mpds oe, ver. 22, does not apply.
* Comp. xii. 84; Phil. 1. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 6; Kypke, I. p. 415 f.
7 Comp. Godet, who, strangely enough, finds here an allusion fo the fact that John
remained at rest in the boat, and with his comrades (except Peter) towed the full net to land, where Jesus was. This allusion again includes the other, that John, in the history of the development of the founding of the church, received ‘“‘a@ calm and cal- lected part.” And with this Godet finally connccts: At the great gospel draught of fishes in the Gentile world, where Peter at the beginning stood foremost,” John was present thereat until the end of the first century, atypeof the whole history of the church, and here begins the mystery—perhaps he te assoctat-
- -_» Se
CHAP. XXI., 23. 553 épyouae itself renders undoubted, His final historical Parousia, which He, according to the apprehension of all evangelists and apostles, has promised will take place even before the passing away of the generation (sce note 3 after Matt. xxiv.), not the destruction of Jerusalem, which, moreover, John far outlived (rivéc in Theophylact, Wetstein, Lange, and several others, in- cluding Luthardt, who sees in this destruction the beginning of the Parousia, in opposition to the view of the N. T. generally, and to ver. 23); not the world-historical conflict between Christ and Rome, which began under Domitian (Hengstenberg) ; not the removing by a gentle death;’ not the leading out from Galilee (where John in the meanwhile was to remain) to the scene of apostolic activity (Theophylact) ; not the apocalyptic com- ing in the visions of John’s revelation (Ebrard); not the coming at any place, where John is to wait (Paulus)! See rather xiv.8; 1 John ii. 28, iii. 2. On éwe &pyouae (as 1 Tim. iv. 18), as long as until I come, see Butt- mann, Neut. Gr. p. 199 [E. T. p. 281]. In ob po axod., ob bears the empha- sis, in contrast with the other disciples.
Ver. 28. Hence there went forth (comp. Matt. ix. 26), in consequence of this answer of Jesus, the following legend’ among the brethren (Christians) : that disciple does not die (but remains in life until the Parousia, whereupon he experiences, not death, but change, 1 Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52). —The legend, which correctly took épyoua in the solemn sense of Maran- atha (1 Cor. xvi. 22), would with reason have inferred its ob« aradvhexe: from the word of Christ, had the latter run categorically : fA abrdv pévew éuc épxy. In the manner, however, in which Jesus expressed Himself, a categorical judgment was derived from the conditional sentence, and conse- quently the case supposed by Jesus, the occurrence of which is to be left to the decision of experience (éév, not e/), was proclaimed as an actually exist- ing relation. This John shows to be an overstepping of the words of Jesus, and hence his observation intimates that, on the ground of that saying, it was at once without reason asserted : this disciple dies not,—that rather the possible occurrence of the case supposed by éav 34s must be left over to the experience of the future, without asserting by way of anticipa- tion cither the oix arovryoxe: or the opposite. Considering the expected nearness of the Parousia, it 1s conccivable enough how John himself docs not absolutely declare the saying, which was in circulation about him, to be incorrect, and does not contradict it (it might in truth be verified through the impending Parousia), but only refers to its conditional character (‘‘ leaves it therefore to hang in doubt,” Luther), and placcs it merely in its historical light, with verbally exact repetition of its source. According to others,’ John would indicate that there is yet another coming of Jesus than that which is to take place at the close of history. But this other the cxpositors
ed with it in an incomprehensible manner un- til the end of the present economy, until the
! Olshausen, Lange, Ewald, after the older expositors, as Ruperti, Clarius, Zeger,
vessel touches the shore of eternity.’ Thus, if we depart from the clear and certain sense of the words, we fall into the habit of phantasy, so that we no longer expound, but invent and create.
Grotlus, and several others.
2 Which therefore did not originate from the Apocalypse (Baur, Hilgenfeld).
* See especially Heumann, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg.
dot THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
have here invented, see on ver. 22.—After the death of the apostle, the legend was further expanded, to the effect that he slumbered in the grave, and by his breath moved the earth.’
Ver. 24. Conclusion by John to this his supplement, vv. 1-23, which he makes known as his work, and the contents of which he maintains to be true. To his book he had given the conclusion, xx. 31; all the less should the apostolic legitimation be wanting to the appendix added by him at a later time. — epi roitwy and craira refer to the supplementary nar- rative in vv. 1-23. — Observe the change of participles, pres. pepzrpor (for his witness, i.e. his eye- and ear-witness, still continued a living one in an oral form) and aor. > payac.*— oidayer] Not oida pév ;* but John, as he has avoided throughout in the Gospel, in accordance with his delicate peculiar- ity, the self-designation by J, here speaks out of the consciousness of fellow - ship with his readers at that time, none of whom the aged apostle justly pre- supposed would doubt the truth of his testimony. With this good apostolical confidence he utters his oidayzev. He might have written, as in xix. 35, oidev (Beza so conjectured). But his book up to this appendix, chap. xxi., had belonged in truth already for a considerable time to the narrower circle of his first readers ; they could not therefore but know from it how truly he had testified concerning all that he had written ; all the more could he now, when by way of supplement he further added the appendix, conceive what was to be said concerning the truth of the contents in the above form of fellowship, and as he conceived it, so he says it ; as he is in so doing certain of the concurrence of his readers (comp. 3 John 12) with his own conscious- ness, so he writes it. According to this, no satisfactory reason is apparent for recognizing in oidayev & composer different from the ypdayac (Bleck, Bacumlcin), and conceiving of the Ephesian presbyters or friends of the apos- tle as the subject, whether the chapter be now ascribed to them (or to an individual among them),‘ or only vv. 24, 25,° or again merely ver. 24, ver. 25 being rejected (Tischendorf).
Ver. 25. Apoeryphal conclusion to the entire Gospel (sce the critical notes) after the Johannean appendix, vv. 1-24, had been added. — dca] a, which Lachmann, Tischendorf, after B. C.* X. &. Or. read, would give the rela- tive limitation simply as to matter (quae fecit); but dca gives it quantitatively (quotquot fecit), as, frequently also in the classics, éc0¢ follows after zo2i¢. The éxoinoev (without onyeia, xx. 31) designates the working of Jesus in its entire universality, but as that which took place on earth, not also the Logos activity from the beginning of the world, as, in spite of the name 6 "I7coi', comp. xx. 30, Hoelemann, p. 79 ff., assumes, who sees in ver. 25 the com- pletion of the symmetry of the gospel in keeping with the prologue. The
1See Infrod. §1, and generally Ittig, se. apostle through a second hand, stands in
capita hist. eccl. sec. I. p. 441 ff. contradiction. 2 Note also how the witness is identical 3 Chrysostom, Theophylact. with the ypawas, so that John himself ex- 4 Grotius, Liicke, Ewald, Bleek, and
pressly announces himself as the composer _ others.
of the appendix, and consequently also of 6 Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet, and others. the whole Gospel, with which the assump- 6 Hom. J. xxii. 880; Ken. He@. ili. 4 3. tion that the Gospel proceeds from the
NOTES. 500
pre-human activity of the Logos might be an object of speculation, as i. 1 ff., but not, the subject of histories, written in detail (xa é): not the theme of a Gospel. Hence the composer of ver. 25, moreover, has throughout indicated nothing which points back further than to the activ- ity of the Incarnate One,’ and not even has he written 6 Xpiorde, or 6 Khptoc, or 6 vidg tov Oeov, but d "Iyootc. — aria] quippe quae, utpote quae. The relative is likewise gualitative,* namely, in respect of the great multitude ; hence not the simple ¢. — xad’ &] one by one, point by point.” — ovdé avrov 7. xéou. | ne ipsum quidem mundum, much less a space in it. —olza:] Placed in John’s mouth by the composer of the concluding verse. — yupyoa:] to contain (comp. ii. 6; Mark ii. 2). The infin. aor. after olvac without év, ‘a pure Greek idiom,‘ expresses what is believed with certainty and decision.* — a ypapéueva] the books, which, if the supposed case occurs, are being written. The world is too small, then thinks the writer, to include these books within it, not, as Luthardt suggests, to embrace the fulness of such testimonies, to which he inaptly (since in sooth it is books that are spoken of) adds : ‘* for only an absolute external circumference is in keeping with the absolute contents of the Person and of the life of Christ.” Hengstenberg also applics the expression of external dimension to the ‘‘internal overflowing great- ness ;” comp. Godet ; the object of the history is greater than the world, etc.; Ebrard extraordinarily : there would be for the books no room in literature. In opposition to the context, Jerome, Augustine, Ruperti (who says: the world is ‘‘et ad quaerendum fuastidiosus ct ad intelli- gendum obtusus”), Calovius, Bengel, and several others have explained it of the capacitas non loci, sed intellectus (comp. on Matt. xix. 11). — Not only is the absurd and tasteless eraggeration in ver. 25 un-Johannean (un- successfully defended by Weitzel,* and softened down by Ewald, witha reference also to Coh. xii. 12), bearing the Apocryphal stamp,’ but also the periodic mode of expression, so at variance with the Johannean simplicity, us well as the first person (oizaz), in which John in the Gospel never speaks ; moreover, nowhere else does he use oiecfa:, which, however, is also found only once in Paul (Phil. i. 17). The variation; are (see the critical notes) of no importance for a critical judgment.
Notes By American Eprror.
LXVIII. ‘‘ He does not asic after his faith.’’ Ver. 15.
The distinction here made seems unfounded. Both the faith and love of Peter had been in temporary abeyance. Both the Lord knew to be equally genuine and deep ; both had alike faltered under the ordeal. He naturally
1 For that «a6’ ¢y should point back tol. 3, 4 Lobeck, ad PAryn. p. 751 ff.
and rov «écpoyr to 1. 10, is without any inter- §See Bernhardy, p. 883, and on the dis- nal justification, and could be discovered tinction of the infin. pres. (Pflugk, ad Evr. by no reader. Hee. 283) and future, Ktihner, II. p. 80 f.
2 Kihner, If. § 781, 4, 5,and ad Xen. Mem. * Loc. cit. p. 632 ff. il. 1. 30. 7 Comp. similar hyperboles in Fabricius,
®* Bernhardy, p. 240; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. ad Cod. Apocr. I. p. 1 f., and Wetstein i 639 f. loc.
556 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
expresses the quality which is the deepest element and essential mainspring of the character, and in which it properly expresses itself. Faith is but a special modification of the vital, all-controlling quality of love.
LXIX. ‘‘ Lovest thou me?’ Ver. 15.
Whether the ordinary distinction between adyardy and ¢:Aciv is observed in these questions and answers has been matter of much doubt. According to their usual classical distinction, the Lord in the first two questions asks Peter not so much after his personal affection as after that love of moral choice which affects less immediately his relations toward Himself than his fitness for his apostolic work. Peter replies in each case by the assertion of that personal af- Section which had been apparently most immediately involved in his denial : in this he had turned his back directly on the person. In the third question Jesus changes the verb, and as if satisfied of his love of moral choice, lets the interrogation turn on his personal attachment. It scarcely seems that the change in verbs can have been without a purpose. The Lord means, I think, todraw from Peter his assurance of his love under both its forms ; while Peter, feeling that each form of affection virtually includes the other, chooses in his reply, and adheres to, the term which expresses most fully that consciousness of personal love to which his denial had done so gross wrong, and to which his ardent nature cannot refrain from giving utterance,
LXX. ‘‘ Follow me.”” Ver. 19.
Weiss dissents from Meyer in his interpretation of this ‘follow me,” by re- ferring it, as he conceives according to the demands of the context, to a literal temporary following of Jesus as He steps aside from the group of the apostles. This would seem, indeed, at first view indicated by the immediately following éxoAovOovvra (ver. 20) of John, which must be so taken, and which seems at first to be a mere echo of the preceding axoAovOe: addressed to Peter. Yet this in- fluence is more than counterbalanced by the emphatically recurring av jor aao- 26v8er (ver. 22), which must in the connection be taken in the deeper moral sense of following Jesus in His life and to and in His death. But this seems very cer- tainly a repetition and echo of the first axoAév@e., and cannot be taken in a dif- ferent sense. Ifthe oneisclear, sois theother. Both manifestly refer to a fig- urative and moral following. The occurrence of the dxodcvfovvra applied to John (ver. 20) is accidental, and without reference to the dxodovicivy and Lévery of the next verse. It would seem, indeed, that Jesus accompanied His injunction to Peter with a physical movement, stepping a little aside from the company, which after the Oriental style may have had a symbolical signifi- cance (as the scourge of John ii. 15 ; the binding, Acts xxi. 11.)
The ‘‘follow me'’ thus interpreted has peculiar significance, and even dra- matic force and beauty. Some two or three years earlier, by this very sea, quite possibly near this very spot, the Lord had addressed to Peter words of the same import (dette oriow pov, come after me), Which Peter and his compan- ions unhesitatingly obeyed. That now, after the experiences of these wonder- ful intervening years, he should again, after a like miracle (Luke v. 4-8), such as had then resulted in their following Him (#xoAovOncav adr, ver. 12), and after this triple test of questioning, and the prophetic announcement of the tragic
NOTES. 557
issue of his discipleship—that now, when Peter could to much better judge (though still but inadequately) what the following involved, the Lord should solemnly and finally, in the very spot where the disciple had made his first surrender and consecration, lay upon him the command to follow him—seems singularly appropriate, and an eminently fitting close of the Lord’s and the disciple’s earthly companionship.
TOPICAL INDEX.
A.
Abraham, his seed, 279 seq. ; as the father of the Jews, 289 seq. ; the promise to, 291 seq.
Adultery, its punishment, 259 seq.; its forgiveness, 264.
Aenon, 136 seq. .
Affliction, in the world, 457.
Alexandrine Philosophy, 46 seq.
Alogi, The, 13.
Andrew, 87 seq., 369 seq.
Angels, 93 seq.; at Christ’s tomb, 526 seq.
Annas, 481.
Antichrist, 467.
Apocalypse, The, its origin, 18 seq. ; its author, 22, 39 seq.
Apollinaris, 9.
Athenagoras, 9.
Atonement of Christ, The, 79 seq., 213, 275 seq., 324 8eq., 326, 358 seq., 370 seq., 372 seq., 376 seq., 399 seq.
Authority, Human, deified, 331 ; the source of, 506; church and dis- ciplinary, 533 seq.
B.
Baptism, by John, 73, 75 seq., 77 neq., 136 seq.; of Christ, 83 seq.; and re- generation, 123 seq., 144; by Christ's Disciples, 136 seq., 149; not referred to, 392.
Barabbas, 496.
Barley-bread, 201.
Basilides, 12.
Believer, Blessedness of the, 130 seq.
Bethabara, 76 seq.
Bethany, 336, 343, 363, 386.
Bethesda, 174 seq.
Blasphemy, alleged, 330 seq., 504.
Blessedness, Degrees of, 407 seq.
Blind, The, healed, 299 seq.; confess- ing Christ, 310.
Boasting, religious 278 seq.
Body of Christ, The, 521 seq., 628 feq., 531 seq., 534 seq.
Bread of Life, The, 212 seq.
|
| | |
i ne
C.
Caiaphas, 357 seq., 481.
Cana, in Galilee, 101 seq., 167, 506.
Canon of Muratori, 10 seq.
Capernaum, 109, 167, 218, 227 seq.
Casting of Lots, 511 seq.
Casuistry, 259 seq.
Celsus, 13.
Ceremonial Purification, 488 seq.
Cerinthus, 13.
Children, of God, 58 seq.; love to the, 548 seq.
Christ, Jesus, the day of his death, 9, 15 seq., 479, 486 seq. ; the length of his ministry, 18 ; the person of, 23 seq., 29 seq. ; as the Logos, 43, 46 seq. ; subordination of, 49, 423 ; his divinity, 48, 141, 237, 282 seq., 462, 472 ; rejected of the Jews, 57, 95, 510 seq. ; as the Son of God, 57 ; his regenerating power, 58 seq. ; his incarnation, 60 seq.; his two natures, 62 seq. ; the glory of, 63 seq., 96; as preceding the Baptist, 66 seq. ; his name announced, 69 ; declaring God, 70 seq. ; as the Mes- siah, 75 seq., 81 seq., 83 seq., 99 ; his baptism, 75 seq., 77 seq. ; as the Lamb of God, 78 seq. ; his atonement, 79 seq. ; his first disci- ples, 87 seq., 94 seq. ; as the search- er of hearts, 89, 91, 117; his com- munion with God, 93 seq., 99; his first miracle, 102 seq., 107 seq., 117; his brothers, 109, 230 seq. ; cleansing the temple, 110 seq., 117 seq.; and Nicodemus, 119 seq. ; lifted up, 130 seq. ; revealing the Father’s love, 132 seq.; revealing moral trath, 135 ; and the Baptist, 188 seq. ; his power from God, 143, retires to Galilee, 148 seq. ; at Sy- char, 149 seq.; did not baptize, 136, 149 ; as a prophet, 165; asthe Messiah, 159; refusing food, 160 ; his work of redemption, 160; the power of his word, 164 ; heals the nobleman’s son, 167 seq. ; returns
560
to Galilee, 167, 170; and the Sab- bath-day, 177 seq. ; his relation to the Father, 179 seq. ; his Messianic work, 180 seq.; quickening the dead, 181 seq. ; as the Judge, 182 seq., 382 seq.; his works testifying of him, 189 seq.; crosses the Sea of Tiberias, 199; feeds the 5000, 198 seq.; walks on the sea, 202 seq. ; as the Bread of Heaven, 207 sey. ; his prehuman state, 211 seq. ; as the bread of life, 212 seq. ; his propitia- tory death, 213 seq., 219 seq. ; is con- fessed of Peter, 224; his retiracy, 232 seq.; his alleged inconstancy, 232 seq.; goes up to Jerusalem, 234 ; his learning and teaching, 235 seq. ; his doctrine, 236 ; imparting the Holy Spirit, 248 seq., 254; tempt- ed by the Pharisees, 258 seq.; as the light of life, 265 seq. : confesses himself, 272 seq. ; his sinlessness, 285 seq.; his eternal existence, 293, 297 ; heals the blind man, 299 seq., 313 ; utters the parable of the Good Shepherd, 317 seq. ; raises Lazarus from the dead, 342 seq., 353 seq. ; retires to Ephraim, 359 ; enters Jerusalem, 367 seq. ; desires to glorify God, 372 seq.; overcoming the devil, 375 ; loves his disciples, 385 seq., 402 seq. ; washes his disci- ples’ feet, 389 seq. ; gives a new com- mandment, 400 ; consoles his disci- ples, 406 seq. ; promises the Com- forter, 415 seq. ; also life, 418 ; as the Vine, 429 seq. ; his return to heav- en, 451 seq., 457 ; his high-priestly prayer, 459 seq., 475 ; receiving all power, 460; his glory, 472 seq., 476 ; betrayed by Judas, 478 seq. ; seized by the Romans, 480 ; taken to Annas, 481 ; to Caiaphas, 484 seq. ; to Pilate, 486 seq. ; confesses his kingship, 494 seq., 501 ; is scourged, 503 seq. ; his last word to Pilate, 505 seq. ; brought to the Praetori- um, 507 seq. ; his crucifixion, 510 seq.; commits Mary to John’s care, 513 ; his last words, 514 ; his death, 515, 517 seq. ; his side pierced, 516 ; his burial, 521 seq. ; his resurrec- tion, 113 seq., 525 seq. ; appears to Mary, 526 seq. ; his glorified body, 528 seq., 531 seq. ; his ascension, 530; appears to his disciples, 531 seq., 534 seq., 541 seq. ; draws out Peter’s love, 548 seq.; restores Peter, 549; prophesies concerning Peter’s old age, 549 seq.; also about John’s end, 551 seq.; his numerous works, 554 seq.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Christian Union, 325, 470.
Christianity, and Judaism, 120; and baptism, 124; its spirit, 158 seq. ; its universality, 324 ; its chief com- mandment, 399 seq.
Church, The, its true spirit, 157 seq.
Circumcision, 239 seq.
Clay, used in healing, 302 seq., 314. Clementine Homilies, 6; quote from John’s Gospel, 10 ; their date, 10. Comforter, The, promised, 415 seq.,
421 ; testifying of Christ, 440.
Commandment, The New, 399 seq., 414, 434.
Communion, with God, 93, 104.
Concealment of Christ, 378.
Confessing Christ, 223, 228, 310, 346, 401, 455 seq., 535 seq.
Consecration, 468 seq.
Consolation, 406 seq., 425 seq., 457.
Creation, The, 42 seq. ; wrought by the Logos, 49 seq., 56.
Crucifixion of Christ, alluded to, 130 seq. ; caused by the Jews, 275 seq. ; the world-attraction, 376 ; on what day ? 486 seq., 497 seq., 508 seq. ; ac- complished, 510 seq. ; final scenes of, 515 seq.
Curetonian Text, The, 11.
Custom at Meals, 316.
D.
Daemon, or Demon, 238, 326 seq.
Darkness, 52 seq., 398.
Death, in sins, 269 seq.; spiritual death, 289; and sleep, 341; and life, 371 ; of Christ, 486 seq., 497 seq., 508 seq., 515, 517 seq.
Decrees, Divine, 128 seq.
Dedication, Feast of, 327.
Denarius, 200 seq.
Devil, The, 283; the father of lies, 284 seq., 296 seq.; a murderer, 284, 296 ; overcome, 375 ; corrupts Judas, 389, 397 seq., 403 seq. ; con- tends against Christ, 424.
Discernment of Jesus, 85, 91, 117, 154.
Disciples of Christ, the first, 87 seq., 94 seq., 99 seq., 231 ; based on the Word, 276 seq. ; safely protected, 329 seq. ; loved by Christ, 385, 402 seq., 434 seq. ; to exercise love and humility, 393 seq. ; their faith and fidelity to be rewarded, 413 ; receive the promise of life, 418 seq. ; also of peace, 422; as branches, 429 sey. ; fruitful in good works, 433 seq. ; as friends, 435; not of this world, 437; bearing witness of Christ, 440 ; spiritually illuminated, 453 seq.; their confessing faith,
TOPICAL
455 seq.; prayed for, 464 seq. ; sanctified by the truth, 467 seq. ; their unity, 470 seq. ; their glory, 470 seq. ; hear Christ’s voice, 495 ; informed of Christ's resurrection, 530 ; are greeted by Christ, 531 seq. ; receive their commission, 532 seq. ; their disciplinary authority, 533 seq.; resume their occupations, 543
Discrepancy, apparent, 368, 488 seq., 497 seq., 523
Divorce, 261 seq.
Docetism, 208, 234, 294.
Doctrine, learned by practice, 236 seq.
Drinking Christ's blood, 216.
Dualism, Moral, 287.
E.
Easter Controversy, The, 15 seq., 363 seq., 387 seq., 486 seq., 497 seq., 508
seq.
Eating Christ’s flesh, 213 seq.
Economy, 202 ; a false, 366, 383.
Election, of Grace, 208 seq., 210 seq., 324, 359.
Embalmment, 366, 383, 522.
Enthusiasm, Popular, 202.
Envy, stirred up, 138.
Ephesus, The Church at, 2; John’s residence at, 38.
Ephraim, The village of, 359.
Eusebius, 13 ; quotes Papias, 14 seq.
Excommunication, 308.
Experience, Christian, 67 seq.
F.
Faith, of Nathanael, 93; caused by Christ’s first miracle, 107; by Christ's signs, 136, 121, 243; the ground of, 128 seq. ; the blessed. ness of, 130 seq., 247 ; involves life, 143 ; secures grave and truth, 152 seq., 246 seq.; its remedial power, 167 cot? 176 seq., 247 ; as the work of , 205 seq. ; conditions life, 212; in Christ’s atonement, 213 seq. ; & saving, 226 ; its object, 332, 381 seq., 537 ; of Martha, 344 seq. ; a timid, 380; refusal of, 362 ; en- couraged, 412 seq.; all-powerful, 413 seq, 432 ; based on fellowship, 431 seq. ; vacillating, 456 seq. ; the blessedness of, 536.
Falsehood, 284 seq.
Fear, of Man, 380.
Feet-washing, 389 seq. ; nota sacra- ment, 393.
Fellowship, with Chriet, 217 seq., 226, 319, 324, 409, 416 seq., 420, 430 nea, 470 seq. ; dynamic, 330.
Fidelity, encouraged, 412 seq.
INDEX. 561
he heavenly, 205 seq., 212 seq.,
Fragment of Papias, 14.
Fraternal Love, 399 seq., 434.
Freedom, Moral, 208 seq., 210 seq. ; and the truth, 277 ; of Christ, 424.
G. Gabbatha, 507. Galilee, the home of no prophet, 252
Beq.
Gentiles, The, 245; to be saved, 359.
Gerizim, Mt., 155 seq.
Gethsemane, 478.
Glorification of Christ, The, 249 seq., 372 seq., 399, 414, 451, 460 seq., 471, 476.
Gnosticism, 31, 40.
God, The unity of, 49, 330 seq., 333 ; His love to man, 132 seq. ; the source of all gifts, 138 seq., 145 seq.; and His people, 139 seq.; His worship, 156 seq.; His work of Creation, 178 seq.; His relation to the Son, 179 seq., 208, 472; testifying for the Son, 190 seq.; the Will of, 209, 267 seq.; His love of Christ, 325 seq., 473 seq.; glorifying the Son, 290, 372 seq.; speaking from heaven, 373 864.5 ethan by Christ, 462 seq.; His holiness, 465 seq.; His righteousness, 474 seq.; the source of all authority, 506.
Grace, 65 ; received, 68 seq., 96 ; im- parted through faith, 152 seq.
Grecian Jews, 269 seq.
H.
Harvest, The time of, 161.
Heaven, 407, 426.
Hebrews, The Gospel of the, 37.
Hellenists, 369 seq.
Heresy, its development, 32.
High-priest, 357 seq.
Hireling Teachers, 323 seq.
Holy Spirit, The, subordination of, 49 ; and the Logos, 85 seq.; and re- generation, 123 seq.; the operations of, 126 seq.; not Has by measure, 142 seq.; giving life, 221 seq., 247 seq.; promised by Christ, 416 seq.; his work in the world, 447 seq.; the guide to Truth, 450 ; to consecrate the disciples, 468 seq. ; given with the disciples’ commission, 532 seq.
Honor, at'home, 165 seq.
Humility, exercised, 393 seq.
Hypocrisy, of the Jews, 348.
Hyssop, 614.
I.
Incarnation, The, 60 seq., 97 seq., 291.
562
Inconstancy, alleged, 233 seq., 233. Indignation, 127.
Irony, 127, 207, 280, 308.
Israelite, A true, 91 seq.
Itala, The, 11.
J.
Jacob, The well of, 150, 152.
James, the Elder, 1.
Jews, The, 156; their worship, 157; priority in salvation, 157 ; breaking the law, 237 seq.; boasting of their descent, 277 ; not spiritual children of Abraham, 280 seq.; at Bethany, 343 seq.; their hypocrisy, 348 ; their unbelief, 355 seq.; their hatred of Christ, 439 seq.; their legal rights, 492 seq., 504; their diplomacy, 607 ; their custom of burial, 522.
John the Baptist, 1; his testimony of the Logos or Christ, 53 seq., 66, 73 seq., 75 seq., 96 seq. ; his bap- tism, 73 seq., 75 seq., 82 ; his person and mission, 73 seq., 75 seq.; his revelation of Christ's Messiahship, 81 seq., 99, 83 seq.; subordinate to Christ, 139 seq., witnessing for Christ, 141 seq., 188 seq., 195; works no miracles, 334.
John the Evangelist, his parentage and early life, 1; his latter life, 2 ; legends as to his end, 3 ; his char- acter and influence, 3 seq.; the author of the Gospel, 4 seq. ; of the first Epistle, 5; an apostle to the Jews, 20: as an eye-witness, 21 ; his residence, 38; follows Christ, 87 seq., 481; is entrusted with Mary, 513; at the tomb of Christ, 524 seq. ; his end, 551 seq.; his closing testimony, 554.
John, The Gospel of, 1 seq. ; its gen- uineness, 4 seq. ; quotations from, 8 seq. ; by name, 10 seq. ; its ori- gin and early use, 14 seq. ; a histor- ical argument against it, 15 seq. ; no spiritualized Apocalypse, 18 seq ; its apostolic character, 19 seq. ; its author, 21 seq. ; its original features, 22 seq. ; its historic contradictions, 25 seq. ; its treatment by the higher criticism, 26 seq. ; literature upon, 27 seq.; its design, 29 seq., 537 ; its intellectual unity, 30 seq. ; its catholic tendency, 31; its relation to the Synoptical Gospels, 33 seq. ; its miracles, 35 ; its source, 30 seq. ; its unity, 36 ; its place of composi- tion, 37; its time, 37 seq.; its original language, 37 ; the plan of, 38 seq. ; its Anti-Gnostic purpose, 31, 40; the end of, 536 seq. ; the
TOPICAL INDEX.
last chapter of, 539 seq. ; the last verse apocryphal, 554 seq.
John the Presbyter, 5.
Joseph, 101.
Joseph of Arimathea, 521.
Judas Iscariot, 225 seq., 365, 388 seq., 403 seq., 394 seq., 397 neq., 466, 478 seq.
Judas Thaddaeus, 419 seq.
Judgment, of God, 133 seq. ; commit- ted tothe Son, 184 seq. ; righteous, 241 ; of Christ, 266 seq., 311, 382 ; of the Spirit, 448 seq.
Justin Martyr, 5 seq. ; his Apologies, 6 seq. ; his doctrine of the Logos, 7; and the author of the Apoca- lypse, 15.
K.
Kidron, The, 478.
Kingdom of Christ, The, 494 seq., 501.
Kiss, of Judas, 479.
Knowledge, of the truth, 277 ; of God in Christ, 410 seq. ; as life eternal, 461.
L.
Laodicean Controversy, The, 17 seq.
Law, Mosaic, The, 261.
Lazarus, 336 seq. ; his resurrection, 352 seq., 363 seq., 367.
Life, as the Logos, 51 seq. ; bestowed by the Son, 182 seq., 184 seq., 461 ; the gift of heaven, 207 seq. ; eter- nal, 209 seq.. 371, 382 seq. ; con- ditioned by faith, 212; by appro- priating Christ's death, 215 seq. ; given by the Spirit, 221 seq., 248 seq. ; the light of, 265; in Christ, 322, 410, 418 ; the love of, 371 seq. ; of a Christian, 431.
Light, as the Logos, 51 seq., 95; as conscience, 52; as truth, 134 seq. ; as Christ, 265, 377 seq., 382.
Logos, The doctrine of the, 7 seq. ; presented by John, 23, 35, 43 seq., 46 seq. ; set forth by Philo, 45 seq. ; its true meaning, 47 seq.; at the creation, 49 seq., 56; as life and light, 50 seq., 95 ; as the true light, 54 seq. ; 18 Jesus Christ, 58 ; the in- carnation of the, 60 seq. ; the glory of, 63 seq. ; his pre-existence, 67 ; a summary of, 71 seq. ; and the Holy Spirit, 85 seq. ; its analysis, 97 seq. ; in the work of grace, 208 ; his hu- man manifestation, 214; in the Old Test., 380.
Lord’s Supper, The, its institution, 16 seq., 387, 401, 402 seq., 497 seq. ; its reference to Christ’s flesh and blood, 214 seq., 218, 221 seq.
TOPICAL
Love of Christ, The, 386, 399 seq., 403, 435.
Love of God to man, 132 seq.; to Christ, 325.
Love, ministering, 393 seq.; recipro- cal, 434 seq.; morally and personally considered, 548 seq.
Luke, The Gospel of, 36 seq.
M.
Magnanimity of soul, 139 seq.
Malchus, 480.
Malice, expressed, 349 seq.
Man, his physical and spiritual na- tures, 125 seq.; loving error, 135
seq.
Manhood, The age of, 292.
Manna, 206 seq., 218.
Marcion, quotes John’s Gospel, 11.
Mariolatry, 103.
Marriage Feast, The, at Cana, 102, 117.
Martha and Mary, 336, 344 seq., 363.
Mary Magdalene, 512 seq., 523 seq., 526 seq.
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, 101 seq., 526 seq.
Matthew, The (Gospel of, 34.
Maundy Thursday, 393.
Melito, his clavis, 8.
Mercy, of Christ, 264.
Messiah, The, ancestry of, 241 ; birth- place, 250, 252 seq., 254.
Messiahs, False, 193.
Messianic Kingdom, The, 121 seq.; the mysteries of, 128 seq.; picture of, 189 seq.; the life of, 153, 209; its establishment, 157 seq., 161 seq., 377.
Miracles, of Christ, turning water in- to wine, 102 seq., 117; healing the impotent man, 169 seq.; feeding the 5000, 199 seq.; walking on the sea, 202 seq. ; healing the blind man, 299 seq., 313 ; in answer to prayer, 309; raises Lazarus from the dead, 342 seq.; exhibits his power, 480; many not recorded, 537; the draught of fishes, 543 seq., 546 seq.
Misfortune, and sin, 299 seq., 309.
Mockery, 268 ; rebuked, 270 seq.
Montanism, 12 seq.
Moral blindness, 312, 314 seq.
Moses, as an accuser, 193 seq.; giving the law, 237 ; instituting circumci- sion, 239 seq.
N.
Nablus, 151. Nathanael, 90 seq.; his confession of shrist, 92 seq.
INDEX. 563
Nazareth, 91.
Nicodemus, 119 seq.; his unbelief, 127, 144 ; coming by night, 252 seq.; at Christ’s burial, 521.
Nobleman, The, and the Centurion, 169,
O.
Obedience, of Christ, 326. Ointment, 364 seq. Original Sin, 309.
P:
Palm.Sunday, 367.
Parable, of the Good Shepherd, 317 seq ; a8 commonly understood, 319 seq.; the Vine and branches, 429
seq.
Parousia, The, 408, 416, 419, 451, 457, 553 seq.
Passover, The, 16 seq., 199, 360, 363 seq., 385 seq., 402 seq., 486 seq., 497 seq., 508 seq.
Peace, The, of Christ, 422 ; the greet- ing of, 531.
Pentecost, The Day of, 419.
Persecution, of the disciples, 437 seq.
Peshito, The, 11.
Peter, 89 seq. ; his confession of Christ, 223 seq., 228 ; his bold avowal, 401 ; rebuked, 480 ; follows Jesus, 481 ; denies Christ, 483, 485 ; at the tomb of Christ, 524 seq.; at the sea of Tiberias, 543 seq.; his love to Christ, 548 seq.; his old age, 549 seq.
Pharisees, The, 243 seq.; their ill- will, 251 seq. ; their blindness, 312 seq. ; reproved, 320 seq., 328 seq. ; proceed against Christ, 360.
Philip, 369 seq., 411.
Pilate, 486 seq., 503 seq., 506 seq., 521
Polycrates, 10.
Pope, The, and feet-washing, 393.
Popular Opinion, 234 seq., 238 seq., 241 seq., 250 seq., 377.
Prayer, and miracles, 309 ; answered, 351 seq., 372 seq ; in Christ's name, 413 seq., 453 seq. ; of Christ himself, 459 seq., 475 ; intercessory, 463 ; for consecration, 468 seq. ; for unity, 470.
Predestination, 318.
Pre-existence of souls, 300.
Promise, fulfilled, 376 ; of Christ, 408
seq.
Prophecy: of the High Priest, 358 ; of Isaiah, fulfilled, 378 seq. ; about Christ, 380, 611, 514, 520; about Judas, 394.
Providence of God, 294.
Purification, questions about, 138 ; moral, 390 seq., 429 req.
Purim, The Feast of, 173.
564
R
Recompense, 162, 372.
Redemption, Christ’s work of, 160, 321.
Reformation, of the Church, 111.
Regeneration, 121 seq., 324 ; and bap- tiam, 123 seq., 144.
Remission, of Sins, 533.
Repentance, 121, 153.
Resurrection, of Christ, 113 seq., 326, 525 seq., 530 seq., 531 seq.; of the dead, 186 seq., 209 ; in the person of Christ, 345.
Righteousness, of Christ, 447 seq.
Roman Authority, in Palestine, 492.
8.
Sabbath Day, The, 176; its observ- ance, 177 seq., 364; healing on, 239, 301, 303, 306; circumcision on, 240 seq. ; its sacred rights, 515 seq.
Sacrifice, The idea of, 79 seq. ; vica- rious, 80, 324 seq., 325 seq.
Salim, 137.
Salome, 1, 512.
Salvation, 265 ; certainty of, 329.
Salvation of the Jews, 157 seq.
Samaritans, The, 149 seq., 155 seq. ; their worship of God, 156 seq. ; hope in the Messiah, 159; their conversion, 161 Beq.
Samaritan Woman, The, 149-165.
Sanctification, 469.
Sanhedrim, The, 73, 177 seq., 243 seq., 251 seq., 258 seq., 356, 492 seq.
Scourge, Making a, 110, 118.
Scriptures, testifying to Christ, 191 seq., 196.
Self-education, 235.
Self-renunciation, 139 seq.
Sepulchre, 350.
Sheepfold, and Shepherd, 317 seq.
Silence, of Jesus, 505.
Sickness, long.continued, 175; and God’s glory, 337.
Siloam, The pool of, 304 seq.
Sin, its universality, 262 seq. ; its slavery, 278 seq. ; not necessary to human development, 287 ; and mis- fortune, 299 seq. ; original, 309 ; the world convicted of, 447 ; the remis- sion of, 533 seq.
Sinlessness, of Jesus, 285 seq., 296 seq., 424.
Solomon’s Porch, 327 seq.
Sons of God, 58 seq.
Sowing, and Reaping, 163.
Spiritual Elevation, 129.
Br The, used in healing, 302 seq.,
Superscription of the Cross, 511. Subordination, 49, 326, 423.
TOPICAL INDEX.
Suffering, Fear of, 372.
Sychar, 149 seq.
Synoptic ‘ ition, 127, 145, 489 seq., 497 seq.
T. Tabernacles, The Feast of, 230, 245
seq.
Tatian, 8 ; his Diatessaron, 8 seq.
Temple, Cleansing the, 110 seq., 117 seq. ; building and destruction of, 112 seq.
Temptation, The, 98 seq.
Testimony of Christ, 266 seq., 274 seq. ; leads to faith, 276.
Testimony of the Spirit, 236.
Theophany in Christ, 411 seq.
Theophilus, quotes John’s Gospel, 10.
Thomas, Didymus, 342, 409, 534 seq.
Tiberias, Sea of, 199.
Time, for God's work, 338 seq. ; Ro- man reckoning of, 509.
Tomb of Christ, The, 521 seq., 525
geq.
Tradition, The Synoptic, 137, 145.
Transmigration of Souls, 300.
Treachery , 394 seq., 479.
Treasury, The, 269.
Trust, in God, 406 seq. , 425 seq.
Truth, as the Logos, 51 seq., 65; re- ceived, 68 seq., 96; revealed as light, 135 seq. ; imparted through faith, 152 seq.; proclaimed by Christ, 274 seq.; its knowledge promised , 276 seq. ; the ground of faith, 334 ; in Christ, 410 ; the Spir- it of, 415; to sanctify believers, 468 seq.; its commanding infin- ence 495 ; what is, 495 seq.
U.
Unbelief, involves death, 143, 270 seq.; is blindness, 312 seq., 314 seq. ; unjustifiable, 332; confirm- ed, 379.; of the Jews, 380 seq., 447 - of Thomas, 534 seq.
Union, with God, 139 ; in Christ, 217 seq.; of all Christ's followers, 325, 470 seq. ; with Christ, 409, 416 seq., 420, 430 seq.
Unity, of God, 330 seq. ; dynamic,
. 333; of believers, 470 seq.
V.
Valentinians, The, 11 seq. Vision of God, 211 seq. Voice from Heaven, A, 373 seq.
W. Water, turned into wine, 104 seq. ;
TOPICAL INDEX. 565
used in baptism, 124 seq., 144; used | Woman, The, taken in adultery, 255
figuratively, 152. seq., 294 seq. Water-pitchers, 105 seq.. Worship of God, The, 156 seq. ; in Way, The, in Christ, 410 seq, spirit and truth, 158. Weeping in Sorrow, 349 seq. Work, of man, 301 seq Will, of God, The, 209 seq. ; and His Wrath, of God, upon unbelief, 143 seq. doctrine, 236 seq. Z
Wine, made of water, 104 seq. Woman, her inferior pusition, 159 ; at | Zealots, The, 258. the Cross, §12. Zebedee, 1.