tbe atiacn vet han teh eee Denote Stee = fae St pe Eis ee - be Sins oc muy Aart} Ke i Wh e, yn 4 tae gh? With x Wey oa a, , ocr d > CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, T#.D., CONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. From the German, With the Sanction of the Author. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY Weal te AM Ps), DC KOS ON, saps AND FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D. tHE GOSPEL OF FOUN: VOL. UI: EDINBURGH: feo T. (Oe Kk. '38, GHORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXV. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . . . . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. DUBLIN, . . - . - JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. NEW YORK, - . - . SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO fa GOSPEL OF JOHN, BY Vv HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, T#.D., CONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D., PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AND BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS. EDINBURGH: i & I. ChakkK, 338 GEORGE STEMET, MDCCCLXXYV. PREFATORY NOTE BY THE EDITOR. = HE translation of this volume has been executed in different proportions by the following gentlemen: as far as chap. xi. ver. 43, by Rev. William Urwick, M.A., and Rev. W. D. Simon, Ph.D.; and from that point to the end, by the Rev. Edwin Johnson, M.A. The whole, however, has been carefully revised and carried through the press by myself. I have also continued the references to the English translations of Winer’s and Alex. Buttmann’s Grammars of New Testament Greek. They are of great value to all students of the original text, for whom it must be remembered that Meyer’s Commentary, as a strictly ‘critical and exegetical work, is exclusively intended. F. CROMBIE. UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS, 8th November 1875. 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 contro- versy regarding 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. ] AGRrIcoLA (Francis): Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Coloniae, 1599. Avesius (Alexander) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Basileae, 1553. AMYRALDUS (Moses): Paraphrase sur l’évangile selon Saint Jean. Salmuri, 1651. Aquinas (Thomas): Aurea Catena in Lucae et Ioannis Evangelia. Venetiae, 1775. English translation, Oxford, 1841-45. AReETIUS (Benedictus) : Commentarius in Evangelium Ioannis. Lausannae, 1578. Astif (8. J.): Explication de l’évangile selon Saint Jean, avec une traduc- , tion nouvelle. Genéve, 1864. AUGUSTINE: Tractatus 124 in Ioannem. Ed. 1690, iii. p. 2. 290-826. English translation, 2 vols. (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh). 1873-74. BAEUMLEIN (W.) : Commentar tiber das Evangelium Johannis. Stuttgart, 1863. BAUMGARTEN (Crusius): Theologische Auslegung der Johanneischen Schriften. 2 vols. Jena, 1844-45. BAUMGARTEN (8S. J.): Auslegung des Evangelii Johannis, cum Jo. Salo- monis Semleri praefatione. Halae, 1762. Beza (Theodore) : Commentarius in Novum Testamentum. Geneva, 1556; ed. quinta, 1665. Bence (J. A.): Gnomon Novi Testamenti. Latest ed., London, 1862. English translation, 5 vols. and 3 vols. (T. & T. Clark). 1874, 7 Vill LIST OF COMMENTARIES, Bisping (A.): Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Evangelien, etc. Erklarung des Evangelium nach Johannes. Miinster, 1869. Brown (Rey. David, D.D.): Commentary on St. John (in his Commentary upon the Four Gospels). Glasgow, 1863. Bucer (Martin): Enarrationes in Joannem. Argentorati, 1528. BuLLINGER (Henry): Commentariorum in Evangelium [Ioannis libri Septein. Tiguri, 1543. Catvin (John): Commentarius in Evangelium secundum Toannem. Genevae, 1553, 1555; ed. Tholuck, 1833. Translated into English by Rev. W. Pringle. 1847. Curysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. John, translated with Notes and Indices. Library of the Fathers. Oxford, 1848-52. CuyTraeus (Day.): Scholia in Evangelium Ioannis. Francofurti ad Moenum, 1588. Crucicer (Caspar): Enarratio in Evangelium Ioannis. Witembergae, 1540. Argentorati, 1546. CyritLus (Alexandrinus): Commentarii in Sancti Ioannis Evangelium. English translation by Dr. Pusey. Oxford, 1875. Danatus (Lamb.): Commentarius in Ioannis Evangelium. Genevae, 1585. De Werte (W. M. L.): Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament. Kurze Erkliirung des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannes. Funfte 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. Eprarp (J. H. A.): Das Evangelium Johannis und die neueste Hypothese uber seine Entstehung. Ziirich, 1845. Evutuymivus ZIGABENUS: Commentarius in IV. Evangelia, graece et latine, ed. Matthaei. 4 vols. Berolini, 1845. Ewap (H.): Die Johanneischen Schriften iibersetzt und erklirt. 2 vols. Gottingen, 1862. Ferus (J.): In sacro sanctum Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem piae et eruditae juxta Catholicam doctrinam enarrationes. Nume- rous editions. 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 Verhiiltnisse zur gesammten biblisch-christlichen Lehre dargestellt. Leipzig, 1839. Gopet (F.) : Commentaire sur l’évangile de Saint Jean. 2 vols. Paris, 1863. [New ed. preparing. ] Grotius (H.): Annotationes in Novum Testamentum. 9 vols. Groningen, 1826-34. HErnsius (Dan.) : Aristarchus Sacer, sive ad Nonni in Joannem Metaphrasin exercitationes: accedit Nonni et sancti Evangelistae contextus, Lugduni Batavorum, 1627. LIST OF COMMENTARIES. 1x Hemmineivs (Nicol.): Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Basileae, 1591. HENGSTENBERG (E. W.): Commentar zum Evangelium Johannes. 2 vols. English translation (T. & T. Clark). 1865. Hevsyer (H. L.): Praktische Erklirung des Neuen Testamentes. 2 vols. Evangelien des Lucas und Johannes. 2d ed. Potsdam, 1860. HiLGENFELD (A.): Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff. Halle, 1849. _Houwnivs (Aegidius) : Commentarius in Iesu Christi Evangelium secundum Joannem. Francofurti, 1585, 1591, 1595. Hutcuinson (G.): Exposition of the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to John. London, 1657. JANSONUS (Jac.) : Commentarius in Joannis Evangelium. Louanii, 1630. Kure (H.): Commentar iiber das Evangelium nach Johannes. Mainz, 1829. Kuorutar (L.): Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Viennae, 1862. Kostuin (C. R.): Lehrbegriffe des Evangelium und der Briefe Johannis. Berlin, 1848. Kurnoet (Ch. G.): Commentarius in Novi Testamenti libros Historicos. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1825-43. Lampe (F. A.): Commentarius analytico-exegeticus, tam litteralis, quam realis Evangelii secundum Joannem. III Tomi. Amstelodami, 1724, 1726. Basileae, 1725, 1726, 1727. Lance (T. G.): Das Evangelium Johannis iibersetzt und erkliirt. Weimar, 1797. LANGE (J. P.): Theolog: Homiletisch: Bibel Werk. Das Evangelium nach Johannis, 1860. English translation, greatly enlarged. ed. Philip Schaff, London and Edinburgh, 1872-75. Lapipe (Cornel. A): Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram. 10 vols. (last ed.) Lugduni, 1865. Lassus (Gbr.): Commentaire Philosophique sur l’évangile St. Jean. Paris, 1838. Lucke (G. Ch. F.): Commentar iiber die Schriften Johannis. 4 vols. Bonn, 1840-56. LutHarpt (Ch. E.): Das Johanneische Evangelium nach seinen EHigen- thumlichkeiten geschildert und erkliirt. 2vols. Nirnberg, 1852-53. New ed. Part 1st, 1875. (English translation preparing.) LurHarpt (C. E.): St. John the author of the Fourth Gospel. Translated by C. R. Gregory. Edinburgh, 1875. Mater (Adal.) : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. 2 vols. Carlsruhe and Freiburg, 1843. Ma.Lponatus: Commentarii in IV Evangelia curavit Sauser. Latest ed. Mainz, 1840. Matruael (J.): Auslegung des Evangelium Johannis zur Reform der Ausle- gung desselben. Gothingen, 1837. x LIST OF COMMENTARIES. MELANCHTHON (Phil.): Enarrationes in Evangelium Joannis. Wittenbergae, 1523. Morus (8. F. N.): Recitationes in Evangelium Joannis. ed. G. J. Dindorf. Leipzig, 1796. MunTer (J.): Symbolae ad interpretandum Evangelium Johannis ex marmoribus et nummis maxime graecis. Kopenhagen, 1826. Muscutus (Wolf G.) : Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis in tres Heptadas digesti. Basileae, 1552, 1564, 1580, 1618. Mytius (G.): Commentarius in Evangelium Johannis Tico Francofurti, 1624. Nonnus: Metaphrasis Evangelii Johannis. red. Passow. Leipzig, 1834. OECOLAMPADIUS (I.): Annotationes in Evangelium Johannis. ; Basileae, 1532. OLSHAUSEN (H.): Biblischer Commentar iiber d. Neue Testament fortgesetzt von Ebrard und Wiesinger. Evangelium des Johannes. 1862. English translation (T. & T. Clark). 1855. OrIGEN: Commentarii in Evangelium Joannis. ed. 1759, vol. iv. 1-460. Paritius (F. H.): In Joannem Commentarius. Romae, 1863. Pauuus (H. E. G.): Philologisch-Kritischer und Historischer Commentar iiber das Evangelium des Johannes. Leipzig, 1812. PeELarGus (Christ.): Commentarius in Joannem per quaesita et responsa, ex antiquitate orthodoxa magnam partem erutus. Francofurti, 1595. Rouiock (Rob.): Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis. Genevae, 1599, 1608. ROSENMULLER (J. G.): Scholia in Novum Testamentum. 5 vols. Leipzig, 1815-31, Sarcertus (Erasm.): In Johannis Evangelium Scholia justa ad perpetuae textus cohaerentiae filum. Basileae, 1540. Scumip (Sebast.): Resolutio brevis cum paraphrasi verborum Evangelii Joannis Apostoli. Argentorati, 1685, 1699. ScHoiten (J. H.): Het Evangelie naar Johannes. Leyden, 1865. Supplement 1866. French translation by Albert Reville in Revue de Théologie. Strasburg, 1864, 1866. German translation by H. Lang, Berlin, 1867. ScHWEizer (Alb.): Das Evangelium Johannis Kritisch untersucht. Leipzig, 1841. SEMLER (J. Sal.): Paraphrasis Evangelii Joannis, cum notis et Cantabri- giensis Codicis Latino textu. Halae, 1771. TARNOVIUS (Paul.): In sancti Johannis Evangelium Commentarius. Rostochii, 1629. THEODORE (of Mopsuestia): In Novum Testamentum Commentaria. Ed. Fritzsche, ‘ Turici, 1847, LIST OF COMMENTARIES. xl THoLucK (A.): Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis. 7th ed. 1857. English translation (T. & T. Clark), 1860. ' Tirrmann (K. Ch.): Metetemata Sacra, sive Commentarius critico-exe- geticus-dogmaticus in Evangelium Johannis. Leipzig, 1816. (English translation in Biblical Cabinet, T. & T. Clark.) ToOLETUs (Franc.): Commentarii et Annotationes in Evangelium Joannis. Romae, 1588, 1590; Lugduni, 1589, 1614; Venetii, 1587. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. CHAPTER VELL 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, pro- bably by the second, or, at latest, by the third century (the Constitutt. Apost. 1. 24. 4, already disclose its 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 Hvang. sec. Hebraeos cannot, as several of the early critics think (comp. also Liicke and Bleek), be proved from Papias, in Euseb. H. £. 3. 39; for in the words ¢xréderras (Paplas) 6% zal dAAnY ioropiay mepl yuvainos eal worAruis awapriais OiaPAndsions exi rod xupiov, nv rb nad ‘EPpaious elayyérwy wepitye, the general expression év/ woA- Aais a&mapriass and the word 66270. merely are not favour- able 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 Johannean 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 et Graecis et Latinis Codd. ;” and that, finally, upwards of a hundred Codices still extant, including D. F. G. H. K. U., contain it. Its internal character, moreover, speaks in favour of its having originated in the early Christian age; for, although it is, indeed, quite alien to the Johannean mode of representation, and therefore not for a moment to be referred to an oral Johannean source (Luthardt), it is, nevertheless, entirely in keeping with the tone of the synoptical Gospels, and does not betray the slightest trace of being a later invention in favour either of a dogmatic or eccle- siastical interest. Comp. Calvin: “ Nihil apostolico spiritu VOL, II. A 2 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. indignum continet.’ The occurrence related 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 internal truthfulness will be vindicated in the course of the exposition itself, in opposition to the manifold doubts that have been raised against it. Dut the narrative does not proceed from John. Of this we are assured by the remarkable and manifestly interpolated link, vil. 53, which connects it with what precedes ; further, by the strange interruption with which it breaks up the unity of the account continued in viii. 14 ff.; again by its tone and character, so closely resembling that of the synoptic history, to which, in particular, belongs the propound- ing of a question of law, in order to tempt Christ,—a thing which does not occur in John; still further, by the going out of Jesus to the Mount of Olives, and His return to the temple, whereby we are transported to the Lord’s Jast sojourn in Jerusalem (Luke xxi.); also by the entire absence of the Johannean oj, and in its stead the constant recurrence of 6; and, lastly, by the non- Johannean expressions opdpov, ras 6 Audis, xabioug edidnoxey adbrovs, Of Y¥PUmMMarT. x. oF DUpio., ETipevely, KvamMapTATOS, xaTHAEIT@EObuL and naroxpive, sanv also, in ver. 10 (Elz.). With these various internal reasons many very weighty external arguments are con- joined, which show that the section was not received by any means into all copies of John’s Gospel; but, on the contrary, that from the third and fourth centuries it was tacitly or expressly ex- cluded from the canonical text. For Origen, Apollinarius, Theo- dore of Mopsuestia, Cyril, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Tertullian, and other Fathers (except Jerome, Ambrose, Augus- tine, Sedulius, Leo, Chrysologus, Cassiodorus), as well as the Catenae, are altogether silent about this section ; Euthymius Zicabenus, however, has it, and explains it, indeed, but passes this judgment upon it: Xpq 6: yindoxen, brs ree evretdev (Vil. 53) caps rou" TadAw ovv éXaAnoEY, x.7.A. (VIl1. 12) rapa ro¥s dxupiBeow dvrrypaQors 7 ox elpnrost, 7 APEALoTas. Ald Qalvovras rapeyypurra nal rpoobgnn: nai ToUTOY TExuApIOV, TL unde Toy Xpvodoromov bAws puvynwovedous aUTaY. Of the versions, the Syr., (in Codd., also of the Nestorians, and in the first edd.), Syr. p. Copt. (in most Mss.) Ar. Sahid. Arm. Goth. Verc. 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 defective (but according to Tisch., C. never had it; see his edition of Codex C., Proleg. p. 31), while L. 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, CHAP. VIII. 3 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 San- hedrim against Jesus had just before been narrated, it appeared to be an appropriate place for relating a new, though again unsuc- cessful, attempt to trip Him; and ‘his 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 his- torical 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.1. 19, 20 et 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 appro- priately 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 remarkable number of various readings, which for the most part bear the impress, not of chance or arbitrariness, but of varying originality. D., in par- ticular, presents a peculiar form of text; the section in it runs thus: "Ino. 62 éx. cig +. Op. +. cA.” Opdp. Of 7. mupmyiveras cig Tr. isp. x. m6, Tey. wpbs adr. Ay. 62 of yp. x. of D. él Guwuprig yur. eianuévyy, X. OF. GUT. EV. A. AUTH exreipaCovres adrov-oi tepers, ta ey wor “UTN- yopiay aro" O10., alr. ny. nareinnaros em. ory, Mwvons de ev +. vou entaeuoe Tas Toar. AdaLewr od OF viv ti Aéyere; ‘O OF “Ino. xu x. F. 0. xaréypudey cig sr. y. ‘Qo Oe ex! Epwr., dvenurbe ual eivev wuTois 6 ay. ip. ap. ex airiy Burrerw Aidov. K. 7. xaraxtrpasg rH dunrlrAw xaré- ypape cist. y. “Exaoros 6: ray Lovduiwy eEjpyero, apedpevos dard raiv mpecsurépav, wore wévrac ekerdery, x. marer. yedv. x.) Yu ev wm. ovow. "Avan. 02 67Ino. six. rm yuverni’ rou sion; oddeis o& xarexp.; Kaxeivy eirev air oddsic, wip. ‘O OF elmev’ odd: ey. o. x. “Youye, dad rod viv wnxérs aueprove.— The Johannean authorship was denied by Erasmus, Calvin (?), Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Semler, Morus, Haenlein, Wegscheider, Paulus, Tittmann (Melet. p. 318 ff.), Knapp, Seyffarth, Liicke, Credner, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, B. Crusius, Bleek, Weisse, Liicke, De Wette, Guericke, Reuss, Briickner, Luthardt, Ewald, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg (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. Bret- 4 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN schneider, p. 72 ff., attributing it to the Pseudo-Johannes, endea- vours 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. adult. 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 (Vindiciae aidev- rias textus Gr. peric. Joh. vii. 53 ff., Francof. ad Viadr. p. 1, 1793); Staiudlin (in two Dissert., Gott. 1806) Hug (de conjugir Christ. vinculo indissolub., Frib. 1816, p. 22 ff.); Kuinoel, Moller (newe Ansichten, p. 313 ff); Scholz (Lrkldr. der Evang. p. 396 ff, and WV. 7.1. p. 383); Klee and many others, in par- ticular, also Maier, i. p. 24 f.; Ebrard, Horne, Jntroduction to the Textual Criticism of the N. T., ed. Tregelles, p. 465; Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 284 ff, and again in his Zertschrift, 1863, p. 317, Lange. Schulthess, in Winer and Engelhardt krit Journ. v. 3, pp. 257-317, declares himself in favour of the genuineness of a text purified by the free use of various readings. — Ver. 14. 7 wot trdyw| Elz. Lachm.: zai vod iz, But B. D. K.T.U.X. A. Curs. and many Vss. have 7; and x«/ might easily have been repeated from what precedes, while there was nothing to occa- sion the change of zai into 7.— Ver. 16. &4744¢] Lachm. and Tisch. : é764, after B. D. L. T. X. 33. Or. Rightly; &764¢ was introduced from the context (vv. 14, 17).—Ver. 20. After erda7- ov Elz. has 6’Ijoodc, against decisive witnesses. — Ver. 26. Aéyw| Lachm. Tisch.: 242.4, following important witnesses; but from vv. 25, 28.— Ver. 28. 6 warqp] Elz. Scholz: 6 carqp wov. But pou is wanting in D. L. T. X.&. 13, 69, 122, al. Slav. Vulg. It. Eus. Cyr. Hilar. Faustiz, and is a later addition, intended to mark the peculiar relation of the 6 rarjp.— Ver. 29. After wévov Elz. Scholz have 6 zar4p. A gloss which 253, 259 have inserted before mwivov.— Ver. 34. r7¢ &mapriaus| 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 6 6: dotA0g. — Ver. 38. & qxovoure Tapa Tov warpls vuwy| Elz. Scholz: 6 twpaxare 1 Nikon, in the 13th century, attributed the omission to solicitude lest the con- tents should have an injurious effect upon the multitude. See Cotelerius, Patz. Apost. 1. 235. CHAPS VEenoa. a copa ro curpi iva. But B.C. D. K. X.x. Curss. Or. have <; B. C. K. L. X. 8.** Curss. and some Vss. and Fathers, even Or., read jxovcare and rod zarpéc. The received text, of which Tisch. has inconsistently retained éwpéx., is a mechanical imita- tion of the first half of the verse. The pronouns wou and iwav must, with Lachm. and Tisch., following very important witnesses, be deleted as clumsy additions inserted for the pur- pose of marking the distinction. Finally, ¢ also in the first half has almost entirely the same witnesses in its favour as the second é¢, so that with Lachm. and Tisch. we must read & in both places. — Ver. 39. jr<] B. D. L.&. Vulg. Codd. It. Or. Aug.: gore. So Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.; rightly de- fended by Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 474 ff. The seemingly illogical relation of the protasis and apodosis caused gore to be changed into jrz, and éxoe?re into cosire (Vulg. Or. Aug.). — After évoire, Elz. Lachm. have é, which is wanting in important witnesses, and is an unnecessary erammatical addition.— Ver. 51. riv Ady. viv euév] Lachm. Tisch.: rév guév Adyov, which is preponderatingly attested, and therefore to be adopted. — Ver. 52. Instead of yetonras Elz. has yevceros, against conclusive testimony.— Ver. 53. After ceaurov Elz. has ot, which the best Codd. unanimously exclude. — Ver. 54. 60%é@w] Lachm. Tisch.: doféow, after B. C.* D.®&. Curs. Cant. Vere. Corb. Rd. Colb. Or. Chrys. Ambr. Rightly ; the present (comp. the following é0%é%av) would involuntarily present itself to the copyists.— For 44» (so also Tisch.) Elz. has tay (asalso Lachm.). The testimonies are divided between the two; but 72 might easily have been changed into iva, after the preceding iuers, through not observing the direct construc- tion. — Ver. 57. The reading reccapdéxovra, which Chrysostom has, and Euthymius Zigabenus found in MSS., is still in A. and three Curs., but is nothing save an historical retowche. — Ver. 59. After iepot Elz. Scholz have: dserdav dre wioou ubraiv, nal waphyer o’rws, words which are wanting in B. D.8.* Vulg. It. al. Or. Cyr. Arnob. ‘An addition after Luke iv. 30, whence also éaopevero has been interpolated after «iréy in several witnesses. Vv. 1-3. “Ezop.] down from the temple. — eis Tt. dp. T. EX] where He passed the night ; comp. Luke xxi. 37. Displays the synoptic stamp in its circumstantiality of description and in the use of words; instead of ép@pov (Luke xxiv. 1), John uses pai (xviii. 28, xx. 1; comp. mpwia, xxi. 4); for ras o Xaos John uses 0 dyAos and of GyAo; KaPicas €616. avr. is synoptical ; 6 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. on édi5acxKev, however, without mention of the topic, comp. Vil. 14; the ypayparets 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, con- sidering the great sensation which Jesus had caused at the feast. -— The expression “ Scribes and Pharisees” is the designation in the synoptic narrative for His regular opponents, answering to the Johannean of “Iovdaior. ‘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 con- descended 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, as a prelimi- nary 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. — xarTeu- 7 hOn] with the augment of efAnda, see Winer, p. 60 [E. T. p. 84]. On the expression, comp. cateiAnmTo povyos, Arrian. Epict. 2. 4.—ém aitopdépe] in the very act. Herod. 6. 72, 137; Plato, Pol. 2, p. 359 C; Xen. Symp. 3.13; Dem. 378. 12; Soph. Ant. 51; Eur. Jon. 1214. Comp. Philo, p. 785 A: povyetas aditopwpot. On AapPavev eri, 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. —rrPoBoretc Gar} This word cannot be called un-Johannean (in John x. 31 ff. \v@afew is used) because of its being taken from Deut. /.c. According to Deut. xxi. 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 AGoBoreicbar is expressly referred to a@ command contained in the Mosaic law. From Deut. L.c., CHAP. VIII. 4, 5. 7 where the betrothed, in reference to the seducer, is termed MY] NWS, it is clear that the crime in question was regarded as a modified form of adultery, as it is also called eidos povyetas 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, ras tovavtas is to be understood as denoting the class of adulteresses of this par- ticular kind, to whom refers that law of Moses appointing the punishment of stoning: “ adulteresses of this kind.” That Moses, in Deut. /.c., does not use the expression 4) (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 punish- ment adjudged to adulteresses of this class, some either infer the internal falsehood 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, Mos. R.§ 262 ; Tholuck, B. Crusius, Ebrard, Keil, Archeol. § 153, 1; Ewald, Briickner hesitatingly, Luthardt, Baeumlein). As to the last view, judging from the text in Dent. /.c., and also according to Rabbinical tradition, it is certainly an unsafe assumption ; comp. Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 571. Here, however, where the AHoBorcicbar 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.: AAo- Boryncovtat év dios), with which also the Talmud agrees, Sanhedr. f. 51, 2: “ Filia Israelitae, si adultera, cum nupta, strangulanda,’ cum desponsata, lapidanda.” The supposi- tion of Grotius, that the severer punishment of stoning for adultery was introduced after the time of Ezekiel, cannot be 1 According to the Talmudic rule: ‘‘ Omnis mors, cujus et mentio in lege sim- pliciter, non alia est quam strangulatio,” Sanhedr. I.c. The incorrectness of this rule (Michaelis, .c.) is a matter of no consequence, so far as the present passage is concerned, 8 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. proved by Ezek. xvi. 38, 40; Sus. 45; the Mwiojjs éverei- AaTo, moreover, is decidedly against all such suppositions. Ver. 6. ITecpafovres avrov] denoting, not a good-natured questioning (Olshausen), but, agreeably to the standing synopti- cal representation of the relation of those men to Jesus, and in keeping with what immediately follows, malicious tempting. The insidious feature of the plan consisted in this: “If 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 repudiated by the Romans (see Staeudlin and Hug). But if He decides against Moses and against stoning, He will then be prosecuted before the Sanhedrim as an opposer of the law.” That they expected and wished for the former 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. xxi. It is objected that the Romans in the provinces did not administer justice strictly in accordance with their own 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 easy would it have been before the Roman magis- trates 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 exactly for stoning, it is overlooked that here was the very case for which stoning was expressly appointed. If it be urged, lastly, that when Jesus was re- quired 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 inappropriate enough to the intellectual temperament of Jesus in such cases. Other explanations of metpafev—(1) They would either have 1 Observe also, in reference to this, the ody in ver. 5, which logically paves the way for an answer in agreement with Moses, CUAP, VIII. 6. 9 accused him to the Romans imminutae mayestatis, 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 pro- nouncing 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 execution of the law . . . or would He peradventure even take upon Him- self 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 interrogators, 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 relating to the thing which they really wanted (2c. the execu- tion, and that immediate and tumultuous). (2) As the punishment of death for adultery had at that time already fallen into disuse, the drift of their question was simply whether or not legal proceedings should be instituted at all (Ebrard, following Michaelis). The words themselves, and the design expressed in the carnyopetv, which could not take place before the people, but before the competent judges, as in Matt. xu. 10, are quite opposed to this explanation. (3) Dieck, in the Stud. uv. Krit. 1832, p. 791, says: As the punishment of death for adultery presupposes liberty of divorcement, and as Jesus had Himself repudiated divorce, He would, by pronounc- ing in favour of that punishment, have contradicted Himself ; while, by pronouncing against it, He would have appeared as a despiser of the law. But apart from the improbability 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 ta éy. ckatny. avr. is decisive against this explanation; for a want of logical consistency would have furnished no ground for accusation.’ (4) The * 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 law, 10 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. same arsument tells against Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Jansen, Cornelius 4 Lapide, Baumgarten, and many other expositors: 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 Zigabenus, 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 a negative answer: ywooxovTes yap avtov éNenuova K. cupTrabh, mpocedoKwv, OTe deiceTat avThs, Kal Nourrov ELovet KaTnyopiay KaT avTOV, @S TAapavo“was hetdomévov THs amo Tod vowouv ALOaComéevns, Euthymius Zigabenus. But this explanation also must be rejected, partly even on & priori grounds, because an ensnaring casuistic ques- tion may naturally be supposed to involve a dilemma; partly and mainly because in this case the introduction of the ques- tion by év 8€ ré vouw 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 acquittal which they deemed it probable He would pronounce, would have offended against the Mosaic law; while by con- demning, 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 expositors renounce the attempt to give any satisfactory solution of the difficulty. —T® daxtiro Eypader eis T. yhv] as a sign that He was By an affirmative reply (he says) Christ would have recognised this obligation, and by His non-observance of the law (v. 18, vii. 23) He would have been self- condemned ; by a negative answer He would have been guilty of an express rejec- tion 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 charged 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 Messianic authority, to set up a new law. If in this case He had decided in favour of Moses, they could not have accused Him (to the Sanhedrim). ’ According to Baur (p. 170 sq.), there is nothing historical whatever in the story; it has a purely ideal import. The main idea he holds to be the con- sciousness of one’s own sinfulness 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. CHAP. VIII. 6. tt not considering their question, d7ep elwPace TodddKis Trovetv of py Oédovtes amoxpivesOar Tpos Tods EpwTavTas aKaipa Kai dvakéia. Tvors yap adtav ryv pnyavijy, mpoceroeito ypadew eis T. yhv, Kal wn mpocéyelv ois EXeyov, 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 imaginings, from Greek writers (Aristoph. Acharn. 31, and Schol. Diog. Laert. 2. 127) and from the Rabbins, see in Wetstein. Isa. xvii. 13 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 7é is written”). There is much marvellous conjecture among the older expositors. See Wolf and Lampe, also Fabricius, Cod. Apocr. p. 315, who thinks that Jesus wrote the answer given in ver. 7 (after Bede; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 480, ed. 3, 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 ma- gistracy (here a matter of criminal law, Matt. xxii.; Luke xu. 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 éypa¢ev the descriptive imperfect. The reader sees Him writing with His finger. The additions in some Codd. cal rpocrotovpevos, and (more strongly attested) #42) Tpocmotovm., are glosses of different kinds, meaning “though He only pretended (simulans) to write ;” and, “ without troubling Himself about them” (dissimulans, Ev. 32 adds avtous). See Matthaei, ed. min. in Joc. ‘ According to Luthardt, to show that the malice of the question did not deserve ananswer. But the numerous testing questions 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 playful ease, refused to be disturbed by any street scandal. Melancthon well says: ‘‘Initio, cum accusatur mulier, nihil respondit Christus, tanquam in aliam rem intentus, videlicet prorsus a sese rejiciens hanc quaestionem pertinentem ad cognitionem magistratus politici. Postea, cum urgetur, respondet non de muliere, sed de ipsorum peccatis, qui ipsam accusabant.” tied THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Ver. 7. “Avayaptntos] 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), as in Plato, Pol. I. p. 339 B, or freedom from actual sin (comp. yuv7 avaydprytos, Herod. v. 39),—whether, again, it is to be understood generally (2 Mace. vill. 4), or with reference to any definite category or species of dpaptia (2 Mace. xii. 42; Deut. xxix. 19), isa matter which can be decided by the context alone. Here it must signify actual freedom from the sin, not indeed of adultery specially, for Jesus could not presuppose this of the hierarchy as a whole, even with all its corruption of morals, but probably of unchastity, ‘ 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 avapaprntos. Comp. awaptedds, Luke vii. 37; dpaptdavew, Jacobs, ad Anthol. x. p. 111; in chap. v. 14, also, a special kind of sinning is intended by pnxére auaprave ; and the same command, in ver. 11, addressed to the adulteress, authenticates the sense in which dvayaptntos is used. The men tempting Him knew how to avoid, in outward appearance rather than in reality, the unchastity which they condemned. Taking the words to mean freedom from sin generally (Baur, who draws from the passage an erroneous doctrinal meaning, Luthardt, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet, following early expositors), we make Jesus propose an imprac- ticable condition in the given case, quite unfitted to disarm His opponents as convicted by their own consciences; for it would have been a purely ideal condition, a standard impossible to man. If we take avaydptytos, however, in the concrete sense above explained, the condition named becomes quite appropriate to baffle the purpose of the tempting questioners; for the pre- scription of the Mosaic law is, on the one hand, fully recognised ;* while, on the other, its fulfilment 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 1 The section cannot therefore be used, as Mittermayer uses it (d. Todesstr. 1862), as a testimony of Jesus against capital punishment. CHAP. VIII. 8, 9. 15 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 admonition, conciliation, forgiveness—in a word, love, as the wAjpwots of the law. — Tov ALAov] the stone which He would cast at her in obedience to the law. —ém avtH] upon her. See Bernhardy, p. 249; Ellendt, Lex Soph. i. p. 467. — Baréro] not mere permission, but command, and therefore all the more telling. ‘The place of stoning must be conceived as lying out- side the city (Lev. xxiv. 14; Acts vi. 56). We must further observe that Jesus does not say the first stone, but let the jirst (Le. of you, yuwv) cast the stone, which does not exclude that casting of the first, which was obligatory on the witnesses (Deut. xvii. 7; Acts vu. 58). Vv. 8, 9. daXutv, «.7.X.] To indicate that He has nothing further to do with the case. According to Jerome’ and Euthy- mius Zigabenus, “in order to give space to the questioners to take themselves away ;” but this is not in keeping with ver. 6. — €Enpxovto] descriptive imperfect. — eis xad’ ets] Mark xiv. 19. — @ws tr. €oxdt.] is to be connected with eis xa’ eis, ap. amo tT. mpeoS. being an intervening clause. See on Matt. xx. 8—The wpeoButepor are the elders 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. 3. Those more advanced in years, on the other hand, were also thoughtful and prudent enough to go away first, stead of stopping to compromise themselves further. — €ws THv Eo xat.| attested as genuine by preponderating evidence. It does not refer to rank, the least (so most modern expositors, even Liicke, B. Crusius, De Wette, Maier, Lange), which the context does not sanction; the context (see efs xa0’ cis) leads us rather to render it ‘ wnto the last who went out, ve. 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 expositors. After dx«ovc. the ’ According to whom Christ wrote the sins of His accusers and of all mortals! . 14 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. received text has cal bd THs cuverdnoews Eeyyowevot, a gloss opposed to very important witnesses; but as to the matter of fact, right enough. — povos o’Inca., «.7.r.] 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. Vy. 10, 11. O¢ catay.] who have accused thee to me, as if I were to be judge. — ovdeis] 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 catéxpcvev here designates the sententia damnatoria, not as a judicial sentence (for the ypaumarets and Pharisees had come merely as asking a question concerning a matter of law or right), but simply as the judgment of an individual. — ovbé éyo ce xataxp.: I also do not condemn thee. This is not the declaration of the forgweness of sin, as In Matt. ix. 2, Luke vu. 48, and cannot therefore justly be urged against the historical genuineness of the narrative (see, in particular, Hengstenberg) ; nor is it a mere declinature of judicial competency, which would be out of keep- ing with the preceding question, and with the admonition 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 seek 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 condemning ; for He dismisses her with the admonition yyKxére dpaptave. Augustine well says: “ Ergo et Dominus damnavit, sed peccatum, non hominem.” How striking the force of the negative declaration and the positive admonition ! Ver. 12. The interpolated section, vil. 53-vii. 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 apprehending Jesus, and 1 In connection with the marriage law, it is clear from this passage that, in the case of adultery, repentance on the part of the guilty party makes the con- tinuance of the marriage allowable. CHAP. VIII. 12. 15 had, moreover, become divided among themselves (as is recorded in vii. 45-52), He was able,in consequence of this miscarriage in their plans against Him (odv), to come forth afresh and address the assembled people in the temple (avrots, 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 asa special act, and so clearly distinguished from the preceding, that it must be assigned to one of the following days; just as in ver. 21 the similar transition and the recurring adv introduce again a new dis- course spoken on another day. Others take a 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 wddw of ver. 12 and ver. 21, but the ody, which in both places bears an evident reference to some preceding historical 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.—J am the light of the world, i.e. (comp. on 1. 4) the possessor and bearer of the divine truth of salvation (tr. h. THs FwHs), from whom this saving truth goes forth to all mankind (kocpos), who without Christ are dark and dead. The light is not zdentical with the salvation (Hengstenberg), but salvation is the necessary emanation there- from; 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 outward 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 yafodvAdxuoy, ver. 20, on either side of the altar of burnt-offerimg (Wetstein, 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 cande- labra, 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 16 THE GOSPEL OF JOIIN. 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 o axodovbar, x.7.r., has reference to Israel’s wanderings, is quite arbitrary ; no better, indeed, than the reference of vii. 37 to the rock in the wilderness. — od 4» wepiratyoces] The strongly attested, though not decisively confirmed, subjunctive zepuration (so Lachmann, Tischendorf) would be the most wswal word in the N. T. after od uw, and might therefore all the more easily have displaced the future, which could hardly have been introduced through the following é€e, seeing that the latter word has no connection with od m7. Upon od pw, with the more de- finitely assuring future, see on Matt. xxvi. 35; Mark xiv. 31. — €£e. To dos T. EwAs] As the antithesis of the divine arnbea, the oxotia, is the causative element of death, so is the light the cause of life, ze. of the true eternal Messianic life, not only in its consummation after the Parousia, but already also in its temporal development (comp. iii. 15). €£es, a will not be wanting to him, he will be in possession of it, for it necessarily communicates itself to him direct from its personal source, which he follows in virtue of his fellow- ship with Christ (“lux enim pracferri solet,’ Grotius). The akorovbety takes place through faith; but in the believer, who as such walks no more in darkness (xu. 46; Eph. v. 8; Col. i. 13), Christ Himself 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, opodo:tov év adtd); he is vids gwrtos (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 é£e, «.7.X., 1s the result of the axorovbeiv, and therefore of faith (comp. iil. 15, 36, v. 24, vi. 47), and accordingly ts Cwms is added. Vy. 13, 14. This great declaration the Pharisees present CHAP. VIII. 15, 16. 17 (oi Sapic.) cannot 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 His wit- ness 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 is, of course, unknown to His opponents, who therefore reject His testimony. The refutation les in the fact that God is able, without any departure from truth, to testify concerning Himself. — Kav éyo papt., «.7.r.] not: even though I (Liicke), nor: although J, etc. (B. Crusius), for both would require éav cai; but: even tf, ie. even in case (adeo tum, si), if I for my part (ey), etc. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 519; Stallb. ad Plat. Apol. p. 32 A; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 151. — 70d vrdyo] through death, vii. 33.— €pxopac] ov was previously used of the historical moment of the past; here, however, the Praes., in using which Jesus means His continuous coming forward as the ambassador of God. Comp. ii. 31. The latter represents it more as a matter of the present.—7] not again «ai, because the two points are conceived, not as before copulatively, but alterna- tively (“ whether I speak of the one or the other, you do not know it”); comp. 1 Cor. xi. 27. The latter is more expressive, because it is disjunctive. Vv. 15, 16. The course of thought repeated with some minuteness (Tholuck), but similarly to vii. 24. The rejection of His testimony by the Pharisees in ver. 15, was an act of judgment on their part which, inasmuch as they were unac- quainted with His higher position as an ambassador of God, had been determined merely by His cutward senswous appear- ance, by His servant’s form (elcopdwvres env Bpotoedéa popdyv, Nonnus), as to which He seemed to them to be an ordinary man. This Jesus tells them, and adds, how very differently He proceeds in this respect.' Kpivesv receives through the context the condemnatory sense, and kata thy ' Hilgenfeld, Hvang. p. 286, ought therefore not to have concluded that the words, ‘‘I judge no man,” presuppose the history of the woman taken in adultery. VOL, II. = 18 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. capKa is not to be understood of the subjective norm (Chry- sostom: d7ro avOpwrrivns Stavoias . . . adixkws ; De Wette: in a carnal, selfish manner; comp. B. Crusius), but of the objective norm (comp. «ar dyuv, vii. 24; Euth. Zigabenus: pos povoy TO pavomevov BréErrovTEs, Kal pndév trynroOTEpor Kal TveEV- patixov evvoodytes). Comp. 2 Cor. v. 16.— éye ov kpive ovdéva| I condemn no one. There is no need, however, for supplying in thought cara +. cdpea, as even Augustine pro- posed, and after Cyril’s example many modern writers (also Kuinoel, Paulus); to the same thing comes Liicke’s supple- ment: as 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, cat éav xpivw cannot be taken otherwise than absolutely, and without supplement. For these reasons every kind of supplement must be rejected, whether by the insertion of vdv, which would point to the future judgment (Augustine, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, and several), or of sovos (Storr, Godet), as though John had written attos éyo. Jesus rather gives utterance to His maxim in the consciousness of having come, not xpivery, but to save and bless (comp. on ver. 11), which is what He carried out princtpaliter ; but this principle was, that He refrained from all condemnation of others, knowing as He did that xpivery was neither the end (Briickner) nor the sphere of His life (Hengstenberg). This principle, however, 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. cal éav kpivw Sé éye] «at dé here and in ver. 17, atque etiam, see on vi. 51. The thought is: and even if a Kpiverv on my part should take place, etc. Notwith- 1 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 rejection (but merely the caricature which man has made of his own nature by sin). Where is there anything in the passage about the real essence of man ? CHAP. VIII. 17, 18. 19 standing His maxim, not to judge, such cases had actually 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 cdcpos. Comp. Luther: “If thou wilt not have our Lord God, then keep the devil; and the office which otherwise is not set for judg- ment, but for help and consolation, is compelled to assume the function of condemnation.” Luthardt: “ But my witness be- comes a judgment through unbelief.’ This, however, is not in the passage ; and Jesus was often enough forced into actual, direct xpivew, ver. 26. — dé] occupies the fourth place, because the preceding words are connected with each other, as in ver. 17, vi. 51; 1 John i. 3; Matt. x. 18, al—According to the reading a7 @cvy (see the critical notes), the meaning of the second clause is: my condemnation is a genuine one, answering to the idea, as it ought to be—not equivalent to adrnOys (B. Crusius). Comp. on vii. 28. Reason: For i is not (like an ordinary human personality, restricted to myself) I alone (who condemn), but I and. the Father that hath sent me (are the kpwwovtes), which fellowship (é7ep éy@ xpivw, ToiTo Kal o matnp, Kuth. Zigabenus) naturally excludes everything that could prevent the xpiovs from being adnO7. Comp. v. 30. _ Vv.17,18. After the first 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 admini- stering 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, but has more than the amount of truth thereby required. — Kat... Sé] atque etiam, as above in ver. 16.— T® vpert.] emphatically, from the point of view of His oppo- nents (comp. x. 34, xv. 25), who took their stand thereon, and regarded Jesus as a trapdvoyoy, and even in ver. 13 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 (Schweizer, Baur, Reuss), or belonging to a later Christian point of view (De Wette, B. Crusius, Tholuck) ; nor must they be taken to mean : for Christ and believers the law exists no longer (Messner, Lehre der Apostel. p. 345); though, 20 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. no doubt, they expressed His consciousness of being exalted abéve the Jewish law as it then was, and in the strange and hostile form in which it met Him. Accordingly, Keim’ is mistaken in saying: “In ¢his way neither could Jesus speak nor John write—not even Pawl.” See v. 45-47, vii. 19, 22 f, v. 39, x. 35, xix. 36.—The passage itself from the law is quoted with considerable freedom (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15), avO@perav being uttered with intentional emphasis, as Jesus draws a con- clusion a minori ad 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 indi- viduality; 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 con- sciousness, 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 Kat’ av@pwrov; but not incorrectly (Schenkel): hence, also, there is no need for supplying in thought to éyo: “ As a 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 understand.what Jesus means by the words 0 wéuapas pe tratnp, 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, surely, 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 veritable material apprehension on their part, that He referred to a physical father (Augustine, Bede, and several; also De Wette, Olshausen, Briickner, and, doubtfully, Liicke), some also having found in it a blasphemous allusion to bastardy (Cyril, Ammon), is irreconcilable with the cir- 1 See his Geschichtlich. Christ. p. 14, ed. 8. | Note, on the contrary, that it is John himself who stands higher 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 razpwous. CHAP. VIII. 20, 21. 21 cumstance that Jesus had already so frequently and unmis- takeably pointed to God as His Father; the questioners them- selves also betray their dissimulation by the word rod; they do not ask tis. 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 ore ewé as far as pov as a question is less appropriate (Ewald), as it is scarcely likely that Jesus was taken by surprise. Ei éwé 78ecre, etc., rest on the fact that the Father reveals Himself in Him. Comp. nav OS xvi 3! Ver. 20. Taita ta pyyata] Vv. 12, 13. Godet arbi- trarily imports into the text “ words so wmportant.” Comp. vi. 50.—év td yalopua.] At the treasury. On év, as denoting immediate neighbourhood, see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 8. 22; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. '700; Winer, p. 360 [E. T. p. 481], who, however, is of opinion—though it cannot be substan- tiated—that the place itself where the treasury stood was called yafoguxr.; so also Tholuck, Briickner. Respecting the yafopvaAdxiov, which consisted of thirteen brazen chests destined to receive the taxes and charitable offerings in the temple, see on Mark xii. 41. Ina place so much frequented _ in the forecourt of the women did Jesus thus speak,—and no one laid hands on Him. — cai ovdets, etc.] Historical refrain, constituting a kind of triumphal (comp. vii. 30) 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 connecting 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 puni- tive than even vii. 34.—odv] As no one had laid hand on Him, comp. ver. 12.— maddy, as in ver. 12, indicating the de- livery of a second discourse, not a repetition of vii. 34. — avrots] to the Jews who were present in the temple, vv. 20, 22. Entnoeré pe] namely, as a deliverer from the misfortunes that are coming upon you, as invil. 34. But instead of the clause there added, cai ovy evprjcere, here we have the far more 22 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN. tragical and positive declaration, x. év 7. duapt. vm. amod.: and (not reconciled and sanctified, but) in your sin (still laden with it and your unatoned guilt, ix. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 17) ye shall die, namely, in the universal misfortunes amid which you will lose your lives. Accordingly, év is the state wherein, — and not the cause whereby (Hengstenberg) they die. The text does not require us to understand eternal death, although that is the consequence of dying in this state. “Ev tH dwaptia bpar, however, is to be taken in a collective sense (see ver. 24,1. 29, ix. 41), and not as merely referring to the sin of wnbelief ; though being itself sin (xvi. 9), it is the ground of the non-extinction and increase of their sin. Between (rnoeré pe, finally, and the dying in sin, there is no contradiction ; for the seeking in question is not the seeking of faith, but merely that seeking of desperation whose object is merely deliverance from external afilictions. The futility of that search, so fearfully expressed by the words xai—dazofav., is further explained by 6aev éy@ vumayo, etc., for they cannot ascend into heaven, in order to find Jesus as a deliverer, and to bring Him down (to this view xili. 33 is not opposed). Accordingly, these words are to be taken quite as in vil. 34, not as referring to the hell into which they would come through death; for Jesus speaks, not of their condition after, but wp to, their death. Ver. 22. It did not escape the notice of the Jews that in using urayw He meant a voluntary departure. But that they should not be able to come whither He goeth away, excites in them, not fear and concern on His account (Ewald), but impious mockery ; and they ask: Surely he will not dill him- self, in that he saith, etc.? In this case, indeed, we shall not be able to reach him! The emphasis rests on daoxtevet, as the mode in which they scornfully conceive the tzayew to take place. — Gehenna being the é7ov which would follow on such a departure (Joseph. ell. ii. 8. 5, and see Wetstein and Ewald, Alterth. p. 232). The scorn (which Hengstenberg also groundlessly denies) is similar to that in vu. 35, only much more malicious. Vv. 23, 24. Without further noticing their venomous scorn, Jesus simply holds up before them, with more firm and elevated calmness, their own low nature, which made them CHAP. VIII. 23, 24, 20 capable of thus mocking Him, because they did not under- stand Him, the heavenly One. — é« tdv Kato] from the lower regions, i.e. €x Ths yhs (comp. Acts ii. 19), the opposite of ra dvw, the heavenly regions; avw being used of heavenly relations in solemn discourse (Col. i. 1, 2; Gal. iv. 26; Phil. i. 14); comp. on dpwOev, iii. 31. “Ex designates derivation ; you spring from the earth, I from the heaven. To understand KxaTw as denoting 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. —ovx« etul éx T. Koopov TovTov] I do not spring from this (pre-Messiaiic, comp. aiwy ovTos) world ; negative expression of His supra- mundane, heavenly derivation.’ Comp. xviii. 36. Both halves of the verse contain the same thought ; and the clauses €« Trav KaTo@ éoté and €x TOD KOcMOoV TovTOV éoTé imply, in their full signification, that those men are also of such a character and disposition as correspond to their low extraction, without higher wisdom and divine life. Comp. ii. 31. 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: €av yap, etc.; for only faith can help those to the higher divine #7 in time and eternity (2. 12, i. 15 f, vi. 40 ff, xvii. 3, al.), who are é« tav Kdtw and é« Tob Kocpov tovrov, and consequently, as such, are born flesh of flesh— Notice, that in this repetition of the minatory words the emphasis, which in ver. 20 rested on €v T. au. ty, is laid on a7vo@av.; and that thus prominence is given to the perishing itself, which could only be averted by conversion to faith. — OTe é€y@ eiwil 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 1 Not merely of the heavenly direction of His spirit (Weizsiicker), which must be taken for granted in the Christ who springs from above (comp. iii. 31). Wherever Christ speaks of His heavenly descent, He speaks in the consciousness of having had a pre-human, supra-mundane existence (in the consciousness of the Logos), xvii. 5, and lays claim to a transcendent relation of His essential nature. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 215 f. Nonnus: gives tpuv xocporo, 24 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Jesus, in the form, “I am the Messiah;” to the Jews, in the form of either, “Is He the Messiah?” or, “ 7his is not the Messiah, but another, who is yet to come.” Comp. ver. 28, xui. 19. In opposition to the notion of there being another, Jesus uses the emphatic éy#. The non-mention of the name, which was taken for granted (it had been mentioned in iv. 25, 26), confers on it a quiet majesty that makes an irre- sistible impression on the minds of the hearers whilst Christ gives utterance to the brief words, 67e éy@ eis. As God com- prehended the sum of the Old Testament faith in NW "uN (Deut. xxxii. 39; Isa. xli. 13, xliii, 10), so Christ that of the New Testament in 67st éyo eiuws. Comp. Hofmann, Schrifbew. J. p. 63 f. The definite confession of this faith is given in xvi id, vai655169 > dohnavye 2. Ver. 25. The Jews understand the 671 éyo eius well enough, but refuse to recognise it, and therefore ask pertly and con- temptuously: ov tls ef; tu quis es? ov being emphasized for the purpose of expressing 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 dis- continues any further utterance regarding them, His opponents. His counter-question is: tiv apyny 6, Te kal AaAD vpiv? 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 recognised, what they just now asked with their wicked question od tis &. This view is not complicated, as Winer objects, but corresponds simply to the words and to the situation. On dpy7y as used frequently in an adverbial sense, both among the Greeks and by the LXX., with and without the article, to denote time, ab initio, from the very beginning, see Schweighaiiser, Lex. 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; comp. iv. 18; Buttmann, Newt. Gram. 1 According to John, at His very first appearance in the temple, ii. 19. CHAP. VIII. 25. ° 25 pr 353 dsp ap. 389]. — 0, Te] interrogatively, in relation to a question with tis immediately preceding,—as is fre- quently the case even in the Classics, so that some such words as thou askest must be supplied in thought. See Kiihner, II. § 837, note 1; Bernhardy, p. 443; Kriiger, § 51.17. 3 kal} also, expresses the sbiinansonai ee eaea feeacanlern, Partik. p. 152), in this case, of speech to being: what from the very beginning, as J am it, so also, I say it to you.—rAadroa] speak, not: say. Comp. on vv. 26, 43; and see on Rom. ii. 19. Nor does He use AceAaAnKa, 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 interrogatively by Matthaei, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Liicke. The latter’ renders: Why, indeed, do I still speak to you at all? With this view, it is true, Tv apynv is quite compatible; for it is confessedly often used in the Classics for ab initio, in the sense of omnino (Raphel, Herod. in loc. ; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 723 ; Ellendt, Lea. Soph. I. p. 237; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Oee. ii. 12), though only in negative propositions, or such whose significa- tion really amounts to a negation,” which latter, however, might be the case here (as in Plat. Demod. p. 381 D; Philo, de Abr. p. 366 C); it is also allowable to take 6, tv in the sense of why (see on Mark ix. 11; Buttmann, newt. Gram. p. 218 [E. T. p. 253]). But the thought itself has so little meaning in it, and is so little natural, expressing, besides, a 1So0, without doubt, Chrysostom also, who gives as the meaning: vcd caws Govt Tay Adyor Trav wap iuod axvaeiol tors, pnts ye wal pobsiv doris byw cizs. Comp. Cyril and Theophylact, also Euth. Zigabenus. Matthaei explains the words in exact accordance with Liicke : ‘‘ Cur vero omnino vohiseum loquor ? cur frustra vobiscum disputo?” See ed. min. I. p. 575. With this also is in substantial agreement the view of Ewald, who, however, regards the words rather as the expression of righteous indignation than as a question: ‘‘ That I should, indeed, speak to you at all!’ It would be more correct to say: ‘* That I should at all even (still) speak to you!” But how greatly is the aé all thus in the way! “Oz, too, would then need a supplement, which is not furnished by the text. Besides, the following words, especially if introduced without an 4222 or wévre: (indicating that Jesus had collected Himself again, and 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 ri» dpyay pov. 2 See especially Lennep, /.c. and p. 94; Briickner on the passage, 26 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. reflection, which is at the bottom so empty, and, at the same — time, through rv apx7jv, so 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 mept éuod. The words would thus like- wise stand in no relation to the question ov tis et, 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-interroga- tive views:—(1) “ What I have already said to you at the beginning, that am I!” So Tholuck after Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Clericus, Heumann, and several others ; also B. Crusius. Jesus would thus be announcing that He had already, from the very beginning in His discourses, made known His higher personality. The Praes. Aad, as express- ing that which still continues to be in the present, would not be opposed to this view; but it does not harmonize with the arrangement of the words; and logically, at all events, cai ought to stand before tv dpyiv (comp. Syriac). (2) “ From the very first (before all things), I am 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”), Melancthon, Aretius, and several; also Maier, who, however, takes tiv apxiv 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 r7v 1 Comp. Winer, p. 482 [E. T. p. 581], who gives as the meaning: ‘‘J am entirely that which I represent myself as being wm my discourses.” So also Godet: ‘* Absolument ce que je vous dis; ni plus ni moins que ce que renferme ma parole.” But +r. épx%v is used in the sense of completely, en- tirely, only in connection with negations (usually, too, without the article) : not at all, not in the least; ‘‘cum negatione praefracte negando servit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. ic. 2 Under this head belongs also the view taken by Grotius (which is substan- tially adopted by Lange) : ‘‘ Primum (in the first instance) hoc swm, quod et dico vobis, hoc ipsum quod me hoc ipso tempore esse dixi, i.e. lux mundi.” As though we read: xparov wiv 6, rs xal Atyw duiv, In the same way as Grotius, has CHAP. VIII. 25. 27 apx7v does not mean “ above all things,” not even in Xen. Cyr. i. 2, 3, where we read: tiv apyiv pa TowodtoL, at the very outset not such, ve. not such at all, omnino non tales; just as little too in Herod. i. 9, where also, as frequently in Herodotus, it denotes omnino ; comp. Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 278. 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 as the only correct one, and keeping to the interpretation “/from the very first” im its temporal sense. One cannot, however, see what is really intended by the words “from the very first, I am, éetc.,” especially as placed in such an emphatic position at the commencement of the clause. . For Jesus had neither occasion nor ground for giving the assurance that He had been from the beginning of His appearance, and still was, such as He had de- clared Himself to be in His discourses, and therefore had not since become different. (3) “ Undoubtedly (nothing else) am L what I also say to you.’ So Kuinoel ;—a view which assigns an incorrect meaning to tv apyyjv, and confounds AaA® with Aéyw ; objections which affect also the similar interpretation of Ebrard: “I am altogether that which I also say to you (that Tam He).” (4) “At the very outset I declared of myself what I also explain to you, or what I also now say.” So Starck, Not. sel. p. 106; Bretschneider. But the supplying of eda- Anka from the following Aadw@ (comp. Dissen, Dem. de Cor. p. 359) would only be suggested if we read 6, Tu kal viv Xa vpiv. (5) Fritzsche (Lit. Bl. 2. allg. Kirchenz. 1843, p. 513, and de conform. Lachmann, p. 53), whom Hengstenberg fol- lows, takes the view: “Sum a rerum primordus (i. 1) ea natura, quam me esse vobis etiam profiteor.” Jesus would thus have designated Himself as the primal Logos. Quite unintel- ligibly for His hearers, who had no occasion for taking tip apxnv in the absolute sense, as though reminded of the angel © of the Lord in Mal. ii. and Zech. xi., nor for understanding 6, TUK. dX. by. aS Fritzsche does; at all events, as far as the latter is concerned, Aéyw ought to have been used instead of Caloy. also explained it, taking, however, riv zpxxv in the sense of omnino, plane (consequently like Winer). 28 TIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Aard. (6) Some connect tv dpynv with wodAa exo, etc., ver. 26, and after Aadw cdyiv place merely a comma. So already Codd., Nonnus, Scaliger, Clarius, Knatchbull, Raphel, Bengel, and, more recently, Olshausen, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 65, IL. p. 178, and Baeumlein. In taking the words thus, 6, Te is either written 672, because, with Scaliger and Raphel (so also Bengel: “principio, quum etiam loquor vobis [Dativus commodi: ‘ut credatis et salvemini’| multa habeo de vobis loqui, etc.”*), or is taken as a pronoun, id quod. In the latter way, Olshausen explains it, following Clarius: “ Jn the first place,as I also plainly say to you, I have much to blame and punish in you; I am therefore your serious admonisher.” Baeumlein, however, renders: “J 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 od tis eZ; according to Olshausen, tHv dpyiy would have to be transformed into mparov, 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 unnatural. (7) Exegetically impossible is the interpretation of Augustine : “ Principium (the very beginning of all things) me credite, quia (ort) et loquor vobis, ie. quia humilis propter vos factus ad ista verba descendi ;” comp. Gothic, Ambrose, Bede, Ruperti, and several others. Calvin rightly rejects this interpretation, but himself gives one that is impossible. (8) Obscure, and an importation, is Luthardt’s view (670, that: “from the beginning am I, that I may also speak to you”), that Jesus describes the act of His speaking, the existence of His word, as His presence for the Jews; that from His first appearance onwards, 1Comp. Hofmann: ‘‘ At first, namely for the present, because this is the time, when He speaks to them, He has much to speak and to judge about them in words.” Try apx%x is alleged to be used in opposition to a 7d rtAos, 2.e. to a time when that which He now speaks will be proved by deeds, ver. 28. In this way meaning and connection are imported into the passage, and yet the xai (with an appeal to Hartung, Partik. I. p. 129) is completely neglected, or rather transferred from the relative to the principal 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 exist- ence of a ¢rajection of the x«/in the N. T. Hofmann explains, as though John had written : rh» dpy%y, Ors voy AaAW dui, xual worAAG tym, etc. CHAP. VIII. 26. 29 He who was then present as the Word of God on the earth had been always used to give Himself a presence for men in the Word. If, according to this view, as it would seem, tv apyny Ste denotes : “from the beginning it 1s my manner, that,” this cannot possibly be in the simple eiué, which has to be supplied in thought; besides, how much is forced into the ‘mere AAAW viv ! Ver. 26. The question in ver. 25 was a reproach. To this (not to ver. 24, as Godet maintains) refers the word wodXa, which is placed with full emphasis at the beginning of the verse ; the antithetical aX)’, however, and the excluding word Tavra, inform us that He does not say the moda which He has to speak and judge of them (and which He has in readi- ness, in store) ; but merely 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. The paraphrase : “T 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 utter forth to the world that which I have heard from God the True, who has sent me (namely, what I heard during my existence with God, before my mis- sion; comp. on ver. 28')—in other words, to the communica- tion of divine truth to the world.” For divergent views of the course of thought, see Schott, Opusc. 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 «pious is still ddn@7s; for I speak to the world only what I have heard from my Father, who is true.” Comp. also Tholuck. In this way, however, the anti- thesis has to be artificially formed, whilst the expressed antithesis between that which Jesus has to speak (€ym danreiv) and that which He actually says (Aéyw) is neglected. This is in answer to Ewald also, who imports into aA’ the meaning: “Yet I will not therefore be afraid, ike a man;” and against Hengstenberg, who, after vodka . . . xpiverv, supplies in thought: “This is the reason why you will not accept my 1 So also vv. 38, 40. Not as Beyschlag maintains: immediately before my: public appearance. Comp. on vi. 46. 30 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, utterances in relation to my person.” — Kayo] and I, for my part, in contrast to God ; the word is connected with tadra, etc. —tadra]| this and nothing else. As to the main point, Chrysostom aptly says: Ta mpos cwtnpiav, od Ta mpods édeyxov. —els 7. coop.) See on Mark i. 39. Comp. Soph. HI. 596: Knpuooé pw’ eis dtravtas. Not again Aade (Lachmann, Tischen- dorf), but A€yw, because the notion has become by antithesis more definite : what He has heard, that 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 wndone. Ver. 27. °Q ris ayvotas! od Svédurev adtois rept avTod Suareyomevos, Kal ovK éyivwoxov, Chrysostom and Euth. Ziga- benus calls them dpevoBraPets. But the surprising, nay more, the very improbable element (De Wett2) which has been found in this non-understanding, disappears when it is re- membered 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 te regard it as equivalent to obduracy- (Tholuck, Briickner) ; or to explain étz as in which sense (Hofmann, lc. p. 180); or with Luthardt, to press avtots, and to give as the meaning of the simple words: “that in bearing witness to Himself He bears witness to them that the God who sends Him 7s the Father ;” or with Ebrard, to find in éAeyev: “ that it is His vocation” to proclaim to them; or, with Hengstenberg, to understand éyywaay, etc., of the true knowledge, 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 (0 7réuyras pe, etc.) He spoke to them of the Father. On Aéyew, with the accus. in the sense of AaX. epi, see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apolog. p. 23 A; Phaed. p. 79 C. Comp. on i. 15. Vv. 28, 29. Odv] not merely “a continuation of the nar- ration” (De Wette), but: therefore, in reference to this non- understanding, as is also confirmed by the words Tote yaoec Oe, which refer to ov« éyvwcay in ver. 27, and, indeed, considered CHAP. VIII. 28, 29. ol as to its matter, logically correct, seeing that if the Jews had recognised the Messiahship of Jesus, they would also have understood what He said to them of the Father. — érav vwoonte, etc.] when ye shall have lifted wp, namely, on to the cross. Comp. on ii. 14, vi 62. The crucifixion is treated as an act of the Jews, who brought it about, as also in Acts iii. 14 f. — Tote yveo.] 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 d0€a, 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 jude- ment). Then shall your eyes be opened, which will take place partly with your own will, and still in time (as in Acts il. 36. ff, iv. 4, vi. 7; Rom. xi. 11 ff); partly against -your will, and too late (comp. on Matt. xxiii. 39; Luke xiii. 34 f.). Bengel aptly remarks: “ cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex verbo non creditis."—xal am’ éwavrod, etc.] still dependent on érz, and, indeed, as far as per’ Ewod éotiv; so that to the universal mow, the special XaA@ and the general per’ euod éotw (is my helper and support) together correspond. Hence there is no brevity of discourse requiring to be completed by supplying in thought AaA@ to mow, and mow along with Aade (De Wette, after Bengel). Nonnus already took the correct view (he begins ver. 29 with ér7e xa, etc.); and the objection (Liicke, De Wette, and several others) that ov« adie, etc. would then stand too disconnected, has no force, since it is just in John that the asyndetic continuation of a discourse is very common, and, in fact, would also be the case here if nal o wéuy. etc. were no longer dependent on 671. — tadra] is arbitrarily and without precedent (Matt. ix. 33 cannot be adduced as one) explained as equivalent to oitws, from a commingling of two notions. By the demonstrative ratra 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.c. 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.— od« adijxe, etc.] Indepen- on THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, dent corroboration of the last thought, negatively expressed on account of His apparent forsakenness in the face of many and powerful enemies. The Praet. refers to the experience felt in every case, during the course of His entire activity, until now (comp. afterwards mdytote), not to the point of time when He was sent ; the reason afterwards assigned would not be appro- priate to this latter reference. Comp. also xvi. 32.— 6rv éya, etc.] because I, etc. Reason assigned for the ov« adie, etc. How could He ever leave me alone, as I am He who, ete. ? (€y® with emphasis).. Comp. xv.10. Olshausen regards ovx adixe, etc. as the expression of equality of essence, and 6te as assigning the ground of His knowledge. The former idea is erroneous, as the meaning of ov« adie, etc. is identical with that of wer’ éuod éotiwv; and the latter would be an inadequate reason, because it relates merely to moral agreement. Vy. 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 vy. 12, 21.— Notice the separation of the persons in question. The wodXod are many among His hearers in general; among these zrodAoé 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 con- verting them into opponents ; hence there is no inconsistency in His treatment of His hearers. — remit. avte@] previously émiot. ets avtov. The latter was the consequence of their having believed Him, ic. His words. —éav bpeis, ete.] if you on your part, etc.; for they were mixed up with the unbeliey- ing crowd, and by means of vpets are selected from it as the persons to whom the admonition and promise are addressed. They are to abide in the word of Jesus, that is, as in the per- manent element of their inner and outer life. For another form of the conception, see ver. 38, xv. 7, xii. 47. Comp. 2 John 9.—ddrn@Gs] really, not merely in appearance, after being momentarily carried away. — yveoecbe r. adnO.] for divine truth is the content of the Aoyos of Christ, Christ Him- 1 Mere susceptibility to salvation is not termed Faith by John, as Messner (Lehre der Ap. p. 849) assumes in reference to this passage. Also not in vi. 69, or 1 John iv. 16. CHAP. VIII. 83. ae self is its possessor and vehicle; and the knowledge of it, therefore, first commences when a man believes, inasmuch as the knowledge is the inwardly experienced, living, and moral intelligence of faith (xvii. 17; 1 Johni. 3 ff.). — éXevGep.| from the slavery, 7.e. from the determining power, of sin. See ver. 34; Rom. vi. 18 ff. “ Ea lbertas est, quae pectus purum et firmum gestitat” (Ennius, fr. 340). Divine truth is conceived as the causa medians of that regeneration and sanctification which makes him morally free who is justified by faith. Comp. Rom. vii. 2; Jas. 1. 20, 1. 12. Ver. 33. “Amwexpi@nacav| No others can be the subject, but the wemicrevxotes avTo ’Iovdaiot, ver. 31. So correctly, Melancthon (“offensi resiliunt”), Maldonatus, Bengel, Ols- hausen, Kling, B. Crusius, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Ewald, and several others, after the example of Chrysostom, who aptly observes: Katérecev eVOéws adtav 1) Siavoia ToUTO 5é yéyovev amo TOU Tpos TO KoopiKa éemTonoGar, John himself has pre- cluded us from supposing any other to be intended, by expressly referring (ver. 31) to those Jews among the zroAXoé (ver. 30) who had believed, and emphatically marking them as the persons who conduct the following conversation. To them 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 (as do Augustine, Calvin, Lampe, Kuinoel, De Wette, Tholuck, Liicke, Maier, Hengsten- berg), and different from those who were mentioned in ver. 31 (atrexp. they, indef.) ; nor do the words €nretré we azoxr. in ver. 37 necessitate this supposition, inasmuch as those remuotevKores 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. 32. Accordingly, there is no warrant for saying with Luthardt that the reply came primarily from opponents, but that some of those who believed also chimed in from want of understanding. The text speaks exclusively of wemurtevKotes. —oméppa’ ABp. écp.] to which, as being destined to become a blessing to, and to have domi- nion over, the world (comp. Gen. xxii. 17 f., xvii. 16), a state of bondage is something completely foreign. As every Hebrew servant was a son of Abraham, this major premiss of their VOL. II. Cc 34 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. argument shows that they had in view, not their zndividual or civil (Grotius, Liicke, Godet), but their national liberty. At the same time, in their passion 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 semblance of political independence (Joseph. Sell. 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 distinction between dominion de facto and de jure, the latter of which the Jews deny (Lange, Tholuck). Selden had already distinguished between servitus extrinseca and intrinseca (the latter of which would be denied by the Jews). On the passionate pride taken by the Jews in their freedom, and the ruinous conse- quences it brought upon them, see Lightfoot, p. 1045. According to Luthardt, they protest against spiritual depend- ence, 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 mis- understanding 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 «Anpovowia Tov Koouov (comp. Rom. iv. 13), which in their imaginations excluded every sort of national bondage? Because they were Abraham’s seed, they felt themselves as aiua dépovtes adéo- motov (Nonnus). Ver. 34. Aetxvvow (and that with solemn asseveration), ove Sovrciav évédnvev avwtépw tiv €€ apaptias, ov THv éx Svvac- elas avOperov, Euth. Zigabenus.— 06 ovr] instead of keeping himself free from it.—doddos] as to His moral personality or Ego, comp. as to the figure and subject-matter, Rom. vi. 17 ff, vii. 14 ff Analogous examples from the Classics in Wetstein ; from Philo in Loesner, p. 149. Vv. 35, 36. But what prospect is there before the slave of CHAP. VIII. 35, 36. 35 sin? Exclusion 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. 30. The application intended to be made of this general principle is this: “The servant of sin does not remain eternally in the theocracy, 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 0 dodAos is intended to refer to Ishmael as a type of the bastard sons of Abraham, and 6 vids to Isaac as a type of Christ (Ebrard) ; such a view rather is out of accord with this general expression in its present tense form, which simply marks an universally exist- ing legal relation between the different positions of the slave and the Son of the house.—eis tov ali@va] for ever, an expression to be understood in harmony with the relation which has been figuratively represented. After aidva a full stop should be inserted, with Lachmann and Kling, because éay ovy, etc., is a consequence deduced simply from o vids p. ets T. ai., not from what precedes, and because © vids, etc., begins a new section in the logical progress of the discourse. The course of thought, namely, 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 bonds- man, who must quit the house, is that of the Son (of the Master of the house) ; hence it is this latter who procures for you actual freedom.—o vids péves eis T. ai@val namely, év Th oixia,—also a general proposition or principle, but with an intentional application of the general expression 6 vids to Christ, who, as the Son of God, retains for ever His position and power in the house of God, wc. in the theocracy ;* comp. Heb. iii. 5, 6. From this péver eis r. aidva it follows (ody) 1 If the man who is morally free be supposed to be the object of the intended pplication of ¢ viss—the man, namely, who ‘‘holds not merely an historical re- ation to God, but one that is essential, because ethically conditioned ” (Luthardt, omp. De Wette)—we should have to take the second 4 viss in the sensu eminenti of Christ). The text, however, especially as ver. 36 is connected with ver. 35 y ety, offers no ground for this distinction. Hence, also, it is wrong to apply vids in ver. 35 to those who are liberated by Christ along with Christ (Heng- tenberg). These first come under consideration in ver. 36. 36 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. that if He frees from the state of a bondsman, a veal and not merely an apparent freedom commences, seeing 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 é£ovcia would then lack certainty and permanence, so the freedom He procured would also lack the guarantee of reality. This line of argumentation presupposes, moreover, that the Father does not Himself directly act in the theocracy ; He has entrusted to the Son the power and con- trol. —- The reference of 0 S0dXo0s to Moses (Euth. Zigabenus, after Chrysostom) is foreign and opposed to the text, see ver. 34. Grotius, however, aptly remarks: “tribuitur hic filio quod modo veritati, quia eam profert filius.” —évt@s| _ in reality; every other freedom is mere appearance (comp. ver. 33), not corresponding to its true nature; no other is — } TavTenys Kal ato Tacdv apyav édevOepia (Plat. Legg. iii. p- 698 A), which alone is that gained through Christ, 1 Cor. ii. 22; Rom. vi. 35, 36; 2 Cor. vi. 4, 5. Ver. 37. Now also He denies that they are children of Abraham, although hitherto they had boastfully relied on the fact as the premiss of their freedom, ver. 33. — adAa Enrette] How opposed to a true, spiritual descent from Abraham! The reproach, however, had its justification, be- cause these Jews had already turned round again, and the: death of Jesus was the goal of the hierarchical opposition. — ov ywpet év vytv] has no progress in you, in your heart. This view of the meaning, which is philologically correct (Plat. Legg. iii. p. 684 E; Eryx. p. 398 B; 4 ewerrev 0 AOyos Ywpy- ceoOat ai’t@; Herod. iii. 42, v. 89; Xen. Occ. 1.11; Polyb. 28. 15, 12, 10. 15, 4; Aristoph. Paz, 472; Ran. 472% 2 Mace. iii. 40), 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 con- trary, they had gone back again after believing for a moment. Hence, also, it is not allowable to take év dpi as equivalent to inter vos (Liicke, Hengstenberg). Others interpret: Jt finds CHAP. VIII. 38. 37 no place in you (Vulgate: non capit in vobis; so Origen? Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Aretius, Maldonatus, Corn. a Lapide, Jansen, and several others; also B. Crusius, Ewald, and Baeumlein). Without any warrant from usage.’ Others again render: It finds no entrance into you; so that év vyiv would be used pregnantly, indicating the per- sistence that follows upon movement. So Nonnus, Grotius, Kuinoel, De Wette, Maier, Tholuck, Luthardt. The expression would have to be referred back to the meaning——move forward, stretch forward (Wisdom vii. 23; 2 Pet. ii. 9, and frequently in classical writers). But this explanation is neither indi- cated by the text (for the words are not es duds), nor is it even appropriate to the sense, seeing that the word of Christ had actually stirred those men to momentary faith. At the same time, this explanation, however, is forced on those who refuse to regard the memiorevxotes in ver. 31 as those who answer in ver. 33. Ver. 38. 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. — éwpaxa 1. tT. matpt] by which Jesus means the intuition of the divine truth which He derived from His pre- human state (comp. on ver. 28), not from His intercourse with God in time (Godet, Beyschlag), as though this latter were involved in the parallel cai tdpets, whereas the difference in the analogous relation is already betrayed by the very differ- ence of expression (jKoveate and mapa tod tTatpos).— Kal vpmets ovr] you also therefore, following my example of dependence on the Father. There is a stinging irony in the word odv. — jKxovcaTe] ic. 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, how- ever, the devil, whose children, ethically considered, they are ; whereas He is the Son of God in the essential, metaphysical sense. — 7rovette]| habitual doing (vu. 51), including, but not 1 Aristot. H. A. ix. 40, is not relevant; xwpe7 there is impersonal, and the words mean: if there is no advance in their work. —The sense: It has no place in you, ought to have been expressed. rov Asyoy ob yupeire tv wiv. Comp. xxi. 25, and see on 2 Cor, vii. 2. 38 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. exclusively referring to, their wish to kill Him (ver. 37). It is indicative, and no more imperative (Hengstenberg, after Matt. xxiii. 32) than in ver. 41. Vv. 39, 40. The Jews observe that He means another father than Abraham. — Jesus proves tc 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 distinc- tion is drawn, as in Rom. ix. 8, between the fleshly owépya and the moral réxva. — In the reading éare (see the critical notes) there is a change in the view of the relationship, as in Luke xvii. 5 f. See remarks on the passage. On the non-employ- ment of dv, see Buttmann in Studien u. Kritiken for 1858, p. 485, and his Weutest. Gramm. p. 195 [E. T. p. 224]. — vov 5é] but under such circumstances, nunc autem. — dv@pwrov in reference to mapa 7. Oeov. The AeAdAnKa following in the jirst person is regular; see Buttm. Neut. Gramm. p. 241 [E. T. p- 396 ].—rodTo] seek to take the life of a man who speaks the truth which he has heard of God—that 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.—apa tod 6cod] when I was in my pre-human state, mapa 76 qatpt pov, ver. 38. To this view av@pwrov is not opposed (Bey- schlag), 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 is,in the habit of doing,— result of vv. 39, 40, though séi2 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 é« mopveias) and a putative one (Abraham). But inasmuch as 1 The expression is a Litotes (‘‘ From the like of this the God-fearing spirit of the patriarch was far removed”), but all the more fitted to put them to shame. CHAP. VIII. 41. 39 their descent is not an adulterous one,’ and notwithstanding that Abraham is not to be regarded as their father, there remains in opposition to the assertion of Jesus, so they think, only God as the one Father; to Him, therefore, they assign this position: “ We be not born of fornication,” as thou seemest to assume, in that thou refusest to allow that Abraham 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 thcoeratic Father of the people (Isa. lxiii. 16, lxiv. 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 supposition that they implicitly drew a contrast between themselves and Jshmael (Euth. Zigabenus, who thinks that there is an allusion to the birth of Jesus, Ruperti, Wetstein, Tittmann) is erroneous, Inasmuch as Ishmael was not born é« mopveias. We must reject also the common explanation of the passage as a denial of the charge of idolatry (Hos. 1. 2, i. 4; Ezek. xx. 30; Isa. lvu. 3); “our filial relationship to God has not been polluted by idolatry” (De Wette; comp. Grotius, Lampe, Kuinoel, Liicke, Tholuck, Lange, Hengsten- berg, Baeumlein, and several others). It is quite opposed to ‘the context, however, for 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 antithesis to a combined Jewish and heathen descent (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theophylact, Godet), such as was the case with 1°Ex xopyeias implies one mother, but several fathers. Who is the one mother, follows from the denial of the paternity of Abraham, consequently Sarah, the ancestress 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 conceived as a true God, conse- quently as a strange God, a notion which Luthardt justly rejects. It is sur- prising how B. Crusius could adduce Deut. xxiii. 2 for the purpose of repre- ' senting the Jews as affirming their theocratic equality of birth. 40 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. the Samaritans (Paulus), is inadmissible. Ewald also takes the same simple and correct view ;' comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. Bengel, however, aptly characterizes the entire objection raised by the Jews as a “novus importunitatis Judaicae paroxysmus.” — pets] spoken with the emphasis of pride. Ver. 42 f. God is not your Father, else would ye Jove me, because ye would be of like descent with me; évds yeyawta ToKHos appayéos Pirins adwTo Evvoecarte Oecua, Nonnus. This ayaTrate dv éwe would be “the ethical test” (Luthardt) of the like paternity ; the fact of its non-existence, although it might have existed, is evidence to the contrary. — éy#] spoken with a feeling of divine assurance. — €£9X@ov] the proceeding forth from that essential pre-hwman fellowship with God, which was His as the Son of God, and which took place through the in- carnation (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 is the Fatherhood of God ; comp. vi. 62, xvii. 5.—«xal Hx@] Result of the é&Mr@ov: and am here, it belongs, along with the rest, also to é« +. Oeov.—ovdée yap an éuwavTod, etc.] Confirmation of é« t. Geod, etc.; for not even 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, af’ éavtod ; 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 declaring whose children they actually are, He discloses to them the ground of their not understanding His discourse ; for everything that they had advanced from ver. 33 onwards had been in fact such a non-understanding. The form of ex- pression here used, namely, question and answer (6te, because ; comp. Rom. ix. 32; 2 Cor. xi. 11), is an outflow of the grow- 1 Although characterized by Ebrard as absurd. He regards tx sopysing ob yey. as merely a ‘‘caricatured form” of the accusation 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 tva rarépe ?xouevin the sense of we and thow have one common Father, which is incompatible with the word 7z:7s, which also belongs to tye», and is, besides, altogether opposed to the context; for the entire dialogue is con- stituted by the antithesis of we and thou, J and ye. Ebrard’s view is an unfor- tunate evasion of a desperate kind. CHAP. VIIL. 44. 41 ing excitement; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 186, 347. De Wette (comp. Luther, Beza, Calvin) takes é7¢ as equivalent to eis €xeivo OTe (see on ii. 18): “I say this with reference to the circumstance that.” JIllogical, as the clauses must then have stood in the reverse order (Scati od d¥vacOe . . . OTL THY AaXLAY, etc.), because, namely, the words ov ywacxere denote 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 appre- hension, because they had no ears for it. For the cause of this ethical od dvvacGe, see ver. 47. AaXded, which in classi- cal Greek denoted talk, chatter (see on iv. 42), signifies in later writers (eg. Polyb. 32. 9, 4; Joseph. Bell. ii. 8. 5), and in the LXX. and Apocrypha, also Discourse, Sermo,’ without any contemptuous meaning. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 73. So also here ; indeed, so different is it from o Novos, that whilst this last mentioned term denotes the doctrinal substance expressed by the Aadva,—the doctrine, the substance of that which is delivered,’-—Aariad denotes the utterance itself, by which ex- pression is given to the doctrine. Comp. xii. 48: 0 Adyos dv éAdAnoa; Phil. i. 14; Heb. xii. 7. Ver. 44. After the negative statement in vv. 42, 43 comes now the positive: Ye (vets, with great, decided emphasis— ye people, who deem yourselves children of God!) are children of the devil,’ in the sense, namely, of ethical genesis (comp. ?On AéaAsos in bonam partem, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. vi. p. 99, vii. p. 140. 2 Comp. Weizsiicker in d. Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 196 f. But in the gospel it is always the verbum vocale, and it should not be confounded with the Ady; of the prologue, which is the verbum substantiale; hence, also, it fur- nishes no evidence of a deviation from the doctrine of the Logos. The con- sciousness Jesus possessed of speaking, keeping, doing, etc., the acyos of God, rested on His consciousness ot His being that which is denoted by the Logos of the prologue. Now this consciousness is not the abstract divine, but that of the divine-human Ego, corresponding to the Asyos cape tyivero. 3 In his Leben Jesu (p. 338 ff.), Schleiermacher groundlessly advances the opinion that Jesus had here no intention of teaching any doctrine regarding the devil, but wished merely to add force to His reproach by referring to the generally- adopted interpretation of the narrative of the fall. On the contrary, by His reproach, he not merely lays down the doctrine, but also further intentionally and explicitly expounds it, especially by assigning the ground, érs obx teri, etc. Baur (still in his Newt. Theol. p. 393) deduces from this passage that, according 42 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 1 John iii. 8, 12), which is further explained from éxeivos onward. The expression must therefore not be regarded as teaching an original difference in the natures of men (Hilgen- feld, comp. on ili. 6).— é« tod warp. t. dva8.] of the father who ws the devil, not of your father, etc. (De Wette, Liicke), which is inappropriate after the emphatic tpe?s, or ought to have been specially marked as emphatic (tpeis 逫 Tod tuav matpos, ete.). Nonnus well indicates the qualitative character of the expression: tyes Sita téxva Svcaytéos éoté ToKHos. 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 unbiblical, but thoroughly un-Johannine, and here opposed to the context. John could have written simply é« tod dva8., 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 as though it ran—Tov matp. Tov SiaBorwv. — Kal Tas é7LOupias, ete. ] The conscious will of the child of the devil is to accomplish 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 referred to, though, as even the plural émtOupias shows, it is included. — éxefvos, etc.] for murder and lying were just the two devilish lusts which they were minded to carry out against Jesus. — av@pwroKtovos hv am apxins| from the beginning of the human race. This more exact determination of the meaning is derivable from av@po- moxTovos, inasmuch as it was through his seduction that the fall was brought about, in whose train death entered into the world (see on Rom. v. 12). So Origen, Chrysostom, Augus- tine, Theophylact, and the majority of commentators; also Kuinoel, Schleiermacher, Tholuck, Olshausen, Klee, Maier, Lange (referring it, however, after the example of Euth. Ziga- benus, also to Cain), Luthardt, Ewald, Godet, Hofmann, Schrift- to John, Jesus had little sympathy for the Jews. He is speaking, however, not at all against the Jews in general, but merely against the party that was hostile to Him. CHAP, VIII. 44. 43 beweis, I. pp. 418,478; Miiller, Lehre v. d. Siinde, II. p. 544 f. ed. 5; Lechler in the Stud. wu. Kritik. 1854, p. 814 f.; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 355; Messner, Lehre d. Apostel, p. 332; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, III. p. 272; see especially Hengsten- berg on the passage, and his Christol. I. p. 8 ff.; Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 133 f. Compare the corresponding parallels, Wisd. ii. 24; Apoc. xii. 9, xx. 2; also Ev. Nicod. 23, where the devil is termed % Tod Oavatou apy, 7 pifa Tis dpaptias ; see also Grimm on Wisd.i. 1. This view is the only one that is appropriate to the expression am’ apxis, which the design of the context requires to be taken exactly (mvixna jp, Light- foot, p. 1045), as it must also be understood in 1 John iii. 8. Comp. Joseph. Antig. I. 1, 4. Others refer to Cain’s murder of his brother (Cyril, Nitzsch in the Berl. theol. Zeitschr. III. p. 52 ff., Schulthess, Liicke, Kling, De Wette, Reuss, Bevtr. p. 53, Hilgenfeld, Baeumlein, Grimm), which is not, however, rendered. necessary by 1 John in. 12, and would further, without any warrant, exclude an earlier commencement; would be opposed to the national and New Testament view (see on 2 Cor. xi. 3) of the fall and the connection of the present passage ; and would finally lack any allusion to it in Gen. iv. ; whilst, on the contrary, the antithesis between truth and falsehood, which follows afterwards, points unmistakeably to ‘Gen. iii. Finally, inasmuch as am’ dpyfs must signify some definite historical 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@pwroxt. am’ dpxfs as simply a general designation.—Briickner also treats the reference to a definite fact as unnecessary. — 7] that is, during the entire past, am’ apyns onwards. — x. €v TH adn. odX ExtHKEV] does not refer to the fall of the devil (2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6), as Augus- tine, Nonnus, and most Catholics maintain,’ as though eioriKet (Vulg.: stetit) had been employed, but is his constant charac- 1 Comp. also Martensen’s Dogmatics, § 105. Delitzsch, too (see Psychol. p- 62), explains the passage as though sieryxe: 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 173) 17M, etc. In this way a new creation of the world is made out of the creation in Gen. i., and out of the first act in the history of the world, a second, 44 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. teristic :' and he does not abide in the truth, éupéves, dvatraverat, Euth. Zigabenus. The ¢éruth is the domain in which he has not his footing; to him it is a foreign, heterogeneous sphere of life: the truth is the opposite of the lie, both in formal and material significance. The le is the sphere in which he holds his place; in it he is in the element proper and peculiar to him; in it he has his life’s standing. —érte ot« Eoruv ar. év avT@] the inner ground of the preceding statement. The determining cause of this ner ground, however, is expressed by the words €v avt@, which are emphatically placed at the end. As truth is not found iv 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 necessarily be foreign to, and far from, the domain of objective truth, and cannot have his life and activity therein. Without truth in the inward parts, a man deals in life with lies, deception, cunning, and all déicfa.. Note that ar7@. is used first with, and then without, the article. — éx trav id/ar] of that which is his own, which constitutes the proper ground or essence of his inner man,—of that which is most peculiarly his ethical nature. Comp. Matt. xii. 34.—«. 0 ratnp avtod] namely, of the liar ; he, generically considered, to wit, the lar as such in general, is the devil’s child. The characterization of the devil thus aptly concludes with a declaration which at the same time confirms the reproach, bueis éx T. matpos Tod diaB. éoté. The less to be approved, therefore, is the common explanation of adrod, as standing for tod ~evdsous, which is to be derived from wetvorns (mendacit auctor, after Gen. iii. 4 f.) ; although, linguistically considered, it is in itself admissible (Winer, p. 181f. [E.T. p. 138]; Buttmann, p. 93 [E. T. 1 At the same time, we do not mean herewith to deny to John the idea of a fall of the devil, or, in other words, to represent him as believing the devil to have been originally evil. The passage under consideration treats merely of the evil constitution of the devil as it is, without giving any hint as to its origin. This in answer to Frommann, p. 330, Reuss, and Hilgenfeld. In relation to the doctrine of the fall of the devil nothing is here taught. Comp. Hofmann, Schrift- beweis, passim ; Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 319. Such a fall is, however, necessarily presupposed by this passage. CHAP. VIII. 45, 46. 45 p. 106]). The correct view has been taken also by B. Crusius, Luthardt, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and as early as Bengel. The old heretical explanation, “as his father,”’ or, “also his father,’ as though avrod referred to the devil, and the demiurge, whose lie is the pretending to be the most high God, were really intended (Hilgenfeld, Volkmar), must be rejected ; for, on the one hand, John ought at the very least, in order to avoid being completely misunderstood, to have written 670 autos wW. é. «. 0. 7. a.;” while, on the other hand, he did not in the remotest degree entertain the monstrous, wholly unbiblical notion of a father of the devil. Nay, further, a father of this kind would not at all harmonize with the con- text. 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, (Praef. II. p. 7), in order to avoid having to refer avdtod to the devil, should have approved the reading quit, or os dv, instead of 6rav, which is supported by the feeblest evidence: “qui loquitur mendacium, ex propriis loquitur, quia patrem quoque mendacem habet.” Ver. 45. Because I, on the contrary, speak the truth, ye believe me not — éyw Sé] for the sake of strong emphasis, in opposition to the devil, placed at the beginning; and the causative 67s, 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. uth. Zigabenus aptly remarks: e¢ peév édeyov AredOos, ériatevcaté poe adv, os TO idiov TOD TaTpOS buaY A€yovTE. To take the sentence as a question (Ewald) would weaken its tragical force. Ver. 46. Groundlessness of this unbelief. Ed yun, Score tiv arnGevav Néyw, amvoteité or, elrate, Tis EE tudv edeyyer pe TEpi awaptias UT euov yevomevns, va SoEnte Sv éxelvnv amric- tev ; Euth. Zigabenus. ‘A papria, fault, is not to be taken in the intellectual sense, as untruth, error (Origen, Cyril, Melanc- thon, Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Kypke, Tittmann, Kuinoel, Klee, and * Hence, also, the readings és and xaéi; xa/, instead of xa/, which, though early in date, are supported by feeble testimony. 2 Comp. Nonnus: Wstorns wirds Qu, Psvdsipovos tx yeveriipos, 46 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. others), but, as it is employed without exception in the N. T., namely as equivalent to sim. Jesus boldly urges against His opponents His unassailable moral purity—and how lofty a posi- tion of superiority does He thus assume above the saints of the Old Testament !—the fact that against Him can be brought apaptias dvevdos ovdev (Soph. O. C. 971), as a guarantee that He speaks the truth; justly too, for according to ver. 44 adjGea must be regarded as the opposite of yevdos, whereas a le falls under the category of dwaptia (comp. advxia, vii. 18). The conclusion is from the genus to the species; hence also it is inadmissible to take auwapria in the special sense of “fraus” (“qua divinam veritatem in mendacium converterim,” Ch. F. Fritzsche in Fritzsch. Opusc. p. 99), “wicked deception” (B. Crusius), “ sin of word” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 33 f.), “ false doctrine” (Melancthon, Calvin), and so forth. Even in classical usage awaptia, in and by itself, would denote neither error nor deception, but only acquire this specific mean- ing through an addition more precisely determining its force. Considered in itself it denotes fawlt, perversity, the opposite of opOorns (Plat. Legg. i. p. 627 D, ii. p. 668C). Comp. d0éns dpaptia, Thue. i. 32.4; vowov dwapria, Plat. Legg. i. p. 627 D; yvouns auaptnua, Thue. ii. 65. 7. Remark further, in con- nection with this important passage: (1) The argument is based, not upon the position that “ the sinless one is the pwrest and surest organ of the knowledge and communication of the truth” (Liicke) ; or that “the knowledge of the truth is grownded in the purity of the will” (De Wette, comp. Ullmann); for this would presuppose in the consciousness in which the words are spoken, to wit, i the consciousness of Jesus, a knowledge of the truth obtained mediately, or, at all events, acquired first in His human state; whereas, on the contrary, especially according to John’s view, the knowledge of the truth possessed by Jesus was an intwitive one, one possessed by Him in His pre-hwman 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 : 1 Polyb. 16. 20, 6, is, without reason, adduced by Tholuck against this view. In the passage referred to, zuaprias are faults, goings wrong in general, The sentence is a general maxim. CHAP, VII, 46. 47 Am I really without sin—and none of you is able to convict me of the contrary,—then am I also without pedoos; but am I without wed dos, then do I speak the ¢ruth, and you, on your part (dpets), have no reason for not believing me. This reason- ing, however, is abbreviated, in that Jesus passes at once from the denial of the possibility of charging Him with aduaptia, to the positive, special contrary which follows there- from,—leaving out the middle link, that consequently no areddos can be attributed to Him,—and then continues: e arHO. r€yo (Lachmann and Tischendorf correctly without 6é). Further, (2) the proof of the sinlessness of Jesus fur- nished by this passage is purely swhyectwve, so far as it rests on the decided expression of His own moral consciousness 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 redemp- tion and for the function of judge. This self-witness of Jesus, on the one hand, bears on itself the seal of immediate truth (otherwise, namely, Jesus would have been chargeable with a KavxaoGae of self-righteousness or self-deception, which is in- conceivable 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 fact of the work of reconciliation. (3) The sinlessness itself, to which Jesus here lays claim, is in so far relative, as it is not absolutely divine, but both is and must be divine-human, and was based on the human development of the Son of God. He was actually tempted, and might have sinned; this abstract possibility, how- ever, never became a reality. On the contrary, at every moment of His life it was raised into a practical impossi- bility. Thus He /earned obedience (Heb. v. 8). Hence the sinlessness of Jesus, being the result of a normal development which, at every stage of His earthly existence, was in perfect 1 Comp. Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 212. At the same time, the sinless development of Jesus is not to be subsumed under the conception of sanctification.. See also Dorner’s Sinless Perfection of Jesus, and the striking remarks of Keim, Geschichtl. Chr. p. 109 ff., ed. 3, also p. 189 f. 2 Any moral stain in Christ would have been a negation of His consciousness of being the Redeemer and Judge. 48 TIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. conformity with the God-united ground of His inner life (comp. Luke 11, 40, 52), must always be regarded as con- ditioned, so far as the human manifestation of Jesus is con- cerned, by the entrance of the Logos into the relation of growth ; whilst the unconditioned correlate thereto, 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 development is shown to be groundless by the historic fact of the sinlessness of Jesus. See Ernesti, Ursprung der Siinde, I. p. 187 ff. 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 (vets) €x Tod Oeod ov« éeoré. That Jesus speaks the words of God is here taken for granted. The major premiss 1s grounded on the necessary sympathy between God and him who springs from God, who hears the words of God, that is, as such, he has an ear for them. The words, é« tod Oeod eivaz, in the sense of being spiritually constituted by God, do not refer to Christian regeneration and to sonship,—for this first begins through faith,—but merely to a preliminary stadium thereof, to wit, the state of the man whom God draws to Christ by the operation of His grace (v1. 44), and who is thus prepared for His divine preaching, and is given to Him as His (vi. 37). Compare xvii. 6. — 61a tod To—671] as inv. 16, 18. See on x. 17.—Note in connection 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 rise 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 CHAP. VIII. 48, 49. 49 same time, it is incorrect to suppose that He assumes the existence of two classes of human nature differing radically from each other at the very outset (Baur, Hilgenfeld). On the contrary, the moral self-determination by which a man sur- renders himself either to the one or the other principle, 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 har- dened (ver. 43). The problem of the metaphysical relation between human freedom and the superhuman power referred to, 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 i. 12,iv. 4. But the freedom itself, in face of that power, and the moral impu- tation and responsibility remain intact, comp. ii. 19-21. Vv. 48, 49. In ver. 42 ffi 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 confirma- tion of the accusation which they bring against Him (Aéyopev) of being a Samaritan, z.c. an heretical antagonist of the pure people of God (for in this light did they view that despised people of mixed race), and possessed with a devil (vii. 20). So paradoxical, not merely presumptuous (as Luthardt explains Sapap.), and so crazed did the discourse of Jesus appear to them. No reference whatever was intended to iv. 5 ff. (Brickner, Ewald). On xaros, aptly, comp. iv. 17, xii. 13.—Ver. 49. €y@ Satmov. ovx Exo, etc.] The emphatic éyo does not contain a retort by which the demoniacal element would be ascribed to His opponents (Cyril, Liicke)—a reference which would require to be indicated by arranging the words ovx éyo Say. Exo,—but stands simply in opposition to the following kat vpets. With quiet earnestness, leaving un- noticed the reproach of being a Samaritan, Jesus replies: I for my part am not possessed, but honowr (by discourses which you consider demoniacal, but by which I in reality preserve and promote the glory of God) my Father; and you, on your part, what is it that you do? You dishonouwr me! Thus does He unveil to them the wnrighteousness of their abusive language. VOL, II. D 50 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Vv. 50, 51.-Z, however, in contrast to this unrighteousness by which you wound my honour, seek not the honour which belongs to me—éortiv o Ent. x. Kpivey, there is one (comp. v. 45) who seeks it (“qui me honore afficere velit,” Grotius), and pronounces judgment, that is, as a matter of fact, between me and my revilers. The expression cali xpivwy includes a reference, on the one hand, to the glorification of Jesus, by which He was to be justified (xvi 10; comp. the 6.0, Phil. i. 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 as necessary to the obtaining of eternal life, instead of this punitive «pious, to wit, the keeping of His word; thus de- eiding that the exclusion of His opponents from eternal life ‘was inevitable as long as they did not return to wetavora ; but also pointing 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 discourse to His enemies. Calvin and De Wette remark: After a pause, Jesus turns again to those who believed on Him, in the sense of ver. 31. 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 continuation of ver. 50. The connection with ver. 50 is in this way like- wise surrendered. The discourse is a direct continuation of the import of «al xpivwv, for the result of this xpivew to the opponents of Jesus is death. — éav T1s, etc.| Note the emphasis which is given to the pronoun by the arrangement of the words tov éuov Aoyov. It is the word of Christ, whose keep- ing has so great an effect. typety is not merely keeping in the heart (Tholuck), but, as always, when united with rov Noxyov, Tas évTonras, etc., keeping by fulfilling them (ver. 55, xiv. 15, 21, 23f, xv. 20, xvu. 6). This fulfilment includes even the faith demanded by Jesus (iii. 36; comp. the concep- tion of taxon rictews), and also the accomplishment of all the duties of life which He enjoins as the fruit and test of faith. — @avarov ov pw Oewp. eis T. at.|] not: he will not die sor ever (Kaeuffer, de fwAs aiwy., not. p. 114), but: he will mever die, t.e. he will live eternally. Comp. ver. 52, xi. 25 ff, CHAP. VIII. 52-55. 51 v. 25, vi. 50. Death is here the antithesis to the Messianic Sw, which the believer possesses even in its temporal develop- ment, and which he will never lose—On @ewp. comp. Ps. Ixxxix. 44; Luke i. 25; see also on iii. 36. The article is not necessary to @dvaros (xi. 4, and very frequently in the N. T.) ; see Ellendt, Lew. Soph. I. p. 234. Vy. 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-exaltation for Jesus to ascribe to His word, and therefore to Himself, greater power of life than was possessed by Abraham and the prophets, who had not been able to escape death.—vdv éyvax.| “ antea cum dubitatione aliqua locuti erant,’ in ver. 48, Bengel. — yevonTat] a different and stronger designation, not intention- ally selected, but the result of excitement. Comp. on the expression Matt. xvi. 28, and the Rabbis as quoted by Schoett- gen and Wetstein; Leon. Alex. 41: yevecOar aoropyou Gavarov. The image employed, probably not derived from a death-cwp,—a supposition which is not favoured by the very common use of the expression in other connections,—-serves to set forth to the senses the mixporns, the bitterness of expe- Yiencing death. Comp. the classical expressions, yeveo@ar mévOovs, Eur. Ale. 1072; poyOov, Soph. Trach. 1091; Kaxdv, Luc. Nigr. 28; mover, Pind. Nem. 6. 41; zevins, Maced. 3 ; dictov, Hom. Od. , 98, yetpov v, 181. The kind of experience denoted by yevecOar is always specified in the context. — Ver. 55. Surely thou art not greater (furnished with greater power against death), and so forth; ov is emphatic. Comp. iv. 12.—dortus] quippe qui, who verily ; assigning the ground. —tiva ceavt. toveis| What sort of one dost thow make thyself? (v. 18, x. 33, xix. 7), “quem te venditas ?” (Grotius), that thy word should produce such an effect ? Vy. 54, 55. Justification against the charge of self-exalta- tion contained in the words tiva ceavt. wovis. Jesus gives this justification a general form, and then proceeds to make a special declaration regarding Abraham, which makes it clear that He is really greater than Abraham. — éya—épavrov] emphatic designation of self (comp. v. 30, 31, vii. 17); 52 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. do€adcw, however, is not the future [see the critical notes} (although édy with the indicative is not absolutely to be con- demned ; see on Luke xix. 40; Matt. xvii. 19), but, according to regular usage, the Conj. Aor.: im case I shall have glorified myself. —éoriv 0 TatHp pou, etc.] my Father is the one who glorifies me, He is my glorifier. The Partic. Praes. with the article has a swbstantival force, and denotes habitual, continwous doing ; hence it refers not merely to a particular mode and act of do€afewv exclusively, but to its whole course (in the works wrought, in the divine testimonies, and in His final glorifica- tion).—ov duets AéveTe, etc.] On the construction see x. 36. Comp. on v. 27, ix. 19; Acts xxi. 29. Jesus unfolds to them why this activity of God, by which He is honoured, is hidden from them; notwithstanding, namely, their theocratic fancy, “it is our God,” they have not known God.’ Jesus, on the contrary, is certain that He knows Him, and keeps His word. —6pmotos vpav yevotns] a liar like unto you. “ Mendax est qui vel affirmat neganda, vel negat afirmanda,’ Bengel. The charge points back to ver. 44; dmovos with the Gen. as in Theophr. H. pl. ix. 11, also Xen. Anad. iv. 1. 17; see Bor- nemann, ad h. 1.—andXra] but, far from being such a lar. — TOV NOY. avT. THP@] 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. 1. 8; Rom. v. 19;. 1 Not because they held another divine 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., and had not under- stood His highest revelation in Christ, in consequence of their blindness and hardness of heart. Comp. ver. 19, and see Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 60f. In Hil- genfeld’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 easily show it to be taught by Paul, especially in the sharp antagonism he assumes between véues and x%pis,—if one desired, i.e. if one were willing to bring down this apostle to the period of transition from the Valentinian to the Marcionite Gnosis. 2 Regarding Himself, Jesus does not say Zyvwxe (although considered in itself He might have said it, comp. xvii. 25), because He here speaks in the conscious- ness of His immediate, essential knowledge of the Father.—According to Ewald, the words, ‘‘ J¢ is ow God,” contain an allusion to well-known songs and prayers which were constantly repeated. But the frequent occurrence of ‘‘ our God” in the 0. T. is quite sufficient to explain their import. CHAP. VIII. 56. 5a Heb. v. 8) to the divine will, whose injunctions He constantly discerned in- His fellowship with the Father, iv. 34. Comp. as to the subject-matter, ver. 29. Ver. 56. Eira xatacxevater kat ote peifwv este tov ’ABp., Euth. Zigabenus, and, indeed, in such a manner, that He, at the same time, puts the hostile children of Abraham to shame. —o Tatp vue@r] with a reproving glance back to ver. 39. —nyarALacato, iva ibn] he exulted to see; the object of his exultation is conceived as the goal to whose attainment the joyous movement of the heart is directed. He rejoiced in the anticipation of seeing my day, 2.e. of witnessing the day of my appearance on earth.” As to its historical date, 7yaNdacato does not refer to an event in the paradisaical life of Abraham ; but, as Abraham was the recipient of the Messianic promise, which described, on the one hand, the Messiah as His own omépua, himself, however, on the other hand, 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. is 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, there is no need for an express testimony to the 7yaXn. 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. wnd Hrfiill. Il. p. 13, is inadmis- sible, on a correct explanation of the passage). So much, however, is presupposed, namely, that Abraham recognised the Messianic character of the divine promise ; and this we are justified in presupposing in him who was the chosen recipient of divine revelations. or inventions of the Rabbis regarding revelations 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 percep- 1 nutpe 1 tu4 expressly denotes (hence not ras tytpas r&s tudés, comp. Luke XVil. 22) the exact, particular day of the appearance of Christ on earth, i.e. the day of His birth (Job iii. 1; Diog. L. 4. 41), from the Johannine point of view, the day on which the ¢ Asyos oapé tyévsro was accomplished. This was the great epoch in the history of redemption which Abraham was to behold. 54 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tion thereof through the living to see it, Luke xvii. 22; Polyb. x. 4.17; Soph. 0. &.831,1528; and see Wetstein and Kypke on the passage) to which (iva) the exultation of Abraham was directed, was, for the soul of the patriarch, a moment of the indefinite future. And this seeing was realized, not during his earthly life, but in his paradisaical state (comp. Lampe, Liicke, Tholuck, De Wette, Maier, Luthardt, Lechler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 817, Lange, Baeumlein, Ebrard, Godet), 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 Messiah. In like manner the advent of Jesus on the earth was made known to Moses and Elias (Matt. xvii. 4), which fact, however, does not justify us in supposing that reference is here made to occurrences similar to the transfiguration (Ewald). In Paradise Abraham saw the day of Christ; 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 cal cide kat éyapn; it is impos- sible, however, to determine exactly the form under which the etoe was vouchsafed to him, though it ought not to be explained with B. Crusius as mere anticipation. We must rest con- tented with the idea of divine information. The apocryphal romance, Testamentum Levi, p. 586 f. (which tells us that the Messiah Himself opens the gates of Paradise, feeds the saints from the tree of life, etc., and then adds: rote @yaXXtaceTat "ABpadp cat ’Ioadk x. ’IlaxaB Kayo yapnoopat Kal raves ob dytot évdvcovtas evppoovvynv), merely supplies a general confir- mation 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 pro- mise (yadNacarto, iva ién, etc.) and fulfilment («ai cide x. éydpn), 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 appearance, ze. the day of the incarnation of the promised One on earth, it is not allowable to understand by it, either, with Raphelius and Hengstenberg, the appearance of the angel of the Lord (Gen. xviii), ie. of the Logos, to Abraham; or, with Luther, “the vision of faith with the heart” at the announcement made CHAP. VIII. 57. 55 in Gen. xxii 18 (comp. Melancthon, Calvin, and Calovius) ;* or, with Olshausen, a prophetic vision of the d0&a of Christ (comp. xii. 41); or, with Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, and most of the older commentators, also Hofmann, the beholding of an event which merely prefigured the day of Christ, a typical beholding, whether the birth of Isaac be regarded as the event in question (Hofmann; see also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 304 f.), 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, in the Stud. und Krit. 1859, p. 518 f,, 1867, p. 507f, 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 (comp. Hengstenberg), and, by the expression %uépa 1 éuy, to have denoted a time of special, actual revelation. Taken thus, however, the day in question would be only mediately the day of Christ; whereas, according to the connection and the express designation Tv neepav thv ewnv, Christ Himself must be the «dnmediate subject of the day, as the one whose appearance constitutes the day emphatically His—His xar’ é£oynv, analogously to _ the day of His second advent (Luke xvii. 24; 1 Cor. i. 8, fee Cor, Pass Pika) 6. 16+ I Thess; -v. 2: 2' Thess. li. 2); hence, also, the plural had not to be employed (in answer to Linder’s objection). — cai éyapn] appropriately interchanged for 7yaAX., the latter corresponding to the first outburst of emotion at the unexpected proclamation. Ver. 57. The Jews, referring x. eide «. éydpn 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 with him! How absurd is this !— mevrjxovta] Placed first to indicate emphasis, cor- responding to the position afterwards assigned to the word *ABp. fifty years are specified as the period when a man attains his full growth (comp. Num. iv. 3, 39, viii. 24f.; Lightfoot, p. 1046 f.): thou hast not yet passed the full age 1 Bengel also: ‘‘ Vidit diem Christi, qui in semine, quod stellarum instar futurum erat, sidus maximum est et fulgidissimum.” 56 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of manhood! Consequently, neither the reading tercapdxovta 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 Sua Tv wodvrepiay avtod (Euth. Zigabenus); or that He looked so old (Lampe, Heumann, Paulus); or that they con- founded “the intensity of the devotion of His soul” as it showed itself in His person, with the traces of age (Lange, Life of Jesus). 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 precisely the age of Christ. In answer to E. v. Bunsen (The Hidden Wisdom of Christ, etc, Lond. 1865, II. p. 461 ff), who seeks to establish the correctness of the statement in Irenaeus, see Rosch in Die Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. 1866, p. 4 f. With- out the shehtest reason, Bunsen finds in the forty-six years of chap. iv. 2, the age of Christ.. But even Keim is not opposed to the idea of Christ being forty years of age (Gesch. Jes. I. p. 469; comp. his Geschichtl. Chr. p. 255). Ver. 58. Not a continuation of the discourse in ver. 56, so that Jesus would thus not have given any answer to the ques- tion of the Jews (B. Crusius) ; but, as the contents themselves, and the solemn dunv aunv Xr. tm. shows, an answer to ver. 57. This reply asserts even more than the Jews had asked, namely, mpty, etc., before Abraham became, or was born (not: was, as Tholuck, De Wette, Ewald, and others translate),’ J am; older than Abraham’s origin is my existence. As Abraham had not pre-existed, but came into existence? (by birth), therefore yevé- oOac is used; whereas e¢wi denotes being per se, which belonged to Jesus, so far as He existed before time, as to His divine nature, without having previously come into being. Comp. J. 1. 6; and see even Chrysostom. The Pracsens denotes that which continues from the past, z.e. here: that which continues from before time (i. 1, xvii. 5). Comp. LXX.; Ps. xe. 2; also Jer. 1.5. ’Eyo ecwe must neither be taken as ideal 1 Also the English Authorized Version. 2 This view, ‘‘factus est,” forms a more significant correlate to (see Hitzig on Isa. vill. 6), so that the word would be a strengthened particip. Kal with a passive signification, or, in ae CHAP. IX. 8-12. 69 virtue of the resolution of the dagesh forte in the particip. Piel into yod (see Tholuck, Beitrage zur Spracherklar. p. 120 ff.; Ewald, Lehrb. d. Hebr. Spr. § 156 .). He thus finds, namely, in the name of the pool, a noteworthy typical reference, not indeed to Christ, the messenger of God, the true Siloam (as Theophylact, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Corn. a Lapide, and many other earlier commentators, also Schweizer, Ebrard, Luthardt, Hilgenfeld, Lange, Hengstenberg, Briickner, Godet maintain), but to the circumstance that the blind man was sent to this pool by Christ. The pool of mby has the “xomen et omen” of this sending away. The context naturally suggests nothing further than this... Nonnus aptly remarks: tdwp oreAdopévoro Tpow- vuu“ov ex aéo Troumhs. Comp. Euth. Zigabenus: dua tov dmeotadpeévov éxel TOTe TUPAdY. It is arbitrary with Wassen- berg and Kuinoel to pronounce the entire parenthesis spurious (it is absent only in Syr. and Pers. p.), a view to which Liicke also inclined, out of regard for John. But why should a fondness for typical etymologies have been foreign to John ? Comp. the much more peculiar example ef Paul in Gal. iv. 25. Such things leave the pneumatic character of the evangelist unaffected. —am7XOev] which he, being well acquainted with the neighbourhood, was able to do without any one to take him by the hand, tupA@ wodi (Eur. Hee. 1050), as, ‘Indeed, many blind men are able in like manner to find their way about alone. — #7A@e] namely, to his dwelling, as is indicated by the words of ody yettoves which follow. Jesus did not meet him again till ver. 35. Vv. 8-12. Kai ot Qewpodyres, etc.] And they who before had seen him that he was a beggar, the previous eye-witnesses of his being a beggar. The xa’ gives the force of univer- sality: and in general ; the partic. praes. has the force of the imperfect. —o kaOnp. Kk. mpocatt.] 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 1 Not to the fact that in érecrwaw., which would denote ‘‘ freely flowing, strcaming,” 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 aby in Gen. xlix. 6 (Grotius). The simple and correct view is taken also by Bengel, De Wette, and several others ; by Baeumlein with hesitation. 70 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. vivid and detailed character of what follows renders it pro- bable that John derived his information from the lips of the man himself after he had become a believer. — Ver. 11. avOpwmos rNeEyou. Inoods| “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 throughout the whole affair in a very impartial and judicious manner, and for the present keeps to the sample matter of fact, without as yet venturing on a further judgment. — avéBrewra] may signify, J looked wp (Mark xvi. 4; 2 Mace. vil. 25; Plat. Pol. vii. p. 515 C; Ax. p. 370 C0; Xen. Cyr. vi. 4. 9). So Liicke; but this meaning is inadmissible on account of vv. 15, 18, which require, J became again seeing, visum recept. Comp. Matt. xi. 5; Tob. xiv. 2; Plat. Phaedr. p. 245 B. As regards the man born blind, indeed, the ex- pression is inexact, but rests on the general notion that even one 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 intelligible enough from the inquiries which he would naturally institute after he had been healed. But the circumstance that whilst at the outset he expresses no opinion regarding the person of Jesus (see previously on avO@p. Aey. “Inc.), 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 develop- ment through which he passed. Such a gradation is, indeed, natural and necessary in some cases, whereas others differently constituted are at once carried to the goal by the force of the first impression received. This in opposition to Baur’s sup- position that the narrator designedly so framed his account 1 Comp. Grotius : ‘f Nec male recipere quis dicitur, quod communiter tributum humanae naturae ipsi abfuit.” In Pausanias, also (Messen. iv. p. 240), we read of one who was born blind and received sight, dvé6aeyz. Comp. Evang. Nicod. 6, where the man born blind who there speaks says : twténxe ras yeipus ial o. OPbarAmovs ov, mal avEBAs Wa wuparpnud. a a a CHAP. IX. 13-16. Tt that the miracle should be viewed as an épyov Geod primarily in its pure oljectivity.— eis Tov FuNwdp] here the name of the wool ; hence the Rec. has eis 7. codupB. T. 3td.,—a correct gloss. Ver. 13 f. "Ayououv] These belong still to the persons designated in ver. 8. They act thus because 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 mapas tods Paps. is meant neither the Sanhedrim (Tholuck, Baeumlein), nor a synagogal court (Liicke, Lange),' of which, moreover, the text contains no notice (comp. vii. 45, xi. 47). Especially must it be remembered that in John the Sanhedrim is never simply designated of Papicaios (not even vii. 47), but always of apxvepels x. ot Papso., 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 houses to form a kind of sitting—ov woré tudA.] A more precise definition of avrov; see Buttmann, Meut. Gr. p. 342 [E. T. p. 400]. — Ver. 14 assigns the reason why they bring him. — tov rrr] the clay in question. Vy. 15,16. IZadcv] Glancing back at the same question asked by others (hence «al oi Pap.) in ver. 10. — wnXorp, etc. ] a clay He laid on mine eyes (wou émi 7. of8.), etc. Comp. on xi. 32. Note how the man only states what he himself felt ; hence there is no mention of the spittle. Compare already ver. 11.—6rTe ro caBP. ov rnpet] A Rabbinical precept specially forbids the anointing of the eyes with spittle on the Sabbath. Maimonides Schabb. 21. Even if this were not yet in existence or recognised as binding, still the general principle was admitted that healing should take place on the Sabbath solely in case of danger to life (Schoettgen and Wetstein ad Matt. xii. 9).— @ doc] who judged more candidly and con- scientiously. Grotius well remarks: “ Qui nondum occaluerant.” 1 Of such subordinate courts with twenty-three members there were two in Jerusalem. See Saalschiitz, Mos. R. p. 601. v2 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. They conclude from the miraculous element in the healing, so far as it implied a special dwine 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, ov« éotiv otros mapa Oeod o avOp., serves to lay stronger emphasis first on obros, and then on wapa Oeov. Comp. in general Bemhardy, p. 460.— oxlopa] comp. vil. 43. 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 AN€yovow is ot Papic., neither the hostile among them merely (Apollinarius and many others), nor the well-wishers alone (Chrysostom and his followers). — aaXuv] a repetition of the question after ver. 15.— 6re] els éxetvo, 67x; see on 11. 18. Theodore of Mopsuestia well remarks: trép av.— rpodynrns | 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 confession of what he up to this time believes. Ver. 18. Observe that the mere verb is not again employed, nor even of Papicaios, but of ‘Iovéaioz, ze. the hostile hierar- chical party among the assembled Pharisees, which now carries on further proceedings. Comp. ver. 22.—ov« émiot. placed emphatically at the beginning of the verse.— odv] as the healed man had declared Him to be a prophet. They now suspected the existence of a fraudulent understanding between the two.— €ws drov] till they called, etc. Then first, after these had come and made their declaration, were they unable any longer to call the cure in question (vv. 26, 34).—avrov tov avaBréw.] of him who had himself again become seeing, concerning whom his own parents must surely know best. Vy. 19-21. To the two questions put in ver. 19 exactly corresponding answers are returned in vv. 20, 21; the second, however, twice nesciendo. — dv tpets NéyeTe] opposed to the personal unbelief of the questioners ; 6v as in vi. 71. —7@s] a CHAP. IX. 22-25. vie how does it happen that ?— odv] as it is alleged that he was born blind. — Ver. 20. mas dé apts Brémes, ayvoeiv Aéyover, hoBovpevor Tors Iovdaiovs. “Efw xuvdivou xabiotavtes éav- Tovs, mt Tov TeOeparrevpévoy TapamréuTovar THY EpwTNaW, WS a&woTicToTEpov avTav év TS ToLovTH &yrjpare, Euth. Zigabenus. —7ets] opposed to the adros . . . adTov .. . adds, afterwards thrice repeated, and asyndetically, with passionate emphasis. — HrALKlav éxet| he himself is of full age; comp. Herod. 3. 36, Gots Thue,-8.). 753 Polyb. 9.1.23. 9, al. oSeenKypke; I: p- 387; Loesner, p. 150.—adros rept adrod] he will him- self speak concerning himself. avtod with the Spir. lenis. Buttm: Neu. Gr. p. 97 f. [E. T. ps 112)). Ver. 22. "Hdn yap cuveréé.| 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. Comp. Luke xxii. 5; Acts xxiii. 20; Thuc. 4. 19; 1 Mace. ix. 70; Ast, Lex. Plat. III. p. 340. The context does not justify the assumption 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 easily understand that they should prefer exposing their son rather than themselves to this danger, since they must have been certain that he would not for the sake of his benefactor refuse to make the dangerous confession. — tva] that which they had agreed on is conceived as the intention of their agreement. Comp. a£vodv wa in Dem. de Cor. 155 (see Dissen on the passage), and Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 62, ed. 3.—dmoavuvay. 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. dos dSofav +. Gee] “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 wouid be honoured, inasmuch as to speak the truth was to show reverence to Him. Comp. Josh. vu. 19; Esr. x. 11; 3 Esr. ix, 8.-—2) wets oldapev,etc.] This assertion of hierarchical 74 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. authority (sets with emphasis) was intended to overawe the man, and give a bias to his judgment. In vain. With cautious reticence he prudently refers them simply to what had actually happened; this alone was known to him (comp. Soph. 0. @. 1103: ovx« otda rr &v); but not whether, etc.—tudrds OY being blind,namely,in his natural state, from birth. Comp. 11.13. 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 (avyjp adovntos, Nonnus), becomes irritated, and even embittered, at this repeated interrogation. — xal ov« nkovcoare] is taken as a declaration: and ye have not listened thereto (taken heed). It would correspond better, however, to the naive character of the man, and to the liveli- ness of his irritation, as also to the succeeding dxovew, which denotes simply “ hear,’ if we were to take it as a question: And have you not heard it ?—-t] why, as you surely must have heard it.—p xat tbpets] surely not you also, like others. To the 0éXex», etc., would correspond the effort to be convinced of the reality of the miracle that had been per- formed. Chrysostom, Bengel, and several others, consider that Kal indicates that the blind man confessed himself to be one of His disciples, or that it was his intention to become one. His development, however, had not yet advanced so far. See vv. 35, 36. But that his benefactor had disciples about Him (ver. 2), he must certainly have learnt from others. Vv. 28, 29. ’"EXordop.] as preliminary to the following words. Passionate outburst in an unrighteous cause. — od ef pad’ éx.] They had been unable to get out of him any declaration against Jesus, and regarded his behaviour, there- fore, as a taking part with Christ. Bengel aptly remarks on é€xeivou: “Hoc vocabulo removent Jesum a sese.” Comp. on vil. 11. — Ver. 29. sets] once again with proud emphasis. — Mwic#] has the emphasis in opposition to todrov, which thus receives the more contemptuous a meaning (vi. 42, and often). —7o0ev éativ] i.e. by whom he is sent. Comp. viii. 14. Vv. 30-33. The passionateness of the Jews now emboldens the man to make a further confession (ver. 17). — év yap TovT@ CHAP. IX. 34. ris) To (see the critical notes) Oavp. éotiv] Why, herein (in this state of the case) is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence He is, and (that) He hath opened mine eyes. The force of the Gavpacror lies in cal avépée, etc., in virtue of the groundless nature of that ignorance to which actual testimony was thus borne; see vv. 31-33. Concerning 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 adsignificatur,’ Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 332. Comp. Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 6. —tpeis] Ye people, who ought to know this best. — Ver. 31. The man now proves to them, onwards to ver. 33, how clearly it is evident from the act of Jesus that He is no sinner (ver. 16), but a pious man, yea, a man sent of God. He begins his proof with a major premiss, which he postulates as universally conceded and known (oidapev, Job mane) xxv da) Ps. bevnoli8; ix: 7; Prov.xv. 29°: Isa. i. 15), and which rests on the idea that miracles are answers to prayer (comp. xi. 41 ff.; Mark vu.54). 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. 32. Minor premiss ; then in ver. 33, conclusicn, both in popular form. — ovédév] effect nothing—is restricted by the connection to miraculous deeds such as the one here recorded. Ver. 34. 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 enter- tain the same prejudice regarding sinfulness before birth (not of the parents) to which the disciples had previously given expression (ver. 2), and make here a spiteful application thereof. Comp. on 6Xos, xiii. 10. The notion of “ heightened original sin” (Hengstenberg, after Ps. li. 7) is not appropriate to the connection, as the inference from being born blind implies apaptias committed before birth—Note the contemptuous 1 Nonnus: cvyyoves aurraxinow twaimlns dros avip. 76 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. emphasis of the ov... cv. — dvdack. 7y.] The emphasis rests here, not on dddox., but on juas: dost thou comport thyself as our teacher? —é£éBar. adr. é€w] not a designa- tion of excommunication (Olshausen, De Wette, Tholuck, Baeumlein, and many older commentators), as no sitting of the Sanhedrim had taken place; and, besides, how indefinite a mode of designating the matter would it be! although exBadrew is frequently used by Thucydides, Xenophon, and others to denote exile. Comp. also 3 John, ver. 10. As the context suggests nothing else, and as there is not a hint of a sentence of excommunication, 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. Comp. Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theophylact, who, however, transfers the scene to the temple. The remark of Maldonatus is correct: “ex loco, in quo erant.” Comp. Bengel, Dem. 1366..11; Acts vu. 58: Vv. 35, 36. The inner connection is formed, not by the thought that Jesus, when He had heard, ete., wished to confer on the man rich compensation (Chrysostom and several others) ; but, as the question od muctevers, etc., shows (thou believest on the Son of God? which presupposes an affirmative reply), Jesus heard of his being cast out, inferred therefrom that the man had confessed Him to be the Messiah, and therefore asked when He met him, ete. The conclusion which Jesus arrived at was substantially correct ; for he who had been born blind had confessed regarding Him that He was wapa @eod, although the man did not yet consciously associate with this more general predicate a definite reference to the Messiah. Liicke finds in muotevers merely the inclination to believe; were this, how- ever, its force, we must have had @éAevs rio Tevew, or some other similar mode of expression. Like muorevw in ver. 38, muctevers here also denotes actual faith, namely, in the manzfested Mes- siah.—The words tov vidv rt. Oeod' must be taken, not in their metaphysical (Olshausen, Ebrard), but simply in their theocratic signification (comp. 1. 50), as the man who had been 1 +. vidv cov &vOpwarou (see the critical notes) Jesus could not have expected the blind man to understand, as included in this question. a CHAP. IX. 37, 38. Ge born blind, to whose notions Jesus had to accommodate Him- self, 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. 36. Surprised by this question, and quickly taking it as a point of connec- tion, the man puts a counter-question, which was designed to show that he is wnable as yet to believe in the Messiah, though ready to do so as soon as he shall know Him. With regard to kal tis éore, comp. xiv. 22, and on Mark x. 26.—iva] Design of the inquiry, as in 1. 22. Vv. 37, 38. Kai... Kai] thow hast actually seen Him, and, etc. Comp. onvi.36. The substantial meaning of the second clause is: and hearest Him speak with thee ; but it has a more concrete and lively turn. — éwpaxas] refers to the present interview, not to a former one; for he had not seen Jesus whilst the act of healing was being performed, and he had not returned to Him from Siloam (see on ver. 7). The use of the perf. as the present, of completed action (thou hast a view of Him), need not surprise (Bernhardy, p. 378).—éxetvos éotuv| éxeivos is not predicate (Hilgenfeld in his Zeztschrift, 1859, p. 416) ; but, as John’s very favourite manner is, subject, demon- stratively comprehending the foregoing participial designation of the same, as in i. 18, 33, v.11. Comp. 2 Cor. x. 18. So also in the Classics, although they more frequently use otros in this way (see Kriiger on Thuc. 2.15.4). The connection alone, then, shows whether the person intended is some one else, or, as in this case, and in xix. 3d, the speaker himself, who presents himself oljectively as a third person, and thus introduces himself to the individual addressed with special emphasis. At the same time, the force of éxetvos is not thus transformed into that of cdem or ipse.'— cvpre] “jam augus- 1 Tn relation to the erroneous assertion that éxeives in xix. 35 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 d. Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 497 ff. ; Buttmann in the same journal for 1860, p. 505 ff. ; and then again by Steitz in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1861, p. 368 ff. These controversial discussions (see, finally, Steitz in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1862, p. 264 ff.) were in so far unnecessary, as the use of éxsives 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. 78 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tiore sensu ita dicit, quam dixerat,” ver. 36, Bengel. — 7poce- Kvvnoev avTo@] John uses rpockuvedy solely of divine worship, iv. 20 ff, xiii 20. The man was seized by the feeling—as yet indeed vague and indistinct—of the divine 5d£a, the bearer ot which, the Messiah, the object of his newly awakened faith and confession, stands before him. The higher conception of o vios T. Geod has struck him. Ver. 39. An Oxymoron, to which Jesus (comp. 1 Cor. 1. 18 ff.), seeing at His feet the man born blind, and now endued not only with bodily, but also with spiritual sight, gives utter- ance with profound emotion, addressing Himself, moreover, not to any one particular person (hence eé7rev without the addition of a person, comp. i. 29, 36), but to those around Him in general. 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 in a higher sense appears in ver. 36 as still ua Brézor, and in ver 38 as Prérwv.— eis Kpipa] telically, ie. to this end, as is clear from the more exact explanation iva, etc., that follows. This xpiua’ is an end, though not the ultimate end, of the appearance of Jesus. He came to bring about, as a matter of fact, a judicial decision; He came, namely, in order that, by means of His activity, those who see not might see, 2. in order that those who are conscious of the lack of divine truth (comp. the poor in spirit in Matt. v. 3) might be illumined thereby, and they who see might become blind (not merely: appareant caeci, as Grotius and several others explain), z.e. those who fancy themselves to be in possession of divine truth (comp. Luke xi. 52; Matt. xi. 25; Rom. 11.19; 1 Cor. i. 21, ii. 18), 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 of yx) Arérovtes is sulyective, and Brérwce objective ; whereas of BréEtrovTes is subjective, and tupdAol yévwovTat 1 Qn this accentuation of xpiz«, see Lobeck, Paral. p. 418; comp., however, Lipsius, grammat. Unters. I. p. 40. — The word itself is used by John only in this place. It denotes, not the trial which is held, the judicial procedure (xpicis), but its result, the judicial sentence which is pronounced, the decision of the court, what is judicially measured out, etc. Hence xpipa aapBaven, Baordlev, etc, CHAP. IX. 40. 79 objective.’ —xptma is neither merely separation (Castalio, Corn. a Lapide, Kuinoel, De Wette, and several others), nor equivalent to xatd«piows (Ammonius, Euth. Zigabenus, Olshausen) ; but what Christ here says regarding Himself is a matter of fact, a retributive judicial arrangement, affecting both sides accord- ing to the position they take up relatively to Him. Hence there is no contradiction with iii. 17, viii. 15, xii. 47. Comp. also Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 186 f. If, with Godet, we understand ot pn dAérrovTes and of BXérrovtes of those who have not and those who have the knowledge of the Jewish law, we must refer Brérrwou and tuddroi to the divine truth which Christ reveals. A twofold relation is thus introduced, to which the words Aéyere STs Brérropev, ver. 41, are also opposed. Ver. 40. Pharisees were no doubt in His company, whose object was to mark all the more carefully His further behaviour after the performance of the miracle, not apostate disciples of Jesus (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus), or adherents of a Pharisaic spirit (Lange). See x. 6,21. They imagine that, in conformity with the opinion which Jesus entertains regard- ing them, He must needs reckon them among the px) BAérrov Tes ; 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 Arérrovtes. That they, the wise men of the nation, should be p72 Brérovtes or tuddot (comp. Matt. xv. 14), seems to them, in their conceit, so astonishing and singular, that they ask: But we also are surely not blind? The Pharisees did not understand Jesus to be speaking of physical blindness (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others), because otherwise they would certainly not have put such a question. 1Tt is true, indeed, that the wn Batwrovres are susceptible, and the Batroyres unsusceptible ; but this was not determined by the consideration that the former believed without seeing, whilst the latter refused to believe, notwithstanding all they had seen of Jesus (see Baur, p. 179) ; on the contrary, 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 ua Batresy, to be blind, comp. Soph. O. C. 78; O. R. 302; see also Xen. Mem. i. 3.4. On rvaés in the figurative sense, see Soph. O. #. 371. 80 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Ver. 41. Alas! Jesus intends to say, Ye are not blind. Were ye blind (as I intended the pa Prézovres in ver. 39), that is, people who are conscious of being destitute of the true knowledge,’ then ye would be without sin, i.e. your un- belief 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 attained thereunto, a result for which ye were not to blame. But now ye assert we sce (profess to be possessors of divine truth); the consequence whereof is, that your sin remaineth (is not removed),” ze. that your unbelief in me not only zs sinful, but also this, your sin continues to exist, remains undestroyed (aveEdrecrrtos péver, Theodoret, Heracleon), because your conceit is a perpetual ground for rejecting me, so that you cannot attain to faith and the forgiveness of sin. “ Dicendo videmus, medicum non quaeritis,” Augustine. “Si diceretis : caeci sumus, visum peteretis et peccatum jam desiis- set,” Bengel. According to Liicke (so also substantially Baeumlein), whom J. Miiller follows (Lehre v. d. Stinde, I. p. 286, ed. 5), the meaning is: “ Were you blind, ze. without the capability of knowledge, there would be no sin (guilt) in your unbelief; you would then be wnable to believe with knowledge. But so long as you say, notwithstanding all your blindness, We see, and therefore do not put away your con- ceited self-deception, so long your unbelief cannot depart, but must remain.” Against this view are the following objections: 1. Tuddo/, because answering to pi Bdérovres in ver. 39, cannot denote incapacity for knowledge; 2. The antithesis Aéyere Ore Prem. suggests for tuProi, not the objective, but the subjective meaning; 3. ‘Awaptia is thus taken in different senses in the two halves. Other imported meanings are: Were you blind, like the multitude which you regard as blind, perhaps you would have no sin, etc. (Ewald, as though besides dv John had written also raya or tows) ; or (Hengstenberg), if ye suffered merely from the simple blind- ness of the human race, which is blind from birth, ye would 1 Not, physically blind, as Nonnus, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others here, as well as in ver. 40, after the example of Chrysostom, wrongly understand. 2 Not, ‘* The sin remains yours” (Ewald). Comp. xv. 16. CHAP. IX. 41. 81 have no sin of decisive 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 ov« dv eiy. au. ought not to be transposed into, “then would your sin Jorge you.” The explanation of Godet is a natural conse- quence of his interpretation of ver. 39, but founders on the words Aéyere Ste BAErropev.* OBSERVATION.—The absence from the Synoptics of the miracle performed on the man born blind ought to have found its ex- planation simply in the circumstance that it did not take place in the (Galilean) sphere of the synoptic narrative, and ought not to have been made the ground of an attack on its historical cre- dibility, as was done by Strauss (who compares the healing of Naaman in 2 Kings v. 10) ; by Weisse (who derives the narra- tive, by means of a misunderstanding, 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 Gfrorer, on the contrary, content with asserting the presence of unhistorical additions, comes to a conclusion dis- advantageous 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 objectivity, the suscep- tibility to the divine as it is affected by the pure impression of the divine element in the ¢py« éeo5, even when it is not yet aware who is the subject of these ¢py«. “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 altogether, and that Jesus formed them out of the =7Aés, as God at first formed man from the earth (see especially Irenaeus, _ Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nonnus) ; comp. on ver. 6 f. 1“ ils appartenaient a la multitude ignorante, leur incrédulité a& Végard de Jésus pourrait v étre qu'une affaire d’entrainement (it would be merely a sin against the Son of man); mais éclairés, comme ils le sont, par la connaissance de la parole de Dieu, c’est sciemment, qwils rejettent le Messie”’ (this is a sin against the Holy Ghost). In this case, however, Jesus must have said: viv 3: Baémwers, not viv 08 Ayers ars BAtrouev, which Godet, it is true, regards merely as an allusion to the question in ver. 40 ; whilst in reality it is the key to the correct understanding of the entire passage. VOL, II. F 82 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. CHAPTER X. Ver. 3. xaAc7] A. B.D. L. X.8. Curss. Cyr.: gwvet Recom- mended by Griesb., accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. Correct ; the following xzar’ tvue was the occasion of writing the more definite word alongside, whence it was then introduced into the text. — Ver. 4. r& #610 xpé8ara] Lachm. and Tisch.: ra tom révra, after B. D. L. X. 8.** Cursives, Copt. Sahid. Cyr. Lucif. Cant. sdévra, after the preceding occurrence of the word, passed mechanically over into rpéBura.—Ver. 5. dxorAovdjowory] Lachm. and Tisch.: d&xorovdjoove, after preponderating testi- mony; the Indicat. was displaced by the usual conjunct. — Ver. 8. ravrec] is omitted in D. Cant. Ver. Foss. Didym., and apo éwod is absent from E. F. G. M.S. U. A. 8.* Cursives, Verss. the Fathers. The omission of sdéreg is to be explained from its being superfluous ; and that of zpd zuod, which Tisch. has deleted, from the Gnostic and Manichaean misuse of the pas- sage in opposition to the Old Testament.— The place of =pi guod after 7nadov is decisively attested (Elz., Scholz.: before narbov). — Instead of ridyow, ver. 11, d/dwow (Tisch.) is too feebly attested. So also d/dwus, ver. 15.— Ver. 12. r& wrpéBare 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 ? Appearing as it would altogether superfluous, it might easily be passed over.— Ver. 13. 6 6: wiodwr. pedyes] 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 6: wuicd. to dre picd., SO that 6 6 wo. pebyes Was omitted. This ex- planation is suggested further by A.*, which omits wiod. pebyes br. — Ver. 14. yivdicxomas bird rav éuav|] B.D. L.&, most of the Verss. Cyr. Epiph. Nonn.: yiwuoxovciv we r& zgué. Recom- mended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. This active turn is a transformation in harmony with the following verse, in which also there is no passive expression. — Ver. 16. The position 67 we (Lachm. and Tisch.) is strongly supported, but would easily suggest itself as the more usual instead of ws © d7.—yevqgceras| B.D.L.X. and some Verss. : yevqoovras. Mechani- — eally introduced after the preceding plural form. — Ver. 18. CHAP 2. R. 83 aipe:|] Tisch.: jpev, only after B.&.* — Ver. 26. Instead of od yép we must read, with Tisch., ér: odx, after B. D. L. X. 8. Curss. Or. Cyr. Chrys. —xada¢ eirov iwi] wanting in B. K. L. M*&. Curss. Verss. and Fathers. Bracketed by Lachm. The apparent incongruity caused the omission. — Ver. 29. 6¢ dédwxe] D.: 6 dcdwxus. A stylistic alteration. B.L.8.* Copt. Sahid. Vulg. It. Goth. Tert. Hil.: 6 dédwxe. A. B. X. It. Vulg. read meray afterwards. The latter is to be regarded as original, and because the neuter was not understood relatively to 6 rarqp as the source of the alteration, 6 déwxev— Ver. 33. Aéyovres] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., after preponderating testimony, to be deleted.— Ver. 38. riorednre] Tisch.: wiorevere, after inadequate evidence for this irregularity, especially as sorevere precedes and follows ; for instead of the following s:oretoure, decisive evidence renders it necessary, with Tisch., to read moreters.— iva yvare n~as miorebonre| Lachm. and Tisch. : va yvare x. yiwwounre, after B. L. X. Curss. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Aeth. and some Fathers. Correctly ; not being understood after yrare, yiwwox. was altered into sioreic. — aire] B. D. L. X. 8. Curss. and most of the Verss., also Or. Athan. and others, have +@ warp7, Recommended by Griesbach, accepted by Lachm. and Tisch. With such decided witnesses in its favour, justly; for the emphasis lying in the repetition of the word might easily escape the copyists. — Ver. 42. xe7] Decisive evidence assigns it its place after airév. So also Lachm. and Tisch. Ver. 1... The new chapter ought to have begun with ix. 35; for x. 1-21 constitute one act with ix. 35-41, 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.—dapnv apn, 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, whilst at the same time regarding 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 contra- 1On the parable, see Fritzsche in Fritzschior. Opusc. p. 1 ff. ; Voretzsch, Diss. de John x. 1-18, Altenb. 1838. 84 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. diction 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 penetrating 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 let 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.— 0 2 elcepxyopevos, etc.] The flocks of sheep spent the night in a fold (avny, 7779) surrounded by a wall, at whose gate an under-shepherd (0 Oupwpos, ver. 3) kept watch during the night. See espe- cially Bochart, Hicroz. I. p.482,ed. Rosenm. Opposed to the eioepyop. Sta T. Ovpas (the emphasis lies on the last word) is the dvaBaivav adraxoGev, who gets up (on to the wall, for the purpose of coming into the avd, over it) from elsewhere, ie. from another direction than that indicated by the gate. There is only one gate. On dAXax06ep, which is equivalent to the old classical aANoOev, see Ael. H. A. 7.10; V. H. 6. 2; 4 Mace. i. 7.— Krérr. kK. AnoTHS] Thief and robber ; a climactic strengthening of the idea (Bornemann, Scholia in Lucam, p. xxx.; Lobeck, Paralip. p. 60 f.) ; the individual fea- tures, however, of the soul-destroying, selfish procedure thus indicated (Ezek. xxxiv. 8; Mal. ii. 8; Jer. xxiii. 1) are not to be dissevered. — For the explanation of the figure we must note,— (1) The add) tHv mpoBdrwv is the Church of the people of God, whose members are the mpo8ata (comp. Ps. xxiii., Ixxvii. 21, xev. 7, c. 3), conceived in their totality as the future community of the Messianic kingdom (xxi. 16f) ; comp. Matt. xxv. 32, consequently as to their theocratic destina- tion (ideally). It is in itself correct, indeed, as to substance, to assume a reference to the predestinated (Augustine, Lampe) (though not in the Augustinian sense); but in form it intro- duces something foreign to the context. (2) The @vpa is not to be left without its proper signification (Liicke, De Wette); nor to be taken as denoting in general the legitimus CHAP. X. 2, 3. 85 ordo, the divine calling, the approach ordained by God, and the like (Maldonatus, Tholuck, Luthardt, Briickner, Hengstenberg, Godet, and several others); but Christ Himself is the door; indeed, He Himself in ver. 7 expressly thus interprets the point, because His hearers had failed to understand it.’ The true leaders of the theocratic people can enter on their voca- tion in 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 taken up by the Pharisees; independently of Him, and in an un- believing 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 gate to denote Himself, notwithstanding ' the distinct declaration contained in ver. 9. Chrysostom, _ Ammonius, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others, | have perversely interpreted the doors of the Holy Scriptures. | “Tpse textus addit imagini interpretationem qua contenti | simus,” Melancthon. | Vy. 2, 3. Hotpnv] Shepherd, without article qualita- tively ; it characterizes such a one, not specially as the owner (the antithesis to the hireling first appears in ver. 12), but in _ general, in opposition to the robber.—6 Ouvpwpds dvoiyer] _ belongs to the description of the legitimate mode of entering, and is not intended to have any special explanation; for _ which reason also no further notice is taken of it in vv. 7, 8. It must not, therefore, be explained either of God (Calvin, _ Maldonatus, Bengel, Tholuck, Ewald, Hengstenberg, following vi. 44f.); or of the Holy Spirit, Acts xiii. 2 (Theodoret, Heracleon, Ruperti, Aretius, Corn. a Lapide, and several | others, also Lange); or of Christ (Cyril, Augustine); or of Moses (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euth. Zigabenus, _ Luther, following Deut. xviii. 15); or of John the Baptist (Godet, after i. 7). He enters into the fold, and the sheep hear His voice (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, “ oér7ta,” in T'heocr. iv. 46, | ‘Comp. Ignat. ad Philad. 9, where Christ is termed évpa rei rarpés ; also | Herm. Past. 3; Sim. 9. 12. 86 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN viii. 69. ra mpo8ara] 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 contrary, Ta iva wpoBata are the sheep which belong to the special flock of him who has entered;* these he calls car dvoma, ie. not merely dvouacri (that would be merely évoua, or dvomate, or ém’ dvopuartos, Polyb. 5. 35. 2,11. 15. 1), but distributively — by their names, each by its name, €x THs eis Exactov adxpas povtidos, Euth. Ziga- benus. To give to the individual animals of their flock a name was not an unusual custom among the shepherds of ancient times. See Jnterpp. ad Theocr. 5. 101; Pricaeus on the passage. In Lange’s view (Leben Jesu, II. p. 955) the ira mpo8. are the favourite sheep (image of the elect), the bell- wethers, which are followed by the whole flock (ra rpo8ata, ver. 4). This is incorrect; for, on the one hand, ida alone would not sufficiently support this notion (comp. ver. 12); and on the other, €uzpooGev mopevetar and axodovOel, ver. 4, are so completely correlate, that avtév and ta mpofata must necessarily be the same: at all events, avrois must otherwise © have been used instead of avr@, ver. 4. — é&ayev] 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 (Pollux, 1. 250) 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 (ravta, see the critical note). é«Sddy pictures forth the manner of the €€ayev. He lays hold on the sheep which he has called to him, and brings them out to the door. — The 1 Into the beautiful general figure of ré xpéBaru, the word /d.« introduces a special, individual element, which makes it all the richer and more telling. It has been incorrectly maintained (by Bengel, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, and others), that although iia is first associated with *¢2Aa7a when it occurs for the second time, the xpéfara which hear must necessarily be the same as those which are afterwards described as ra i2se apeBara. These latter are no doubt among the x;2Bar« which hear ; but it is only ré 7,« that the shepherd calls by name, and so forth. Thus the particular Church belongs to the Universal. 2 Similarly even Luther: ‘‘It denotes the Christian freedom from the law and judgment.” CHAR x. 5-3. 87 idea, which is symbolically set forth in vv. 3 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. “AdXoTpia 6é, etc.] A stranger, however, who does not belong to them as their shepherd. It is not exclu- sively the dvaPaivoyvtes addax. of ver. 1 who are here intended, but every other one in general who is not their shepherd. The fellowship referred to in vv. 3 and 4 is portrayed according to its exclusive nature. — ov 7 &koNov- Oncovowy| future (see the critical note), as in viii 12. It is not prophetical (Lampe: of the “cathedra Mosis plane deser- enda,” comp. Luthardt), but describes what will be the result of the intervention of a stranger. The sheep will certainly not follow, but flee from him, Vv. 6, 7. ILapotuia] Every species of discourse that deviates from the common course (oimos) ; hence in the classi- cal writers especially—proverb (Plat. Soph. p. 261 B; Soph. Aj. 649; Ael. NV. H. 12. 22; Lucian, Nigr.1. 37; comp. 2 Pet. 11.22). It denotes here, as corresponding to the Hebrew Sin, if we define the conception more exactly, not parable (because it is not a history), but allegory (see Wilke, Rhetor. p. 109). Suidas: 1 mapowpia éoti Adyos arrdKpugos 8’ Erépov “mpodnrov onuatvouevos.— The Pharisees do not understand the meaning of what He thus allegorically delivered to them, and therefore (ody, ver. 7) Jesus sees Himself compelled to begin again (7dduv), and to explain to them, first of all, the matin point on which the understanding of the whole depended, namely, how the door in ver. 1 is to be understood. It is incorrect, accordingly, 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 6vpa, He would only have confused His hearers in ver. 7, instead of clearing matters up. — éyq@] with great emphasis. — Tov mpoBdtwr] to the sheep, as is required by ver. 1; not, through which the sheep enter into the fold (Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Wolf, Lampe, Fritzsche, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, Godet, and 88 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. others), 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 anti- thesis to the éy® eius 7 Ovpa 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 ¢ime 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 Pharisaical, antagonists of Christ. The ‘members of this hierarchical caste are intended; the expression used by Christ, however, is popular, and not to be pressed as hard and unhistorical (Hase); the use of the present eéo, moreover, 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 vu. 19, v. 39, 45, iv. 22, exclude even the possi- bility of a reference to Moses and the prophets; hence the inadmissibility of Hilgenfeld’s idea that the saying is “very harshly anti-Judaistic,” a8 also that it refers to the entire Old Testament past, ze. to all the pre-Christian leaders of the people of God,—an application which he tries to justify by bringing in the Gnostic dualism. It is also inadmissible to set aside in any way the temporal meaning of apo, whether it be made to mean, with Calovius: in advance of me (antequam mitterentur) ; or, with Briickner (after Stier): before they have sought and found me as the door; or, with Wolf, to convert it into ywpis,—a view which comes substantially to that of Olshausen (“without connection with the Logos”); or, with Tittmann and Schleusner, to take it for dép, loco, and with Lange to import into this view, “instead of me,” the further notion of absolute pre-cmincnee, as though the one who advances forward designed completely to set aside the one who was put in the background. po, in the sense of iastead, is foreign to CHAP, X. 9. 89 the New Testament, and rare also in Greek writers. But when Gov, with a view to the removal of everything objectionable, is taken pregnantly, making it express an arbitrary or unauthorized’ coming forward (Hieronymus, Auecustine, Isidore, Heracleon, Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, Melanc- thon, Jansen, and several others; also Luthardt, Ebrard), a meaning is imported into the word, which in itself, indeed, may be regarded as a matter of course, but which, at the same time, must have been distinctly expressed (say, as in ver. 43), if it were to be emphatical” This also against B. Crusius, who lays the stress on the intention expressed in 7AOop (“in order to give the people a new time”). The explanation, finally, of false Messiahs (Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, Grotius, Maldo- natus, Hammond, Tittmann, Schleusner, Klee, Weizsiicker, and several others), is unhistorical, as they first began to come forward after Christ’s day ; a circumstance on which B. Bauer, however, grounds a charge of anachronism against John. De Wette considers the discourse to be 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. —«xrEémrat eiol K. AnoTa’]| namely, of the sheep, ver. 1. Comp. the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Instead of TavTEsS Ooot, amavtes doot would have been still stronger, Strabo, p. 18, 1. 11, Isocr. Loch. 12.— adda]. The want of success which attends this predatory (soul-destroying) pro- cedure. —ovx« jKxovaav] did not listen to them. For their adherents did not belong to the true people of God (ra zpo- Bara). Ver. 9. "Eyo eiwe% Ovpal te Sirdaciacue tod pntod BeBacot Tov Aoyov, Euth. Zigabenus. — 6¢ é€40d] emphatically 1 Nonnus takes it in the sense of creeping in secretly: xdvres soos rdpos GAboy / | broxAterovrs rediAw. 2 In 4440» by itself, so far as it precedes spe ézov, it is impossible to find, as Luthardt does, the thought ‘‘on his own responsibility,” or ‘‘ so that he places Christ after himself.” %4éoy denotes neither more nor less than the simple venerunt ; asin ver. 10. tye 7Aéoy is equal to the simple ego veni ; the emphasis rests primarily on wrévres do, omnes quotquot, and then on zpo izov, which is placed at the end. 90 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. occupying the front place, excluding every other mediation. —eioédXOny] namely, to the sheep in the fold. Comp. vv. 1, 7. The subject is therefore a shepherd (tis), who goes in to the sheep through the door. Others, on the contrary (Chry- sostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Maldonatus, Bengel, and several others ; also Fritzsche, Tholuck, De Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg, Godet, and several others), regard the sheep as the subject, and the @vpa as the gate for the sheep. But there is no ground for such a change of figure, seeing that both the word eloépyec@as in itself after vv. 1 and 2, and also the singular and masculine tis, can only refer to the shepherd ; besides, another mode of entrance than through the door is for the sheep quite inconceivable ; conse- quently the emphatic words 8’ éuod, so far as the éye is the door, would be without any possible antithesis. — cw@ycetac] is not to be understood directly of the attainment of the Messianic redemption (compare especially 1 Cor. iii. 15), as Luthardt and older commentators suppose, after 1 Tim. iv. 16, for that would be foreign to the context (see what follows) ; but means: he will be delivered, t.ec. he will be set free from all dangers by the protecting door ;—the interpretation of the ficure intended by Jesus does undoubtedly signify safety from the Messianic am@deva, and the guarantee of future eternal redemption. This happy ow@jcera: is then followed by unrestrained and blessed service, which is graphically set forth by means of the words eiced. «. €€eX., 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 vopay evpryoes, as the finding of pasture for the flock (owuviwy vouds, Soph. O. &. 760; compare Plat. Legg. iii. p. 679 A: vous yap obk hv ods). That this vow7 in the interpretation of the allegory is wuyjs vou (Plat. Phacdr. p. 248 B), which works for the eternal life of those who are fed through the evangelical grace and truth which they appropriate (comp. ver. 10), does not need further urging. Ver. 10. The opposite of such a one as entered 6v’ 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. Comp. Dem. 782.9: & you puddtrew rpoBata, CHAP. X. 11. 91 avtos KatecOiov. — éyo 7AOor,etc.] Quite otherwise J! I have come (to the sheep), ete. 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 (from ver. 11 onwards), but as the true Shepherd Himself (Matt. xxvi. 31; Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 23). Compare the promise in Ex. xxxiv. 23; xxxvil. 24, in contrast to the false shepherds in Ezek. xxxiv. 2 ff. —tva fanv éywat}|. The opposite of Ovon x. aor.; the sheep are not to be slaughtered and perish, but are to have life; and as the nature of the reality set forth requires, it is the Messianic life in its temporal development and eternal perfection that is meant.—xal meptoooy éy.] and have it abundantly (over- flowingly), ze. 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 oy consists. Incorrectly Vulgate, Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, and many others, compare also Ewald, who interpret the passage as though repsccotepov were used, more than fom, wherewith is meant—the kingdom of heaven ; or, according to Ewald, “Joy, and besides, constantly increasing blessing.” The repetition of éywow gives the second point a more inde- pendent position than it would have hadif «ai alone had been used. Comp. ver. 18; Xen. Anabd. i. 10. 3: xal tadrnv éswoav Kal dda — Ecwoar. ; Ver. 11. Eye] Repeated again with lively emphasis. It is no other.—o wowunv o Kados| 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 Testament (Ps. xxiii; Isa. xl 11; Ezek. xxxiv.; Jer. xxiii; Zech. xi.; also Mic. v. 3). With the conception of cards compare the Attic xados xayabds (also Tob. vii. 7; 2 Mace. xv. 12), and the contrary: ovnpds, xaxos, &bixos. — In the following specification of the things in which the good shep- herd proves himself to correspond to his idea, 6 mow. 0 Kados is solemnly repeated. — ri évac Tt. ruynv] As to substance, though not as to the meaning of the words, equivalent to Sodvae 92 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tT. Ww. (Matt. xx. 28). It is a Johannean expression (xiii. 37 f£, xv. 13; 1 John ii. 16), without corresponding examples in Greek classical writers (against Kypke, I. p. 388); and must be explained, neither from the simple ny, Isa. lili. 10 (Hengstenberg), nor from 423 Yb) DY (Judy. xii. 3; 1 Sam. xix. 5), where 422 is essential; but. from the idea of the sacrificial death as a ransom that has been paid (Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6). Its import accordingly is: to pay down one’s soul, impendere, in harmony with the use of riGévat in the classics, according to which it denotes to pay (so frequently in Demosthenes and others; see Reiske, Ind. Dem. p. 495, ed. Schaef.; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 271). Compare Nonnus: xal wuyijs idins od deiderat, dra EOnoeEL AUTpOV éov diwy.— dTép]| 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 New Testament, to take TOévat, with De Wette, Ebrard, Godet, as denoting merely lay down (as in xill. 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 proOwrds 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 Z/hieves 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 priest- hood 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. 32, 45; xi. 47,57; xviii. 3). The expres- sion 0 ptoOwrds rather represents those leading teachers of the people of God, who, instead of being ready to sacrifice their lives Sor the community, flee from danger, and forsake, with feelings of indifference and disregard, their charge. Under the figure of the psc Owrtos, there rise to the view of Christ the many cross- CHAP. X. 12, 13. 93 forsaking teachers, who would arise even in the apostolic age (Gal. vi. 12; Phil. i. 18), and to whom the Apostle Paul forms the most brilliant historical contrast. The question by whom the picOwros is to be regarded as hired, leads beyond the purpose of the allegory, which is to set forth, in contrast to the good shepherd, the idea of a shepherd who, influenced solely by self-interest, takes charge of a flock, which is not his own property.—Kat ovK dv Totwny| is closely connected with o pad. 5é: he, however, 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 od ov« elo, 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 idcor, i. 11; partly in reality, namely, the totality of those who believed on Him, whom the Father has given Him (vi. 37); partly proleptically (ver. 16); though, as far as He is concerned, they are first purchased (compare Acts xx. 28; Titus 11. 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 (ai. 32).— There is no justifica- tion for interpreting the wolf specially, either of the devil (Euth. Zigabenus, Aretius, Olshausen, and several others ; admitted even by Chrysostom); or of heretics, after Acts xx. 20 (Augustine, Jansen, and several others). It is a general image of every sort of power, opposed to the Messiah, and bent on destroying the kingdom of God, which may make its _ appearance; this power, however, as such, has its causal and ruling principle in the devil, xii. 31; xiv. 30; Matt. x. 16. —aprate: atta xk. coxopmive: Ta TpoP.] 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 zpo- Bara is neither superfluous nor harsh (De Wette). — dre pica. €ote] nothing else. This and what follows supplies the ethical key to the behaviour described. — Notice further, that whilst in verse 12 we read o pio. 8é, here we have 06é€ picO.; because the antithesis of the hireling was first brought forward in ver. 12, and greater emphasis was secured 94 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. by the immediate connection of pic. with o. — Klotz, ad Devar. p. 378. Ver. 14 f. After the description of the hireling, teats 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).— Kalas yivooKkes pe, etc.| The natwre and mode, the holy nature of that reciprocal acquaintanceship. Compare xiv. 20, xv. 10, xvi. 8, 21. As between God and Christ, so also between Christ and His people, the reciprocal knowledge is a know- ledge growing out of the most intimate fellowship of love and life,—that fellowship which directly involves ywockew ; comp. on Matt. vii. 23.—7/@nme] near and certain future. The clause «. T. wr. is not dependent on xads. 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, compare Heb. xiii. 20; 1 Pet. i. 25) shall be the euide also of the heathen, who have become believers, and whom he now prophetically terms His sheep. Compare xi. 52, xii. 32,' and prophetic utterances, such as Mie. iv. 2; Isa. xlix. 1 ff, lii, 13 ff, lili, 10 ff. But the thought that He does not need the faith of the Jews (Hengstenberg after Ruperti) is 1The 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 is also to be recognised 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, however, even before they are recipients of salvation, — rixve ¢, éeov, and Christ has them as His sheep, according to the ideal view of the future, as an actuality so far as it is certainly fixed in the counsel of God (comp. Rom. xi. 28). It is therefore incorrect 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 election of grace, and fitted and prepared — by the prevenient divine drawing. eS EE ee. CHAP. X. 16. ‘95 arbitrarily imported into the passage as an intervening link of logical connection. The Jews outside Palestine (Paulus) are not intended, as they form part of the fold of the Jewish theocracy, to which the words é« ris avdAfs Tavrns refer, and within which Jesus Himself lived and spake; hence also the demonstrative tavrns.— éya] He is their owner. Comp. Acts xviii. 10. “Hoc verbum habet magnam potestatem,” Bengel— & ovK €otiv €k THS AVARS TavTHS| which are not out of this fold, which are not derived from it. This expression, however, does not imply that Jesus conceived the heathen as also in an aun (in answer to De Wette) ; for the emphasis rests not on TavTns, but on THs avAjs, and the characteristic feature of the heathen is the dsaomopda (vii. 35, xi. 52);' whilst the thought of a divine leading of the heathen (Acts xiv. 17, xvii. 27) does not correspond at all to the figure of an avA7, 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.— 6de2] according to the divine decree. — ayayetv] neither adducere, fetch (Vulgate, Luther, Beza, and many others; also Tholuck, Luthardt, Hengsten- berg, Godet) ; nor cvvayayeiv, xi. 52 (Nonnus, Euth. Zigabenus, Theophylact, Casaubon) ; but lead, as shepherd, who goes be- fore the sheep, and whom they follow, ver. 4. Bengel’s remark is appropriate: “Non opus est ills solwm mutare ;” for the shepherd who leads also the heathen is the exalted Christ, tadvtwyv xvpios, Acts x. 36.—xal yevnoetas, etc.] _ and will become, inasmuch as I lead, besides my sheep out of the Jewish avd, those other sheep of mine, also, one flock (consisting of the two parts, dudotépwhev, Nonnus), one shepherd. This is the happy issue; by the asyndetic collo- cation, all the conception of unity (la, efs) is made to appear with more marked prominence. Compare 1 Cor. x. 17; Eph. iv. 5. On els rrotunyv, observe in reference to yevnjoetar: “de jure Jesus semper unicus est pastor; de jure et facto igitur unus fiet,’ Bengel. The fulfilment of His declaration, which began with the conversion of the heathen by the apostles, is still advancing, and will be first completed with the realization 1 Correctly Bengel : ‘‘ alias oves dicit, non aliud ovile ; erant enim dispersae in mundo.” 96 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of what is spoken of in Rom. xi. 25 f. The Stoie dream of the union of all men doep ayéAns cuvydpa vouw KOW@ cuD- tpepomevns (Plut. de fort. Alex. 6) has been dispelled; the idea, however, considered in itself, goes on realizing itself in Christ till the judgment day. Vv. 17, 18. Christ’s self-delineation as the Good Shepherd is finished. Jesus now further bears testimony to that which filled His heart, while setting forth this great vocation, which was only to be fulfilled by dying and rising again, namely, the love of His Father, which rests upon Him just because of that which He has declared concerning Himself as the good shepherd. — 6a rodTo... 674] is to be taken as in all the passages where it occurs in John (v. 16, 18, viii. 47, xii. 18, 39; 1 John iii. 1): therefore—because, namely, 8a todto re- ferring to what had preceded, and 6tu introducing a more pre- cise explication of dua todto. The sense consequently 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 (éy#; no other does so or can do so) lay down my life, in order to take it again. Note in particular: (1) The explanation 674... mov is pragmatically correct, because it is just the readiness to sacrifice His life which is the main characteristic of the good shepherd (vv. 11,15). (2) tva wan. AdBw ad’ryv do not belong to dyaz., but express the inten- tion or design of tO. rT. yr. wou (not merely its result, as Theo- dore 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 completion contemplated in the divine decree, and referred to in ver. 16. For this reason, also, va cannot be regarded as introducing the divine intention (Tholuck), because the ground of the Father’s love must lie in the volition of Jesus,—which volition, it is true, corresponds to the Father's CHAP. X. 17, 18. 97 will, though this is not here expressly 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 ovéels... a7 é€wautov (mea tpsius sponte). Nor must He proceed to effect this voluntary sacrifice of His own authority; but must re- ceive a warrant thereto, as also for that which He had in view in so doing, viz. the resumption of His life; hence the words: éfovcliay...raPetv avtnv. 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 commis- sion from God ; hence the expression: tavtnp T. évTOANY... maTpos wov, in which tavtnv (this and not something different) is emphatic, and tiv évtodnyv is correlate to the idea of é£ovc/a, as this latter is grounded in the divine man- date. Notice further: (1) The é£ovc/a, 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, z.e. from no compulsion exerted by a power outside of Himself, but with self-determined obedience to the Father (xiv. 30 f.; Matt. xxvi. 53). Equality of nature (Olshausen) is the pre- supposition of this moral harmony. (2) The view which pervades the New Testament, that Christ did not raise Him- self from the dead, but was raised by the Father, is not affected by this passage, inasmuch as the taking again of His life, for which the divine-human Christ had received authoriza- tion, implies the giving again of the life, to wit, the re-awaken- ing activity of the Father. This giving again on the part of God, by which Christ becomes Cwor7rounOels mvedpate (see 1 Pet. ii. 19, and Huther on the passage), and that ¢£ouvcda, which Christ receives from God, are the two factors of the resurrection—the former being the causa efficiens, whilst the latter, the ¢£ovcia of Christ, is the causa apprehendens. Com- pare Constitutiones Apostol. 5. 7. 8: éavtov mpootaypate ToD TaTpos Oia TpLOV Twepav aveyeipas.— (3) TadTHnY THY évTON. embraces the aforementioned twofold é£ovcia; justly so, inasmuch as the authorization to die and to rise again was only formally divided according to its two aspects. Chrysos- VOL. II, G 98 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tom and several others erroneously refer tavrny to the dying alone. Vv. 19-21. [dander] see ix. 16.—év tots “Iovdaiors.] These words refer to the Pharisees (ix. 40) who, in keeping with their relationship to Jesus (against De Wette), are desig- nated according to the class to which they belonged (as the Jewish hierarchical opposition). The majority of them clung to the hostile judgment (compare vii. 48), which they had contemptuously expressed; some of them, however, felt them- selves impressed, and deny the assertion of the rest. Comp. ix. 16.—7é adtod axoverte] ic. of what use is it to you to listen to His discourses ? — xat paivetac] in consequence of being possessed by a demon. — p2) Sacpovior, etc.] surely a demon cannot, etc.; a confirmation of that denial from the miracle which had given rise to the entire discussion. We see from this that these ado: belonged to the more unpreju- diced 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 recognise any demoniacal miracles (were they even in themselves bene- ficent)—Matt. xii. 24 is opposed to this view; but they believed it impossible to attribute a miracle of so great a kind to a demon, who must have been working through the medium of Jesus. Note, moreover, that even here they do not get further than a negative judgment. Vv. 22, 23. 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 Peraea, 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 Judaea; He first leaves Judaea in ver. 30. Com- — pare also Wieseler, p. 318; Ewald, Gesch. Christi, p. 471. The insertion here of a journey to Galilee or Peraea (as recently proposed, especially by Ebrard, Neander, Lange JL. J. II. p. 1004 f., Riggenbach, Luthardt, Godet) is dictated by harmonistic presuppositions and clumsy combinations (sug- — gested especially by the narrative of the journey in Luke ix. CHAP. X. 24 99 51 ff.), and not by the requirements of exegesis; for md\uv in ver. 40 cannot be reckoned among such requirements. — ra éyxaivia| the feast of Renewal, founded by Judas Maccabaeus, to commemorate the purification and consecration anew of the temple after its desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes, cele- brated for eight days every year, from the 25th Kislev onwards (the middle of December), and especially distinguished by the illumination of the houses; hence also termed ta gata. See 1 Mace. iv. 50 ff; 2 Macc. i. 18, x. 6 ff; Joseph. Antig. xii. 7. 7. From this festival (9337) sprang the Christian Church Dedication Festival, and its name é¢ycaiua. See Augusti, Denkw. III. p. 316.—év ‘Iepovc.] The celebration was not restricted to Jerusalem, but was universal (see Lightfoot, p. 1063 f.); the words év ‘Tepovc. are added because Jesus was still there. — x. yetw@yv 7v] 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 walked about in Solomon’s porch and not in the open air; hence the explanation, stormy weather (Matt. xvi. 3, so Er. Schmid, Clericus, Lampe, Semler, Kui- noel, Lange), is not in harmony with the context.— The crToa Yoropu@vos (comp. Acts iii. 11) was a portico on the eastern side of the temple buildings (hence denominated ot. avato- ‘ duxn by Josephus in his Anti. xx. 9. 7), which, according to Josephus, was a relic from Solomon’s days which had remained intact during the destruction of the temple by Nebuchad- nezzar. The mention of this particular part of the temple is one of the traces of the writer having himself been an eye- witness ; events like this no doubt impressed themselves on the memory so as never to be forgotten (comp. viii. 20). Any reason for Jesus being in the porch, beyond the one given in the words cal yeyuov jv (Luthardt, after Thiersch, Apost. Zeitalter, p. 73: “for the purpose of expressing in a figurative way the unity of the Old and New Covenants”), must be rejected as arbitrary, seeing that John himself gives no hint to that effect. Ver. 24. Oi "IovSaior] Here too the standing party of opposition. — ékvxcXwoar] encircled Him. The word graphi- cally sets forth the urgency and obtrusiveness of the Jews; 100 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. but neither implies that Jesus had been deserted by His followers (Lange), nor represents the "Iovéaio. as pushing in oetween Him and His disciples, and so enclosing Him in their midst (Godet).— ¢reyov av7@] “This speak they out of a false heart, with a view to accusing and destroying Him,” Luther. According to Hengstenberg, they really vacillated 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). — t. Wux. 7M. aipecs] aipew not in the sense of take away (Nonnus : Urokréerrels ppéva; Elsner: enecas); but in that of lift up. It denotes to excite the soul, which, according to the connec- tion, may be due to very different mental influences (Eur. Jon. 928; Hec. 69; Aesch. Sept. 198; Soph. 0. RB. 914; Prov. xix. 18; Philo, de Monarch. I. p. 218 ; Joseph. Antt. 11. 2. 3; iii. 5. 1); in this case, by strained expectation, which thou | causest us. The explanation: dvaptds petraEd mictews xk. amvotias (Euth. Zigabenus, and many others), is an approxi- mation to the sense, but is not the precise signification of the words. — ei ov ei, etc.] tf thou, and so forth, as in Luke Active 3 Vv. 25, 26. Jesus had not only told them (on many occa- sions, 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. 36). 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, vy. 4, 14, 27.— éyo... bpeis] Reproachful antithesis. — caO@s eirrov byiv] belong, as both Lachmann and Tischendorf also punctuate, to what precedes (comp. i. 33); but not, however, in such a way that Jesus merely makes a retrospective reference to the figure of the mpoBata (Fritzsche: “ut similitudine utar, quam supra posui”), which would render this repulse very meaningless ; but in such a way that Jesus recalls to their recollection the negative declaration itself as having been already uttered. It — i eee CHAP. X. 27, 28 101 is true, indeed, that He had not given direct expression to the words 6ru ov« éo7é, 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 "Iovdator belonged to them. That this is the force of xa@ ciz. iy., He Himself declares by the exhibition of the relation of His sheep that follows. We are precluded from regarding it as an introduction to what follows (Curss., Cant., Corb., Arr., Euth. Zigabenus, Tholuck, Godet), in which case a comma ought to be placed before ca@s, and a colon after div, by the circum- 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 xi. 33, 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 op- ponents,—a supposition which is justified by its accounting for the silence observed by John relatively to that period. The ' presupposition involved in the words xaOes eizrov tpiv, 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 “Iovdaitor as a whole (Briickner). Vv. 27, 28. Description of the relation of the wpd8ata to Him (comp. vv. 4, 14), which brings clearly to view that the "Tovdatoe cannot belong to them. Notice in ver. 27 the climactic parallelism of the two halves of the verse as far as didwps avtois (ver. 28), after which, commencing with kai od #4) aod., etc., the discourse goes on to express in a double form the inseparableness of the blessed relationship. On the emphatic polysyndeton, compare vv. 3, 12.—tTa@ mpoP. Ta €4a] the sheep which belong to me. — w2)v ai@yv.] also con- ceived already in its temporal development, iii. 15, v. 24, 102 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. and repeatedly.— «at od pi) dod] The negation belongs to the verb; this declaration: “they shall certainly not perish,” will be accomplished in eternity. The lost sheep, ae. 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, who has fallen into unbelief. Compare the following cal ody dpwdoeu, etc., where this protection and gracious leading is set forth with still more concrete tenderness by the words é« Ths xerpos gov. 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 apoBarov, but on the part of Christ everything is promised by which preserving grace is secured, and this is the ground of the Certitudo salutes. Vy. 29, 30. Explanation of the assertion just made, ovy dprace, etc. Ifin my hand, they are also in the hand of my Father, who is greater than all, so that an apmafew, ete. is impossible ; I am one with Him.— ds dédaxé por] se. avra. On the import of the words, compare on vi. 37. In characteriz- ing God as the giver of the sheep, Jesus enables us to see how fully He is justified in appealing, as He here does, to the Father. — wetfov (see the critical note): something greater, a greater potence. On the neuter here employed, compare Matt. xii. 6 (Lachmann). See Bernhardy, p. 335 ; Kiihner IL p. 45; Dissen ad Dem. de Cor. p. 396 (movnpov o cvxopdvrys). —mdvtwv] Masculine. Compare ris, ver. 28, and ovdeis, ver. 29. Without any limitation: all besides God. — eat ovdels Sdvatas, etc.] Necessary consequence of the petfov mdvrev, but not setting aside the possibility of losing the grace by one’s own fault, vi. 66.—€« 7. Yep. TOU maTp. pov]. This expression, Tod watp. p., is due to the presup- position, flowing out of ds dédwxé pos, that God did not let the sheep out of His hand, i.e. out of His protection and guid- ance, 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 Father is in the Son and works in Him (see vv. 37, 38); hence the latter, as the organ and CHAP.. X.. 31, 32: 103 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 Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 205 f.). Compare on €v éoper, 1 Cor. iii. 8. God’s hand is therefore His hand in the accomplishment of the work, during the performance of which He administers and carries into execution the power, love; and so forth of God. The unity, therefore, is one of dynamic fellowship, 2c. 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 orthodox interpretation, which makes it denote wnity of essence (Nonnus: év yévos éoper ; Augustine: unum, delivers us from Charybdis, that is, from Arius, and swmus 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; at the same time, 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 foun- dation, must be regarded as presupposed in the fellowship here denoted by & écper. Vy. 31, 32. The Jews understood the expression in ver. 30 to refer to essential wnity, and in their tumultuous and angry excitement would even stone (Lev. xxiv. 10 f.) the blasphemer ; the overawing impression, however, produced by Christ’s reply was powerful enough to restrain them. — éBae- tacar] sustulerunt (Vulgate), avnéptafov (Nonnus) they lifted up stones, with the intention of throwing themyat Him. The word is more characteristic than aipew in viii. 59, though on account of wavy the two must have the same import; hence the interpretation: they fetched (Hengstenberg, Godet, and others), is less exact. Compare Hom. Od. X. 594; Soph. 4. ~ 104 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 814; Polyb. 15. 26. 3.—dXuwv] viii. 59.— xara Epya} not specially: works of dove (Kuinoel, B. Crusius), but in general: praeclara opera, distinguished works,’ — SevEa bpiv] have I showed you, v. 20. Comp. 11. 18; Ps. Ixxviii. 11; Plat. Crat. p. 430 E: 70 dei€ar réyo eis tiv Tay dpOarpov aicOnow KatacThoat, — €x Tod TaTpos pov] from my Father, who is in me, and from whom, therefore, they go out through me. Compare vv. 37, 38.— 6a moioy, etc.] propter quale, ete. 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 ? (AvOaGere, see Bernhardy, p. 370; Buttm. Meut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. p. 205]). Not as though He did not know why they were intending to stone Him, but probably in the con- sciousness of having actually shown Himself by His works to be something totally different from a blasphemer. — zrepi Brachnp. cat O71] for blasphemy, and, indeed, because. The reproach: “thou makest thyself God” (comp. v. 18), we a divine being (i. 1), was a consequence of the mistaken view taken of ver. 30; which they had interpreted of essential unity. Kai connects with the general charge a more exact definition of that on which it was based. Vy. 34-38. Jesus justifies Himself from the reproach of blasphemy by defending His assertion that He was the Son of God—the words of ver. 30 which had excited the opposition amounted to this—from the Scriptures (vv. 34-36); He then sets forth the unity affirmed in ver. 30 as credibly attested by His works (vv. 37, 38). Vv. 34-36. In Ps. lxxxil. 6, unrighteous authorities of the theocratic people—not angels (Bleek), nor yet heathen princes (De Wette, Hitzig)—whose approaching destruction, in con- trast to their high dignity, is intended to stand out, are called gods, agreeably to the old sacred view of rulers as the repre- sentatives of God, which was entertained in the theocratic nation. Compare Ex. xxi. 6, xxii. 8, 28. From this, Jesus draws the conclusion a minort ad majus, that He might call ’ Jesus was the more able thus to designate His acts, because He characterized them as works of God performed through Him. The explanation of Luthardt says too little: ‘‘ Works with which no fault can be found.” CHAP, X. 34—36. 105 Himself God’s Son without blasphemy. He is surely far more exalted than they (6v 6 watip wyiace, etc.); and nevertheless had designated Himself, not @eos, as though wishing to make a God of Himself, but merely vios 7. Ocod.'— év TO vopo] Spoken of the Old Testament generally, of which the law was the fundamental and authoritative portion. Comp. xii. 34, xv. 25; Rom. iii. 19; 1 Cor. xiv. 21. — duov] as in viii. 17. — éxeivouvs| whom? Jesus takes for granted as known. — etme] namely, 6 vouos (compare afterwards 7 ypagy), not God (Hengstenberg).— mpos ots] to whom, not adversus quos (Heinsius, Stolz), which does not follow from the context. There is nothing to warrant the supposition that the prophets are also referred to (Olshausen). — 0 Aoyos Tod Oeod] Neither the Adyos doapxos (Cyril), nor the revelations of Gok (Ol- shausen, comp. Godet), but the saying of God just mentioned : éy@ elma, etc. This saying belongs, not to the time when the Psalm was written, but to that earlier period (the period of the induction of the authorities into their office, comp. Ps. ii. 7), to which God, the speaker, points back.— «al ov Suvataz, etc.| This clause, 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 e¢: and at is impossible, ete. So also Ewald, Godet, Hengstenberg. — AvOHvat] The Scripture (consequently, also, that saying of the Psalms) cannot be loosened, i.e. cannot be deprived of its validity. Comp. Matt. v. 19; John v. 18, vii. 23; Herod. 3. 82; Plat. Phaedr. p. 256 D; Gorg. p. 509 A; Dem. 31. 12, 700, 13. The auctoritas normatira et judicialis of the Scriptures must remain unbroken. Note, in connection herewith, the idea of the wnity of the Scriptures as such, as also the pre- : supposition of their theopneustia.— dv o TAT) p ny. ete.] That is surely something still greater than the Novos 7. Geod, 1 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 predicate, ‘‘ 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 (ov ¢ rarnp nyiace, etc.) might equally have been affirmed by _ every prophet.” On such a view, no regard would be paid to the relation of racap and vids. 106 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, addressed to authorities when they were installed in their offices. In this question, which is placed in the apodosis, and which expresses surprise, the object, which is correlate to the éxeivous of ver. 35, is very emphatically placed at the commencement; and dwets (you people) is placed over against the inviolable authority of the Scripture. — jyiace] hath con- secrated, a higher analogue of the consecration to the office of prophet (Jer. i. 5; Sir. xlv. 4, xlix. 7), denoting the divine consecration to the office of Messiah, who is the aytos tod Ocod (vi. 69; Luke iv. 34). This consecration took place on His being sent from heaven, and immediately before His departure (hence jylace kal améor.), in that the Father not merely “set apart” the Son to the work (as though the word ¢é&e- réEato had been used; Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 86; comp. Euth. Zigabenus, Hengstenberg, and Briickner), but also con- ferred on Him the Messianic évToA7 and é£ovcla, with the fulness of the Spirit appertaining thereunto (ii. 34), and the power of life (v. 26), and the wAjpwua of grace and truth (i. 14).—6re Bracdnpets| The reply which, in view of dv, etc., we should have expected to be in the oblique con- struction (BrAacdnpeiv or dt BAacdnwe?, comp. ix. 19), passes over with the increasing vivacity of the discourse into the direct construction; compare vill. 54, and see Buttm. Mew. Gr. p. 234[E. T. p. 272]. —6re eimrov] because I said. He had said it éndirectly in vv. 29, 30. Vv. 37-39. Your unbelief, which lies at the foundation of the judement é7v Pracdnuets, would then be justifiable, if I were not, etc. In the other case, however, you ought to be- lieve, if not me, at all events my works, in order that you, ete. —ei ov wove] if I leave them undone. Comp. Buttm. Neu. Gr. p. 297 [E. T. p. 346]; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 278.— Ta épya Tov waTtp. w.] which my Father works; compare on ix. 3, xiv. 10, also ver. 23. — 2) avo. woe] not merely per- missive, but an actual command, as in the case of the following LEE EEE EE eeeeererererelc eee muarevere (see the critical note). The alternative is decided: | they ought not to believe Him, if, ete. —éwot] My person in and by itself, apart from the actual testimony borne to it by the épya. — To believe the works, is to hold for true the testi- mony which is contained in them (v. 36).’ The object of CHAP, X. 37-39. 107 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 tva yvdre kK. ytva@oknte (see the critical note), which Hengstenberg, notwithstanding, rejects as giving an unbearable meaning, Jesus describes this as the end to be attained by His pre- scription: i order that ye may attain to knowledge, and may (permanently) know, etc.—drawing a distinction between the act and the state of knowledge. Compare émipednOjvat Kat érriperetabat, Plat. Legg. viii. p. 849 B.— Ore ’v éuol 6 rar. Kayo év avt@| This now is the wnity which He meant in ver. 30; not essential unity (old orthodox explanation of the sreps- xaepnoes 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 sround of His existence and working” (De Wette), lies far remote from the words kayo év avr, because the relation of the clauses of the proposition must be equal. But this rela- tion is nothing else than that of inner, active, reciprocal fellow- ship. In accordance therewith, 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 re- demptive activity as taking place in Christ ; e.g. Rom. viii. 39 ; Eph. i. 3 ff.— Ver. 39. ody] In consequence of this defence, which averted the threatened tumultuous stoning, for which the Jews had begun to prepare themselves. The supposition that widcas denotes laying hold of with a view to carrying out the stoning, is opposed by the wddwv, which refers back to vil. 30, 52, 44 (against Calvin, Luthardt, Hengstenberg). — kat é&nrOer, 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 adherents; Hengstenberg: by the inde- 108 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. cision of His enemies); of any miraculous element (eg. be- coming invisible) in His escape, although assumed by many early commentators, and even yet by B. Crusius and Luthardt, John gives no hint. Comp. on viii. 59. Euth. Zigabenus: dvaywpel Sia Tov Oupov Tov POovepav, evdidols adTe Nodhoas Kat AREaL TH aTrovola avTod. Vv. 40-42. Tdduv.] i. 28.—mépav t. ’Iopd.] He went away from Jerusalem, beyond the Jordan (as in vi. 1, xviii. 1) to Peraea, and, indeed, to the place, ete. Instead of allow- ing themselves to be won over to faith and redemption, the ‘Iovdaior had grown ever more hardened and decided in their hostility, 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 withdraws for a calm and undisturbed, although brief, season of activity to Peraea, 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, i. 23), there could be as little lack of susceptible hearts as of quiet, elevating, and sacred memories for Himself. — émwetvev éxet] How long, we cannot precisely ascertain, as He spent also some time in Ephraim before the feast of the Passover (xi. 54f.). In any case, however, the guewev éxet lasted but for a very short period, as is evident also from the word voy in xi. 8.— «at Todo, etc.] “Fructus posthumus ~ officii Johannis,” Bengel. — éxeyor] not adr, but a bearing of testimony in general. — Iwdvvns pév, etc.| Logically we should expect mév after cnpetov; but even classical writers frequently disregard logical precision in their mode of placing pév and 8 See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 6. 11; Baeumlein, — Partik. p. 168. — onpetov éroinaev 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 onueta which Jesus had wrought, as they had been informed, elsewhere, and pro- bably here also, before their own eyes. In this way we may also account for wév not occupying its strictly logical position. —tThe repetition of ’Iwdvvns in ver. 42 is part of the simplicity of the style, which is here faithfully reflected, and is further in harmony with the feeling of reverence entertained by the Aa EE CHAP. X. 40—42. 109 people for the holy man whose memory still lived among them. — 470% 7v] As was actually shown by the works of Jesus. In this way, their experience of the truth of the testi- mony of John became the ground of faith in Christ. What a contrast to the experiences which Jesus had just had to pass through among the "Iovéato.! The ray of light thus vouch- safed to Him in the place where He first commenced His labours, is here set forth in all historical simplicity. Baur, however (p. 182 f., and Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 280f.), main- tains 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 onueta. John himself gives a comprehensive retrospect, but in the right place, namely, at the close of the activity of Jesus in xii. 37 ff.,and in how different a manner !—é€x«ez (see the critical note), placed emphatically at the end of the verse. 110 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. CEA Ta eo. VER. 12. of madara aired] A. 44 have merely airé. D. K.®. Curss. Verss. : air@ of wadnraié (so Lachm. and Tisch.). B.C.*L.X. Copt.: of wad. ard. The simple air@ is the original reading ; of 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 air% into airod.—Ver. 17. zxAday...evpev| Lachm.: 7Adev... xa! edpes, solely after C.* D. Partly before (so Lachm. in the margin), partly after juépas (so Elzey. and Lachm.), stands 76, which, however, is altogether omitted (so Tisch.) by A.* D. Curss. Verss.: réo0. 76y ju. must be regarded as the original reading (B. C.*). The word 76, beginning and ending with H, was easily passed over, as standing imme- diately before juépas, which also begins with H, and was then restored in the wrong place. — Ver. 19. Instead of xa? roAroé, we must, with decisive testimonies, read woAAo/ 6¢ with Lachm, ~ and Tisch. — «iray] after ddsXood must, with Tisch., after B.D. L.s., be deleted as a usual addition. — Ver. 21. 6 d&derg. joov odx ay éredvqxer] Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive wit- nesses, read otx dy dwédavev 6 dO. mov. If éredvqxes had been the original reading, it would have been found as a various reading also in ver. 32; it is a clumsy interpretation. — Ver. 22. dara] is wanting in B. C.* X.s. Curss. Verss. Chrys. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An antithetical interpolation. — Ver. 29. éye/peras] B.C.* D.L.s&. Curss. Verss.: zyépdn. So Lachm. A mechanical transposition into the historical tense, with which the reading 7pyero (instead of zpyeras) in the same Codd., except D., is also connected. — Ver. 30. After jv Lachm. and Tisch. have ¢z (B. C. X. 8. Curss. Verss.). An addition more precisely determining the meaning, which other witnesses place before 7v.— Ver. 31. Aéyovres] B.C.* D. L. X. x. Curss. Verss. : dsSavres, Which, as an unusual expression, must with Tisch. be received into the text on the authority of these decisive wit- nesses. — Ver. 32. The position of airod before eis +. x66. (Elz. and Lachm. place it after) has the decision of the Codd. in its favour.—ip"na (against De Wette) ; comp. on xii. 27, 28. The latter is a heavenly voice of revelation. — 67] not: that, according to which what follows would directly state the contents of mpoepr., but: he gave utterance to a prophecy in reference to the fact that (ii. 18, ix. 17, et al.). For what follows goes beyond that which the words of Caiaphas express. — v7rép Tod €Ovovs] Caiaphas had said: oép tod dXaod; but John turns to the negative part of ver. 50 («. pH 6X. TO EOvos a7OX.), because he wishes to set the Gentiles over against the Jews, and this separation is national. Comp. Luke vil. 5; John xviii. 35. Sor the benefit of the nation Christ was to die; for through His atoning death the Jews, for whom, in the first instance, the Messianic salvation was designed, iv. 22, were to become partakers by means of faith in the eternal saving deliverance. But the object of His death extended still further than the Jews; not for the bene- fit 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 (Rom. ix. 24 ffjoxv. 27; Gal aii. 145) Epheaeoiie: According to Tholuck, +. tveurov ix. should be understood in 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 +. tvaurod éx. ? especially as dpyiepebs, x.7.4., is said only to make the rpoe@%r. explicable, but expresses nothing as to the relation of the high-priestly sacrifice. This also against Luthardt’s similar interpretation, I. p. 87. * Calvin well remarks : ‘‘ Filios ergo Dei, etiam antequam vocentur, ab elec- tione aestimat, qui fide tandem et sibi et aliis manifestari incipiunt.” CHAP. XI. 53, 54. 145 tom. vill. 29, 30, xi. 25, 26, xvi. 25, 26; Eph. iii. 4 ff; Col. i. 27; Acts xii. 48, xviii. 10), from which they appear as those who, in order to further their entrance into the filial state, are drawn by God (vi. 4), are given by the Father to the Son (vi. 37), and endowed with the inward preparation (vi. 65). Euth. Zigabenus rightly remarks: téxva pév odv tod Oeod Ta €Ovn avomacev ws médNXOVTA yevéoOar. This likewise in answer to Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 153, Evang. p. 297, according to whom the Gentiles, as natwral children of God, who do not first become so through Christianity, are said to be meant (but see 1,12, i. 3, 6, e¢ al). A filial state toward God out of Christ is opposed to the N. T., not only as Hilgenfeld puts it, from a Gnostic, dualistic point of view, but also, as Luthardt conceives it (comp. also Messner, Lehre der Ap. p. 330 f.), referring the essence of it only to the desire after Christ (Tholuck, Weiss, Godet, to the susceptibility). This is only the preliminary step to the filial state. The gathering into one, ie. to a unity, to an undivided community, is not intended in a local sense; but, amid their local dispersion, they were to become united in a higher sense, in virtue of a faith, etc., through the cowwvia tod ayiov tTvevpatos, as one conmunion év Xptot@. Chrysostom aptly remarks: éy capa érroincev: 0 €v ‘Payn Kabijpevos tovs "Ivdods péros etvar vouiter éavrod, The uniting with the believing Jews (the moeiv TA duhotepa év, Eph. ii. 14) is not spoken of here, but in x. 16; here only the Christian folding together of the scattered Gentiles themselves, Yor the expression ovvayew (and the like) e¢s év, comp. Plat. Phileb. p. 378 C; Eur. Or. 1640, Phoen. 465. Vv. 53, 54. Ovv] In consequence of this word of Caiaphas, which prevailed. — iva] They held deliberations with one another, 7m order, etc., Matt. xxvi. 4.— rappyeo.] frankly and freely, vil. 4.— é€v tots ’Iovdaiors] He withdrew Himself— since those deliberations of the high council, whether through Nicodemus or otherwise, had become known to Him (ody)— from intercourse with His Jewish adversaries, and betook Himself to the sequestered village of Hphraim, according to Eusebius 8 miles, according to Jerome 20 miles (so also litter, XV. p. 465, XVI. p. 531 ff.) N.E. from Jerusalem, in Judaea; according to Josephus, Bell. iv. 9. 9, in the neigh- VOL. II. K a 146 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. bourhood of Bethel, comp. 2 Chron. xiii. 20 (according to the _ Keri). It can hardly be the present village of Taiyibeh (see Robinson, II. p. 337 f.), considering its more westerly situa- tion. Hengstenberg identifies it on insufficient grounds with Baal Hazor, 2 Sam. xiii, 23; and Vaihinger, in Herzog’s Lncycl., with 75y, Josh. xviii. 23. The mention of the desert is not opposed to the north-easterly situation of Ephraim, as Ebrard thinks ; for the desert of Judaea (ic. 9) €pnwos Kat’ éEoynv) extended as far as the region of Jericho. — els 7. yopayp, x.T.r.| He departed into the country (as opposed to Jerusalem, the capital city); then a more precise definition of the place to which He withdrew, namely, the neighbourhood of the desert; and, finally, definite mention of the place, a town named Ephraim. On xe@pa, comp. Plat. Legg. v. p. 745 C, vii. p. 817 A; Mark i. 5; Acts xxvi. 20; 3 Macc. iii. 1. Ver. 55. "Hv 5é éyy. t. tadoyxa Tt. ’I.] Comp. ii. 13; vi. 4. —éx THs y@pas] as in ver. 45,—accordingly: out of the country (as opposed to Jerusalem), not: owt of that district (Grotius, Bengel, Olshausen). — tva ayvic. éavr.] refers to the legal usages of self-purification, which varied greatly according to the degrees of the Levitical uncleannesses (washings, sacri- fices, etc.). These, in compliance with the general principle of appearing before God pure (Gen. xxxv. 2; Ex. xix.10, 11), were completed before the beginning of the feast, in order to obtain from the priest the declaration of ceremonial cleanness, Num. ix. 10; 2 Chron. xxx. 17, 18, e¢ al. Comp. xviii. 28. Pilgrims accordingly set out according to their needs, in good time before the feast; see Lightfoot, 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 venture, as hereto- fore, 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 does not, etc. But on that view His not coming would be already presupposed as certain, CHAP, XI. 57. 147 which would be premature. To understand the words in the sense that He ts not come (Erasmus, Castalio, Paulus, and several others; not the Vulgate) is grammatically incorrect. The passages quoted by Hartung (Parttkell. II. p. 156) do not apply here.’ See Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 412.—The inquiry is interchanged in the court of the temple, because it was there that His appearance was to be looked for; while éoTnKotes vividly represents the groups as standing to- gether. Ver. 57. With the explanatory &é («aé is spurious) the particular circumstance is now added, on account of which men so greatly doubted of His coming. — dedéxevcay] comes first with emphasis. Already had the directions of the rulers in question been given. — fva] object, and therewith contents of the évroXai, 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. 'Tholuck (who otherwise follows our interpretation) incorrectly adduces Polyb. iii. 111. 1. In that passage wa stands with the perf. quite as in Gal. ty. LI. 148 TIIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. CHAPTER-X1L Ver. 1. 6 redyyxwe]is wanting in B. L. X. &. Verss. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. But those testimonies are here the less decisive, since the word before ty éy. éx. vexp. 6 I. appeared entirely superfluous, and hence was easily dropped. For its addition there was no reason.— Ver. 2. dvax. odv aire] Elz.: cwvavax, adr, against decisive testimonies. — Ver. 4. Instead of "Todd. Siu. "Ioxap., Tisch. has merely ‘Iodédas 6 “loxap., and that before .] as a symbol of joy. The article r@v (not Ta) contains the element of definiteness ; the branches of the palm-trees stunding on the spot. On Baiov comp. 1 Mace. xiii. 51; Symm. Cant. 1. 8; Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 88. The expression: the palm branches of the palms, is similar to oixodeaTroTNs THS otKias, and the like, Lobeck, Paralip. p. 536 f. The thing itsclf has in other respects nothing to do with an analogy to the Lulab at the feast of Tabernacles (Ley. xxiii. 40). Comp. however, 1 Mace. xiii. 51.—wtvrdvrnowv adte] see Buttmann, Neut. Gr. p. 156 [E. T. p. 320].—- dcavva, «.7.r.] See on Matt. xxi. 9.— Bacireds tr. *I.] without the article (Lachmann has it; Tischendorf, nai 0): the King of Israel who comes in the name of the Lord. Vy. 14,15. Etpwyv sé, «7.r.] The more detailed circum- stances, how He had obtained the young ass (evdpiov), are passed over by John; hence he is not in contradiction with the Synoptics (Matt. xxi. 2 ff. parall.).— xaéos éote yeyp.| Zech. ix. 9. See on Matt. xxi. 5. John cites very freely from memory; hence the omission of the other prophetic pre- dicates (even of the wpais in Matt.), because he has in his eye simply the point of the mding i upon the young ass, as a Messianic onpetov excluding all doubt. All the more fitted to tranquillize,then (41) go80d),in ever more peaceful array, without horse and chariot, is the coming of the King of Zion. Instead of ui) dood, John might also have said yatpe opodpa (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 the cross” (Hengstenberg) did not yet lie on this ass’s foal, other- wise John would not have passed over the ‘2¥ of the passage, nor have found the emphasis in ux ood. Ver. 16. Observation by John. Comp. il. 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 con- nection 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, CHAP. XII. 17, 18. nga vii. 39, xiv. 26) that this, this riding on the young ass, did not accidentally occur, but that it was written 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 éoincay avrT@ there is the echo from John’s recollection of the way and manner of the etp@v ovdpiov as known from the Synoptics. To take ésro/ncav generally: they (indef.) did, and to refer it to ver. 13 (De Wette, Ewald, and older commentators), is incorrect, since the first two tadra can only point to vv. 14, 15.— On ém’ avt@ see Bernhardy, p. 249. Winer, p. 367 [E. T. p. 491]. Vv. 17, 18. Odv] Leading back again after the intermediate observation of ver. 16 to the story, and that in such a way that it is now stated how it was the raising of Lazarus which so greatly excited both the people who thronged with Jesus from Bethany to Jerusalem (the ‘Iovdaito. who had become believers, vv. 9, 11, and others, certainly including many inhabitants of Bethany itself), and the multitude which came to meet them from Jerusalem (ver. 12).— éwapt. «.7.r. bre]? for they had, in truth, themselves 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.— édorvncer...vexpav] The echo of their triumphant words. — 6a todro... 070] On this account (on account of this raising from the dead), namely, because; see on x. 17.— bryHvtyoev] not pluperfect in sense, but: they went to mect (as already stated above, vv. 12,13).—6 éyXos] The article points to ver. 12. — ixovear] namely, previously, in Jerusalem.— todto] with emphasis ; hence also the separation in the order of the words. Notr.—While we necessarily recognise the main difference between the Synoptics and John, namely, that according to the 1 With the reading @re (see critical notes), ?z«pr would have to be taken absolutely - the people bore witness, who, viz. were with Him at the raising of Lazarus. Comp. Luther, Erasmus, and many others. Thus the oes would be the same as in xi. 42, which, however, is not appropriate to ver. 12 and ver. 18, and would only tend to confuse. 158 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. former, the journey of Christ to Jerusalem 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 an entry on two occasions (Paulus, Schleiermacher, iid. d. Schriften des Luk. p. 243 ff., and Z. J. p. 407 ff), according to which He is said first to have made an entry from Jericho, and, one or two days later, again from Bethany, the very nature of the transaction is decisive, to which a repetition, and one moreover so early, was not appropriate, without degenerating into an organized procession. Only in the view of its occurring once, and of its being brought about accidentally, as it were, by the circum- stances, does it retain a mora] agreement with the mind of Jesus. With this view, too, all four accounts couform,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, would be as impro- bable in itself, as it must be opposed to the course of develop- ment 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 mea- sure in the simple fulfilment of the prophetic prediction. Ver. 19. Contrast to the triumph; the despairing self- confession. of the Pharasaic adversaries, not as Chrysostom, in spite of the article in of Sapic., explained of the quiet friends of Jesus among the Pharisees. — pds éautovs] to one another; but dAA7jX. is not employed, because the utterance is to appear as limited to the particular circle. Comp. on vii. 35.— 0ew- pette, «.7.r.] You perceive that we profit nothing, namely, by our previous cautious, expectant, feeble procedure. “ Appro- bant Caiaphae consilium,” Bengel.—o xédcpos] designation, indicative of their despair, of the great multitude. Comp. D> in the Rabbins. See Wetstein.—In a77rOev (is gone from thence) is contained, by means of the pragmatic connection with é7ricw avrod, the representation of the falling away from the legitimate hierarchical power. Comp. dnyor, ver. 11. Ver. 20. The Hellenes are, as in vii. 35, not Greek Jews, FTellenists (Calvin, Semler, B. Crusius, Ewald), but Gentiles,— proselytes, however, as is shown by what follows (note espe- CIIAP. XII. 21, 22. 159 cially the pres. part. advaBaw.: who were wont to go up), and that of the gate, like the Aethiopian chamberlain, Acts viii, one not pure Gentiles (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Salmasius, Selden, and several others, including Paulus, Jee, Schweizer). — Where did the scene take place? Probabiy 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, however (comp. also Scholten), the whole affair is to be referred simply to the idea of the author, who makes Jesus, \under the ascendancy of Jewish unbelief, to be glorified by believing heathendom. This idea is that of the histonxy itself. Bengel rightly observes: “ Praeludium regni Dei a tage ad gentes transituri.” Vv. 21, 22. The Messianic hope, which they 4s 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 mere seeing, as in Luke xix. 3, any interven- tion of a third party (as Briickner now also recognises) would not have been required—wWhether they came to Philip acci- dentally, 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 Greek education (Hengstenberg), is arbitrary. — xvpte] not without the tender of honour, which they naturally 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. 3), and who was on terms of intimacy with him by the fact of the same birthplace (@. 45), and that with him he carries out their wish, rests on the circumstance 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. — Im the reading épyertau 160 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. "Avdp. x. ®. cal Néyouae 7@ 'I. (see critical notes), observe (1) the lively manner of representation in the repetition of épyerar; (2) the change of the singular to the plural of the Werby which also is found in the classical writers. Xen. Anab. iL 4) 16, and Kihuer zn loc. Ver. 23. The proposal of the Gentiles which had been brought to; Him, awakens in Jesus, with peculiar force and depth, the thdught of His approaching death ; for through His death was His salvation in truth to be conveyed to the Gentiles (x. 16, 17)—Accordingly, that wish of the Gentiles must appear to Him as already a beginning of that which was to be effected by His death. Hence His answer to those two disciples (not to the “EdAnves, 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 coniplete surrender to the Father. This answer is consequently neither inappropriate (De Wette), nor does it contain an indirect refusal of the request of the Greeks (Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet) ; nor is the granting of it to be thought of as having taken place before, and as having been passed over in silence by John (Tholuck, B. Crusius, and older com- mentators), which the text refutes by the words dzexpivato avtots, which continue the narrative without any further re- marks; nor is the petition of the Gentiles to be regarded as indirectly complied with, namely, by the fact that the apostles brought it before Jesus, and that the latter then began to speak (Luthardt)—which amounts to the improbability that Jesus, by the following speech, desired to make a display before those Gentiles (whom Ewald also supposes to have been present) ; but the admission of the Gentiles which was to have taken place after this outpouring of emotion, did not, however, take place, because the voice from heaven, ver. 28, interrupted and changed the scene.” The theory that in v. 23 ff. the synop- 1 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, ete. But we may also conversely pass the judgment that Jesus, on the very threshold of His death, could not have designed to refuse an actual manifestation of His universal destination, which He, moreover, had expressed in x. 16,—offered so CIIAP. XII. 24, 28. LOE tical 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 combination (Baur), proceeds from presuppositions, according to which it is possible to adduce even Gal. i. 9 as a witness against John xii. 20 (see against this, Bleek, p. 250 ff.),as Baur has done. — éA7AvG ev] Placed first with emphasis. — iva] Comp. xiii. 1, xvi. 2, 32. The hour is conceived of absolutely (in the consciousness of Jesus the présent hora fatalis car’ éEoynv), and that which is to take place in it, as the divine appointment for its having arrived. — d0£ac@7] through death, as the necessary passage to the heavenly glory. Comp. xvii. 5, vi. 62; 1 Pet. i. 11. 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 (api, apy, «.7.r.) is in keeping with the difficulty of getting the disciples to accept the idea of His death. — adro@avy] For the vital principle in the corn, the germ, forces itself out ; thus the corn is dead, and become a prey to dissolution, comp. 1 Cor. xv. 36 —-adtos povos] by itself alone, vi. 15. Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 314. 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 blessing which is destined for the world. Comp. ver. 32. 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. 39; Luke ix. 24, xvii. 33.—The avy7 is in each instance the soul, as adv7yyv also is to be taken in like manner in each instance. This is clear from its being distinguished from 7. He who loves his soul, will not let it 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 means to make a full surrender to the petitioners. WOl, Lr. L 162 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. go (0 pirtouyayv év Kaip® paptupiov, Euth. Zigabenus), loses it (see critical notes)—7z.e. he thereby brings about that it falls into the death of everlasting condemnation; and he who hates his soul in this world (gives it up with joy, as something which, moreover, is a hindrance to eternal salvation, and in so far must be hated) will preserve it for everlasting life, keep it to himself as a possession in the everlasting Messianic life. Note the correlatives: Guiav and pucav, amoréces and dudrdékev (comp. xvii. 12), év 7@ Kdcum@ tovTm (in the pre-Messianic world), and eis fwnv aieviov.— On pioetv, whose meaning is not to be altered, but to be understood relatively, in opposition to girrovyia, comp. Luke xiv. 26. “ Amor, wt pereat ; odium ne pereat; si male amaveris, tunc odisti; si bene oderis, tunc amasti,” Augustine. Ver. 26. Requirement and promise, in accordance with that which was expressed generally in ver. 25.—axond.] on the way of my life-surrender; comp. Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24.— dmov eiwl éyo| comp. xiv. 3, xvii. 24. The pres. tense re- presents the fut. as present: where I am, there will also my servant be, namely, after I have raised him up (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54) in the Parousia. Comp. xiv. 3, xvii. 24. That fol- lowing 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. 34. According to Luthardt (comp. Euth. Zigabenus 1), 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 (eis Conv aiwviov).—éav Tis ew. Stak. «.7.r.] Parallel with the preceding, further designating, particularly and specifically, the promised happiness, and that in the light of the divine recompense contained in it. This thought is expressed by the conjunction of Svaxovh and tywnoes, which verbs have the emphasis (it is different previously, when €uot . €wot bore the emphasis); he who serves me, him will the Father honour, actually, through the do€a in the everlasting life, comp. Rom. ii. 10, viii. 17. The dvaxovetv, however, is here to be understood with the previously enjoined quality of following Christ. Vy. 27, 28. The realization of His sufferings and death, with CHAP. Nil, 27; 128 163 which His discourse from ver. 23 was filled, shakes Him sud- denly with apprehension and momentary wavering, springing from the human sensibility, which naturally seeks to resist the 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, according to the olyect of the death (5129.1 14,.xm 11, 12; Matt: xx, 28: Romy viii. 3, iil. 25; 2 Cor. v. 21, et al.), its severity also is measured in the consciousness. Bengel well says: “ concurrebat horror mortis et ardor obedientiae.” The Lord is thus moved to.pray ; but He is for the moment uncertain for what (ti elrw), amropovpevos v7rd THs aywvias, Euth. Zigabenus. irst,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-suffering which is awaiting me, quite as in Matt. xxvi. 39, so that He thus not merely “eries 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 con- sciousness of His great destiny; He gives expression to the latter (GAN Sua TodTO, «.7.d.), and now prays: Father, glorify Thy name ; 7.., 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 Sea) 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. —1 Wwvy7 pov] not as a designation of individual grief (Olshausen), but as the seat of the affections generally. He ? Which in itself is not only not immoral, but the absence of which would even lower the moral greatness and the worth of His sacrifice. Comp. Dorner, Jesu siindlose Vollkommenh. p. 6. 164 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. might also have said 70 mveduad pov (comp. xi. 33, 38), but would then have meant the deeper basis of life, to which the impressions of the yuvx7}, which is united with the cdp€, are con- veyed. Comp. on Luke i. 46, 47.— mdtep, cdcop pe, 7A] The hour of suffering is regarded as present, as though He were already at that hour. To take the words interrogatively : shall I say: save me? etc. (so Chrysostom, Theophylact, Jansen, Grotius, Lampe,and many others, including Lachmann, Tholuck, Kling, Schweizer, Maier, Lange, Ewald, Godet) yields the result of an actual prayer interwoven into a reflective monologue, and is therefore less suitable to a frame of mind so deeply moved. —a@AX4] objecting, like our but no! See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 36; Baeumlein, Partik. p.13 f.—68sa rodro] Wherefore, is contained in the following prayer, wartep, 50&a- cov, k.t.X. Consequently: therefore, in order that through my suffering of death Zhy 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 wndergo this suffering (Grotius, De Wette, Luthardt, Lange, Ebrard, Godet ; comp. Hengstenberg: “in order that my soul may be shaken”) is tautological; and Lampe: to be saved, is inappro- priate. The todro is here preparative ; let only Sua tobT0.. . ravTnv 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: adda, watep, S0facov cov TO dvoua, dua TovTO yap MAPov €. 7. @. 7. But the language, deeply emotional, throbs more unconnectedly, and as it were by starts. — The repetition of atep corresponds to the thrill of filial affection. —oov stands emphatically, in the first place, in antithesis to the reference which the previous prayer of Jesus contained to Himself. On the sub- ject-matter, comp. Matt. xxvi. 39.—odv] corresponding to this petition. — dav é« 7. ovp.| The voice which came from heaven: I have glorified it (in Thy mission and Thy whole previous work), and shall again (through Thine impending departure by means of death to the d0£a) glorify it,’ is not to be regarded as actual, natural thunder (according to the O. T. 1 The reference of 23s%ac to the O. 7’. revelation, which is now declared to be closed (Lange, Z. J. II. p. 1208), is without any foundation in the context. ae, less susceptible to this divine aa owe a “nature, believed only in a 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 under- stood ; see Liibkert in the Stud. w. Krit. 1835, 3), as well as to the Gentile interpretations of thunder as the voice of the gods (see Wetstein). Against this entire view, it is decisive that John himself, the ear-witness, describes a wry éx Tod ovpavov, which was an objective occurrence; that he further repeats its express words; that, further, to take 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 Himself, ver. 30, gives His con- firmation to the occurrence of an actual voice; that, finally, the ddAoxz also, ver. 29, must have heard a speech. Hence we must abide by the interpretation that a voice actually isswed 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 intelligibi- lity conditioned by the subjective disposition and receptivity 1 See, in answer to him, some appropriate observations in Engelhardt, in the Luth, Zeitschr. 1865, p. 209 ff. He, however, refers the doécw to the fact that the Son, even in His sufferings, will allow the will of God entirely to prevail with Him. The glorifying of God, however, by means of the death of Jesus, which was cer- tainly the culminating point of His obedience to the Father, reaches further, namely (see especially xvii. 1, 2) to God’s honour through the Lord’s attainment of exaltation throughout the whole world by means of His death. As dcZacu refers to His munus propheticum, so d&écw to the fact that He attains to the munus regium through the fulfilment of the munus sacerdotale. 166 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of the hearers (so also Tholuck, Olshausen, Kling, Luthardt, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 391 f, Lange, Ebrard, Godet following the old commentators), which sounded with a tone as of thunder, so that the definite words which resounded in this form of sound remained unintelligible to the unsusceptible, who simply heard that majestic kind of sound, but not its contents, and said: Bpovrny yeyovévat; whereas, on the other hand, 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 angelic ministry (Hofmann), since, in fact, the utterance of the @AXox is not adduced as at all the true account, and since, moreover, the heavenly voice, accord- ing to the text, appears simply and solely as the answer of the Father. Vv. 30, 31. ’Azrexpi@n] not to the disciples (Tholuck), but, according to ver. 29, with reference to these two expressions of opinion from the people. He lets their opinions, as to what and whose the voice was, alone, but recognises 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.— 6c’ éwé] to assure me that my prayer has been heard; “novi patris animum in me,” Erasmus. — 82’ das] in relation to you to overcome unbelief, and to strengthen faith. Comp. xi. 42.—vdv xpious, «.7.r] Not an interpretation of the voice (Hengstenberg), but also not without reference to ov’ twas (Engelhardt), which is too weighty an element. Rather: how the crisis of this time presses for the use of that 8? twas!—viv...vdv] with triumphant certainty of victory, treating the near future as present ; now, now, is it gone so far! He speaks “ quasi cer- tamine defunctus,” Calvin. — xpious] Now is judgment, ie. judicial (according to the context: condemnatory) decision passed wpon this world, 7c. on the men of the ai@y ovtos who reject faith. This judgment is an actual one; for in the vic- tory of the Messianic work of salvation, which was to be brought about by the death of Jesus, and His exaltation CHAP. XII. 30, 31. 167 to the heavenly glory connected therewith,’ the xédcpos was to be set forth in the entire sinfulness and weakness of its hostility towards Christ, and thereby in fact judged.” Comp. xvi. 9,10, 33. This victory the ruler of this world in particular (7. «oop. Tt. solemnly repeated), the devil, was to submit to;* his dominion must have an end, because the death of Jesus effected the reconciliation of humanity, by which reconciliation all were to be drawn away from the devil by becoming believers, and were to be placed under the spiritual power of the Christ exalted to glory, ver. 32, Rom. v. 12 ff; _ Phil. ii, 9-11. He is called the dpywv tod Kocpov TovTou, as the ruler of the wnbelieving, Christ - opposing humanity (comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii 2, vi. 12), as in the writings of Rabbins, he, as ruler of the Gentzles, in opposition to God and His people, bears: this as a standing name (phyn ww). Sce Lightfoot and Schoettgen, also in Eisenmenger, Lntdeckt. Judenthum, I. p. 647 ff. Here he is so called, because the very xplow of his dominium, the xdcpos, was declared. — éxBrAnOnocetat €Ew| 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 xdcpos otros. Only this supplement is 1 There lies in it, accordingly, no opposition to the belief in the last judgment (against Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 274), as has been supposed from a misinter- pretation also of iii. 19, 20, in spite of the repeated mention of the last day, and in spite of v. 27, against which here the very absence of the article should have been a warning. Again, what is subsequently said of the devil (as also the passages xiv. 30, 31, 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 recognised 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 conquest of the devil is necessarily granted along with the atoning effect of the death of Jesus, and through the operation of the Spirit of the exalted one it is in process of completion until the Parousia. 2 As hereafter the devil isthe subject which is cast out, so here the xdcos is the subject which is judged. This in answer to Bengel: ‘‘judicium de mundo, quis posthac jure sit obtenturus mundum.” Grotius explains xpiois simply of the vindicatio in libertatem ; humanity is to be freed from its unjust possessor ; conse- quently as regards the material contents, substantially as Bengel, comp. also Beza. 3 Schleiermacher, indeed (LZ. J. p. 343), interprets the gpy. +. x. +. of ‘‘ open force” in its conflict against the activity of Jesus. In reference to the declara- tions of Jesus regarding the devil, it is most markedly apparent with what difficulty Schleiermacher subordinated himself to exegetical tests. 168 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. yielded by the context, not tis apyjs (Euth. Zigabenus, Beza), nor Tod diucacrnpiov (Theophylact), nor out of the kingdom of God (Ewald), and least of all tod ovpavod (Luke x. 18; Rev. xii. 8, so Olshausen; hence the reading xatw). The indefi- nite rendering: he is repulsed (De Wette; comp. Plat. Menez. p. 243 B; Soph. Oed. RF. 386), or to be removed from the presence of the judge (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 449), 1s not sufficient, on account of the appended é&w.— Note further, that the victory here announced over this world and over the reign of the devil was indeed decided, and commenced with the death and the exaltation of Christ, but is in a state of con- tinuous development onwards to its consummation at the last day (comp. Rev. xx. 10); hence the passages of the N. T. on the continuing 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. 1. 15. Vv. 32, 33. And I shall establish my own dominion in room of the devil’s rule. —xayo] with victorious emphasis, in opposition to the devil. — éav tobe éx Tt. yijs] so that I shall be no more upon the earth. Comp. on tow éx, Ps. ix. 14. Probably Jesus (differently in ui. 14) used the verb oy (comp. Syr.): paso jo *nDIn oN. This exaltation from earth into heaven to the Father (vii. 33; Acts i. 33, 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, indi- cated (xviii. 32, xxi. 19) by the word te@es (comp. il. 14, viii. 28). According to John, it is then the designation of the return from earth to heaven, which Jesus gives by trypwOa ex T. y., not merely a representation of His death, so far as the latter exalts him to the Father, but an announce- ment of the manner of the death (comp. xviii. 32, xxi. 19), through which He will end His earthly life, because He was to die exalted on the cross. But this interpretation of John’s does not justify us in straightway understanding tp. é« 7. y. of the crucifixion (so the Fathers, and most older commentators, including Kling, Frommann, Hengstenberg), which is forbidden by é« THs ys, nor in finding therein’ a “sermo anceps” (Beza 1 “Tfis suspension on the cross appears to Him the magnificently ironical CHAP. XII. 34 169 and several others, including Luthardt, Ebrard, Godet, comp. Engelhardt), since by the very force of é« 7. y. the double sense is excluded. It belongs to the freedom of mystic exposi- tion linking itself to a single word (comp. ix. 7), as it was sufficiently suggested, especially here, by the recollection of the vywOjvat already employed in iii. 14, and is therewith just 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 é« THs ys (comp. Isa. liu. 8); but John was sufficiently faithful in his account not to omit this é« 7. yijs for the sake of his interpre- tation of iw8e, and simply adhered to this ty., and disre- garded the context.,-— On édv, comp. on xiv. 3.— rdytas EXK, Tpos éwavT.] all, zc. not merely adherents of all nations, or all elected ones and the like, but all men, so that thus none remain belonging to the adpywv tod Koopou TovTov. But to the latter, to the aan stands opposed, not the mere mpos eHE, but to myself, to my own conimnumiby. Comp. xiv. 3; éwavtov never stands for the simple ewe, not even in xiv. 21 (against - Tholuck). The éAxvevy takes place by means of the Holy Spirit, who, given by the exalted Lord (vii. 39, xvi. 7), and representing Himself (xiv. 18, 19), wins men for Christ in virtue of faith, and, by means of internal moral compulsion, places them in the fellowship of love, of obedience, and of the true and everlasting #7 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 wadvtas is to be left with- out any arbitrary limitation (Luthardt’s limitation is baseless : all, namely, those whom He draws to Himself). For the manner in which Paul recognised the way and manner of the last consummation of the promise thus made, see Rom. xi. 25, 26. Ver. 54. The people—rightly understanding éay iy. éx tr. ys, ver. 32, of an exaltation to take place by the way of death emblem of His elevation on the throne,” Godet. An ironical touch would here be very strange. 1 Scholten sets aside the whole comment as an interpolation. 170 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN. —dgather thence, that in accordance therewith no everlasting duration of life (wéver, see on xxi. 22) is destined for Him on the earth, and do not find this reconcilable with that which they on their part (seis) had heard out of the Scripture (vopos, as in x. 34) of the Messiah (7xovc., 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. ex. 4, Isa. ix. 5, 7, and particularly Dan. vil. 13, 14.— From the latter passage, not from ver. 23, where He does not speak to the people, they put in the mouth of Christ the words Tov viov tod avOp., as He had designated Himself so frequently by this Messianic appel- lation, in order at once to make manifest that He, although He so terms Himself; yet on account of the contradictory token of the inrwOjvat éx tr. yjs which He ascribes to Him- self, cannot be the Danielian Son of man, He who was so characterized in the Scripture; the Son of man, by which name fe is wont to designate Himself, must in truth be quite another person. — otTos] this strange Son of man, who is in opposition to the Scripture, over whom that telFjvar is said to be impending.’ That the speakers, however, were unacquainted with the appellation o vids tod avOp. for Jesus (Briickner) is, after the first half of the verse, not to be assumed. Vv. 35, 36. Jesus does not enter upon the question raised, but directs the questioners to that one point which concerns them, with the intensity ard 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 tplv] among you. — Tepit. oS TO POS éyere] On the reading ws, see the critical notes. Walk as you have the light, i.e. in conformity 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 1 The inquiry has in it something pert, saucy, as if they said: ‘‘ A fine ‘Son of man’ art thou, who art not to remain for ever in life, but, as thou dost express it, art to be exalted!” To the Daniclian Son of man an everlasting kingdom is given, Dan. vii. 14. This also in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 79. CHAP. XII. 35, 36. slygil awake in the enjoyment of this relation, just as one does not rest and lie still when he has the bright ight of day, but walks in order to attain the end in view before the darkness breaks in (see what follows). On @s as assigning the motive (in the measure that), comp. generally on xiii. 34, and here especially on Gal. vi. 10. Ellendt aptly says, Lex. Soph. II. p. 1008: “nec tamen causam per se spectatam, sed quam quis, qualis sit, indicat.” The signification guamdiw (Baeum- lein) is not borne by @s, not even in Soph. 4j. 1117 (see Schneidewin in loc.), Phil. 635. 1330.—tva py cKoria, K.7.r.] in order that—which would smite you as a penal destiny in retribution of your pa) qepimatetyv—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. i. 21: écxoricOn 4 daovvetos ait&y Kapdia. On katara, comp. 1 Thess. v. 4; also in the classics very frequently of danger, misfortune, and the like, which befall any one. Arrian, Alex. i. 5.17: e¢ vdE xatadipperat adrods. —kal o Tepim., «.7.r.] and how dangerous would this condi- tion be! This is brought home in a sentence from ordinary life ; comp. xi. 9, ix. 4. — ob brdyer] whither he rs depart- ing, iii. 8. Thus the éoxoticpévos goes away, without knowing the unhappy end, into everlasting destruction ; comp. 1 John ii. 11. For the opposite of this mod tbmdyeu, see vill. 14, 21, xvi. 5, ef al.— os tT. Pas EveTe] Repeated and placed first with great emphasis.— reotevete eis T. POS, iva, K.TD.] More minute designation of that which was previously in- tended by the figurative mepurateire.— viol tov aT.] Enlightened persons. See on Luke xvi. 8; Eph. v. 8.— yévno Oe] not be, but become. Faith is the condition and the beginning of it; comp. i. 12.—éxpvBn am adtor] 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 prelude, “summi judicii occultationis Domini” (Lampe, Luthardt), which is not indicated, and is all the more without support, that the last discourse was not condemnatory, but only hortatory. ihege TIIE GOSPEL OF JOIN. Ver. 37. At the close of the public ministry of Jesus there now follows a general observation on its results in respect to faith in Him, as far as ver. 50.—tocadra] not so great (Liicke, De Wette, and several others), but so many} vi. 9, xiv. 9, xxi. 11. Comp. the admissions of the Jews them- selves, vii. 31, xi. 47. The multitude of the miracles, ze. the so-often-repeated miraculous demonstration of His Messianic doa, must have convinced them (comp. xx. 30), had they not been blinded and hardened by a divine destiny. The reference, however, of tocatra is not: so many as have hitherto been related, for our Gospel contains the fewest miraculous narratives, —hbut it lies in the notoriety of the great multitude in general. Comp. xiv. 9; 1 Cor. xiv. 10; Heb. iv. 7.—éumpoo@. avr.] before their eyes. —ovK é€miot. eis avt.| summary statement. Ver. 38. “Iva] in order that, according to divine determina- tion, the prophecy might be fulfilled. This “7m order that” contains the definite assumption that the prophet Isaiah pre- dicted 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.— ov ei7re] similar pleonasms, which, however, as here, may denote an emphatic circumstantiality, are found also in the Greek writers, as in Xen. Cyr. vill. 2. 14, Anab. 1 9. 11. The passage is Isa. liii. 1, closely following the LXX. The lament of the prophet over the unbelief of his time towards his preach- ing (and that of his fellows, 7z@v), and towards the mighty working of God announced by him, has, according 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, xvpie, comp. Matt. xxvii. 46), which Isaiah introduces, is Jesus, not the evangelist and those of lke mind with him (Luthardt).— t9 axon Hy.) to that heard from us, i.e. 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 Hengstenberg also understands it of that which we have received through revelation (comp. Euth. 1 Comp. on the distinction between the two notions, the phrase current in the classics, rocatrd 7s xai roimdra, Heindorf, ad Plat. Gorg. p. 456 C. CHAP. XII. 39, 40. L73 Zigabenus). Comp. on the genitive, Plat. Phaedr. p. 274 C; Pausan. viii. 41. 6; Pind. Pyth.i. 162. The plural, however, av, comprises God and Christ in the fulfilment.—o Spa- xiwv Kup.] Plastic expression for the power of God (comp. Pukeriso4- Aetsexiii 1, 3 WisdiveL6épx228 » Bari. 11; Isa. li. 5, lii. 10), and that according to the Messianic signi- fication; in the miraculous signs of Christ —in which the unbelieving do not recognise the brachium Dei. “In se exsertum est, sed caeci non viderunt illud,” Bengel. But to understand Christ Himself (Augustine, Photius, Euth. Ziga- benus, Beda, Ruperti, Zeger, Jansen, Maldonatus, Calovius, and several others) is required neither by the original text nor here by the connection. Vv. 39, 40. dea tovTo... 67e| as always in John (see on x. 17): therefore, referring to what precedes, on account of this destiny contained in ver. 38—namely, because, so that thus with 67c the reason is still more minutely set forth. Ebrard foists in an entirely foreign course of thought, because Israel has not willed to believe, therefore has she not deen able to believe. Contrary to that Johannean use of 61a TodTo... OTe, Theophylact, Beza, Jansen, Lampe, and several others, includ- ing Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, B. Crusius, Luthardt, take da rodro as preparative. —ovK 7dvvavTo| not: nolebant (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Wolf), but—and therewith the enigma of that tragic unbelief is solved—they could not, expressing the 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.—retvgraxev] 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 Himself, to which the recollection of the rendering of the passage given by the LXX. (“the heart has become hardened,” ete.) might easily lead. The subject is thus neither Christ (Grotius, 174 THE GOSPEL OF JOIIN. Calovius, and several others, including Lange and Ebrard), nor the devil (Hilgenfeld, Scholten), but, as the reader would under- stand as a matter of course, and as also the entire context shows (for the necessity in the divine fate is the leading idea), God. Christ first appears as subject in tacouat.—erap.| has hardened. See Athenaeus, 12, p. 549 B; Mark vi. 52, viii, 17; Rom. xi. 7; 2 Cor. iii, 14.—xal otpaddcr] and (not) turn, return to me.— ¢doopar] Future, dependent on va wn. See on Matt. xiii, 15. The moral corruption is viewed as sickness, which is healed by faith (vv. 37, 39). Comp. Matt. ix. 12; 1 Pet. 1.24. The healing subject, how- ever, cannot, as in Matt. xiii. 15, Acts xxviii. 27, be God (so usually), simply because this is the subject of tetTudrwxer, K.7.r., but it must be Christ; in His mouth, according to the Johannean view of the prophecy from the standpoint of its ful- filment, Isaiah puts not merely the utterance in ver. 38, but also the words tetU¢rwxev ... idcouat adrovs, 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: "Ofp@adpods dddwcev €uav émysaptupas épywov... pn Kpadin’ vodwou... Kal pot trroatpéwwat, vooBraBéas 5€ cawow dvdpas adiTpalvovTas Eua mamove wv0@. Thus the 1st person éacouas is not an in- stance of “ negligence” (Tholuck, comp. his 4. 7. im N. T. p. 35 f. ed. 6), 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.— avrtod] refers to Christ, the subject of tdcopas, ver. 40, and the chief person in the whole subject under contemplation (ver. 37). According to Isa. vi. 1 ff., the prophet, indeed, beheld Grod’s glory, God sitting upon His throne, attended by seraphim, etc.; but in the O. T. theophanies, it is just Christ who is present as the Logos,’ and 1 From which a conclusion can as little be drawn against the personality of the Logos (Beyschlag, p. 166 f.), as from the angelic theophanies against the per- sonality 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 personification 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, CHAP. XII. 42-45. is their glory is His. See oni. 1. Of course the glory of Christ before the incarnation is intended, the wopd1) Geod (Phil. ii. 6), in which He was.— kai éXad, Twepi avTod] still dependent on 674; éAadyoe has the emphasis as the correlate of «ide. - Vy. 42, 43. "Opos pévtor] yet, notwithstanding, Herod. i, 189; Plat. Crit. p. 54 D, Men. p. 92 E; comp. the strengthened owas ye pévtot, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 343; Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 172 f. It limits the judgment on the unbelief of the Jews, which had previously been expressed in general terms. — Kat 逫 tT. apy.| even of the Sanhedrists (in secret, vii. 48).— 61a tods Papic.] the most hostile and dreaded party opposed to Jesus in and outside the Sanhedrim. — a7ro- ouvay.] comp. ix. 22.— rv d0€&. r. avOp.] the honour coming from men. Comp. v. 44.—tTnv S6& tod Beod] the honour which God imparts. Comp. Rom. iii. 23. They preferred the honour of men (potius, see on ili. 19) rather than to stand in honour with God. Theirs was thus not yet that faith strengthened for a free confession, as Jesus demands it (Matt. x. 32), with the setting aside of temporal interests; Augustine calls it ingressus fidet. Where subsequently the right advance followed, the unhesitating confession also was forthcoming, as in the cases of Nicodemus and of Joseph of Arimathaea. But that _ of Gamaliel is not applicable here (Godet) ; he did not get so far as faith. — On j7rep, as strengthening the negative force of the 7% (comp. 2 Mace. xiv. 42), see Kiihner, II. sec. 747, noted. Vy. 44, 45. The closing observations on Jewish unbelief, vv. 37-43, are ended. Over against this unbelief, together with that faith which stood in fear of men, vv. 42, 43, 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 «i His teaching, in condemnation of such con- duct (“ Jesus, on the other hand, cried and said,” ete.), whereby the reprehensible nature of that unbelief and half - belief comes clearly into view. So substantially Bengel, Michaelis, Morus, Kuinoel, Liicke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, Schweizer, the «irov, implying the identity of Christ with the Logos, here shows clearly enough that the latter is viewed as personal. Comp. also Pfleiderer, in Hilgen- feld, Zeitschr. 1866, p. 258. 176 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. B. Crusius, Reuss, Baur,’ Lange, Briickner, Weizsiicker,’ Ebrard, Baeumlein, Ewald, Godet. Ver. 36 is decisive for the cor- rectness of this interpretation, according to which Jesus has departed from the public scene of action without any an- nouncement 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, €\d\noa, vv. 48, 49, pointing to the concluded past. This is not in opposition to éxpake cal elmev (against Kling, De Wette, Hengstenberg; also Strauss in the interest of the non-originality of the Johannean discourses), since these words (comp. vii. 28, 37, 1.15) do not of them- selves more closely define the point of time which is intended. Hence we are neither to assume, 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 _pas- sivity he is thereby charged with! and see, in opposition, Briickner); nor are we to say, with Chrysostom and all the older commentators, also Kling and Hengstenberg, that Jesus here for once did publicly so speak (évdovtos tots Iovdaiors Tod Oupod, Tadw avepavn x. SivdacKe, Euth. Zigabenus), in accordance with which several lay hold of the explanation, in contradiction with the text, that He spoke what follows in ipso discessu, ver. 36 (Lampe). But when Luthardt (following Besser, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1852, p. 617 ff.) assumes that Christ spoke these words in the presence of the disciples, and with reference to the Jews, there stands in opposition to this not only the fact, generally, that John indicates nothing of the kind, but also that éxpa&e 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 1 Baur, however, finds in this recapitulatory discourse only a new proof, that with John historical narration is a mere form of his method of representation. Comp. also Hilgenfeld. * Yet the ideas (against Weizsicker, in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p- 167 f.) contained in this speech are not different from those of the prologue. The form is different, but not the matter ; and the prologue contains more. CHAP. XII. 46-48. 7 was cut off from them.—o quot. eis éué, «.7.r.] A saying which John has not in the previous discourses. Comp., how- ever, as to the thing, v. 36 ff, vii. 29, vill, 19, 42, x. 38. — ov...a@AX] simply negativing. The object of faith is not 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. 43),—but God, so far as the latter reveals Himself in Him as in His ambassador, by means of His words and deeds. Comp. vii. 16; Mark ix. 37. Similarly: He who beholds me, etc, ver. 45. Comp. i. 14, xiv. 9. Yet in this connection the negation (od Oewpet ewe) 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 behold- ing of His Sender. In His working and administration, the believing eye beholds that of the Sender ; in the dda of the Son, that of the Father, 1.14; Heb. i. 3. 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. — wy wetvy] as he is, in a state of unbelief, but that he may be enlightened. Comp. ver. 36,1. 4 ff. Vv. 47,48. Comp. iii. 17,18, v. 45 ff, viii. 15 ff. — Lf 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. vii. 26; Mark iv. 15, 16, xviii. 20); and by the K. 4% PuAGE which follows (see the critical notes), that very faith which follows hearing is denied. uXaccecy, namely, de- notes not indeed the mere holding faust, guarding (ver. 25), but, as throughout, where doctrines, precepts, and the like are spoken of (see especially Luke xi. 28, xviii. 21; Rom. 11. 26), the keeping by actual fulfilment. But this takes place simply by faith, which Christ demands for His pyywata: with faith the duvraccew comes into action (hence the Recepta x. un meotevon is a correct gloss); the refusal of faith is the rejection of Christ (adereiv, here only in John, but comp. Luke x. 16; 1 Thess. iv. 8), and non-adoption of His words, ver. 48, is the opposite of that gudaccew so far as its essence is just the braxoy) tis wicTews. —On axovevv with a double genitive, as in Luke vi. 47, Acts xxii. 1, comp. xviii. 37; and see Buttmann, WV. 7. Gr. VOL, Il. M 178 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. p. 145 [E. T. p. 167].—éy@ od kpivw adrov] Z, in my person, am not his judge, which is further meant generally, not exclusively, of the dast judgment, but in a condemmnatory sense, as opposed to owfew, as in ili. 17 — Ver. 48. éyev] 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 indi- vidual personally considered in and by Himself, but His spoken word; this and nothing else will be (and therewith all the terror of the dast decision breaks in upon the mind) the determining rule of the last judgment. It is Christ, indeed, who holds the judgment (v. 22, 277), but as the bearer and executor of His word, which constitutes the divine power of the judgment. Comp. vii. 51, where the Jaw judges and takes cognisance. How decisively does the present passage declare against the attempt of Scholten, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, and others, to explain away the last judgment out of John! Comp. vy. 28,29; 1 John iy. 17. Vv. 49, 50. Comp. vii. 16, v. 30.—¢é7] gives the reason for the expression in vv. 47, 48: for how plainly divine is this my word!—€& é€uavrov] avtoxéXevotos, Nonnus. — avrTos| tpse. —évtor. &6.]| He has given (laid upon) me a charge, what I should say, and what I should speak. The former designates the doctrine according to its contents, the ° latter the publication of it through the delivery which makes it known. Comp. on vil. 43; Rom. ii. 19. For similar ~ accumulations of the verbs of speaking in Greek writers, see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 187; Lobeck, Paral. p. 61.— % €vTodAH avTov| namely the commission which has just previously been more minutely designated. This is, because it is in truth the outflow and channel of the divine redemptive will, eternal life (according to its temporal development and eternal consummation) ; it zs this, however (comp. vi. 33, xvii. 17; comp. xi. 25, xiv. 6), not as the mere means, but as, in its fulfilment, 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.— ody] Since that évtod is of so great efficacy, how could I speak that which JZ speak other- wise than as the Father has said it to me (at. my appoint- ment) ? Observe the correlation of éy and o ma7np, as well as the measured simple solemnity of the close of this address. CHAP. XIII. 179 CHAP TER, xX LIT Ver. 1. 2A4Avdev] Lachm. and Tisch.: 7Aéev, according to preponderating evidence. The perfect arose from xu. 23.— Ver. 2. yevowévov] B. L. X.8. Cant. Or.: ywouévou (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. —‘Iovda Siw. “lox, iva airiv rapadda] B. L. M. X. 8. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Codd. It. Or. : tva capadai aisiv "Tobdag Siuavos Ioxupsirgs. So Lachm. on the margin, and Tisch. (both, however, reading rapado?, according 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 mis- understood, because it was supposed that the seduction of Judas by the devil was here related (so already Origen). The Recepta is an alteration in consequence of this misunderstanding. The conjunctive form zupado7, however, remains generally doubtful in the N. T. — Ver. 3. 6 ’Ijoo%¢] is wanting in B. D. L. X. Cur- sives, Vulg. It. Or. Bracketed by Lachm., omitted by Tisch. It was mechanically repeated from ver. 1.— Ver. 10. The posi- tion of the words odx éye: xpefav is decisively attested. — Instead of 7, important witnesses have ¢« «4 (so Lachm.), which, however, is an attempt at explanation or correction. Tisch has deleted 7 + zéda¢, but only after 8. Or. one Cod. of It. and Vulg. mss. An old omission, occasioned by the following zadéap. dos. — Ver. 12. &vaweowy] Lachm.: zai dvar. according to A. L. Verss. Chrys. In favour of x«/, witness also B. C.* 8. Or., which have zai dvéweoey (So Tisch.). The xa/ before 2208. is omitted by Lachm. after A. L. Verss. Since xa/ before daz. is in any case decisively accredited ; since, further, the witnesses for dvéecey are more important than for dvareowv; and since, had avaeociv been the original reading, it would not have been resolved into zai avereoev, but into avérecey xai,A—we must read with Tisch. nai averecev, So that the apodosis first begins with ere. This was not observed, and it was made to commence either after modus avray (thus arose the reading in Lachm.), or after iudr. airod (hence the Recepta). — Ver. 22. ody] is wanting in B.C. and certain Verss.; deleted by Tisch. Was easily passed over 180 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. after the last syllable of Aero. — Ver. 23. 2x rai» (Elz.: riv) is decisively attested. — Ver. 24. rudicdas, ris dy ein] B. Ogee Sie Aeth. Ver. Rd. Vule. Or. : > x0 Aeyss aire Sime TIS 2OTIy. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly : the ecepta is added, as a gloss, after what John does in ver. 25. &. has the gloss alongside of the eee reading in the text.— Ver. 25. érireowv] B. C.* 1 UG 6 Beale St Cursives, Or.: dvareouv (so Lachm.). But immiarew does not occur elsewhere in J ohn; and how readily would the familiar expression of lying at table suggest itself to mechanical copyists !— Instead of ody, Elz. and “Lachm. have é:. Witnesses are much divided. Originally, no particle at all appears to have been found; so B.C. Or. Griesb. — After éxsfos, important witnesses (including B. C. L.) have odrws, which, how- ever, although defended by Ewald, very readily arose from vires, which was added to éxsiog in explanation, as it is still found in K.S. U. a. — Ver. 26. Baas rd pwusov éxsduow] Tisch. : Babar. . xal duow adr, after B.C. L. Copt. Aeth. Or. But 716:06vat, 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 par- ticiple, with neglect of the compound.—Instead of Bé Las, as above, Lachm. has éuGa)., following A. D. K. m. Theodoret. Although these witnesses form the preponderance among those which read the participle, yet ¢u6dé). 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.) who have Bé pw (not 48d) are accordingly all the more to be taken into account. Therefore, too, below, instead of xa/ ¢u8é as (so also Lachm.), with B. C. L. X. x. 33. Or. Cyr., Baas odv (so Tisch.) ought to be read (D. has zai Baas). — After Wwuiov, Tisch. has, moreover, AauBaver xa/, following B.C. L. M. X.8.** Aeth. Or. Tightly: it was, through misapprehension, omitted as irrelevant. — Instead of ’Ioxa- piwrn, Lachm. should consistently, following Bb. C. L. M. X.x. Cursives, Codd. It. Or., here also (see on vi. 71) have read "Ioxapimrov (as Tisch. has). — Ver. 30. Instead of eddéwe 2&728., read with Lachm. and Tisch. 2&726. eiévc. — Ver. 31. After ére, Elz. Lachm. and Tisch. have oiv; rightly, since B. C. D. L. X.8. Cursives, Verss. Or. Cyr., turn the scale in favour of otv, while the omission (Griesb. Scholz) was the more readily suggested, as there was an inclination to begin the new sentence with 7» de woe. — Ver. 32. tf 6 0. 2608. év atr@] is rejected by Scholz as “inepta iteratio,’ and bracketed by Lachm. The words are wanting in B.C.* D. L. X. 11. 8.* Cursives, Verss. Tert. Ambr. But the very repetition and the homocoteleuton would so readily CHAP. XIII. 1—5. 181 occasion the omission, that these adverse witnesses cannot overthrow the reading.— Ver. 33. The order ¢ya irdéyw (Lachm. Tisch.) is too decisively attested to admit of its being derived from vill. 21.—Ver. 36. The order dxod. 62 vorepov (without uo) is to be adopted, with Lachm. and Tisch; so also in ver. 38, évo- ~piveras (instead of arexpidn). — Ver. 38. The form pwv4on (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively accredited; and instead of drapyjon, épv4on 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. Vy. 1-5. On the construction, note: (1) vv. 1-5 are not to be taken together as a single period (Griesbach, Matthaei, Schulz, Scholz, Bleek, Ebrard, and several others) ; as Paul also (in the Stud. vu. Krit. 1866, p. 362 ff, 1867, p. 524 ff.) defines the connection: “ He stands up before the Passover feast at the meal then taking place,’ which latter would be a collateral definition of mpo . éopt. r. 7. To take the whole thus together will not do, because ets 7éXos aya. adtovs being connected with mpo 5€ éopt. 7. 7. gives an orderly finish to the con- struction of ver. 1, and with xal devrvov yw. a new period begins ; consequently (this also in answer to Knapp, Liicke, Ebrard, and several others) e/dws, ver. 3, cannot be the resump- tion of eidés, ver. 1. Rightly have Lachmann and Tischendorf closed ver. 1 with a full stop. Comp. Hengstenberg and Godet, also Ewald. (2) It is not correct to join apo rHs éopr. T. wacya to eidws (Kling, Luthardt, Rigeenbach, Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 741 ff.; before him also Baeumlein in the Stud. u. Krit. 1846, p. 397), because the expression would be too vague and indefinite as a statement of the point of time in which the definite consciousness of His hour had entered the mind of Jesus; the definite day before the feast would be designated as such (perhaps by apo puds auépas Tod macxa, comp. xii. 1; Plut. Swll. 37). But that apo ris éoptis—comp. with xii. 1—must denote this very day before the feast, namely, the 14th Nisan (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p- 295, Lange, Baeumlein, and several others, including Paul and Hengstenberg), is an altogether arbitrary assumption. Just as incorrect is it (3) to refer it to dyamnoas (Wieseler, Tholuck, see in opposition Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 203), so that 182 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. the love entertained before the feast stands over against the love entertained wntil the end,—which assumption is extorted simply by an attempt at harmonizing, is opposed to the order of the words (dyarnoas...Kkoowm must in that case have stood before eidas, «.7..), 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 omwvards)—is in contradic- tion with John’s more reflective and spiritual manner; while it leaves, moreover, the participial clause eidas ... matépa without OULD Se The simple literal mode of connection is rather: Before the feast, Jesus gave, as He knew, etc., to His own the closing proof of love. Whilst, then, a meal is being observed, as the devil already, etc., He arises from the meal, although He knew that the Father, etc. There is thus nothing to place in a parenthesis. Ver. 1. II[po 8é +. éopr. tr. tacxa] mpo is emphasized by means of the intervening $é. Jesus had arrived at Bethany six days before the Passover, on the following day (xii. 1, 12) had entered Jerusalem, and had then, xil. 36, withdrawn Himself into concealment. But yet before the paschal feast began," there followed the closing manifestation of love before His death, which John intends to relate. How long before the feast, our passage does not state; but it is clear from ver. 29, XVili. 28, xix. 14, 31, that it was not first on the 14th Nisan, as the harmonists have frequently maintained (see, 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. — efdas, «.7.r.] Not, “ although He knew” (this is unpsychological, Hengstenberg), but because He knew. He gives expression to that which inwardly drew and impelled Him to display towards His own a further 1 Rightly has Riickert observed, Abend. p. 26, that by x0 3: ris topris 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. In- correctly, Riggenbach, Zeugn. f. d. Hv. Joh. p. 72: there hangs over the present passage ‘‘a certain darkness.” Certainly, if we set out from a harmonistic point of view. With such, rather is it entirely irreconcilable. 2 See also Isenberg, d. Todestag des Herrn, 1868, p. 7 ff. CHAP. XIII. 1. 183 and a last token of love; He knew, indeed, that for Him the hour was come, to pass onward, etc. (wa, comp. xii. 23). On petafy, comp. v. 24; 1 John iii. 14.—dyamrjoas, x.7.r.] is regarded by interpreters as co-ordinated with eidas, K.T.r., according to the well-known usage, which rests on a logical basis, of the asyndetie connection of several participles (Voigtler, ad Luc. D. M. xii. p. 67 ff.; Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 1. 7); 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 an ded, which Nonnus supplies, or of az’ apyijs, or maXae or the like, along with dyamnoas, whereby a correlation with eis tédos would have been established. In addition to this, the clause tovs év T® Koowe, not in itself indispensable, but expressive of sorrow, is manifestly added in reference to the preceding 逫 ot Koopovu T., and thereby betrays the connection of dyaryjoas... Koopo with the final clause (va petaBH, «7... Hence: “in order to pass to the Father, after He should have (not had) loved,” etc. This, “after He should have loved,’ etc., is a testimony which His conscience yielded Him with that eidas, «.7.A.— Tovs édéovs] This relationship—the N. T. fulfilment of the old theocratic, i. 11—had its fullest representation in the circle of apostles, so that the apostles were pre-eminently the tdvov of Jesus. — els TéXos HyaT. adTovs] to be connected with apo 5é THs éopt. T. 7.: at last (eis téXos is emphatic) He loved them, i.e. showed them the last proof of love before His death.’ How, the «at Setrvov, «.7.r., which immediately follows, ex- Vv presses, namely, by means of the washing of the feet, hence it cannot be understood of the whole work of love in suffering (Graf). eds TéXos denotes at the end, finally, at last. Luke xvii. 5 (see commentary in Joc.) ; Hdt. 11. 40; Xen. Occ. xvii. 10; Soph. Phil. 407 (and Hermann’s note). So also 1 Thess. u.16. It may also denote fully, in the highest degree (Pflugk, ad Eur. Hee. 817 Schweighiuser, Lex. Polyb. p.616; Grimm on 2 Mace. vill. 29); but this yields here an inappropriate gradation, as though Jesus had now exercised His love to the 1 Ebrard’s inconsiderate objection (on Olshausen, p. 337) against my connec- tion of eis ria. hyer. with wpe +. E0pTAS, since . CHAP. XIV, 207 Cia PTER XIV, BEFORE sopevoucr, ver. 2, 671 (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. Its omission is therefore to be explained from the fact that it was taken for the recitative or:,as which it appeared superfluous, since the recitative ér is so frequently passed over in the Codd. — Ver. 3. xa/ before érow,. is wanting in A. E. G. H. K. A. Curss. some Verss., Phot. Deleted by Matth. and Lachm. D. M. Curss. Syr. Cant. Theophyl. Euth.: troméous, This mechanical repetition from what precedes was the cause of the omission of the x«/, which, however, is still very strongly attested by B.C. L. N. U. X. a. 8. Vulg. It. and important wit- nesses. — Ver. 4. ofdare, xai vr. 66dv ofdare] BL C.* LQ. XS. 157, Copt. Aeth. Pers. p. Vere. have merely cidare +. 666. So Tisch., whilst Lachm. only brackets the za and the second o#édare. The Recepta is an explanatory expansion; against it ver. 5 also witnesses. — Ver. 5. duvdéweda +. 600v ef#dévas] Lachm. and Tisch. : oféamev viv 666v, according to B. C.* D. Codd. It. Cyr. Tert., among which, however, a few (including D.) have +. 64. of. The Recepta is an explanatory expansion. Ver. 7. éyvw- xeire dv] BL C.* L. Q. X. Curss. Cyr. Ath.: dy jdere, or (X.) 78. dy, From vill. 19.— Ver. 9. rocotrov ypévov] Lachm. Tisch.: rosolrw xpévw, according to D. L. Q. &. Cyr. The accusative is an unnecessary gloss. — Ver. 10. airig rose? r& eEpya] Tisch: most ra epya avrov, according to B. D.s. Rightly. The airés, added in explanation, dislodged the wirod, and that in such a way that it took its place (L. X.) in some instances, in others was placed before the verb. — Ver. 11. After guof Elz. has éoriy, A supplementary addition against decisive testimony. — wor at the end is rejected by Schulz, deleted by Tisch. It suggests the suspicion of being a mechanical repetition ; besides, the omitting witnesses (amongst them Codd. D. L. &. 33) are suffi- ciently strong. — Ver. 12. ov] is, according to preponderating evidence, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 14 is entirely wanting in X. A. Curss., some Verss. Chrys. Nonnus ; witnesses, however, which are too weak to permit us, with Rinck, to condemn it, especially since, on account of the similar beginning in vy. 14 and 16, and considering its superfluous 208 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. character, it might very easily be passed over. — Ver. 15. rpq- care] Tisch.: rapqoere, according to B. L. &. (?) Curss. Euseb. But the future readily arose from the entire surrounding. — Ver. 16. wévy] B. L. Q. X. 8. Codd. It. Goth. Copt. Syr. and several Fathers have 7. So Lachm. (but, with B., after aidve) and Tisch. Rightly; évy is a more closely-defining gloss from ver. 17.— Ver. 17. gora:] Lachm.: éor#, according to B. D.* Curss. Verss. Lucif. According as MENEI was taken as pre- sent (E. G. K. M. U. X. A.) or as future (Vulg.), gor or goras may be written after it; hence it is only the preponderance of witnesses which decides, and this is in favour of the future. —Ver. 20. Since the first iue% stands in some of the witnesses after, in some before, yywe. (so, only bracketed in Lachm.), while in some it is entirely wanting (A. Verss. Fathers), it must be regarded as an addition. — Ver. 22. Instead of xai ri, Elz. and Lachm. have merely +, in accordance with preponderating evidence. But xa/ (which x. also has) might be readily passed over by clumsy copyists, especially, too, as the preceding xips might occasion its being overlooked.— Ver. 23. sosmoomwev] Lachm. and Tisch.: o:mouedx, in accordance with important wit- nesses (D. also with 2Arcdoowar x. rorjooues declares for the middle voice). Rightly; the middle, which John uses nowhere else, was unfamiliar to the copyists. — Ver. 28. jyarére] D.* H. L. and a few Curss.: éyavére, to which Buttmann, in the Stud. w. 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 ¢r and sopedowas Elz. has +t Lange, who assumes the parce of carden- Godet), and in the latter case the golden vinea temple (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11. 3, Bell. v. 5. 4), mighit to present a suitable occasion. It is more arbitrary to supj (Knapp, Tholuck) a vine whose tendrils had crept im room (comp. Ps. exxvili. 3), 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, however, is the supposition that John may have placed the similitude, in itself genuine, here in the wrong place (De Wette). If the thought of the cup at the meal just concluded did not so Ppantancandly suggest itself, it would be safer, with Liicke and B. Crusius, to assume no external occasion at all, since the figure itself was so frequent in the O. T. (Isa. v. 1 ff. ; Jer. mes AA tRimelks sev 0) tit xix. 107 fee Bs: xxx: 9 ff; comp. also Lightfoot and Wetstein) ;. aud therefore (comp. Matt. xxi. 33 ff.) the disciples who were standing around Him could imme- diately, and of themselves, see Jesus set forth under this venerable figure (Luthardt and Lichtenstein, following Hof- mann, also Ebrard).— 7) ad @cvy] the actual, 1.¢. containing 1 Almost throughout the entire chapter (as far as ver. 18) the particles of con- nection between the individual utterances are wanting, and this is in keeping with deeply stirred and intense emotion. ene whom this is not the case. — The latter, who are not, 240 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. the reality of the idea, which is figuratively set n the natural vine (comp. oni. 9, vi. 35), not in antithesi to! the unfruitful vine, z.e. the degenerate people of Israel @ rard, Hengstenberg), which is here remote, since the Lo dvas ‘desig- nating Himself as dumredos, not His éxxrnola (this 1S. etnniled as in ‘antidhiests to the Jewish). Christ is the Vine in el - ation to His believing ones (the branches), whose organic com" etion with Him is the constant, fruitful, and most inward f shi of life. Quite similar as to the thing is the Pauline fig the head and the members (Eph. v. 30; Co > Rai vine-dresser (yewpyos, Matt. xxi. 23, ct al. p@Aghan, WA. vii. 28; Aristaen. i. 8) is God ; for Hewhgs sent Christ, and established the fellowship of believers with (vi. 37, et al.), and tends it in virtue,of His workin: uch Christ’s word, and (after His departure) thro the ower of the Holy Spirit. Ver. 2. As on t unfoaiia shes (i.e. tendrils, Plat. Rep. p. 353 A; Pollux, Te 5) so there are in the fellowship of Christ such as sincere ir faith by deed as by faith’s fruit, and those with Hengstenberg, to be taken for the wnbelieving Jews (as is already clear from é€y €wot and from ver. 5), but for the lip- Christians 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 fioure, vill. 35); the former He causes to experience His purging influence, in order that their life of faith may increase in moral practical manifestation and efficiency. This purifica- tion is effected by means of temptations and sufferings, not solely, but by other things along with these. —7av krjpa ev éyoi| Nominat. absol. asin i. 12, vi. 39, xvii. 2, with weighty emphasis. — aiper] takes i¢ away with the pruning-knife. It forms with xafaipe a “suavis rhythmus,” Bengel. — 70 xapr. hép.] which bears fruit; but previously 7 dép.: ait does not bear.— ca@aip.| He cleanses, prunes. Figure of the moral xalapiojos,—continually necessary even for the approved Christian,—through the working of divine grace, xi. 10. — ~~ “Re CHAP. XV. 3, 4. 241 For a political view of the community under the figure of the vine, see in Aesch. adv. Ctesiph. 166; Beck.: dumedoupyotal TIVES THY TOMY, GVATETUHKAaGL TEs TA KApaTA TA TOD Srpov. Ver. 3. Application of the second half of ver. 2 to the disciples, in so far as they belong to the «rata; as a pre- paration for the exhortation in ver. 4. “ Already are ye clean” (such purified «Asjara); already there has taken place in your case, that which I have just said. The 76 dpeis glances at the multitude of those who were yet to become kaSapot in the future. That their purity originally is in- tended, not excluding the necessary continuance and prac- tical 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.— dua 7. Noyor] bua, as vi. 57 of the ground ; hence: on account of the word, 2.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 xa@aipe, ver. 2; Jas.i. 18; 1 Pet. i. 23. Comp. Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 162, 1. p.197; Niagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 39 f, ed. 3. 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 con- tinuous faithful persistence in my living fellowship. — év éwot} here: on (not in) me, cvprrepva@res ewot (Nonnus), as is required by what follows, hanging on me as the branches hang on the vine, ver. 2. Euth. Zigabenus aptly remarks: ovyxod\A@pmevot prot BeBawwrepor Sia wictews abtoTaKTOV Kal oYETEwWS APPHKTOV. — Kayo év viv] to the fulfilment of the requirement? is attached the promise: and I will abide on you—ovvev tH duvaper, Euth. Zigabenus—with the whole power of spiritual life, which I impart to my faithful ones; I will not separate myself from you, like the vine, which does not loosen itself from its branches. On pev® as a supplement, see Bornemann in the Sachs, Stud. 1846, p. 56. The harsher mode of com- pleting the sense: and cause that I abide on you (Grotius, Bengel), is not demanded by ver. 5, where 6 wévav .. . adTa Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 74. VOL. II. Q 242 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. is the fulfilled petvate ... tyuiv.—éav py pelvn, «7dr. Tf he shall not have abided, etc., refers merely to od Svvatat Kap- mov dépew (as in v. 19), and is so far a more exact definition of the aq’ éavtod, “ vi aliqua propria, quam habeat extra vitem,” Grotius.— oUtws ovdé bpets] so neither you, namely divacbe kapt. pépew ad? éavtady, 1.0. Touly TL ywpis euovd, 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 £ am the vine, ye the branches; thus then only fiom me (not af’ éavtdv, ver. 4) can you derive the living power for bearing fruit. And you must abide on me, as I on you: so (ovTos: he, no other than he) will you bring forth much fruit. In this way, by means of éym ... «Ajpata the preceding év éuoi, and by means of © pévov, «.7.r., the preceding peivnte is confirmed and brought into relief. Hence also the emphatic position of éyé and pévevr. —Kxayo év avTe] Instead of cal év @ éy@ pévea, this clause —not relative, but appending itself in an easy and lively manner—is introduced. See on this classic idiom, Bernhardy, p. 804; Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 6, ed. 3; Buttmann, MW. 7. Gr. p. 327 f. [E. T. p. 382].— yapls émod] ywpicbévtes am’ éuod, out of living fellowship with me. Comp. Eph. 1, 12; Tittmann, Synon. p. 94. Antithetic to év euol pévew, — movety ovdév] effect nothing, bring about nothing, passing from the figure into the proper mode of presentation. The activity of the Christian life in general is meant, not merely that of the apostles, since the disciples are addressed, not especially in respect of their narrower vocation, but generally as kAnpwata of Christ, which standing they have in common with all believers. ~The utter incapacity for Christian effi- ciency without the maintenance of the living connection with Christ is here decidedly and emphatically expressed; on this sub- ject, however, Augustine, and with him ecclesiastical orthodoxy, has frequently drawn inferences too wide in favour of the doctrine of moral inability generally (see especially Calovius) ; since it is only the ability for the specifically Christian qovety tu (the xaprov dépevv) which is denied to him who is yepis Xpictov. For this higher moral activity, which, indeed, is the only érue one, he is unable (iii. 6), and in this sense a ee CHAP. XV. 6. 243 it may be said with Augustine, that Christ thus spoke, “ut responderet futuro Pelagio;” where, however, a natural moral volition and ability of a lower grade in and of itself (comp. Rom. i. 14, 15, vii. 14 ff.) 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 fellowship 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 réyee kat tov Kivdvvov tod py &v atta pévovtos, Huth. Zigabenus; and. how terrible in its tragic simplicity !— éav ww Tes] nisi quis manserit. See Baeum- lein, Partik. p. 289. Comp. i. 3, 5.—€Br7On &£o, «.7.r.] 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 communion, and be- come withered (having completely lost the higher true €w7). Hence the graphic lively change of tense: Jn case any one shall not have 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 neither denote what is wont to be (Grotius), nor do they stand for futures (Kuinoel, B. Crusius, and older expositors), nor are they to be explained “par la répélition de Vacte aussi longtemps que dure lopération de la taille” (Godet) ; nor are they designed, as in Matt. xviii. 15, to express that which is at once done or appointed to be done with the non-abiding (so most expositors, including Liicke, Winer, Tholuck, De Wette, Luthardt, Weiss, Hengstenberg ; comp. Hermann, de emend. Grammat. p. 192 f.; Buttmann, N. T. Gram. p. 172 [E. T. p.199]). To the latter interpre- tation 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 244 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. conversion and re-adoption must remain open (comp. 7) 7poc- Anis, Rom. xi. 15), if éavy pH tis, «7X. is not to have in view the time of the judgment at the last day. The é€Gr0n, K.7.X. appears as a definite result and as a completed act of the past,’ and that, as the further pictorial description, «. ouvayouow, «.7.r., 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 to- gether and burning is now performed.” — @s 76 kARpa] 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 Messianic people of God, out of which he who has fallen away from Christ has been thrust. Hence é& refers to the vineyard, so far as this is the community. Outside it, the €w7 of the man who has fallen away, which he had derived from Christ, has completely perished and is dead. This is expressed by €Enpav@n, by which the man isyidentified with the withered branch, which is his image. Etth. Zigabenus well remarks: av@decev iy elyey €x THS pi€ys ixwada yapitos. — Kat cuVay. avTa, K.T.r.] Jesus now represents as present what is done with these cast- out and withered branches at the last day. The polysyndeton (comp. x. 3, 12; Matt. vii. 27, e¢ al.) and the simply solemn expression has much in it that seizes the imagination. The subject of cuvay. and Badd. is understood of itself; in the Jigure it is the servants of the yewpryés, as to the thing, the aiSépiot Spyothpes (Nonnus), the azgels, are intended (Matt. xiii. 41).— eis TO mdp (see critical notes): cnto the fire, already burning for this purpose, by which, in the interpreta- tion of the figure, Gehenna is intended (Matt. xin. 42, xxv. 41, ii. 10, vii. 19, v. 22, e¢ al.), not also the fire of the divine anger generally (Hengstenberg).—xal catetac] and they burn! The simple form (0d pay Kataxatovrat, Euth. Zigabenus) as in Matt. xii. 40. “ Magna vi positum eximia cum majestate,” Bengel. 1 Hence the aorist, instead of which the perfect was not required, as Luthardt objects. The 73» xéxpiras of iii. 18 is conceived of differently. * The reading «évy (see critical notes) would not essentially alter the sense ; it expresses : nisi quis manet, z.e, until the judgment. ie tein Ee CHAP. XV:°7)'8. 245 Ver. 7. After thus deterring from non-abiding, in ver. 6, now again an inducement to abiding. But the figure now ceases, and leaves in what follows some further scarcely accordant notes (vv. 8, 16) behind. — éav peiv. év éwor] Still in the sense of the figure, as the branches on the vine; but with cat TOA pH. pb. Ev Vwi (in animis vestris), expressing the neces- sary consequence of a man’s abiding on Jesus, the language at once becomes proper, no longer figurative. —6 éav OéX.] 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 otherwise. 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 granting of prayer, which is attached to the abiding required. —é€v tovtw] Herein, to this a forward reference is generally given, so that iva, «.7.X. is the contents of rodro. But thus understood, since iva is not equivalent to étt, 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 do€a of the Father is given. This is not appro- priate, as it is rather in the actual fruit-bearing itself that that do£&a must lie, and hence é7s must have been employed. To distinguish tva, however, merely by supplying “as I hope” (Liicke) from 67s, does not satisfy the telic nature of the word.’ Hence (and not otherwise in 1 John iv. 17) év tov, as in iv. 37, xvi. 30, is to be taken as a retrospective reference (so also Lange), and that not to the pévew in itself, but to the immediately preceding 6 éay Oédnte aiticacbe x. yevno. viv, so far, namely, as it takes place in him who abides in Christ. In this granting of prayer allotted to the wéverv év épmot, says Jesus, a twofold result—and this a high incentive to that ~éveey—is given, namely, (1) when what you ask falls to- your lot, then in this result my Father has been glorified (Araxe tyunv, Nonnus), that you—for that is God’s design in this His dofdéteo8ar—may bear much fruit (which is just to be the actual further course of that granting of prayer, comp. ver. 1 Cyril already rightly recognised that ‘vz cannot be an explanation of é roiry, but only a statement of the purpose of 232. 6 raz. w. But quite irrelevantly he referred 230%. 6 rar. yw. to the mission of the Son. 246 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 16); and (2) you will, in virtue of the fulfilment of all your prayers, become, in a truly proper and specific sense, my dis- ciples, who belong to no other (note the emphatic possessive €uoi, as in xiii. 35), since this hearing of prayer is the holy characteristic simply and solely of my disciples (xiv. 13, 14). —The future yevyoecOe may depend on iva (comp. on idoomat, xiii. 40, see also on 1 Cor. ix. 18; Eph. vi. 3), as Ewald connects it; independently, however, of fva, and there- fore connected with év tovtw, the words convey more weight in the independence appropriate to their distinctive contents. The Lord; however, does not say €éoea@e, but He sees the full development of His discipledom beginning with the év TOUTO. Vv. 9,10. But as waOnrai of Christ, they are the object of His love; hence, in addition to the general exhortation to abide on Him, there comes now, further, the particular, to abide in His love, which is done by keeping His command- ments, according to the archetype of His morally harmonious relation to the Father.— As the Father has loved 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. When others extend the protasis to duds, and first begin the apodosis with peivate (Maldonatus, Grotius, Rosenmiiller, Olshausen, and several others), this is opposed by the fact that between xaOas nya. pe oO 7. and peivate, «.7.A. no correlation exists; for the ayamn 1) é7 is not love to me (Maldonatus, Grotius, Nésselt, Kuinoel, Baeumlein, and several others), but: my love to you, as is clear from jydrnoa buds and from the analogy of 7 yapa 4 €un, ver. 11; comp. vv. 12, 13. Olshausen mingles the two together, the active and passive love. — év 77 dyarn pov] = €v TH ayarn TH é€uH. 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 xaos 1 Instead of wsivere, Ewald conjectures weivyrs, which he still makes depend on ive, ver. 8; but this is unsuitable, since x«éss appears without zai. 2 That 4 dydan h teh might denote love to me, should not have been called in question, as being contrary to the genius of the language. Comp. Q:Aie ra on, Xen. Anab. vii. 7, 29; Thucyd. i. 187. 4: 3: ray chy Qidiay, Rom. xi. 81. eS a CHAP. XV. 11. 247: _ Hya., «.7.., in which they were to abide. — tetypyxa] Self- - witness in the retrospect which He takes of His whole ministry on the threshold of its accomplishment.—«. pévo avtod €v tT. ayamy| Consequence of rerypnxa. The pro- minent position of avrod 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 in- cludes continuance also for the future; hence it is not, with Ewald, to be accented weve. Ver. 11. Conclusion of the section vy. 1-10 (caita)— iva » xapa, x.T.r.] Note the juxtaposition of éu) and ép vpiv; that my joy may be in you, ie. 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 also rises victorious over all suffering, as Christ, in virtue of His fellow- ship with the Father and of His obedience towards Him, must and did possess it (comp. xvii. 13), and as it is so often audible in Paul’s writings also in the sense of Christ (1 Cor. wi30!; 2 Cor, xxii. 11; Phil. ii, 17, 18, iv. 4; Rom: xiv. 17; Gal. v. 22). Yet 1 é€u7 is 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. il. 29, xvii. 13; 2 Cor. ii. 3), and does not satisfy the significant juxtaposition of 7 éu7 and év tyiv (comp. 2 Cor. ii, 3: Ore 4 eur yapa mavTav budv €oTw). The explanations: mea de vobis laetitia (corresponding to yalpew év; so Augustine, Schoettgen, Lampe, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and several others), or even: gaudium vestrum de me (Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius, Nosselt, Klee, and several others), are to be rejected because the correct reading is 7 (see critical, notes). Luthardt: that my joy may have its cause and object in you (not in anything else). This is erammatically correct (é€v of causal foundation): the 7>AnpwAh, ‘however, which is subsequently said of the joy of the dis- ciples, presupposes that in the first clause the joy of the disciples themselves, the consummation of which is intended, is already indicated; mAnpw@7 otherwise would remain without corresponding correlation. Had the object been merely to express the reciprocity of the joy, we would necessarily have 248 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. expected in the second half simply: «al yapa tudv év éeyol. See, in answer to Luthardt, also Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 825 f£.—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. Comp. xvi. 24; 1 John i. 4; 2 John 12. Hence: «. 4 yapa tu. wAnpwhh. Vv. 12, 13. 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. 34), which is the sum of the conception of the évtodat, ver. 10, Jesus’ peculiar, specific precept (% éu7).— ta] you should (see on vi. 29).— Ver. 13 characterizes the caOws nyat. buds. A greater love than this (just designated by ca@@s arya. tuas) no one cherishes ; it is the greatest love which any one can have, such as, according to the divine purpose, shall impel to this (Wa), that (after my example) one (indefinite) should give up his soul for the advantage of his friends. For a like readiness to self-sacrifice the greatness of my love shall be the motive, 1 John i. 16. The ordinary interpretation, according to which wa is taken as expository of TavTns, does not correspond to the idea of pur- pose in wa, and the attempts to preserve this conception (e.g. De Wette: in dyarn there lies a law, a will, comp. Luthardt, Lange; Godet: the culminating point of loving effort lies therein) are unsatisfactory and forced expedients. On riOévac tT. Wuy., see on x. 11; on ris, corresponding to the universal one (man, Ger.), any one, see Nigelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 299, ed. 3.— The difference between the present passage and Rom. v. 6 ff. (éwép adceBov) does not rest upon the thing itself, but only on the different point of view, which in Romans is general, and here is limited, according to the special con- nection, to the circle of friends, without excepting the friends from the general category of sinners. To designate them, how- ever, by that quality, was not relevant in this place. Against the weakening of the idea of @iAwy: “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 presumption implied in this, that He also would die for His friends (Euth. Zigabenus briefly and correctly points out CHAP. XV. 15. 249 the sequence of thought by supplying at the end of ver. 13: Kabas éyo mow vov). And who are these? The disciples (dpets), if they do what He commands them.—-The conception of the dérox 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 brothers, xx. 17. Ver. 15. The dignity, however, which lies in this designation “friends,” was to become known to them. — od«ére] No more, as before (xii. 26, xiii. 13 ff). No contradiction to ver. 20, where Jesus does not anew give them the zame of doddo1, 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 a potiori, and the new is intended in a pregnant sense, which does not do away with the objective and abiding relationship of the disciples, to be doddoz of Christ, and their profound consciousness of this their relationship (Acts iv. 29; Rom.i. 1; Gal.i.10; Phil. i. 1, e¢ ai.); as generally Christians are at once doddov and azedevbepor kuptov (1 Cor. vii. 22), at once dodAoe and yet His brothers (Rom. viii. 29), at once doddce and yet His ovy«dnpovopos (Rom. viii. 16).—avdrod o xvp.] Althouch he is his lord. -—tt movet] Not: what he intends to do (Grotius, Kuinoel, and several others), which is 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, whilst it is going on. The slave, although he sees it externally, 7s not acquainted with it, does not know the proper nature of the action of his master (comp. Xen. cp. 1. 3), because the latter has not taken him into his confidence in respect of the quality, the object, the means, the motives, and thoughts, ete. ; “ servus tractatur ut dpyavor,’ Bengel.—etpnxa] Ver. 14. TavtTa & HKovead, «.7.d.| does not refer to all the doctrinal teaching, nor again is it elucidated from the quite general saying, villi. 26 (Tholuck); and just as little does it require the arbitrary and more exact definition of that which is neces- sary to salvation (Calvin), of the principles (De Wette), of that designed for communication (Liicke, Olshausen), by which it is sought to avoid the apparent contradiction with xvi. 12; 250 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. but! it alludes to that which the Father has laid upon Him io do, as appears from the context by the correlation with dre 6 SovAos ovK olde, x.7.AX. 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 the pre-existent state into the world; but that does not by any means also exclude instructions standing in the context, 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.—éferéEacOe... éEeXefa- pnv] 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; Acts i. 2). Each of them was a oxevos exroyns 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 (Euth. Zigabenus, Luther, and several others, including Luthardt, Lange). — €@nxa tas] have appointed you, as my disciples, consequence of the é€ereEdunv. The “ dotation spirituclle” (Godet) goes beyond the meaning of the word, although it was historically connected with it (Mark iii. 14, 15). Comp. on riOévan, instituere, appoint (not merely destine, as Ebrard thinks), 1 Cor. xii. 28; 1 Tim. i 12; 2 fim. 5. ids: Heb. 2:23 Acts xx ‘28, 4 ah 3°GEioae er xv. 253, Jl. vi. 300; Dem. 322. 11, et al. The rendering of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, is incorrect: I have planted you (Xen. Occ. xix. 7,9). The figure of the vine ~ has in truth been dropped, and finds only an echo in the kaptrov épetv, which, however, must not be extended to €6nxa, 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 vmets wmdy.] that you on your side may go away, etc., is by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, in conse- quence of their interpretation of €@y«a, erroneously explained 1 This, at the same time, in answer to Beyschlag, p. 101, who considers a reference here to the pre-existent state as absurd. Comp. also against the same, Johansson, de Chr. pracexistentia, p. 14. CHAP. XV. 17—19. PAT | by ta éxtelvnoOe adfavouevor. Nor does it merely denote “andependent and vital action”-(De Wette, Liicke, Baum- garten-Crusius, Luthardt, Godet; comp. Luther: “that you sit not still without fruit or work”), or “continual move- ment” (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 is said to be simply an auxiliary verb, like ire with the supine. It signifies rather the execution of the amoorToXn, in which they were to yo away into all the world, etc. Comp. Luke x. 3; Matt. xxviii. 19.— wévy] comp. iv. 36. The results of their ministry are not again to decline and be brought to naught, but are to be continuous and enduring even into the ai@y péArwv.— The second tva 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 —év 7d ovo. pw] See on xiv. 13. Ver. 17. At the close (comp. ver. 11) of this section, vv. 12-16, Jesus refers once more to its main point, reciprocal love. —tadta| points backwards, as in ver. 11, namely, to - what is contained in vv. 12-16, so far as the contents are of a preceptive nature. And that which is therein enjoined by Jesus on the disciples has for its object (ia), etc., as He had in truth required this duty at the very beginning of the section. The remainder of the section (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.—JIn your fellowship, Jove ; from without, on the part of the unbelieving, hatred against you! Consolation for you: yeveoxere (imperat.) Ste eué mpatov vuav (i. 15), wewl- onxev. Comp. 1 Pet. iv. 12,13. 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. 13, iv. 5.— The fivefold repetition of «kécpos is 252 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. solemn. Comp. iii. 17. —70 vécov] “ Suum dicitur pro vos, atque sic notatur interesse mundi,’ Bengel. Comp. vii. 7. They have become a /foreign element to the world, and there- with the object of its antipathy ; yaipes yap TS opoiw Td duovov, Euth. Zigabenus; comp. Plat. Lys. p. 214 B; ro Omovov TH opmolw avayKn adel pidov elvas. Ver. 20. A recalling of xiii. 16, presupposing, however, a different application than in that passage—namely, a slave has no better lot to claim than his lord (comp. Matt. x. 24, 25).—Tf they have persecuted me, they will also persceute 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 judgment of the disciples themselves, since they in truth knew from experience how it had gone with Him. To take the second clause zronically (“ quasi dicat: non est, quod hoc speretis,” Grotius, Lampe), is appropriate neither to the seriousness of the first, nor to the tone of the whole passage. Olshausen’s view is incorrect (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 rypety as watch, this is quite opposed to the Johannean usage of Tov Aoy. THpeiy (vill. 51, xiv. 23, 24, and frequently), comp. ver. 10, and it would also be too weak a conception after the first half of the verse. Irrespective of this, usage would not stand in the way of such rendering, Gen. ui. 15 (according to the usual reading); Dem. 317 ult., 1252. 8; Soph. 0. R. 808; Arist. Vesp. 364; Thue. iv. 108. 1, vu. 80. 1; Lys. ui. 34. ‘Ver. 21. ’AdXa] antithesis to the consolation against this state of persecution: tadtTa wavta 7. eis Up, however, pre- supposes that the second of the cases supposed in ver. 20 is not the actual one. The consolation lies in 60a 76 Gvopad mov: because my name ts 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), ought to exalt the persecuted (apos Tyunv pév viv TovTo To.ovcw, Ammonius), and did exalt them (Acts CHAP. XV. 22-24, aie v. 41, xxi. 13, e¢ al.), and they boasted of these sufferings eGo, v.35 92. Cor, x1. 23 ff, xi. 10) 10 yA Petsiv. 12 ff), which constituted their holy pride (Gal. vi. 17) and their joy Pele i bey 08): Comp... Matt... xp 22, vaxiya9,.v. 11. According to others (including Liicke, De Wette, Hengsten- berg), 672 ov« oldact, x.7..., has the emphasis. But in that case the moment va 70 dvoud pov is arbitrarily set back, and rendered unnecessary, although throughout the whole of the following discussion the reference of the persecutions to Christ is the prominent and dominant point (see especially vv. 25-27). Hence 67v ov« oidact, x.7.r., is to be taken as sub- ordinated to dua Td dvoud pov, as giving, that is, the explana- tion thereof. Had they possessed the true acquaintance with God, they would, because God has sent Christ, have also known Christ (comp. Luke xxii. 34), 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, 23), and done before their eyes His Messianic works (miracles), ver. 24.—apapr. ovx« etyor] For their hatred of my name would then be excusable, 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 blindness before God’s revelation of Himself in my advent and dis- courses. —The moment of the protasis lies in 7A @ov and €dan. avtots together (not merely in the latter); *@ov is the Messianic épyec@ar, correlative to the preceding 7. méuravta pe. The duaprtia, however, referable to the pecety,' must 1 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 mitiores poenas 254 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. not be referred merely to wnbelief, which does not correspond to the context in vv. 19, 21, 25-25 (in answer to Bengel, Luthardt, Lange, Hengstenberg, and several others). The words duapt. ovx eye, ix. 41, were spoken of wnbelief. — The non-occurrence of ay with efyor is as in viii. 39.—vdv Sé] But thus, since I have appeared and have spoken to them. — Tpopacty ovK éxovat, «.7.r.] In that supposed case they would have no sin, so far, namely, as their hatred would be only an excusable peccatum ignorantiae; but as the matter stands, they have no pretext in respect of their sin (to which | they are subject through their hatred); they can allege nothing by way of escape. mpodacupy éxev, to have evasions, exculpations, only here in N. T., very frequently in the classics; Dem. 526.15; Plat. Pol. v. p. 469 C; Xen. Cyr. iii. 1.27. Antithesis: adgereiv mpopaciv, Dem. 26. 2, 635. 24. Euth. Zigabenus well remarks : arootepet tods ’Iovdaious aTacns cuyyvouns €OeXoxakodvtas. — 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 their guilt.—ovdels ddXos] that is, according to their nature and appearance, divine works, v. 36, ix. 3, 4, x. 37, xiv. 10, e¢ al.— viv bé kal Ewpdxact, k.7.r.] But thus (viv 6é, as in ver. 22), they have actually seen (as vi. 36), and yet hated both me and my Father. Not merely pepo, but also already éwpdx., is connected with cal épé, K.7.r.; i 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 understanding, giving significance to the outward onyeta; 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 for them, or, in confirmation of their condemnation, propose, with Melanchthon, to extend the words of Christ to the protevangelium in paradise, and bring in at. the same time the natural moral law, Rom. ii. ' Which, as a matter of course, and according to vv. 22-24, does not do away with responsibility. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 151. CHAP. XV. 26, 27. Zoe 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 unbelieving against Christ (comp. on xiii. 18). The passage Ps. cix. 3, which Hengstenberg further adduces, does not correspond so literally, as is also the case with Ps. cxix. 161 (Ewald). — adN] sc. pemiojcaciv pe, as the ground-thought of what precedes. — dwpedv] 03M, immerito, according to the LXX., but opposed to the Greek signification (gratis). Comp. 1 Sam. xix. 5 ; Ps. xxxiv. 7 (where Symmachus has avaiTios) ; Sir. xx. 21, xxix. 6, 7.— The irony which De Wette discovers in é€v TO vo“@ avTav: “they comply faithfully with what stands in their law,’ is an erroneous assumption, since wa - mAnp. is the usual formula for the fulfilment of prophecies, and | since vdjos here, as in x. 34, stands in a wider sense, while avrTay is to be taken as 7@ tduerépw, viii. 17 (see in loc.), comp. tudv, x. 34. Bengel well says: “in 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 Him. The Paraclete _ was to give testimony of Christ through the disciples, in speak- ing forth from them (Matt. x. 20; Mark xiii. 11). But the testimony of the disciples of Christ was at the same time also their own, since it expressed their own experiences with Christ from the beginning onwards, 1.14; 1 John i. 1; Acts i. 21, 22. Both were, in so far as they, filled and enlightened by the divine vedua, delivered His instructions (xiv. 26), and what they themselves had heard and seen of Jesus, both conse- quently év mvevpmaru, one witness; it is, however, separated into its two actual factors (comp. Acts 1. 8; Rom. viii. 16, ix. 1), and they are kept apart. — dv éy@ wéuo ip. Tapa Tov mwatp.| How? see xiv. 16. As éy# is used with the weight of authority, so also has the more exact definition: To mvedma T. adrné. (see on xiv. 17), and the addition 6 7. 7. Tatp. €xtop., in emphatic confirmation of the above mapa Tov tatpos, the pragmatic weight of causing to be felt the 256 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. truth and validity of the Spirit’s testimony, which thus goes back to the Father. The general expression é€x7rop., however, which is without any definite limitation of time, does not refer to the immanent relation of subsistence (actus hypostaticus), but, agreeably to the connection, to the being efficaciously communicated outwards’ from the Father, by means of which, in every case that occurs, the Spirit is received. “Itaque hujusmodi testimonia nec a Graecis (against the filioque) nec contra Graecos (against the dua tod viod é« tod matpos)... satis apposite sunt citata,” Beza. For the dogmatic use in the interest of the Greek Church, see already in Theodore of Mop- suestia. Recently, Hilgenfeld especially has laid great stress on the hypostatic reference, and that in the sense of a Gnostic emanation. — €x¢tvos] opposed to the Christ-hating world. — mept €“ov] of my Person, my work, etc. Comp. 1 John v. 6. — Kal tpets 5é] atque vos etiam. Comp. on vi. 51, viii. 17. — paptupette] ye also are witnesses, since ye from the begin- ning (of my Messianic activity) ave with me (consequently are able to bear witness of me from your experience). Jesus does not say paptupycete, because the disciples were already the witnesses which they were to be in future. They were, as the witnesses, already forthcoming. éoré denotes that which still continues from the commencement up to the present moment. Comp. 1 John i. 8. pwaprup. taken as wperative would make the command appear too abrupt; considering its very importance, a more definite unfolding of it was necessarily to be expected, which, however, is not missed, if the words are only a part of the promise to bear witness (in answer to B. Crusius and Hofmann, Schiftbew. IL. 2, p. 19). An echo of this word of Christ reearding the united testimony of the Spirit and of the apostles is found in Acts v. 32, also in Acts xv. 28. 1 The Spirit goes out if He is sent, xiv. 16, 26; Gal. iv. 6. Comp. the figurative expression of the outpouring. See also Hofmann, Schrifibcw. I. p. 203 f CHAP, XVI QO" CHAPTER XVI Ver. 3. After zoo. Elz. has iui, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 4. 4 apa] Lachm.: 4 dpa airdy, according to A. B., a few Cursives, Syr. ; also L., Cursives, Vulg. It. Arr. Cypr. Aug., who, however, omit the airéy that follows. This betrays an already ancient variation in the position of the «ira», which was only at one time original, which, placed before w»nuov., was readily drawn to wpa, and then also again restored after pwvnwov. D. 68, Arm. have no airéy at all, which is explained from its original posi- tion after wvyuov., in which it appeared superfluous. — Ver. 7. és yap yw] ¢y#, which is wanting in Elz. Tisch., has important testimony against (B.D. L.s.) and for it (A.E.G.H.K.M.U. A. <.). It was, however, because unnecessary, and also as not stand- ing in opposition, more readily passed over than added. — Ver. 13. eis racoayv rqy ann deray| Lachm. : sig ryv dary. rou (A. B. Y. Or. Eus.) ; Tisch.: +4 dandeia réon (D. L. 8. Cursives, Verss. Fathers). The reading of Lachm. has stronger attesta- tion, 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 ééyy. with év in the LXX. (Ps. lxxxvi. 10, exix. 35, e¢ al.; Sap. ix. 11, x. 17).— Ver. 15. rAwmwBdver] Elz.: Ag eras, against decisive testimony; from ver. 14.— Ver. 16. 03] B.D. L.a.8. Curss. Verss. (including Vulg. It.) Or. e¢ al.: odxérs. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpretation in conformity with ver. 10 and xiv. 19.—érs itdyw zpos r. rar.] is wanting in B. D. L. Copt. Sahid. Cant. Ver. Vere. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from ver. 17, whence also the ya in Elz. after ér,—which ¢y#, however, is in ver. 17, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, in conformity 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 yyw, Elz. Lachm. have otv. A connective addition, instead of which 62 is also found.— Ver. 20. The second 6 has been justly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. in conformity with B. D. A.s. 1, It. Copt. Arm. Syr. Goth. Cypr. It was added in mechanical repetition of the antithesis. — Ver. 22. The order viv wiv ot Adm. zy, is, VOL. II. R 258 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. with Tisch., to be preferred on preponderating testimony. But instead of ¢yere, read with Lachm. éfere, after A. D. L. Curss. Verss. Fathers; the present was mechanically introduced after eyes, ver. 21, and on occasion of the viv. — azpe:] Lachm.: ape, according to B. D.* r. Vulg. Codd. It. Cypr. Hil. Explanatory alteration in accordance with the preceding futures. — Ver. 23, ér1 600 é&v] Many variations. As original appears the reading | in A.,é 7 é (so Lachm. in the margin), in connection with which copyists were induced, through the preceding Aéyw tui, to take OTI (differently from xiv. 13) recitatively, which thus led to the readings é& s: (so Lachm. and Tisch., comp. xx. 28), dy v1, bow dy, and thus the é7, which had now become super- fluous, disappeared in many copies (not &., which has or ¢ a). — ivy 7@ évou. wov] is placed by Tisch. after duces dud, in con- formity with B. C.* L. X. Y. a. 8. Sahid. Or. Cyr. Rightly ; the ordinary position after rarzpa is determined by xiv. 13, xv. 16, and appeared to be required by ver. 24. — Ver. 25. Before Zexera, Elz. and Lachm. (the latter in brackets) have 412’, con- trary to important testimony. A connective addition. — In- stead of dvayyeA, arayyeAe is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted on decisive testimony. The former flowed from vv. 13, 14, 15. — Ver. 27. dod] B. C* D. L. X. &** Verss. Cyr. Did. : sarpés. A gloss by way of more precise definition (Verss. have: a deo patre). — Ver. 28. rapé] Lachm. and Tisch. : éx, which is suf- ficiently attested by B. C.* L. X. Copt. Epiph. Hil. (in D. is want- ing ¢7A4ov ... rerpés), and, in conformity with what immediately precedes, was dislodged by rapé.— Ver. 29. rappne.] Lachm. and Tisch.: é rapéno., in conformity with B.C.D.s. Rightly ; zv, because unnecessary, after ver. 25, came to be dropped, and the more readily after NYN. — Ver. 32. vv] is, in conformity with decisive testimony, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 33. ?yere] So also Tisch. But Elz. Lachm.: ¢£ere only, after D. Verss. (including Vulg. It.) and Fathers. The present is so decisively attested, that the future appears to be simply a closer definition of the meaning (comp. ver. 22). . Ver. 1. Tadra XNeAAX. div] As the same expression, xv. 11, pointed back to the preceding section, vv. 1-10, and then taidta évTéANopae Ypiv, ver. 17, to vv. 11-16, so here tadra Aer. ty. refers to xv. 18-27, so that the substantial contents of this section are intended, namely, that which had been said of the hatred of the world. — iva wy cxavdanr.] Comp. Matt. xiii, 21, xxiv. 10, xi. 6. Prepared beforehand, and armed by Christ’s communications, they were not to be made to stumble CHAP, XVI. 2-4. 259 at Him, but were to oppose to the hatred of the world all the greater efficiency and constancy of faith. Vv. 2, 3. Of the tadza, ver. 1, He now gives certain con- crete manifestations, which might tend to their becoming offended. — amocvuvay.] See on ix. 22, xii. 42.— arr] At, Le. nay, further! it introduces the antithesis of a yet far heavier, of a bloody fate. Comp. on 2 Cor. vii. 11. To take amocuvay. Toc. vn. interrogatively (Ewald), is unnecessarily artificial. — tva] That which will take place in the wpa is con- ceived as the olject of its coming: there is coming an hour, in order that, etc. Comp. on xii, 23.— ds 0 amokt., «.7..] 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 AaTtpeta, cultus (Plat. Apol. p. 23 C, Phaedr. p. 224 E; Rom. ix. 4), here, by means of the mpoo- gépewv, the standing word used of sacrifices (see Matt. v. 23, vil. 4; Acts vii. 32; Heb. v. 1; Schleusner, Zhes. IV. p. 504), in the special reference 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, aequalis est ill, qui sacrificium facit,” _Bammidbar Rabba, f. 329. 1. On this doxetv, comp. Saul’s example, Acts xxvi. 9; Gal. i. 13, 14.—On ver. 3, comp. xv. 21. Jesus once more recalls with profound sadness this tragic sowrce 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, Hengstenberg) must have been indicated had it existed. Ver. 4. ’AXXG] At, breaks off the enumeration (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15). 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 tadTa AeAaX. had just been already said, and that with- out any antithetic reference of the kind. The explanations of Tholuck and Lange, again, are importations: “but so little would I terrify (?) you hereby, that I have only (?) said it to 260 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. you,” etc. —tadra] What was said in vv. 2, 3.—avra@», bre éyo elm. by.| Attraction. See Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. p. 665 ff.]— éy] with weighty emphasis: J, the Person, with whom your faith is concerned. Comp. ver. 1, a pt cxavdan. — €£ apyijs] xv. 27. The question, how this declaration of Jesus may be reconciled with the announcements found in the Synoptics, even from the time of the Sermon on the Mount, of predestined sufferings (Matt. v. 10 ff.; Luke vi. 22 ff; Matt. x. 16 ff.; Luke xi. 4 ff; Matt. xxi. 12 ff, xxiv. 9), is not solved by saying that here goSepmtepa éexetvwv (Euth. Ziga- benus, comp. also Chrysostom) are announced (see, on the contrary, Matt. x. 16-18, 28); or that Christ spoke at an earlier period minus aperte et parcius (Bengel, comp. Grotius), and in much more general terms (Ebrard), but now more ex- pressly set forth im its principles the character 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) ; but the differ- ence lies clearly before us, and is simply to be recognised (comp. also Godet), to be explained, however, from the fact that in the Synoptics more general and less definite allusions belonging to the earlier time appear with the more definite form and stamp of later expressions. 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. — 6T¢ ped’ buav juny] 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. “ Be- cause you have me with you, they cannot well but leave you in peace, and can do nothing to you, they must have done vz to me previously, but now it will begin,” etc, Luther. Comp. Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius. As yet they had suffered no persecution; hence the thought, “I could console you” (Liicke, De Wette, and older expositors), is not to be introduced. The interpretation also: “now first, when I pro- CHAP. XVI. 5-7. 261 mise you the Spirit, can I thus openly speak to you” (Bengel, Tholuck), is not in harmony with the words. Vv. 5, 6. Now, however, this my pe’ tucv eivat is past! Now I go away to Him who has sent me, and in what a mood of mind are you at the prospect of this my impending de- parture! None of you asks me: whither dost Thou go away ? but because I have spoken this to you, namely, that after my departure such sufferings shall befall you, grief has filled your heart, so that you have become quite dumb from sorrow, and blunted to the higher interest which les in my going home to Him who sent me. According to De Wette and Liicke, there is said to be a want of exactness in the entire presentation, resting on the fact that ver. 6 does not stand before xai ovdels. 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 méurp. we, and a pause is to be assumed, in which Jesus in vain awaited a question, so that He continued subse- quently 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 pro- gressive, unwarranted. — The fact that already in xiii. 36 the question had been put by Peter rod umayeis (comp. the ques- tion 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 his eye on the goal of the departing One, and could come to a question for more definite information respecting it. — 7 AUT] simply, in abstracto: sadness. Ver. 7. Nevertheless, how should you raise yourselves above this Wn! How is my departure your own gain! By its means the Paraclete indeed will bo imparted to you as a support against the hatred of the world. — éyw] in the con- sciousness of this personal guarantee. — iva éyo a7éXOa] éyo in contradistinction to the Paraclete, who is to come in His place (xiv. 16); ‘va expresses the de? as divinum, as in 262 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. xi. 50. On the dependence of the mission of the Paraclete upon the departure of Jesus, see on vil. 39. Ver. 8.’ The threefold ministry of the Paraclete towards the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Thus will He be your counsel against the kdcpos ! — éréy£&ex] convict, namely, through His testimony of me, xv. 26. This édreyés, of which the apostles were to be the bearers in their office, is the activity which convinces the person concerned (arguendi ratio cxprobans), which reveals to him his unrighteousness, and puts him to shame (iii. 20, viii. 9, 46; 1 Cor. xiv. 24; Tit i 9; Matt. xviii. 15; Luke i. 19, e¢ al.), and the consequence 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 zepi xpicews, since the xpiows is intended, not of the xocpos, 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 separation from the world. Godet well designates the three- fold éXey&s as the 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 consequences. — Tept adpaprias, x.7.r.] The objective contents of the édeyEus set forth separately in three parts (themata). See, respecting the individual points, on vv. 9-11. Ver. 9. First part: in reference to sin He will convince them. The more exact definition, as to how far He will — convince them zepl daptias; so far as they, namely (6t1, equivalent to eis éxetivo 67s, 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; dts aduaptdvovet pa Tis- tevovtes Tt, Euth. Zigabenus. Following Calvin (comp. already Apollinarius, Ammonius, and also Luther), De Wette ‘See Wetzel, wb. d. Elenchus des Parakl. John xvi. 8-13, in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol. 1856, p. 624 ff. ; : CHAP. XVI. 10, 263 and Briickner (comp. also Ebrard) interpret not of the con- viction of sin, so far as the wnbelief of the world will be brought to its consciousness as sin, but of sin generally (“ qualis zm se sé 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 zt 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 Wetzel and Godet ; which, however, does not correspond to the simplicity of the words." On the édgey£is of the world wept dwapr., and that with regard to its converting power, comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 24,25. Tholuck makes out of the simple dwaprtias the guilt of sin, and that the wrpardonable (ix. 41). — Note further that éte is the exponent, not of duaptias, but of édéyEee repli dp. Ver. 10. The second particular : in reference to righteousness, accordingly to the opposite of dwaptia. As, however, in dpaptias the subject is the world itself, the €deyEts of which is described, so the subject of Svcavoctvn is Christ ; hence the more exact definition: so far as I, namely, go to my Father, and you see me no more; SiKaiov yap yveOpicua TO TropevecOae Tpds tov Ocdv x. cvveivat adTo@, Euth. Zigabenus ; ducavocvrm, since it thus, in virtue of the context, is necessarily an attribute of Christ, denotes His guzlilessness and holy moral perfection. The unbelieving held Him to be an duaptwndds (comp. ix. 24), and put Him to death as such (xviii. 30) ; He was, however, the Séacos (1 John ii. 1, 29, iii. 7 ; comp. Acts iii. 14, vii 52 ; 1 Pet. ii. 18), and was proved to be such by the testimony of the Paraclete, in virtue of which the apostles preached the exaltation of Christ to the Father (comp. Acts i. 33 ff), and thereby the world was convicted as guilty zepi Sducacocvyys, the opposite of which the unbelieving assumed in Christ, and thought to be confirmed by the cxdvéarov of His cross. So substantially Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, Maldonatus, 1 The sense would be this : in reference to sin He will convince them that unbelief is the true essence of sin. How easy would it have been for Jesus to have actually said this! for example, by: wept dwaprias, 071 1 dwapria iorly 4 aoiria, And such an expression of the thought assumed would have been quite Johannean. 264 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Bengel, Morus, Tittmann, and several others, including Liicke, Klee, Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Godet, Baeum- lein. Since, according to the analogy of the remaining parts, Christ must be the subject of S:cacocvvn, then already on this ground we must reject not only the interpretation of Grotius of the compensatory justice of God,’ and that of the Socinians and Kuinoel, guod jus et fas est (Matt. xii. 15), but also that of Augustine, Erasmus, Luther,’ Melanchthon, Calvin, Calovius, Jansen, Lampe, Storr, Hengstenberg, and several others, that the righteousness of man through faith in the Pauline sense is intended,’ 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 which Luthardt gives to the interpretation of Augustine, etc., that the passage does not indeed express that Christ has by means of His departure acquired righteousness, but rather that He has rendered righteousness possible, because faith in Himself as invisible, is likewise opposed by the fact that Christ would not be the subject to which écarootvn was ascribed ; and it contains, moreover, too artificial a reflection, which is not even appropriate, since faith in Christ cannot be conditioned by His invisibility, although faith must exist in spite of the invisibility of Christ (xx. 29). The thought is rather: “ The fact that I go to the Father, and that I shall then be removed from your eyes, will serve to the Spirit in His €Xey&s of the world as a demonstration of the fact that I am Svkatos.”* And thus the by no means idle, but tender 1“ Deum aequum esse rectorem, ut qui me extra omnem injuriae contactum in suae majestatis consortium receperit.” Comp. also Ewald, Jahrb. VIII. p. 199, and Johann. Schr. I. p. 381. 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,” ete. 3 Here also Ebrard’s view comes in, who, indeed, considers the Pauline sense of 3:xasocvvn 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 own only in an invisible manner. This interpretation is incorrect, for the reason that, in accordance with it, the ¢AtyZis wept dixasocdvys would substantially coincide with the acy&s epi &uuprias. Moreover, the rejection of Christ and His invisible intercourse with His society is an imported meaning. * What Wetzel finds over and above this in the words: that in Christ ‘‘ ail CIIAP. XVI. 11. 265 and sympathetic expression, «. odKéTs Sewpetré we, as denot- ing the translation into the invisible 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 éreyEts 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 (Linder, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 514 ff.), is remote from the connection. De Wette’s remark is incorrect: that «. dpets Gewpetré we was rather to be expected. Zhat must have been expected if, with Tholuck, it had to be explained of the moral purity (=n) 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 spiritually instead of bodily. But thus all essential points would have been read between the lines. Ver. 11. If the Paraclete by means of His testimony con- vinces the world of its sin of unbelief, and of Christ’s righteousness, then the third €deyks also 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 the sway of the devil, so that his cause in and with the fulfilment of the redemptive work is objectively a Jost one. Comp. on xii. 30, 31. Of this the Paraclete will penally convict the world, dependent on the dominion of the devil, in order that the world, in acknowledgment 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, by means of the apostolic preaching is accomplished on the xdcpos the offictwm Spiritus s. elenchticum. righteousness rests, and from Him again all righteousness proceeds,” is indeed a correct dogmatic deduction from the present passage, but is not contained in the words themselves as their meaning. 266 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Notr.—tThe three more precise definitions with ér (vv. 9-11) express the relations from the standpoint of the presence of the speaker. Hence, in ver. 9, the present moredovow (which was altered at a very early period —so Vulg, and It.— into ériorevonv); hence also in ver. 10 the present irdéyw and the second person dewpe?re, because Jesus is speaking to the disciples, and it is in fact His departure from them which is filling His mind, which lively directness of style De Wette unjustly criti- cizes as surprisingly inappropriate; hence, finally, in ver. 11 the perfect xéxprras, 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. — 7o\)d] Much, that belongs to the entirety of the divine dA7j@ca (ver. 13). That He means only further developments (Luther, Melanchthon, and many others, including Liicke, De Wette), is not to be deduced (see 7m Joc.) from xv. 15, comp. xiv. 26. Nevertheless, the portions of doctrine themselves, which may belong to the zodAd, although they are in general to be sought for in the letters and discourses of the apostles, 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, abolition of the law, apostolic decrees), because we are not fully acquainted with the instructions of Jesus to His disciples. In general, it is certain that information respecting the further development of His work, and particularly matters ‘of knowledge which, as history attests, still necessitated special revelation, as the immediate calling of the Gentiles, Acts x., and eschatological disclosures like 1 Cor. xv. 51, Rom. xi. 25, 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff, form part of their con- tents. The non-apostolical Apocalypse (against Hengsten- berg and others), as likewise the dzoxadvwes granted to Christian prophets in the N. T., are here, where Jesus is con- cerned 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 2?” 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 CHAP, XVI. 12; 267 very few of the original apostles left behind them any writ- ing), Zradition in and of itself (in thes?) cannot be rejected, ° although its reality in regard to given cases (in /ypothest) can never be proved, and it must therefore remain generally without normative validity. Comp. on 1 Cor. xi. 34. In opposition to tradition, Luther limited zoAAd, in entire con- tradiction of the context, to the sufferings that were to be endured. — éyw] I have in readiness, viii. 6; 2 John 12; 3 John 13.—facrdferv] That which is too heavy, for the spiritual strength, for understanding, temper, strength of will, cannot be borne. Comp. Kypke, I p. 404 f. On the thing: 2 Cor. ili. 2. Note, further, Bengel’s appropriate remark, to the effect that the Romish traditions can least be borne by those who have the Spirit.— d@p7v] at the end, as in xiii. 33. Ver. 13. To rv. tr. ad] See on xiv. 17.—odny. dy. els Tt. ar. waoav| He will be to you a guide into all the truth. Comp. ver. 23; wdoav, according to its position after 7. an. (see critical notes), does not belong to the verb, as if it ex- pressed the complete introduction (Liicke), but describes, as in v. 22, divine truth in its entirety, according to its collective contents. Comp. v. 22: 7. xpliow macav, Plat. Theaet. p. 147 E, rov apipov mavra Sixa SveAdBopev ; Kriiger, § 50. 11.11. As to the thing, macay tHv adynOeav, Mark v. 33 (Kriiger on Thuc. vi. 87. 1), would not be different; only in the present passage, dA7Oea is the idea immediately prominent. —ov yap, «.7.r.] Reason, from the origin and compass of His communications. — ag’ éavtod] adbtoxédevotos, avjKoos, Nonnus. This negative definition is, indeed, the denial of anything conceived of after a human manner, which absolutely cannot be (“spiritus enim, qui a semet ipso loquitur, non spiritus veritatis, sed spiritus est mendacii,’ Ruperti; comp. already Ignatius, ad Eph. interpol. 9), but serves completely to set forth the unity of the Spirit’s teaching with that of the Lord" Comp. v. 19.—éca dv dxovon] All, what- soever He shall have heard from God, so that He will 1 «€ 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. 268 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. withhold from you nothing of that which has been divinely heard by Him.’ The Spirit, however, hears from God not externally as a Subject separated from God, but (comp. 1 Cor. ii, 11) through an interna acceptio; for He is in God, and proceeds trom Him, xv. 26. That the hearing from God, not from Christ (Olshausen, Kling, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Heng- stenberg, Godet : from both), is meant, is to be already assumed on account of the absolute dxovon, and ver. 15 renders it certain. On dxovon itself, comp. also Luther: “The 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.” — Ta épxo eva] So that you, through the adroxaduis of the Spirit, will also become acquainted with the future (4 8 épyopéva Hotpa, Soph. Trach. 846), the knowledge of which belongs to the whole dA7@eva (particularly the eschatological develop- ments). Comp. Isa. xli. 22, 23, xliv. 7, xlv. 11: ta ésepyo- peva. Further, Ta épyoueva belongs also to that denoted by dca dy axovon, and is related to it as species to genus, so that «ai brings into relief from that which is general, some- thing 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. 13, operate, for the advancement of my 6d among men, since He will an- nounce to you nothing else than what is mine, what according to the identity of substance is my truth, of which J am the pos- sessor and disposer.” Justly do I designate the divine truth, which He is to announce, as my property, since all that the Father has, «.e. according to the context, the whole truth pos- sessed by the Father (Col. 11. 3), 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) 1 When Godet says, on ver. 13: *f The word in xiv. 26 included the formula of the inspiration of our Gospels ; ver. 13 gives that of the inspiration of the Lpistles and of the Apocalypse,” the simple addition must be made, ‘‘in so far as and to the extent in which these writings are actually apostolic.” ? Every claim that anything belongs to what Christ terms r@ 40% must neces- sarily, according to the analogia jfidci, be measured by His and His disciples’ extant word ; hence the present passage, in like manner, as ver. 13, excludes all the pretended claims of fanaticism. CHAP. XVI. 16-18. 269 and sent for the accomplishment of His work, and, moreover, continually lives and moves in the Father, and the Father in Him. Comp. xvii. 10. Calvin, in opposition to the onto- logical interpretation, well observes, that Christ speaks: “de injuncto sibt erga nos officio.” Note further, the emphatic, all-embracing wavta éca, «.7.X.,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 future. —AapBaver] 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.—«. éWeré pe] As in xiv. 18, 19, not to be referred to the resurrection (as Lange, Ebrard, Hengsten- berg, Ewald, Weiss still maintain, in spite of ver. 23, comp. with Acts i. 5, 6), 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 6tt trdyw mpos T. Tat. genuine (but see the critical notes), it would assign the reason for the promise dvreaGé je, 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 (€x 7. wal. avr. sc. Twés, as in vii. 40) express (in a whisper) to one another, how enigmatic this language, ver. 16, is to them. They indicate, accordingly (ver. 18), the psxpov that was mentioned as the point of unintelligibility: “ what shall this be, what does He mean by ptxpov?” Note todo placed first with emphasis, as well as the article with pxpov, point- ing backwards. — «al 6tt brayw Tp. T. TaT.] Ott is reci- tative. 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 take up along with the point there expressed in their seeing Him no 1The xdéaw wixpsv, Which decidedly opposes this interpretation, because it is entirely unrelated to the first «i:xpsv, 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 Parousia. But of this Jesus certainly says nothing, either here or in what follows. 270 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. more :—vrayw mp. T. TaT.—1in order to receive an explanation regarding it, probably feeling that this explanation must neces- sarily 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 introduced from His earlier discourse (vrayw mp. tT. 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 interchange 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. — cdavcerte Kk. Opnvijc. bpets] vets with peculiar emphasis, moved to the end, and placed immediately before o 5é oop. The mourning and lamenta- tion, this loud outburst of the Avy of the disciples over the death of Jesus (not: “over the community of Christ given up to death,” Luthardt), becomes yet more tragic through the con- trast of the joy of the world. — ets yapav yevnoetac] will be turned into joy, namely, when that drecOé pe takes place. — Ver. 21. % yuvy] the woman ; the article is generic, comp. 6 S0dXos, xv. 15.—Orav tixty] when she is on the point of bringing forth.—% dpa avrtis| her hour of distress, wpa Bapvedivos, Nonnus. Comp. afterwards ths OAhpews, which denotes the distress during the occurrence of birth. — dv0po- mos|a man. In this lies a self-consciousness of the maternal joy. — els Tov xdcy.] born and therewith come into the world (i. 9, xviii. 37). An appeal to the Rabbinical D?iv2 Ni2 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.((sae xxi. 8; x 17, Levin 7; Hos: 13; Mie ae 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 disciples is the sole thing depicted, not also the passage of Christ through death to life (Briickner), as the birth of the new fellowship for the disciples, and the like. There is much arbitrary interpretation - CHAP. XVI. 20-22. Hie § in Chrysostom, Apollinarius, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Ruperti, and seyeral 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; even in De Wette the living Christ is subjectively a child of the spiritual pro- ductivity of the disciples. Similarly Tholuck, also Lange, in conformity with his explanation of Christ’s reswrrection, under- standing 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 community, which is begotten and suckled from His heavenly life. Since, further on, the Parousia is not referred to, and the ters, ver. 22, are the disciples, we must not, with Luthardt, explain it of the passage of the community into the state of - glorification at the future coming of Christ (Rev. xxi. 4), so that the community is to be thought of as “ bringing forth in its death-throes the new state of things.” — Ver. 22. According to the amended reading (see the critical notes): you also will consequently (corresponding to this wapowuia) now indeed (over my death, which is immediately impending) have sorrow; but again I shall see you, etc. That here Christ does not again say OweoGé pe, as in ver. 19, is only a change in the correlate designation of the same fact (Godet’s explanation is an arti- ficial refinement, which, expressed in vv. 19 and 22 according to both its aspects, is, by means of vers. 23 and 25, obviously designated, neither as the Parousia,' nor as the return by the resurrection, or at least as taking its beginning from this (see on xiv. 18), but as the communication of the Paraclete). The exalted Christ, returning to them and the Holy Ghost, sees them again. — aipet] represents the certain future as present. 1 In interpreting it of the Parowsia, the assumption is forced on one, that with auhy, deny Abyo, x.7.A., a new section of the discourse commences, which refers to the intermediate time until the Parousia. See especially Luthardt and Lechler, p. 225. This is certainly opposed, and decisively, by the tv éxeivn +. netpz, ver. 26, which is solemnly repeated, and points back to ver. 23, And the above assumption is, in and of itself, entirely arbitrary. Comp. the duz», x.7.a., ver. 20. In interpreting it of the Resurrection, Ebrard sees himself necessitated to give to odx tpwric, o4dév the limitation : in the sense of ver. 19. A pure importation. 212 TIIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Climax of the representation. Then your joy will be incapable of being taken from you, on account of the renewed fellowship, like this itself (Matt. xxvii. 20). Vv. 23, 24. Happy result of this spiritual reunion in reference to the disciples’ official relationship: ¢lwmination— granting of prayer.—év éxeivn t. Hy.) 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 in- terpretations of Ebrard and Hengstenberg also substantially amount, comp. Briickner.— é€wé odx« épwt. ovdév] Because, that is, the enlightenment through the Paraclete will secure you so high a sufficiency of divine knowledge, that you would have no need to question me (note the emphatic éwé) about anything (as hitherto has been the case so frequently and so recently, ver. 19). The discourse of Peter, Acts 11. 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. vy. 19, 30.— apnv any, «.7.r.] The further good to be promised is intro- duced with emphatic asseveration in the consciousness of its ereat importance. — In adopting the reading da@ceu tpiv év T® ovop. pov (see the critical notes), we must explain: He will give it you, in virtue of my name, by its power as the determining motive (Winer, p. 362 [E. T. p. 575]), because then you have not prayed otherwise than in my name (see on xiv. 13). The interpretation: 2 my stead (Weiss), yields a para- doxical idea, and has opposed to it ver. 24. — €ws apts, «.7..] 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 step of prayer that may be heard. This reason appears in harmony with the text from the reciprocal relation of év exeivn 7. juépa and €ws 1 Scholten’s view is a misunderstanding of an enthusiastic kind, to the effect that this saying overthrows the entire Protestant principle of Scripture. CHAP. XVI. 25-27. 273 aptt, if we note that by éwé ov« épwr. oddév that very divine clearness and certainty is expressed, which is still wanting to them €ws apt. 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 (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 358, comp. Hengstenberg). — tva] Divinely ordained object of the AjrecGe. —7 xapa ty.] Ver. 22. Itis to be filled up, xe. to be complete, that nothing may be wanting to it. Comp. xv. 11. There is thus fulfilled in the disciples, after their recep- tion 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. Tatra] that, namely, after which the disciples, in vy. 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 (€v mapoty., comp. on x. 6, and on the generic plur., Mark xii. 1), proportioned to their capacity of comprehension ; but when the hour of the fulfil- ment of the promise of the Paraclete shall have arrived, He will then, and that by means of the Paraclete, no longer speak to them under such sensuous veils of thought, but without circumlocution, and directly, frankly and freely (rappno‘a, adverbial instrumental dative, as in xi. 14), give them tidings of the Father. In answer to Luthardt, who refers tadra to all that was previously said, including the discourse on the vine (comp. also Godet), xvi. 1 is already decisive, and also the fact that before ver. 19 the disciples have spoken. Vv. 26, 27. “Ev éx tr. hu. év TO dv. pp. aityno.] Because enlightened by the Paraclete. Comp. ver. 24. Bengel’s remark is apt: “Cognitio parit orationem,” and that the prayer to be heard in the name of Jesus.'— «al od réxo, 1 «Wor thou comest not in thine own name, work, or merit, but on this, that it is announced to thee by the Holy Spirit what God’s will and command is, which He has performed through Christ,” Luther. VOL. II. S 274 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. «.t.d.] and I say not, etc.; I would therewith promise some- thing for that coming time that may be dispensed with. For on my part (éy#) an intercession on your behalf in order to the hearing of these your prayers will not at all be needed, because, that is, they are just prayers in my name (see on xiv. 14). The opposite meaning is deduced by Aretius, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel: that od Xéyo du. means: I will not mention at all, so that the intercession is thus desig- nated as a matter of course. Against this the following adrés yap, «.T..., 18 decisive. There is no contradiction, however, with xiv. 16, xvii. 9, since in these places the intercession of Christ belongs to the time prior to the communication of the Paraclete. — avdrtos] ipse, from the proper divine impulse of love, without my intercessory mediation being required to that end. — @tAez] “ amat vos, adeoque vos exaudit,’ Bengel. The present denotes that the future is represented as present. They have then the tvedua viobecias, 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 avrds... dire? ipas is: OTL vmets, «.7.r.: “for He will not thus remove Himself out of the midst, that they should pray without and exclusive of Him,” Luther. Note tpwets éwé: because ye are they who have loved me. . wegtnr. is placed first as the correlate ot diret ; and with logical correctness, since faith, in this definite- ness of development (671... é€&fA@ov), could in its progress gradually unfold itself only in their loving bond to Christ, by means of 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, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 548, 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 Parousia; see on vv. 16, 22, xiv. 18.— é&fAOovr] See on viii. 42. CHAP. XVI. 28-30. 275 Ver. 28. With é&\@ov, solemnly, and with still more definite precision by means of é« tod wartpos, a fresh confir- mation of these fundamental contents of faith is commenced, and the return to the Father is subjomed,—and with this a conclusion is made with the same thought,—now, however, by means of the intervening explanatory clauses, brought nearer to the understanding 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, 30. The disciples, aroused, nay, astonished (ie), by the clearness of the last great declaration, now find the teachings contained in vv. 20-28 so opened to their under- standing, and thereby the enigmatical character of vv. 16, 17 so solved, that they judge, even now, that in this instruction just communicated He speaks so openly and clearly, so entirely without allegorical disguise, that He is at the present time doing for them (not merely a prelude thereof, as Hengstenberg tones down the meaning) that, for the attainment of which He had in ver. 25 pointed them to a futwre 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 unasked to the questions on which information was desired; hence the future things promised by Him in the words & éxeivyn to ovdéev, ver. 23, may likewise 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 their understanding was as yet, it was sufficient for them to experience a deep and vivid impression therefrom, and to lead up to the expression of the decided confession of faith, év tovtw@ mictevopuev, K.T.A. Augus- tine exaggerates when he says: “ Illi usque adeo non intelli- cunt, ut nec saltem se non intelligere intelligant. Parvuli enim erant.” Schweizer has very arbitrarily declared ver. 30 to be spurious ; 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 276 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. is least of all to be established by év tovtw, «.7.r. — Ver. 29. vov] Now, what Thou first didst promise as fwtwre, ver. 25. — Ver. 30. viv] What we, according to thy declaration, ver. 23, 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. 30 to ver. 23, is neither to be concealed nor denied.— iva] as in ii. 25.— év tovTw] propter hoc, Acts xxiv. 16. Comp. év 6, quoniam (Fritzsche, ad Rom. II. p. 93). év denotes causal dependence (Bernhardy, p. 211). Not now for the first time does their faith begin, that (67e) Christ came forth from God (see ver. 27), and not for the first time do they believe it on the ground that He knows all things; but for their present faith in the divine origin of Christ they acknowledge to have found a new and peculiar ground of certainty in that which they said in ver. 30; comp. on ii. 11. Lange erroneously says that éte denotes 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. 31). Comp. 1 John iv. 2, 3; 2 John 7. According to Ewald, év tovrw would express that in which they believe, namely, in the fact that (672), etc. But John never designates the object of faith by ev (Mark 1. 15); he would probably have written todto muct. (xi. 26). Vv. 31, 32. Since @p7e must bear the emphasis, and since Jesus could not and would not doubt of? the faith of the dis- ciples at this moment, aptt mot. is not to be taken interro- gatively, with Euth. Zigabenus, Calvin, Wetstein, and several others, including Kuinoel, Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Tischendorf, Hengstenberg, Ewald (according to the analogy of 1. 51, xill. 38, xx. 29), but concessively: “Now, just now, ye believe, but how soon will ye become vacillating?” of Aé- 1 « He will not punish them nor discountenance 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 pro- bably 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 yonr faith is,” ete., Luther. CHAP. XVI. 33. Aiea yovtes muotevey pevkeabe puxpov tortepov, KivnOeions budav bd tod boBov tis wictews, Apollinarius. The faith itself did not pass away (hence there is no contradiction to ver. 27, comp. Luke xxii. 32), but it did not stand the test of self-denial and of heroism. This must first appear in the school of conflict and experience. — Kat €A7jAUOev] so immediately at hand is it. — iva] See on ver. 2.—eis ra idca] into His own, we. His own place of sojourn (xix. 27; Plat. Pol. 8, p. 543 B). Opposite of xowvwvia, which is thus rent asunder: amoccutos cdnXos am’ addov, Nonnus, comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 502 E: é&vexa Tod idlov TOD avTaV OdALywpodVTEs TOD KoWod. On the predic- tion itself comp. Matt. xxvi. 31, and on its fulfilment xxvi. 56. —«ai] The emphatic and..., which (with a pause to be supplied in thought) unexpectedly introduces the contrast. See on vii. 28.—ov« eiut povos, «.7.r.] The calm, clear self-consciousness of the Father’s protection, elevated above all human desertion, comp. vill. 29. The momentary feeling which appears in Matt. xxvii. 46 is not in conflict with this. Ver. 33. “That is the last word given, and struck into their hand by way of good-night. But He concludes very forcibly with this, and therefore has He finished the entire discourse,” Luther. — tadta] pointing back, at the close of the whole _ discourses again resumed from xiv. 31, to chap. xv. 16.— év €mol eipnyynv...é€v TO Koop Oricy] exact correlates : in me (living and moving), z.e. in vital fellowship with me: Peace, rest of soul, peace of heart (comp. xiv. 27); in the world, i.e. mm your intercourse with the unbelieving ; affliction (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 salvation.” And upon this victor rests the imperishability of the church. — vevix. t. koop.] The perfect states the victory immediately impending, which is to be gained through His glorification by means of death, as already completed. Prolepsis of the certain conqueror on the boundary of His work. Comp. xu. 31, xiii. 31. But if He has over- come the anti-Messianic power of the world, how could His own, in spite of all @Atpus, become dispirited, as though He would give up His work, which was to be continued by their 278 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. means, and suffer His victory to fall to the ground ? Comp. rather 1 John v. 4, 5, iv. 4. Therefore Oapcette. Paul especially is a living commentary on this Oapceiv. See eg. Rom. viii. 37; 2 Cor, ii. 14, iv. 7 ff, vi. 4 ff., xii. 9, his dis- course before Felix and Festus, etc. Comp. Luther’s triumphant exposition. CHAP. XVII. 279 CLAP TLE RR X Mil. Ver. 1. éxgpe] B.C.* D.L. X. 8. Curss. Or. Cyr.: érdpas with- out the following x« So Lachm. Tisch. A frequently-occur- ring improvement of the style. In like manner is the reading rehewhous, ver. 4, instead of éreAziwox to be regarded. — iva Oey zai is condemned by decisive witnesses. — Ver. 3. yivdoxuor] Tisch.: yiwaoxovow, following A.D.G.L.Y. A.A. An error in transcription, instead of which Lachm., following B.C. E. &, has rightly retained the conjunctive. — Ver, 4, Between the forms dédwxa and ¢dwxa, the Codd. in this chap. vacillate in various ways. — Ver. 7. éor/y] Tisch.: «fof, according to pre- ponderant evidence. The Recepta isan attempted improvement. — Ver. 11. Instead of « Elz. has ots, against decisive witnesses. The too weakly attested reading é (D.* U. X.), which is a reso- lution of the attraction, testifies also in favour of ¢.— Ver. 12. 2v 7@ x6ouw] alter airdv, is wanting in the majority of witnesses ; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition after ver. 11.— —Instead of ots, Tisch. has , according to B.C.* L. Me- chanical repetition from ver. 11. — Ver. 16. The position of odx eiui after zy (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. — Ver. 17. After drndeia the Edd., except Lachm., have sv, 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 re- marks in his Appar. : “ persaepe veritas apud Joh... . nunquam additur Dez.’ — Ver. 19. The order doi zai adroi (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested. — Ver. 20. Instead of riorevdvrwy Elz. has siorevodvrwy, contrary to decisive testimonies. — Ver. 21. zv nuiv ey wow] B.C.* D. Codd. of It. Sahid. Arm. Ath. Hil. Vig. Tisch. have merely év jut dow. Lachm. has éy in brackets. This évis a glossematic addition. —Ver. 23. za? iva] B.C.D.L.X. Curss. Verss. Fathers have merely wa. xaé is rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation irrelevant to the connection, made without attending to the construction of ver. 21.—— Ver. 24. ots] B.D. 8. Copt. Goth. Vulg. ms.: 6 So Tisch. Considering the weighty attestation, and that ods very readily suggested itself as an improvement, é must be regarded as the original reading. Comp, on ver. 11. 280 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Vv. 1, 2.’ The parting discourses to the disciples are finished, and that with the words, giving assurance of victory, éyo vevix. 7. Koop. 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 move on (xiv. 31), and on the whole future of His work, now to be completed on behalf of earth, His communion with the Father impels Him to prayer. He prays aloud (ver. 13) 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 later time (vv. 20 ff.), with all the depth, intensity, clearness, and repose of the moral need, and of the childlike devotion of the Fulfiller. Because 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 summ2 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.” —tadta éXdAnoev... Kal... kai] Not negligence of style (De Wette), but solemn circum- stantiality. — eis Tt. ovp.] does not serve to establish the point that Jesus spoke in the open air (see on xiv. 31; so Ruperti, Grotius, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and many others), nor is the suggestion needed (Gerhard) that through the window of the room the heavens were accessible to view, but the eye of one who prays is on all occasions raised toward heaven. Comp. Acts vii. 55.— 1 pa] The hour nat’ é€oyny, 2c. the hour of my death, as that of my passage to Thee, xiii. 1, xii. 23. — d0facov...dSo0€dan] The former through the elevation into the heavenly glory (comp. ver. 5), the latter through the reve- lation of the glory of God, so far, that is, as the victory of the gospel in the world, and the entire continuance and consum- mation of the divine work of redemption was conjoined with the heavenly glorification and ministry of Christ. To refer d0£acov to the earthly, moral glorification of Christ in the recognition of His Person and cause (Didymus, Nosselt, Kuinoel, De Wette, Reuss), or to the communication of the true G'od-consciousness to humanity (Baur), is opposed to the ? Luther’s exposition of chap. xvii. belongs to the year 1534. CHAP. XVII. 1, 2. 281 context, because Christ means His glorification through His death, but this in John is constantly the personal heavenly glorification. Note further cov tov vidv and 6 vids cov; the emphasis of the cov, which is moved to the first place, is ‘related to the prayer as assigning a reason for it; it is in truth Zhy 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 xcaOas . gapKos corresponds to the preceding dofacov cov tov vidv, and iva wav, «.7.d., which contains the purpose of édwxas avT@ éfove. 7. o., 18 correlative to iva o vids o. b0&. oe.1— ka@ws denotes the motive contained in the relation of fitness, in the measure that, according as. Comp. on xiii. 34.— Full power over all men has the Father given to the Son on His mission (xill. 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 édofa, whence He must carry on and complete His work., By raons capkos, how- ever, the whole of humanity—and that in its imperfection (see on Acts ii. 17), conditioned by the very fact of the capé, ill. 6, by which it is destitute of eternal life—is, with a cer- tain solemnity of the O. T. type (wa 55), designated. The expression is not elsewhere found in John, but it corresponds exactly to this elevated mood of prayer. — tva way, x.1.d.] Not a mere statement of the contents and compass of the é£ovc/a (Ebrard): no, in the attainment of the blessed design of that fulness of power (comp. v. 26, 27) lies precisely that glorifica- tion of the Father, ver. 1. Not all, however, without dis- tinction, 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 ' Ewald begins a new sentence with xaé«;, which is first completed in ver. 4, so that ver. 3 is a parenthesis: ‘‘ Hven as Thou gavest to Him full power... I glorified Thee upon the earth.” But the periodic form which thus arises is less in harmony with the manner of this prayer ; and the change of persons in vy. 2 and 4 betrays the want of mutual connection. 282 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. side, are the believing (i. 12, iii. 15, e¢ al.), not “the spiritual supramundane natures” whom Hilgenfeld here discovers. Comp. besides, on vi. 37, 39. — adrois] to be referred to the subjects of the absolute (Buttmann, W. 7. Gr. p. 325 [E. T. pp. 379, 380]) collective wav (Bremi, ad Jsocr. I. Exe. X.). Note further the weighty parallel arrangement dédwxas aiTo, Saon avtois. On the form doc7, see Buttmann, WV. 7. Gr. p. 31 [E.T. p. 36]. Not future conjunctive (Bengel, Baeum- lein), but a corrupt form of the aorist. Ver. 3. The continuative dé adduces, in keeping with the connection, a more precise definition’ of fw aimvios (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 éotiv, comp. on Rom. xiv. 17; John iii. 19.—Jn this consists eternal life, that they should recognise (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. vii. 4), and Thy sent one Jesus as Messiah. This knowledge of God here desired (which is hence the believing, living, practical knowledge, caOas Se? yvdvat, 1 Cor. viii. 2), is the fa aiwvos, so far as it is the essential subjective principle of the same, unfolding this fw out of itself, its continual, ever self- developing germ and impulse (comp. Sap. xv. 1, 3), even now in the temporal evolution of eternal life, and at a future time, besides, 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 aiwy 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 Confession —a summary of faith in opposition” to the polytheistic (7. wovov adn. Oeov, comp. v. 44; Deut. vi 4; 1 Cor. viii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 9) and Jewish Koopos, which latter rejected. Jesus as Messiah, although 1 No formal definition. See the apposite observations of Riehm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 539 f. 2 An antithesis which might present itself naturally and unsought to the world-embracing glance of the praying Jesus, on the boundary line of His work, which includes entire humanity. Dut He had also thought further of the tZoucia xéons cepxos, Which was given to Him. This likewise in opposition to Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 56, who considers the antithesis foreign to the connection, CHAP. XVII. 3. 283 in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation of the only true God. It is in the third person, however, that the praying Jesus speaks of Himself from ver. 1 forwards, placing Himself in an objective relation towards the Father during the first intensity of this solemn mood, and first at ver. 4 continuing the prayer with the familiar éyo; He indeed mentions His name in ver. 3, because in the con- nection of the self-designation through the third person, it here specifically suggested itself, in correspondence to the con- fessional thought. — Xpeotor] is an appellative predicate : as Messiah, comp. ix. 22. To connect it as a proper name with “Inc. (Jesus Christ, comp. i. 17), to ascribe to the evan- gelist an offence against historical decorum (Bretschneider, Liicke, De Wette), and to see in this a proof of a later repro- duction (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 Xpioroy as a proper name, which he thinks was here, in this extraordinary moment, used for the first time by Jesus, and thereby at the same time determined the use of the word by the apostles (Acts 11. 38). So also Godet, comp. Ebrard. But Jesus prayed in Hebrew, and _ doubtless said 795 yw*, from which expression a proper name could by no means be recognised. The predicative view of 7. wov. ad. Oeov and of Xpicrov is also justly held by Ewald.— Although 7. wovov adr. Gedy 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) relation- ship as dependent on the Godhead of the Father, forms the previous assumption in Op azréctevAas, as is certain from the entire connection of the Johannean Christology, and from ver. 5. Comp. Wetstein, and Gess, Pers. Chr. p.162. Hence it was unnecessary,—moreover, even a perversion of the pas- sage, 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 te et quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant solum verum Deum. Only One, the Father, can absolutely be termed the povos on 284 TIIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. adné. Geos (comp. 6 dv émt wdavtwy Beds, Rom. ix. 5), not at the same time Christ (who is not even in 1 John v. 20 the arnOiwos Meds), 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 commissioner, x. 30, and is His representative, xiv. 9, 10. Vv. 4, 5. Once more the prayer of ver. 1, d0facov cov Tov viov, but stating a different reason for it (“ostendit, non iniquum se petere,” Grotius), and setting forth the doa more definitely. —éya oe €50€. éwi t. 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 reference. Comp. ver. 6.—- The aorists €60&. and éreded. 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. — «al viv] And now, when I take leave of this my earthly ministry. — In what follows note the correlation of we ov with éy# ce, in which the thought of recompense (comp. 6:0, Phil. ii. 9) is expressed. The emphasis lies on éy# and av, hence after we no comma should stand. — rapa ceavT@] so that I may be united with | Thyself in heavenly fellowship (Col. ii. 3), corresponding to emt tT. ys. Comp. on xiii. 32.—The dofa, which Jesus possessed before the creation of the world, and thus in eternity before time was (efyov, which is to be understood realiter, not with the Socinians, Grotius, Wetstein, Nosselt, Léffler, Ecker- mann, Stolz, Gabler, comp. B. Crusius, Schleiermacher, Z. J. p. 286 f., Scholten, zdeally. of the destinatio divina), was the divine glory, zc. the essentially glorious manifestation of the entire divine perfection and blessedness, the popdy Geov (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,’ ? Not merely in a momentary anticipation, in which it appeared before the eye of His spirit (Weizsicker). Comp. on viii. 58. It is a perversion of the CHAP, XVII. 6-8. 285 He now asks in prayer from God. Had 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 this sense the premundane dcéa (Beyschlag, p. 87 f.), His expression eZyov mapa coi would stand in contradiction therewith, because this latter separates the subject that had been in possession from the divine subject in such a manner that the former was with the latter, and possessed the glory, as then also the glory again prayed for would not be adequate to that already formerly possessed ; for the essence of the former is the cvv@povoy eivas Geod, which consequently that of the latter must also have been. Comp. on vi. 62.—For the fulfilment of this prayer: Phil. i 9 ; 1 Tim. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 8, 13; Acts-ii. 34; 1 Pet. i. 22, ef al. The d0&a, 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 Aoyos doapxos, and obtained it again in divine-human com- pleteness after His ascension,—but His temporally divine-human glory, the glory of God present in earthly and bodily limita- tion, which He had in the state of xévwows, and made known through grace and truth, as well as through His entire activity. Comp. on i. 14; see also Liebner, Christol. I. p. 325 f. Vv. 6-8. Hitherto Jesus has prayed on behalf of Himself. But now He introduces His intercession on behalf of His dis- ciples, which begins with ver. 9, by representing them as worthy of this intercession. — cov] With emphasis, as opposed to tois av@per., in the deep feeling of the holiness and great- ness of the task discharged. — What the name of God com- prises 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 disclosures respecting God and His counsel of salvation resting in Christ, and His exegetically clear and certain relation when Weizsiicker finds in such passages, instead of the self-consciousness of Jesus reaching back into His pre-human state, only ‘‘the culminating point of an advancing self-knowledge.” That here, however, and in ver. 25, different medes of apprehending the person of Christ are intimated (Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 645 ff.), cannot be established on exegetical grounds. See on ver. 25. 286 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. entire redemptive relation to men, which Christ had given them by virtue of his prophetic office (the Christian contents, therefore, of the divine name), entitled Him to pray; édavé- pwod cou T. ov., «7.» Comp. Col. i. 26, 27. A reference to the Jewish practice of keeping secret the name of Jehovah (Hilgenfeld) lies entirely remote from the meaning. — ods | Sé5ax. wor éx T. KOTpov] Necessary definition of Tots avOpe- mows (hence not to be connected with coi joav); whom Thou hast given to me out of the world (separated from out of the unbelieving, xv. 19), that is, the dzsciples (see vv. 8, 11), as objects of the divine counsel of salvation God has given them through attracting them by His grace; see on vi. 37. — coé] Possessive pronoun, as in ver. 9; they belonged to Thee, were Thine, “per fidem V. T.,” Bengel. Comp. i. 37, 42, 46, 48, and generally viii. 47, vi. 37,44. Therefore 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 interpretation of property generally (Cyril.: ita yap mavta Qe@), or, as “ Thy creatures” (Hengstenberg), yields no special statement of reason.—xal Tov Aodyov cov TeTNP.| and with what result gavest Thou them to me! On T. Adyov cov, comp. vil. 16, xii. 48, 49, and on ternp., they have kept Thy word (by faith and deed), viii 51, xiv. 23.—vov éyvwKay, «.7.r.] Progress in the representation of this result, which is now advanced so far, that they have recognised (and do recognise, perfect) all that the Father has communicated to Christ as that which it is, as proceeding from God. All which Thou hast given to me points not merely to the doctrine (De Wette), but to the entire activity of Jesus (Luthardt), for which He has received from the Father a commission, direc- tion, power, result, etc. Comp. ver. 4, xii. 49, v. 36. A more definite limitation is arbitrary, because not demanded by what follows, which rather establishes the general expression (ver. 7) by means of the particular (ra pyjyata). — Ver. 8 gives the causative demonstration (671, for), how they attained to the knowledge of ver. 7," namely, (1) on the part of Jesus, in ' Ewald begins with c+: (because), a protasis, the apodosis of which (J there- Sore beg) follows in ver. 9, in such a manner, however, that from od wegi rod CHAP. XVII. 9. 287 that He communicated 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 (avroi), in that they have adopted this, and have actually known it (vii. 26). Thus with them that éyywcav in ver. 7 has come to completion. — kat avtot] is only to be separated by a comma from what precedes, and, further, is connected with 67. The cal ésia- Tevoay, «.T.r., parallel to éyywoay adnOds, x.7.r., adding faith to knowledge (see on vi. 69), and the above é&A@ov (comp. on vill. 42), leading back to the Fatherly behest, whereby it is accomplished, completes the expression of the happy result attained in the case of the disciples. Note, further, the his- torical aorists é\a8. and ériot. in their difference of sense from the perfects. Ver. 9. I pray for them! Both in éyo and in wept aitav there lies a motive element in reference to God. That which lies in wept avtT@y is then further made specially prominent, first negatively (ov m. 7. Koop. ép.), and then positively (dAXa Tept, K.T..). — Ov TEpt TOD KOTpoV] has no dogmatic weight, and is therefore not to be explained in the sense of the con- demnation of the world (Melanchthon), or of absolute predesti- nation (Calvin, Jansen, Lampe), or of the ncgation of such intercession in general (Hengstenberg), but refers simply and solely to this present intercession, which has in truth no rela- tion to those who are strangers to God, but to His own, whom He has given to Jesus,—and this should all the more move Him to fulfil the prayers. Prayer for the unbelieving has been enjoined by Jesus Himself (Matt. v. 44), and was, more- over, offered by Himself upon the cross (Luke xxii. 34), and for them did He die, comp. also ver. 20 ; but here He has only the disciples in view, and lays them, by the antithesis od zepi T. kocpov, the more earnestly on the Father’s heart. Luther well says: “At other times one should pray for the world, xoomov to tpyouas, ver. 11, a parenthesis is introduced, and then first with rérnp ay: comes the supplication conveyed by tgwra. But this complicated arrange- ment is neither necessary nor appropriate to the clear and peaceful flow of the language of this prayer as it stands. 1 i.e. They have not rejected the pazara, but have allowed them to influence themselves. This is the necessary pre-condition of knowledge and of faith. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 28. 288 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. that it may be converted.” Comp. ver. 21.—6re col eicc] 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 ta é€ua wavra...épa] is parenthetic (on kal parentheticum, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 13, p. 35), and kal d600€. év avtots is still in connection with étz, ver. 9, containing a second ground of the intercession. — As regards the above parenthesis, when Jesus prayed 67s coi eto, ver. 9, His glance was extended 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 would not yet be so much if He simply said: All that is mine is Thine; for that every one can say...; but this 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.” — Se80& év adr.] I am 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 (Kihner, II. p. 72), and ev denotes the relation resting on, contained in them,.as in) xili,, 31) 32, xiv. 13; Ver. 11. Before He now gives expression to the special supplication itself (arep ayve, THpyoor, «.7.d.), He first brings forward the peculiar grownd of need, connecting in profound emotion its individual members unperiodically by xai.— ovKeTe em, K.7.A.| Thus He speaks, “nunc quasi provincia sua defunctus,” Calvin. — cai obrou, x.7.r.] “hos relinquam in tantis fluctibus,’ Grotius. — dyce] As in ver. 25, diate, so here aye is added significantly ; for to guarantee that which CHAP. XVII. 12, 13. 289 Jesus would now pray (tTjpnoov, «.7.r.) 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 ungodly nature of the profane world.’ Placed by their calling in this unholy xocyos, 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. 1,16; Rev. vi. 10. Thus the Father discharges the obligation lying on Himself, if He keeps the disciples of the Son in His name, — €v T@ dvop. 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 witha happy result (vv. 6-8) ; thus are they to persevere in His living acquaintance and believ- ing confession, not to depart out of this holy element of their life. — 6 dé5ax. wot] @ by attraction, instead of 6, which, how- ever, does not stand instead of ots (Bengel, comp. Ewald and Godet, who would read 6, see the critical notes), but: God has eiven His name to Christ, and that not in the sense of the divine nature entering into manifestation, as Hengstenberg here drags in from Ex. xxiii. 21, but rather in the sense of ver. 6, for revelation to the disciples ; He has 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, 7m 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 eéés eos kK. TaTHp TavTwv, K.T.r., Eph. iv. 6). Hence iva expresses the object of tHpncov, «.7.r., not of dédax. por. Vy. 12,13. A more definite outflow of heart concerning ! According to Diestel in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 45, God is here conceived of as éyis rod Xpiorod, which is the completion of the N. T. dyios rod “Iopanr. But of this there is neither any indication in the context, nor do we find generally the idea of God as of the dys rod Xpirrod expressed. Hengstenberg refers too exclusively to the power of the holy God. 2 Bengel : ‘‘Illa unitas est ex natura, haec ex gratia ; igitur illi haec similis est, non aequalis.” VOL. Il. ay 290 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. ver. 11. —6re juny, «.7.r.] As in ver. 11, ovxére eipt ev 7. Kocuw, Jesus speaks as though He had already departed out of the world. “Jam in exitu mundi pedem irrevocabilem posuerat,” Ruperti on ver. 11. — éy@] That which Zhou mayest now do, ver. 11.—ovds dédxK. wor éptvr, «7.r.] Not a parenthesis, but a further expression of the typyos just de- scribed, in which a sorrowful but telically clear and conscious mention of Judas obtrudes itself.—évrAa£Ea] Through the gurdccew (custodire) is the tnpet (conservare) accomplished. Comp. Sap. x. 5; Dem. 317. ult. The disciples were handed over to Him for protection and guardianship, ut cos salvos tueretur. This He has accomplished, and none of them has fallen into destruction (ue. into eternal destruction through apostasy, which leads to the loss of wn), except him who belongs to destruction (Matt. xxiii. 15), ze. who is destined to destruction. Comp. vi. 64, 70. Jesus does not like to name Judas, who forms this tragical exception (e¢ wn is not equivalent to adda, 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 as a divine destiny in the Scripture, and must take place in fulfilinent 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 (Kuinoel: the prophecies of the death of Jesus generally are intended ; Lange, Z. J. II. p. 1412: Isa. lvii. 12, 13; Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius, and many, Ps. cix. 8, which passage, however, has its reference in Actsi. 20). The designation of Antichrist by o vids tT. awon., 2 Thess. il. 3, is parallel in point of form. In the Evang. 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 thas (this prayer for Thy protection, ver. 11) im the world (“jam ante discessum meum,” Bengel), that they, as witnesses and objects of this my intercession, knowing themselves assured of Thy pro- tection, may bear my joy (as in xv. 11, not xiv. 27) fulfilled in themselves, On this expression of prayer regarding the influence which the listening to prayer should have upon the listeners, comp. xi. 42. Luther well says: “that they, through the CHAP. XVII. 14-17. 25r word, apprehended 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,” ete. Vv. 14,15. The intercession addresses itself to a particular, definite point of the tipnovs prayed for, namely, €x Tov Tov7- pov, ver. 15, and this is introduced, ver. 14, from the side of their necessities. — éyo] antithesis : 0 xdcpos.— éwic. adtovs| has conceived a hatred against them (Aor., see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p.197; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1.18). This hatred Luther terms “the true court colours of Christians that they bear on earth.” Further, see on xv. 18, 19.—The more precise definition of r#pyous follows in ver. 15 negatively and posi- tively. 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 power of Satan surrounding them, the power of the prince _of the world. ¢« tT. rovypod is not, with Luther, Calvin, and many others, including Olshausen, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg, Godet, to be taken as neuter, but comp. 1 John ii. 13 ff, ii. 12, v. 18, 19, iv. 4; Matt. vi. 13; 2 Thess, iii. 3; comp. on tnpev ex, Rev. ili. 10, also gudaccew €& émuBovArs in Themist. 181. 19 (Dindorf). Nonnus: daiuovos dpyexdxovo ducavTntev aro Oecpav. Vv. 16, 17. From the’ rnpeiv which has been hitherto prayed for, the intercession now advances to. the positive ayiagew, ver. 17; and this part of it also is first introduced in ver. 16, and that by an emphatic resumption of what was said in ver. 14 on the side of the condition fitted for the - ayualew. — aylacov adtovs €v TH ad70.] The disciples were in 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 (that He has previously prayed for), but yet further: He would provide them with a holy consecra- 292 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tion (comp. on x. 36) 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 illumina- tion, power, courage, joyfulness, love, inspiration, etc., for their official activity (ver. 18) which should ensue, and did ensue, through means of the Holy Spirit, xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 7 ff. Comp. on ev, Sir. xlv. 4. Ordinarily it is taken instrumentally, in virtue of, by means of (Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, Calvin, and many others, including Liicke, Tholuck, Godet), but in arbitrary neglect of the analogy of the correlate typety €v, | 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 tnpety and ayidfew is misapprehended. When, with Luther, (“make truly holy”), év Tt. a8. has been taken as equivalent to adnOes, of complete sanctification in opposition to their hitherto defective condition (Hengstenberg), against the view is decisive, not indeed the article (comp. Xen. Anabd. vi. 2. 10), but rather the following 6 Adyos, «.7.A. The reading év T. an. cov is a correct, more precise definition arising from a gloss. —o0 Royos 0 cos AAHO. ote] a supporting of the prayer, in which o o¢s has peculiar weight; Thy word (xiv. 24, xii. 49, vii. 16), the word of no other, zs truth. How shouldst Thou, then, not grant the dyafew prayed for? That ar. is without the article, does not rest upon the fact that it is a predicate, but upon the conception that the essence of the AdOyos | is truth, so that dA70. is abstract, not a noun appellative. | Comp. iv. 24, 1 John iv. 16. Vv. 18, 19. In support of the prayer for the adyidfev 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 consecration; and (2) from Christ’s own personal consecration for the purpose of their dyvacyos, which purpose God will not be willing to leave unattained. — cadws éué, «.7.r.] Placed first with pragmatic weight ; for as He could not execute His mission withovt the divine consecration (x. 36), so neither could they who were sent by Him. — «dyo] Not instead of obras éyo (De Wette), but simply: Z also have sent. Comp. xv. 9, xx. 21, e¢ al.— CHAP. XVII. 18, 19. 293 améotetha] The mission was indeed not yet objectively a ‘fact (xx. 21; Matt. xxviii. 19), but already conceived of 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 attay...éyo éwavtov ... Kat avtol— The ayafo éwavroy, not including in it the whole life of the Lord (Calvin, Hengstenberg, Godet), but now, when the hour is come, to be carried out, is the actual consecration, which Christ, in offering Himself through His death as a sacrifice to God, accomplishes on Himself, so that ayvato is substantially equivalent to mpocdépw col Ovciay (Chrysostom), comp. 4 Mace. xvii. 19; dyafew, MPT, is a sacred word for sacrifices in the O. T., see Ex. xii. 2 ; Deut. xv. 19 ff.; 2 Sam. viii. 11; Esr. v. 52; Rom. xv. 16; comp. also Soph. Oed. Col. 1491; Dion. H. vii. 2. Christ is at once the Priest and the Sacrifice (Epistle to the Hebrews) ; and for (izép, in commodum, xv. 13) the disciples He performs this sacrifice,—although it is offered for all,—so far as it has, in respect of the disciples, the special purpose: that they also may be consecrated in truth, namely, in virtue of the reception of the Paraclete (vevpatix@ tupl yvia Aeroupévot, Nonnus), which reception was conditioned by the death of Jesus, xvi. 7. The «ad has its 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 in the sense of holy purity, endowment, and equipment for their calling. On the other hand, the self-consecration of Christ is sacrificial the former, however, like the latter, the consecration in the service of God and of His kingdom. Comp. on the self-con- secration of Christ, who yields Himself voluntarily to be a sacrifice (x. 18, xv. 13), Eph. v. 2: mapéSwxev éavtov trrép Hav Tpoopopav, x.T.r.; that is the idea of the present pas- sage, not that He renounced the mortal cdap&, and entered fully into the divine mode of existence and fellowship (Luthardt). 1 Comp. generally, Ritschl in the Jahrb. f. D. Theol. 1863, p. 240 f. 2 Already this solemn dep (vi. 51, x. 11, xi. 50, xv. 18, xviii. 14; 1 John iii. 16) should have prevented ay:z@w tu. from being understood in the ethical sense of the ripening to moral perfection through faithful, loving obedience towards the Father (so Worner, Verhdltn. d. Geistes z. Sohne Gottes, p. 41 f.). Simply correct is Euth. Zigabenus, iya txouciws éducidlw tuavroy. 294 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. See also Heb. ix. 14. — év adnOela] Modal definition of Ayiacpeévor: truly consecrated, Matt. xxii. 16; 2 Cor. vii. 14; Col. i. 6; 1 John iii. 18; 2 John 1; 3 John 1. See on 2 Cor. loc. cit.; LXX. 2 Reg. xix. 17 (where, however, év is doubtful) ; Sir. vii. 20; Pind. O2. vii. 126. In the classics the mere dative and ém’ ddnOeias are frequent. The true consecration is not exactly an antithesis to the Jewish sancti- monia 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 dyioTns in human relations, that wrought through the Paraclete is the ¢ruwe consecration. Comp. Luther: “ against all worldly and human holiness.” So substantially,’ Chrysos- tom, Euth. Zigabenus, Beza, Calvin, Bengel, and several others, including Hengstenberg, Godet. The interpretation which has recently, after Erasmus, Bucer, and several others, become eurrent, viz. of Liicke, Tholuck (?), Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Luthardt, Lange, Briickner, Ewald, that év adm. is not different from év 77 adnOela, ver. 17, is erroneous, because the article is wanting which here, in the retrospective reference to the truth already articulated and defined, was thoroughly necessary ; for of an antithesis “to the state of being in which the disciples would be found over and above” (Luthardt), the text suggests nothing, even leaving out of sight the fact that a state of sanctification in such an opposite con- dition would be inconceivable. Without any ground, appeal is made, in respect of the absence of the article, to 1. 14, iv. 24, where truth is expressed as a general conception (comp. vill. 44) (Sir. xxxvil. 15; Tob. ii. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 25, iii. 7), and to 3 John 3 (ver. 4 is with Lachm. and Tisch. to be read év 7H admé.), where év adnO. must be taken as equi- valent to ad7Ods,’ and consequently as in the present passage and as in 8 John 1. 1 Tn so far as they understand éy zané@. of the true d&yicZecdes, in which, how- ever, they find an antithesis to the typical holiness of the O. T. sacrifice, as ¢.g. Euth. Zigabenus: ive xal abroi aos rebvmtvos ty aarnbivn buoin® 4 yap youn buciae times ny, oox &AKdera, Comp. Theophylact; also Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 421. 2 The passage means: ‘‘I rejoiced when brethren came and gave witness for Thy truth (i.e. for Thy morally true Christian constitution of life), as Thou truly CHAP. XVII, 20, 21. 295 Vy. 20, 21. In His prayer for the disciples for their pre- servation and sanctification (vv. 11-19), Jesus now also includes all who (comp. Rom. x. 14) shall believe on Him (mric- revovter, regarding the future as present) through the apostles’ word (dia Tod Knpbypatos ad’tay, Euth. Zigabenus). The pwr- pose for which He also includes these: chat all (all my believing ones, the apostles and the others) may be one (ethically, in likeness of disposition, of endeavour, of love, 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 specifically Christian,’ must correspond as to its original type («aOds) to the reciprocal fellowship 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 wrio mystica brought about through the Spirit, 1 John i. 3, iv. 13; 1 Pet. i. 4) live and move (wa x. adtol év nuiv @ow).—This ethical unity of all believers in the fellow- ship with the Father and the Son, however (comp. xiii. 35), shall serve to the unbelieving world as an actual proof and grownd of conviction that Christ, the grand central point and support -of this unity, 7s 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 blessedness,” Luther, in opposition to which, Calvin gets into confusion by introducing the doctrine of predestination, making of mistevew a reluctant agnosccre; so also Scholten. ‘Thus the third iva is subordinated to the first, as introducing its (in deed) walkest.” xaéds, x.¢/a., that is, not forming a part of that testimony of the brethren, gives to this testimony the confirmation of Jolin himself. As the brothers have testified for Gaius, so he actually walks. This John knows, and the brethren have told him nothing new by that testimony, however greatly he has rejoiced in the fact of receiving such a testimony concerning his Gaius. Therefore he adds, with loving recognition, as thou truly walkest. That testi- mony therefore only ecrresponds to the reality. 1 «Non vult concordiam coetus humani, ut est concors civitas Spartana contra Athenienses,’’ Melanchthon. 296 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, further aim ; the second, however, because containing the defini- tion of the aim of xa@as, «.7.X., is related to the first explicatively. Vy. 22, 23. What He on His part (¢y#) 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 67s (Ewald).— tv 80£€av] The heavenly glory. Comp. 1, 5, 24. This, once already pos- | sessed by Him before the incarnation, the Father has given to | Him, not yet, indeed, objectively, but as a secure possession of the immediate future ; He has obtained it from God, assigned as a property, and the actual taking-possession is now for Him _ close at hand. In like manner has He given this, His d0£a, in | which the eternal €w7, vv. 2, 3, is consummated, to His believ- ing ones (avtots), who will enter on the real possession at the Parousia, where they ovvdofafovtar (Rom. viii. 17), after that they, up to that time, 77 éAmidv éobPnoav (Rom. viii. 24) Comp. on Rom. vii. 30. They aze in Christ already His ovykAnpovomot, and the Spirit to be received will be to them the appaBav Tis KAnpovouias (Eph. i. 14; 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5), but the actual entrance on the inheritance is first accomplished at the Parousia (xiv. 2,3; Rom. viii. 11; Col. ii-4). But this relation does not justify us in interpreting dvdovae as destinare (Gabler, B. Crusius), or at least déwxa as constitu dare (Grotius), while the explanations also which take dofa of the glory of the apostolic office in teaching and working miracles (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and, but with intermixture of other elements, Euth. Zigabenus, Erasmus, Vatablus, Grotius, and several others, including Paulus and Klee), or of the inner glory of the Christian life (Olshausen, comp. Gess, p. 244), of the life of Christ in believers, in accordance with Gal. 1. 20 (Hengstenberg), of sonship (Bengel, comp. Godet, who refers to Rom. vil. 29), of love (Calovius, Maldonatus), of grace and truth, 1. 14 (Luthardt, Ebrard, a part also of Tholuck’s and Briickner’s interpretation), are opposed to the context.’ See immediately, ver. 24. — tva dovv év, «.7.r.] For what a strong bond of unity must lie in the sure warrant of fellowship in eternal doa! Comp. Eph. iv. 4. —éyw év adrois x. od év ' The 3eZ« is explained away also by Weizsiicker in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1857, p. 181. It is said to be substantially the same as the Adyos, ver. 14. CHAP, XVII. 22, 23. 297 é€uot] Not out of connection with the construction (De Wette), since it fits into it; not even beginning a new proposition, and to be completed by eiué (Augustine, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Beda, Beza, Bengel, and several others, including Luthardt), since thus the discourse on the d0£a would be, in opposition to the context (see ver. 24), interrupted; but an appositional separation from mets, from which it is therefore, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, to be divided only by a comma. In zeis is contained: éy@ kat ov, and both are pragmatically, zc. in demonstration of the specific internal relation of the év efvas of believers to the oneness of the Father and the Son, thus expounded: Z moving in them, and Thow in me. In accordance with this appositional, more minute definition, the tva dow & is again taken up with live- liness and weight (“see how His mouth overtlows with the same words,” Luther), and that in the expression containing the highest degree of intensity: va @ot TETENELWEVOL ELS év, that they may be completed to one (to one unity), be united in complete degree. ets in the sense of the result. Comp. passages like Plato, Phileb. p. 18 B: teXevtav te ex mavtwv eis €v; Dem. p. 368. 14: eds &v Whdiopa tadta Tavta cvveo- Kevacav. —iva yivookn 0 Koopmos, K.7.A.| Parallel to va o -Koopmos muatevon, ver. 21, adding to faith the knowledge con- nected therewith (conversely, ver. 8), and then completing the expression of the happy result to be attained by the designa- tion of the highest divine love, of which the believer is conscious in that knowledge. We are not even remotely to think of the “forced conviction of rebels” (Godet); against this vv. 2, 3 already declare, and here the entire context. Note rather how the glance of the praying Jesus, vv. 21-23, rises up to the highest goal of His work on earth, when, namely, the xoapos shall have come to believe, and Christ Himself shall have become in fact 6 cwtip Tod Kocpov (iv. 42, comp. x. 16). This at the same time against the supposition of metaphysical dualism in Hilgenfeld. — x. nyarnoas, «.7.d.] and hast loved them (as a matter of fact, through this sending of me) as Thow hast loved me, therefore with the same Fatherly love which I have experienced from Thee. Comp. ii. 16; Eph. i. 6; Rom. v. 5, viii. 32. 298 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Ver. 24. What He has already bestowed on them, but as yet as a possession of hope (ver. 22), He wills (@édw) that they may also partake of in reality. He does not merely wish it (against Beza, Calvin, B. Crusius, Tholuck, Ewald), but the Son prays in the consciousness of the €€ovcia bestowed on Him by the Father according to ver. 2, for the communication 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 €pwre ; “nunc inerementum sumit oratio,’ Bengel. The idea of the dast will, however (Godet), is not to be imported here.— The relative definition is placed first emphatically, because justifying the @é\@ according to its contents. This is newtral (6, see the critical notes), whereby the persons (éxetvot, z.c. the disciples and all believers, ver. 20) are designated im abstracto, according to their category (comp. ver. 2, vi. 37), and the moment of dédexds por, which is a motive cause to the granting of the prayer, becomes more prominent in and of itself.—tva] Purpose of @érw (they should, etc.), and therewith its contents; see on Luke vi. 31. —omov eipi eyo, Kaxetvot, x.7.A.] shall be realized at the Parousia.’ See on xiv. 3, also on dvactjow avro, K.7.X., Vi. 39.—Oewpacr] behold, experimentally, and with personal participation, as ovvdoEacbévres, Rom. viii. 17, 29, and oup- Bactrevovtes, 2 Tim. ii. 12. The opposite: behold death, viii. 51.2. Against the interpretation that the beholding of the Sofa of Christ in ttself (its reflection, as it were) con- stitutes blessedness (Olshausen, comp. Chrysostom and Euth. Zigabenus), ver. 22 testifies, although it is also essentially in- cluded in it, 1 John iii. 2; Heb. xii. 14. — av édwxds pos, 671, «.7.r.] Further added in childlike feeling of gratitude to Ty éunv, and that proleptically (comp. eiut), because the Lord 1The intermediate state denoted in Phil. i. 23 (see in Joc.) is not meant (Hengstenberg), nor a part of the meaning (Godet), but as what follows shows, the completed fellowship of glory. Comp. 1 John iii. 2. ® Baur thus explains away the historical sense: ‘‘ They behold this glory, see it in reality before them, if in them, through the communication of the true God consciousness, and of the eternal life thereby conditioned, through which they have become one with Jesus and the Father, just as He is one with the Father, the divine principle (¢o this, according to Baur, d:3wxa, ver. 22, refers) has realized itself as that which it is in itself.” CHAP. XVII. 24. 299 is on the point of entering into this dofa (ver. 1), as if He had already received it (comp. ver. 22): whom Thou gavest me, because (motive of the dwx.) Thow lovedst me before the foundation of the world (mpo kar. «x. not belonging to éax. m., - as Paulus and B. Crusius think). The d0fa of Christ, as the | Noyos Goapxos (ver. 5), was, according to the mode of view and expression of the N. T., not one imparted to Him from love, but in virtue of the ontologically Trinitarian relation to the Father,’ that which pertained with metaphysical necessity to the Son in the unity of the divine nature, the pop beod, which He as Qe0s doyos, i. 1, had, being from eternity eternally with the Father (ver. 5) ; whereas the d0£a here intended is in His exaltation after the completion of His work, since it concerned His entire person, including its human side, that given to Him by the Father from love (Phil. ii. 9), from that love, however, which did not first originate in time, but was already cherished by the Father toward the Son before the foundation of the world. That d0£a possessed by Jesus before His incarnation, to which for the most part (as still Luthardt, Ebrard, Heng- stenberg) reference is wrongly made, whereby, according to ver. 5, é6xas would have to be conceived of as brought about through the generation of the povoyevns, 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 is the clory of the Adyos évcapxos, divine-human in eternal consum- mation (Phil. 1. 9). Comp. on ver. 5,1. 14. Nowhere in the N. T. is the premundane do€a of the Son designated as given to Him (Phil. ii. 6 ; Col. 1.15; 2 Cor. viii. 9), although this would be imaginable in and of itself as an eternal self- communication of Fatherly love (comp. Briickner and Ebrard).’ Further, it is strangely incorrect that the do£a, 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- 1 Comp. J. Miiller, Von der Siinde, II. p. 183 f. * Euth. Zigabenus: tiv deZav ris beornros, fv Bidwxcs peor, ody ws tharrou n Sorepoysvel, GAN ws airios, eirovy os yevynous we. But in the N. T. this mode of presentation is unsupported ; in ver. 26, to which Johansson appeals, ¢¢wxev in truth refers first to the time of the sending into the world. 300 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. existence of the latter with God, but is not reconcilable with the idea of the pre-temporal zdea/ 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. 1. 4, Rom. viii. 29; which is not appropriate, since the election of grace concerns those as yet not in existence, namely, future believers, whom God mpoeyvw 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. 1. 4). Comp. also on ver. 5. To suppose that God, according to the present passage, had loved His own ideal of humanity 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 se/f-love, as men form to themselves an ideal, and are glad to attain it. Vv. 25, 26. Conclusion of the prayer: Appeal to the justice of God, for, after that which Jesus here states of Him- self and of the disciples in opposition to the world, it becomes the righteous Father not to leave ungranted what Jesus has just declared, ver. 24, to be His will (@éAw, wa, x.7.d.). Otherwise the final recompense would fail to come, which the divine justice (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. — Kat 0 K0oM0s, K.7.A.] The apparent want of appropriateness of the «ad, 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 «al 6 Koopos ce ovK éyvw to run with what precedes, since this thought does not fit into this logical connection, and the address mratep Sixave, according to the analogy of ver. 11, leads us to recognise the introductory sentence of a prayer. According to Bengel and Ebrard, xat . Kai, et... et, correspond to one another, which, however, does not allow either of the antithetic character of the con- ceptions, or of the manifest reference of the second xav to éyo 6é Following Heumann, De Wette, Liicke, Tholuck make xa/ correspond to the following 6é, so that two relations CHAP. XVII. 25, 26. 0 occurring at the same time, but of opposite kinds,’ would be indicated: “whilst the world knew Thee not, yet I knew Thee.” Not to be justified on grammatical grounds; for vé... 6€ (Kiihner, II. p. 418; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 92 f.; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 741 f.), but never xa’... 6é, is thus employed, and the passages of that kind adduced by Liicke from Plato, Menex. p. 235 E (where cat adXovs means also others), and Hryx. p. 393 E (where xat édayiora is only even the least), are not in point; in other passages (as Soph. Ant. 428) nat is the simply connective and, without reference to the subsequent 6¢ The «ai in the present passage is rather the and serving to link on an antithetic relation (and not- withstanding), and is of very frequent occurrence, particularly in John, see on vil. 28. Had Jesus said: matep, dixatos el, Kal 0-KOomos, «.7.r., then xa’ would have been free from any difficulty. Nevertheless, the connection and its expression is the same. Christ is, in the address mdrep Sixate, 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 recognised (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: dveyepaivwy), im- mediately connecting it by xaé with the address. After mar. dixate we may 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 con- currence, takes cat as and yet, but so that it stands in oppo- sition to the revelation of God through Christ previously (see ver. 22) stated. Too indefinite, and leaving without reason 1 Hence also the reading : ¢i xaio x. 0. obx yyw, aAA’ ty, x.¢.4., Which is found not merely in Hippolytus, but also in the Constitt. Ap. 8. 1. 1. 2 This interpretation is followed also by Hengstenberg. But Ewald places xai 6 xbcmos to yvwpicw, ver. 26, in a parenthesis, and then takes ‘va 1 ayaa, x.7.2., still as the contents of #£aw, ver. 24. How broken thus becomes the calm, clear flow of the prayer! According to Baeumlein, the parallel clauses would properly be xa) tya ot tyvwv xal ovro: ?yvwoav; but there is interpolated before the first clause an opposite clause, which properly should have yé», so that then the main thought follows with 32. Alike arbitrary, but yet more contorted, is the arrange- ment of Godet. 302 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. the characteristic matep Sikave out of reference. — éyva] namely, from Thy proofs in my words and deeds; éyvw», on the other hand (Nonnus: otvpdutos éyvewr), refers to the im- mediate knowledge which the Son had in His earthly life of the Father moving in Him, and revealing Himself through Him. Comp. vui. 54, 55. Not without reason does Jesus introduce His éey@ 5é ce éyvwv between the xdopos and the disciples, because He wills that the disciples should be where He is (ver. 24), which, however, presupposes a relative relation of equality between Him and them, as over against the world. — otro] Glancing at the disciples. —67. ov pe améoT.] The specific element, the central point of the knowledge of God, of which the diycourse treats ; deevuow évtadOa, wndéva eldoTa Oeov, AN 1%) ovoy Tovs TOV Uiov émeyv@KOTas, Chrysostom. Comp. vv. 8, 23, xvi. 27, et al.— Ver. 26. Whereby this éyvwoav has been effected (comp. ver. 7), and will be com- pletely effected (yrwpicw, through the Paraclete: cal... Kai, both ... and also), that (purpose of the yvwpicw) the love with which Thou hast loved me (comp. ver. 24) may be in them, we. may rule in their hearts,’ and therewith—for Christ, com- municating Himself through the Spirit, is the supporter of the divine life in believers (xiv. 20 ff.; Rom. vii. 10; Gal. 1. 20; Eph. ii. 17),—JZ in them. On ayarny ayaray, see on Eph. ii. 4. So rich in promise and elevating with the simply grand “and I in them,” resounds the word of prayer, and in the whole ministry and experience of the apostles was it fal- filled. As nothing could separate them from the love of God in Christ (Rom. viii. 39), Christ thus remained in them through the Spirit, and they have conquered far and wide through Him who loved them. Note.—The originality of the high-priestly prayer stands upon the same footing with that of the longer discourses of ‘Comp. Rom. v. 5. Bengel aptly remarks: ‘‘ wé cor ipsorwm theatrum sit et palaestra hujus amoris,” namely, di rvedpares &yiov, Rom. lc. According to Hengstenberg (comp. also Weiss, 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 suit the expression év adrois 7, neither in itself nor in the parallel relation to xaya ty adrois. An inward efficacious presence must be thereby © intended. : CHAP. XVIL 303 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 individuality, with which the recollection had grown up, otherwise than with quite a Johannean stamp. Along with this, however, in refer- ence 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 reddition must be assumed. How often may these last solemn words have stirred the soul of John! To this cor- responds 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 of the N. T. “For so plainly and simply 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 dog- matic and metaphysical kind (Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Baur, Scholten), is indeed a necessary link in the chain of con- troversy on the originality of the Johannean history generally, but all the more untenable, the more unattainable, the depth, tenderness, intensity, and loftiness, as is 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 conflict of soul in Gethsemane, so soon after this prayer which speaks of overcoming the world and of peace, is indeed, considering the pure humanity of Jesus (which was not forced into stoical indifference), psychologically too conceivable, not, indeed, as a voluntarily assumed representa- tion of all the horrors of death from the sin of the world (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 the conflict of soul; but this is connected with his peculiarity in the selection of the evangelical material in general, and he might be determined in this matter particularly by the account already given of the similar fact, xii. 23 ff, which he only adduces, whilst that conflict of soul was already a common property of Scriptural tradition (comp. also Heb. 304 THE GOSPEL OF JOIIN. v. 7), which he as little needed to repeat as the institution of the Lord’s Supper and many other things. That that conflict of soul 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 (in answer to Baur, in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 224). The historic reality of the Gospel facts, if nothing essential is otherwise opposed to them, is not affected by the silence of John. CHAP. XVIII. os oO Cr ne HAPTER xX. Vile Ver. 1. The Recepta ray xédpv has the preponderance of testimony, Griesb. Scholz, Lachm., following A. S. A. Verss. Hier. Ambr. have rod xedpuv; Tisch., following D. &. 2 Cod. of It. Sah. Copt.: rod xédpov. The reading rod xedpuv is to be preferred, since we cannot suppose that John somehow connected the name }7P with xédpos or xédpov, as was done in 2 Sam. xv. 23 and 1 Kings xv. 13, LXX.— Ver. 4. 2£saday eizev| B. C.* D. Curss. Verss. Or. Syr. Chrys. Aug.: é¢7dev zai rAéye. So Lachm. and Tisch. Rightly; the Recepta is an alteration after ver. 1, which was made, because what was intended by 2%Aéev was not distinguished from that expressed by it in ver. 1.— Ver. 6. ér:] 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. arfov] Tisch.: arépov, after B. C.* L. X. 8, which (comp. also on Mark xiv. 47) is all the more to be preferred, that the better known ari is found in Matt.— Ver. 11. After wayop. Elz. has oo, against decisive witnesses, from Matt. xxvi. » 52. — Ver. 13. airév] has against it witnesses of such import- ance, that Lachm. has bracketed, Tisch. deleted it. But, un- necessary in itself, how readily might it be passed over after the similar final sound of the preceding word ! — Ver. 14. &roréodas] Lachm. Tisch.: drodavev. The witnesses are very much divided. aod. is from xi. 50.— Ver. 15. &AAog] Elz. Griesb. Scholz, Tisch.: 6 éacog. The article is wanting in A. B. D. & Curss., but retains, notwithstanding, a great weight of testimony, and might readily come to be omitted, since 1t appeared to have no reference here. — Ver. 20. Instead of the first 2AdAnou, AeAdAnx« (Lachm. Tisch.) is so decisively attested, that the Aor. appears to have been introduced in con- formity with the following aorists. — The article before oway. is decidedly condemned by the evidence (against Elz.).— In- stead of the second révrore, Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. have zéyrec, which is to be preferred, on account of preponderant testimony, and because zdérore might readily be mechanically repeated from the preceding rdvrore; révrodev (Elz.) rests on conjecture VOL, II. U 306 TIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. (Beza) and Curss. — Ver. 21. érepur.; ?xepuir.] The simple forms (Lachm. Tisch.) are preponderantly attested. The compound forms were readily introduced through the concurrence of the two E's (wEEpwr.), in recollection of ver. 7.— Ver. 22. Read with Lachm. Tisch., according to B. x. It. Vulg. Cyr. cig caper. rav ix, Various transpositions in the Codd. — Ver. 24. After drtor., Elz. Lachm. Tisch. have ot, which has important wit- nesses for and against it. Since, however, other Codd. read 6¢, and several Verss. express za/, any particle is to be regarded as a later connective addition. — The same various connective particles are found inserted in Codd. and Verss., after jpyjcuro, ver. 25. — Ver. 28. rpwi] Elz. Scholz: zpwiw, against decisive testimony. But how readily might the quite unnecessary iva dis- appear !— Ver. 29. After TAdéros Lachm. and Tisch. have 22w (B. C.* L. X. &. Curss. Verss.), which other witnesses first place after adrovs. This different position, and the importance of the omitting witnesses, show it to be an interpolation, with a view to greater definiteness of designation.— xardé] is deleted by Tisch., according to B.&.* alone. Being unnecessary, it was passed over. — Ver. 34. airw after dvexp. in Elz. is decisively condemned by the witnesses.— Ver. 37. zy. “Eyw] The omission of one ?y# (Lachm. has bracketed the second, Tisch. has deleted the first) is not sufficiently justified by B. D. L. Y. s. Curss. Verss. Fathers, since the omission was so readily suggested in copying, if the weight of the repeated éyé was not observed. Vv. 1, 2. "EE9XOc] from Jerusalem, where the meal, xiii. 2, had been held. The dyoper évredOev, xvi. 31, was now first carried out; see im loc.: wépav Tod yew. then expresses: whither He went; see on vi. 1.—T0d Kedper] Genit. of apposition (2 Pet. ii. 6, comp. modus ’AOnvev and the like). On this torrent dry in summer (ye/yappos, Hom. Jl. xi. 493; Soph. Ant. 708; Plat. Legg. v. p. 736 A; Joseph. Antt. viii. 1. 5), iN, ae. niger, black stream, flowing eastward from the city through the valley of the same name, see Robinson, II. p. 31 ff.; Ritter, rdk. XV.1, p. 598 ff. As to the name, comp. the very frequent Greek name of rivers MéXas (Herod. vii. 58. 198; Strabo, viii. p. 386, e¢ al.).—x«fos] According to Matt. xxvi. 36, a garden of the estate of Gethsemane. The owner must be conceived as being friendly to Jesus. — o6r¢ TONAGKLS, K.T.A.| points back to earlier festal visits, and is a CHAP. XVIII. 2. 807 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 expositors: 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 ocveipa is the Roman cohort (see Matt. xxvii. 27; Acts xxi. 31; Polyb. xi. 23, i. 6, xxiv. 3 ff; Valckenaer, Schol. I. p. 458 f.), 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 appointed on the part of the Sanhedrim, and not to be explained of the Levitical temple-watch (Michaelis, Kuinoel, Gurlitt, Lect. in N. T. Spec. LV. 1805, B. Crusius, Baeumlein). That Judas arrived with the whole ovreipa is, as being disproportionate to the immediate object (against Hengstenberg), not probable; but a division, ordered for the present service, especially as the chiliarch himself was there (ver. 12), represented the cohort. Of this co-operation of the Roman military, for which the Sanhedrim had made requisi- ‘tion, the Synoptics say nothing, although Hengstenberg takes pains to find indications of it in their narrative. John’s account is more complete.—davayv k. Napt7.] with torches and lamps (the latter in lanterns; Matt. xxv. 1 ff). Comp. Dion. H. xi. 40. Extreme precaution renders this preparation conceivable even at the time of full moon. The arms are understood to have been, as a matter of course, carried by the soldiers, but not by the trnpéras, and are mentioned as helping to complete the representation. — The «ai’s are not accwmu- lated (Luthardt), not one of them is unnecessary. 1 This is quite sufficient for the inexactness of popular information. We have hence neither to understand a manipulus (i.e. the third part of the cohort), for which an appeal is erroneously made to Polyb. xi. 23. 1, nor, generally, a band, a detachment of soldiers (2 Mace. viii. 23, xii. 22; Judith xiv. 11). The latter, not because it is Roman military that are spoken of; the former, not because although Polybius elsewhere employs omeipe as equivalent to manipulus (see Schweighiiuser, Lex. p. 559), yet a whole maniple (some 200 men) would here be too many. 308 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Vv. 4, 5. This advance of Judas occasioned (odv) Jesus to come forth, since He knew all that was about to come upon Him, and consequently was far removed from any intention of withdrawing Himself from His destiny, of which He was fully and clearly conscious. —épyeoO@at, of destinies, happy (Matt. x. 13) and unhappy (Matt. xxiii. 35; Aesch. Pers. 436, 439; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 686 f.), in the classics more frequently with the dative (Thuc. vill. 96. 1) than with émé — €&d ev (see the critical notes): from the garden, ver. 1, Nonnus: «jrov édoas. The context yields no other meaning, and ver. 26 is not opposed to it. Hence not: from the garden-house (Rosenmiiller, Ewald), or from the depth of the garden (Tholuck, Maier, De Wette, Luthardt), or from the circle of disciples (Schweizer, Lange, Hengstenberg). — etor7- ket 6€ Kal ’Iovéas, «.7.d.] Tragic moment 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 éy# ewe was intended to convey to the officers something unknown to them. This he could surely have been able to express in few words——The kiss of Judas (Matt. xxvi. 47 ff.), instead of which John gives the above personal statement (as Strauss indeed thinks: in order to the glorification of Jesus), is not thereby excluded, is too characteristic and too well attested to be ascribed to tra- dition, and cannot have followed (Ewald) the question of Jesus (ver. 4), but, inasmuch as the immediate effect of the éyo eijut did not permit of the interruption of the kiss, must have preceded, so that immediately on the exit 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 dis- seminated 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 (yapat = yapuate, very frequently in the classics also); this was regarded, first by Oeder in his Miscell. sacr. p. 503 ff, and recently by most expositors (including Liicke, CHAP. XVIII. 8, 9. 309 Tholuck, Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Ewald, Baeumlein), as a natural consequence of terror and of sudden awe, in sup- - port of which reference is made to the (weaker) analogies from the history of M. Antonius (Val. Max. viii. 9. 2), and of Marius (Velleius Patere. ii. 19. 3), even of Coligny; whilst Briickner would conceive of the effect at least as “scarcely as purely human.” Lange, however, likewise 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 falling to the ground of itself, and the circumstance that the text designates those who fell down generally and without an exception, so that even the Roman soldiers are to be understood along with the rest, justi- fies the view of the ancient commentators, also adopted by Strauss (who, however, as also Scholten, views the matter as unhistorical), Ebrard, Maier, Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Godet, that it was a mzraculous result of the power of Christ (Nonuus : olatpnGévtes atevyéi AaidAaTe doris). Christ wished, before His surrender, to make known His might over His foes, and ' thus to 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 was apprehensive of the seizure at the same time of the disciples. That hands had already been laid on them (Bengel, B. Crusius, and several others), the text does not say. He should and would suffer alone. —tva widnp., «.7.r.] Divinely-determined object of adzexpi0n, in reference to the words ef ovv, «.7.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 prophetic reference to the preservation of the disciples from their being also taken prisoners along with Hin, so far, that 1s, as the Lord, in virtue of this protection, brought none of them into destruction, namely, by occasioning the apostasy into which many a one would have fallen had he also been taken prisoner. 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 activity on the disciples’ behalf; consequently, that which is still further to be done 310 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. on their behalf must be conformable to that saying, and appear — as the fulfilment, as the actual completion of what was therein expressed, Vv. 10,11. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 51 ff, and parall. — odv] In consequence of this danger, which he now saw for Jesus. On its position between Siu. and ITérp., comp. xxi. 7.—Only John here names Peter, and also Malchus.' Personal con- siderations, 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. — dodXov] slave, there- fore 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. — ro @Taptov] 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 cir- cumstantial words in Matt. On 07«y, sheath, see Poll. x. 144. In the classics, eodeds. Comp. Hom. Od. x. 333: Kored pév cop Géo.— ro totyHp.| Comp. Matt. xx. 22, xxvi 39. The suffering of death which He must now, after He has become clearly conscious of God’s will and object (ii1.-14, 15, vi. 51), approach, is the cup to be drunk, which the Father has already given to Him (into His hand), é5axe.— adro, as in xv. 2. Vv. 12-14. Odv] Since no further attempt at resistance dared be made. In the complete statement: the cohort and the tribune (6 xidiapyos THs o7eipns, Acts xxi. 31), and the servants, any special design (Luthardt: the previous occurrence, ver. 6, had for its result that now all helped, in order to secure Him) is not to be supposed, since 2) ozredpa, x.7.X., is the subject not merely of ouvédkaBov and édncav, but also of amnyayov. Tholuck’s remark, however, is erroneous: that the soldiers had now first again (?) united with the Jewish watch. —ovvédaBor, «.7..] A non-essential variation from Matt. xxvi. 50, where the capture takes place before the attempt at defence made on Peter’s part. For é5noav, see on Matt. xxvii. 2. —On Annas, see on Luke ii.1,2. To him, which circumstance the Synoptics pass over, Jesus was at first (rp@tov) brought, A name of frequent occurrence; sce Wetstein. In Phot. Bibl. cod. 78, a Sophist is so called. Hengstenberg gives artificial interpretations. CHAP, XVIII. 15. oa before He was conducted to the actual high priest, Caiaphas (ver. 24). An extrajudicial preliminary 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 (iv yap tevOepos, x...) ; thus they believed it to be most cer- tain that he would act beforehand’ for his son-in-law, who then had to conduct the proper judicial process in the San- hedrin, with sufficient care for the object in view. Ewald’s assumption (Gesch. Chr. p. 562), that Annas was at that time invested with the office of superior judicial examiner (n’3 128 1), 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 Lichtenstein, 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 (Scholten; comp. on xi 49). 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, Theophylact, 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 fulfilment. Hence also the significant tod éviavtod éxeivou is repeated. Ver. 15. "“Hxondovder] correlative to the amyyayov, x.7.X., ver. 13, and the imperfect is descriptive.—o adr. ma.] The other disciple known to the reader, whom I do not name. Self-designation ; not a citizen of Jerusalem (Grotius), not Judas Iscariot (Heumann), not some unknown person (Augus- tine, Calovius, Calvin, Gurlitt). Only the first rendering corre- sponds to the article, and to the peculiarity of John’s manner. A tendency to elevate John above Peter is here as little to be found as in xx. 2, 3 (Weizsaicker would conclude from this passage that a scholar of John was the writer); it is a simple reproduction of the contents of the history. — yvwo- T0s| whence and how is undetermined. Nonnus: iy@uBorov mapa téxvns ; Ewald: because he was related to the priestly 1 Comp. Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch, p. 115 f. ale THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. stock (see Introd. § 1); Hengstenberg: from earlier religious necessities. yvwotos does not mean related. —7T@ apytepel, and then rod adpyrepéws, cannot, after aany. abt. mpos "Avvay, ver. 13, and 7xodovde, x.7.r., ver. 15, refer to Caiaphas, but, as Ewald also assumes, though Baeumlein groundlessly dis- putes it, only to Annas, as the high priest (he had been so, and still enjoyed the title, see Luke iii. 2; Acts iv. 5), to whom Jesus was brought. The observation on the acting apytep. Caiaphas (ds Hv, vv. 13, 14) was indeed only an intermediate observation, which the reference demanded by the course of the history of dpyvep. to Annas cannot alter. Accordingly, both the following denial of Peter (vv. 16-18) and the examina- tion (vv. 19-21), and the maltreatment (vv. 22, 23), took place in the dwelling of Annas. Of the synoptic examination before Caiaphas, John gives no account, and only briefly indi- cates in ver. 24 that Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas ; a step which followed after the examination before Annas, presup- posing 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 exegetic result, according to which John does not give any account of the hearing in the presence of Caiaphas,’ but indicates as the locality of the three denials the court of Annas (see on Matt., note after xxvi. 75), is 1 Considering that this examination was well known from the older Gospels, of which he was fully aware, it was quite sufficient for him to 7ecall the recollec-. tion of it simply by the observation inserted in ver, 24—a proof of his indepen- dence 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 e.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 Briickner, John has directed his principal aim to the denial of Peter and to the proceedings before Pilate. But this needed not, nevertheless, to have led him to be entirely silent on the examination before Caiaphas. According to Schenkel, Jesus, according to the present Gospel, underwent no examination 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) Mes- siah, Matt. xxvi. 64. As if this would have required the omission of the whole history! And the confession of Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 64, is sublime enough even for John. CHAP. XVIII. 15. oka opposed to the older and modern system of harmonizing (Cyril, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, and many others, including Liicke, Tholuck, Klee, De Wette, Maier, Baeumlein’), according to which, if one common court be not assigned to the dwellings of the two hich 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; see on ver. 24. The above exegetic conclusion 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 conclude, 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 easily fall into the background in the circle of tradition 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 as so 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 (see in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 285) of bringing into pro- minence the surrender of Jesus by the 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 incidental manner in which Caiaphas is mentioned, ver. 24,and the arbitrary character of such inventions generally, that John as little men- tions a sentence delivered by Annas as by Caiaphas, which never- theless suggested itself so naturally in ver. 24, and the place of which is by no means supplied, as respects Caiaphas, by xi. 50. 1 Also Brandes, Annas u. Pilat., Lemgo 1860. See in opposition, Weiss in the Lit. Bl. d. allg. K. Z. 1860, Nr. 39. 314 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Vv. 16-18. Peter, who had no acquaintance in the house, had not been admitted into the court (avd, 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 elonyarye refers to John; by Erasmus, Grotius, Ewald, and several others, it is referred to the portress, but in that way would give an unnecessary change of subject. The portress at the gate within the court asks of Peter, when admitted: “ But art not thou also,’ etc.? The xai carries the presupposition that John, whom she had notwithstanding also admitted for acquaintance’ sake, was a disciple of Jesus; the negative question rests on the feeling that probably she ought not otherwise to have admitted him.— rod dvOp. tovTov] con- temptuously, not compassionately (Chrysostom, Theophylact, and several others). — After the denial, Peter, whom, not- withstanding, his love to the Lord still detaims 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 seized. John, probably by help of his acquaintanceship, pressed with others into the interior of the house, not exactly into the audience- chamber. Vy. 19-21. Ody] Again connecting the narrative with vv. 13, 14, after the episode of Peter. — rept 7. waOnr. adr. Kk. 7. T. Siday, adtod] 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 1 It was the street door of the court, the aiazia évpe (see Dorvill. ad Char. p. 31, Amst. ; Dissen, ad Pind. Nem. i. 19, p. 361). ? Not Caiaphas. Hengstenberg imagines the situation : ‘‘ Annas presides, as it were (?), at the examination, but Caiaphas might not hand over to him the properly judicial function.” So also Godet, CHAP. XVIII. 22, 23. 315 something entirely aimless, appealing to the publicity of His life. — éy@ tappyoia, «.7.r.] I, on my part, have frankly and Sreely (comp. vii. 4, xi. 54) spoken to the world ; tappne. is to be taken subjectively, without reserve, not: openly, which it does not mean, and which is first contained in 76 xoowo. The Koopos is the whole public, as in vii. 4, xii. 19. — év cuvay. kK. év T. Lep@] in synayogue (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 wavrore to deny His public discourses in other places (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.—éov mavrtes, «.7.r.] refers to the temple. —xat év epuTT® éXAX. 005ér] 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 seeret.— Ti we Epwt.] Kor what object dost thou ask me? pé does not bear the emphasis; otherwise éué would have been used. — The second ré, quid, depends on épéryaov. —épot. tT. aknk.| “Hoc jubet lex, a testibus incipi,”’ Grotius. — odTot] The axnxoores, not pointing to John and Peter (Ewald). . Vy. 22, 23. Whether pavicua is a blow on the face, box on the ear (so usually), or stroke with a rod (Beza, Bengel, Godet), cannot be decided. Comp. on Matt. xxvi. 67. But the former, because the blow was wont to be the chastisement for an impudent speech (comp. Acts xxiii. 2), is the more probable, and Sdépess is not opposed to it (2 Cor. xi 20). That which here one of the officers of justice, who stood in waiting (see 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 Sanhedrim before the acting high priest (in Acts xxiii. 2 it is done at the command of the latter), but rather at an extra-judicial sitting. — o¥tws] So unbecomingly (Fritzsche, ad Mare. p. 150 f.; Bremi, ad Lys. et Aesch. p. 124, 355); comp. on 1 Cor. v. 3.— Ver. 23. Important for 316 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, the ethical idea expressed in Matt. v. 39.1 Comp. the note on Matt. v. 41.— papripnoor] bear witness. He must, in truth, have been an ear-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 indica- tion of it, that Annas and Caiaphas inhabited one house with a court in common (Euth. Zigabenus, Casaubon, Ebrard, Lange, Lichtenstein, Riggenbach, Hengstenberg, Godet). 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 up so as to follow ver. 13 (a few unimportant criti- cal witnesses, approved by Rinck); some also have employed exegetical violence. Ver. 24, that is, was regarded either as a supplemental historical statement in order to prevent masunder- standing ; so Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, Calovius, Cornelius a Lapide, Jansen, and several others, including Liicke, Tholuck, Krabbe, De Wette, Maier, Baeumlein; or the emphasis was laid on dedeuévov, to which word Grotius ascribed a force explanatory of the following denial, but Bengel one explanatory of the previous maltreatment. These exegetic attempts coincide in this, that awéorevtev is understood in a pluperfect sense: miserat, and is regarded as supplying an omission. The aorist, in order to adduce this as a supple- mental addition, would rather be: Annas sen¢ Him. But when the Aor. actually stands, making a supplemental statement, the 1 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 punish him who strikes us. Christ must suffer, but nevertheless the word is put in His mouth, that He should speak and punish what is wrong. Therefore, I should separate the mouth and the hand from one another.” * Comp. Luther, who, after ver. 14, comments: ‘‘ Here should stand the 24th verse. It has been misplaced by the copyist in the turning over of the leaf, as frequently happens.” 3 So also Brandes, Annas u. Pilat. p. 18 f., who adduces many unsuitable passages in proof, CHAP. XVIII. 25- 27. S17 context itself incontestably shows it (the pluperfect usage of the aorist in relative clauses, Kiihner, II. p. 79; Winer, p. 258 [E. T. p. 343], is not relevant here), 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 altogether not the case (see rather the progress of the history, vv. 13, 24, 28), and it is only a harmonistic interest which has compelled the inter- pretation, which is least of all justified in the case of John. John had the pluperfect at command just as much as the 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 mislead, while he would have given, by the whole supple- mental observations, the stamp of the greatest clumsiness to his narrative, which had flowed on from ver. 15 down to the present point. The expedients of Grotius and Bengel are, however, the more inappropriate, the more manifest it is that Sedeuévov simply looks back to ver. 12, eéycov avrov. The sole historical sequence that is true to the words is given already by Chrysostom: efta, pwndé ottas etpicxovtés Tt mTEov, WéuTroVeLW avToV dSedeuévov Tpos Karadav. Vv. 25-27. When Jesus was sent to Caiaphas, Peter was still on the spot mentioned in ver. 18, standing and warming himself. There follow his second and third denials, which, therefore, according to the brief and accurate narrative of John, who relates the denials generally with more precision, took place likewise in the court of Annas. The text gives no indication that Peter followed Jesus into the house of Caiaphas. Comp. Olshausen, Baur, Bleek. For the agree- ment of Luke with John in the locality of the denials, but not in the more minute determination of time, see on Luke xxii. 54—62. —eiov] Those standing there with him, ver. 18. — The individual, ver. 26, assails him with his own eye-witness. — éyo] I, for my part.— év 76 Kn Te] sc. dvta. The slave outside the garden (for, see on ver. 4) has been able, over the fence or through the door of the garden, to see 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 cer- 318 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. tainly reproached him with this act.— anréxTwp] a cock. See on Matt. xxvi. 74. The contrition of Peter, John does not here relate in his concise account; but all the more thought- fully and touchingly does this universally known psychological fact receive historical expression in the appendix, chap. xxi.’ Ver. 28. Eis ro wpavtaéptov] into the praetorium, where the procurator dwelt, whether it was 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.— mpwi| ae. in the fourth watch of the night (see on Matt. xiv. 25), therefore toward daybreak. Pilate might expect them so early, since he had in fact ordered the ovretpa, ver. 3, on duty. —avdto/] They chemselves did not go in, but caused Jesus only to be brought in by the soldiers, ver. 3.—tva py ptavOactv, aXN iva hay. TO Tacxa] On the emphatic repetition of the ‘va, comp. Rev. ix. 5; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 48. The entrance into the pagan house, not purified from the corrupt leaven, would have made them levitically impure (utatvw, the solemn word of profanation, Plat. Legg. ix. p. 868 A; Zim. p. 69 D; Soph. Ant. 1051, LXX. in Schleusner, IIT. p. 559), 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). Since ¢ayeiy 70 wacya through- out the N. T. (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12, 14; Luke xxii. 11,15; comp. éromdfew To macya, Matt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 8; @Qvev To macya, 1 Cor. v. 7; Luke xxii. 7; Mark xiv. 12; see also Ex. xii. 21.; 2 Chron. xxxy. 15) denotes nothing else than to cat the paschal meal, as nban D3N, 2 Chron. xxx. 18, comp. 3 Esr. 1 6, 12; vil. 12, it is thus clear that on the day, in the early 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 Johannean account is undoubtedly confirmed by xiii. 1, accord- ing to which po THs éoprAs gives the authoritative standard 1 Which, indeed (see Scholten, p. 382), is alleged to be a mistake of the appendix, the writer of which did not see through the (anti-Petrine) tendency of the Gospel. + : 5 CHAP. XVIII. 28, 319 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, condemnation, and execution stood in unbroken connection ; further, by xiii. 29, according to which the Johannean last supper cannot have been the paschal meal ; finally, by xix. 14 and 31 (see on those passages), as, moreover, the view that the murdered Jesus was the antitype of the slaughtered paschal lamb (xix. 36), is appropriate only to that day as the day of His death, on which the paschal lamb was slaughtered, ze. on the 14th Nisan.’ Since, how- ever, as according to the Synoptics, so also according to John (xix. 31), Jesus died on the Friday, after He had, on the evening preceding, held His last meal, John xiii., there results the variation that, according to the Synoptics, the feast begins on ZLhuwrsday evening, and Jesus holds the actual Jewish paschal meal, but is crucified on the jirst feast-day (Friday) ; in opposition to which, according to John, the feast begins on Friday evening, the last supper of Jesus (Thursday evening) is an ordinary meal (see Winer, Progr.: Setmvov, de quo Joh. xiii, ete., Leips. 1847), 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, recognised also by Liicke, ed. 2 and 3, Neander, Krabbe, Theile, Sieffert, Usteri, Ideler, Bleek, De Wette, Briickner, Ebrard, Arit. d. Evang. Gesch., ed. 2 (not in Olshausen, Leidensgesch., p. 43 f.), Ewald, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hase, Weisse, Riickert, Abendm. p. 28 ff., Steitz, J. Miiller, Koessing (Catholic), de suprema Chr. coena, 1858, p. 57 ff, Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 417, Pressensé, Keim, and several others. Nevertheless, harmonistic attempts have been made as far as possible to prove the agreement, erther of the Synoptics with John (so mostly the older harmonists, see Weitzel, Passahfeier, p. 305 f.; recently, especially Movers in the Zeitschrift f. Phil. u. Kathol. Theol., 1833, vii. p. 58 ff, vili. p. 62 ff, Maier, Aechth. d. Ev. Joh., 1854, p. 429 ff, 1 Tertulliar, adv. Jud. 8: ‘* Passio perfecta est die azymorum, quo agnum occiderent ad vesperam a Mose fuerat praeceptum.” 320 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. Weitzel, Isenberg, d. Todestag des Herrn, 1868, p. 51 ff, and several others), ov 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/fsame day between the two evenings in the forecourt (comp. Lightfoot, p. 470 f., 651), 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 1 Chrysostom gives a choice between the two attempts at reconciliation. Hither John means by ve rdoya: chy topray rnv racay ; or, Christ anticipated the cele- bration on the day before the Passover of the Jews, rnpav chy taurod chayny rH xapacxevn, on Which the O. T. paschal meal was solemnized. In this way Chrysostom already writes the programme for the whole of the later investiga- tions on this point down to the present day. For the history of the controversy, see in Wichelhaus, Kommentar iiber d. Leidensgesch. p. 191 ff. 2 The view which became current at the time of the Reformation and after- wards among the older theologians, especially through Casaubon’s and Scaliger’s influence, that the Jews had postponed the Passover for a day, was entirely baseless, but found all the more ready acceptance because there remained thereby time in full accordance with the law for the observance of the paschal meal on the part of Jesus. According to this view, which has again been recently sup- ported by Philippi (Glaubensl. I. p. 266 f., ed. 2), the Jews, in order not to be bound for two days running to the strictness of the Sabbath observance, trans- ferred the first feast-day, which at that time fell on the Friday, to the Sabbath ; whereas Christ abode faithfully by the legal term ; the synoptical account goes by this legal determination, but the Johannean by the former arbitrary one. From 23s, Luke xxii. 7, no inference whatever can be drawn in favour of this harmonistic expedient, which is without any historical support. Serno (d. Tag. d. letzten Passahmahls, Berl. 1859) has sought, in a peculiar way, to confirm the correctness of both accounts by the doubling of the feast-days during the diaspora. According to this, it may have come about that for the Galileans in Jerusalem that was already the first day of the Passover, which for the Jerusa- lemites was but the day before the feast. In this way the twofold representation was stamped on the page of history. Against this it is at once decisive that the Galileans did not belong to the diaspora. See, moreover, Weiss, in the Lit. Bl. d. allg. K. Z. 1860, Nr. 42; Wieseler and Reuter’s Repert. 1860, p. 132 ff. ; Ewald, Jahrb. XI. p. 258 f. On the above doubling of the feast-days, see Ideler, Handbuch d. Chronol. I. p. 513 ff. According to Isenberg, lc, ‘many thousand strangers,” in order not to break in upon the Sabbath with the pre- paration for the Passover meal, held this meal already on the 13th Nisan. So also did Jesus, in order to institute the Lord’s Supper as the fulfilment of the Passover feast, and to die as the Antitype of the Passover lamb. The above pre- supposition, however, is unhistorical. A paschal lamb on the 13th Nisan is to the Jewish consciousness an impossibility. CHAP. XVIII. 28. one others thought, also Kahnis, Abendm. p. 14, Krafft, p. 130, Godet, p. 629 ff, who appeals specially again to Matt. xxvi. 17, 18, Marcker, Uebereinst. d. Matth. und Joh. p. 20 ff, who thinks the non-legal character of the meal is passed over in silence by the Synoptics. Those attempts, however, according to which John’s account is made to be the same as that of the Synoptics (Bynaeus, de morte J. Ch. III. p. 13 ff., Lightfoot, p. 1121 ff, Reland, Bengel, and several others ; latterly, especially Tholuck, Guericke, Olshausen, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg 7a loc., and in the Evang. K.-Zeit. 1838, Nr. 98 ff, Wieseler, Synopse, p. 333 ff, and in Herzog’s Encyklop. XXI. p. 550 ff., Luthardt, Wichelhaus, Hofmann in the Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1853, p. 260 ff., Lichtenstein and Friedlieb, Gesch. d. Lebens J. Chr. p. 140 ff., Lange, Riggenbach, von Gumpach, Rope, d. Mahl. d. Fusswaschens, Hamb. 1856, Ebrard on Olshausen, Baeum- lein, Langen, Letzte Lebenstage Jesu, 1864, p. 136), are rendered void by the correct explanation of xiii. 1, 29, xix. 14, 31, and, in respect of the present passage, by the following obser- vations : (a) To mdoya cannot be understood of the sacrificial food of the feast to the exclusion of the lamb, particularly not of the Chagiga (215, the freewill passover offerings, con- sisting 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 dayetv is the Passover lamb constantly designated (comp. generally Gesenius, Zhes. II. p. 1115), also in Josephus and in the Talmud (nppn 59s), and consequently no reader could attach any other meaning to it;” in Deut. xvi. 2, 3, however, mp5 1 Although the eating of the Chagigah was not necessarily restricted to the 15th Nisan, but might take place weil enough on 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, so that they might be able to eat the Chagigah. But the arpa of the paschal lamb was restricted to its definite day, the 14th Nisan. 2 Paul also, in the Stud. wu. Krit, 1866, p. 367 ff., and 1867, p. 535 ff., ex- plains it of the eating of the Passover lamb, but ‘hails that they had not been able to accomplish the eating on the evening that preceded the x;wi, and now ‘*at the first grey of morning” desired to make up for that which was omitted in the urgency of their haste. What an irregularity against the law (Lev. xxiii. 5, Deut. xvi. 7 ; Saalschiitz, M. &. p. 407 f.) and usage is thus imagined, without the slightest indication in the text! And the thought of such a completely exceptional early eating could not be entertained_by the Jews, moreover, for this VOL it x Soe THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. - does not mean “ as a passover” (Hengstenberg, comp. Schultz on Deut. p. 471), but likewise nothing else than agnus paschalis, from which, then, 1? j8¥ are distinguished as other sacrifices and sacrificial animals (comp. vv. 6, 7), whereby with wy, ver. 3, we are 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 mdcya to the Passover sacrifices generally, as Ex. xii. 48 for the view that to eat the Passover signifies the cele- bration of the feast in general ; since, certainly, in the passage in question, the general zroujoas To 7. (prepare) is by no means equivalent to the special éderas am’ avrov.' (b) The objec- tion, that entering the Gentile house would only have produced pollution for the same day (a” mab)? which might have been removed by washing before evening, and therefore before the beginning of the new day, and that consequently the Jews would have still been able to eat the Passover lamb, which was to be first partaken of in the evening (see especially Henestenberg, Wieseler, and Wichelhaus, following Bynaeus and Lightfoot), cannot be proved from Maimonides (Pesach. iii. 1, vi. 1), must rather, im view of the great sacredness of the Passover feast (comp. xi. 55), be regarded as quite un- supported by the present passage (at all events in reference to the time of Jesus), irrespective also of this, that such a pol- lution would have been a hindrance to the personal slaughtcr- ing of the lamb, and certainly was, most of all, avoided precisely by the hierarchs, 2 Chron. xxx. 17,18. (c) On the whole of 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 Tiib. Quartalschr. 1863, p. 537 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 itself correct), and that they intentionally expressed themselves in an ambiguous manner (incorrect). See against Aberle, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 94 ff. 1 2 Chron. xxx. 22, where the eating of the feast sacrifices generally (419) is spoken of, proves nothing whatever for the special expression : “‘ eat the Pass- over,” rather is distinguished from it. 2 Judith xii. 7-9 proves nothing in this respect for our passage (against Hengstenberg), where the evening bath of Judith 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. CHAP. XVIII. 28. ooo the inadmissible plea, which has been raised from the history of the Easter controversies against this, that John places the death of Jesus on the 14th Nisan, see Introd. § 2. (d) It has even been 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); so, after Frisch, recently Rauch in the Stud. wu. Krit. 1832, p. 537 ff, according to which our ¢ayely rt. maocya was understood of the eating of the afuyya. But the evening of the 14th (consequently the beginning of the 15th) stands so unassailably firm on the foundation of the law, according to Jewish tradition, and according to Josephus (see De Wette in the Stud. uw. Krit. 1834, 4; Liicke, IL. p. 727 ff), that the above attempt is simply to be noted as a piece of history, as also that of Schneckenburger (Beitr. p. 4 ff.), which is based on the error that xix. 14 is the wapacxevy for the Feast of Sheaves. (¢) 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 general designation of the Supper itself, sauna rywopevov, xxii. 2 (comp. xii. 2), agrees therewith, to remove from the mind of the unprejudiced reader the thought of the festival meal.—Is, however, the difference between John and the Synoptics incapable of being adjusted, the question then arises, On which side historical accuracy lies? 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 authenticity at second hand (assuming which, Weizsiicker gives the preference to the synoptic account), but of that whic is immediate and apos- tolical. If, that is to say, in the case of irreconcilable de- partures from the synoptic tradition, the first rank is in general, & priori, to be conceded to John, as the sole direct 1 This circumstance is also decisive against the invention of an anticipated Passover. For precisely at a Passover feast of so exceptional a character the Passover ideas which furnished its motive would not have been kept at a distance by John, but would have been brought by him into the foreground. ous TIIE GOSPEL OF JOHN. witness, whose writing has been preserved unaltered ; if, further, the representation also by the Apostle Paul of Christ as the Passover Lamb applies only to the Johannean determination 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 Lord’s Supper does not run counter (in answer to Keim) to this Johannean determination ; if, further, even the statement of the Judaism, which was outside the church, that Jesus was executed vespera paschatis (ADDN Ay), z.e. on the 14th Nisan, supports the account of John (see Sanhedr. 6. 2 f., 43.1, in Lightfoot, ad Act. i. 3), where the fabulous element in the Talmudic quotation 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 (see especially Wieseler, p. 361 ff.), is at least highly improbable (see Bleek, p. 139 ff. ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 415), 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 Sanhedrin (Matt. xxvi. 5); if, generally, the 15th Nisan, with its Sab- batic 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 hier- archs 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. 39) 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 historical relation, according to which the day of Jesus’ death must have been uo first day 1 This difficulty drives Hilgenfeld (Paschastr. d. alten Kirche, p. 154, also in his Zeitschr. 1863, p. 338 ff.), after the precedent of Jost, Gesch. d. Judenth. I. p. 407 ff., to the desperate assumption that no actual criminal proceedings took place at all. Neither in Matt. xxvi. 3, nor xxvi. 57, and xxvii. 1, is an actual Synedrium intended, but enly councils summoned by the high priest. * Among the Greeks also, an cxecution cna feast day was regarded as a profana- tion and pollution, and was, ifit exceptionally took place, as in the case of Phocion (Plutarch, Phoc. 37), a great scandal ; see Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § 43. 12. CHAP. XVIII. 28. oon of the feast, but a day of traffic and labour (Matt. xxvi. 59,60; Mark xv. 21, 42,46; Luke xxiii. 26, 54, 56), as, moreover, the opinion of the Sanhedrin, Matt. xxvi. 5, Mark xiv. 1: ua év tH éopth! corresponds 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 moments are just so many reasons, the collective weight of which is decisive in favour of John,' without the further necessity of making an uncertain appeal to the present calendar of the feast, according to which the 15th Nisan may not fall on a Friday (see against his application to that period, Wieseler, p. 437 f.), and to the prohibition, Ex. xii. 22, against quitting house and town after the Passover meal (see on Matt. xxvi. 30, and Wetstein on Mark xiv. 26).—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 demon- strable 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 discourses con- nected therewith gave to the Supper in its bearing on the Passover meal, by the idea of which He was moved (Luke xxl. 15), as also by the view of the Supper as the anti- _ typical Passover meal, which view must necessarily have been developed from the apostolic apprehension of Christ as 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 anti-typical mode of regarding it, an ideal 14th Nisan, and in the tradition, in virtue of the reflective operation of the idea upon it, gradually became an actual one, and consequently the tapacxevy, which was firmly established as the day of death, became, instead of the prepara- tion of the Passover (14th Nisan), as John has again fixed it, the 1 Here the appeal urged by Movers to Tr. Sanhedr. f. 63. 1, is by no means required, according to which the members of the Sanhedrin might not eat any- thing on the day on which they had pronounced a sentence of death. On this showing, they absolutely could not have had the design of eating the Chagigah. 326 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. preparation of the Sabbath,’ this Sabbath, however, regarded, 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).—Further, the deviation of John from the Synoptics is the less to be employed as a reason for doubting the genuine- ness of the former, the more improbable it is in itself that a later inventor, who nevertheless sought apostolic authority, would have run the risk of entering 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 (see especially Baur, p. 272 ff., and in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 267 f.; Hilgenfeld, Pascha streit d. alten K. p. 221 ff; Schenkel, p. 362 f.; Keim, Gesch. J. I. p. 132; Scholten, p. 282 ff), 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 Pass- over 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, in the light of a single token; in that case one might believe oneself justified, with Weisse, Zvangelienfrage, p. 130, in laying to the charge of the writer of the Gospel that he had, in conformity with certain presuppositions, put together the sequence of events for himself partly in an accidental and partly in an arbitrary manner. Vv. 29, 30. In the prudent concessive spirit of Roman policy towards the Jews in the matter of religion, Pilate’ 1 Moreover, the Passover meal, on the Friday evening, could by no means have been deranged by the dawning of the Sabbath. For the slaying and roast- ing of the lamb took place before the dawn of the Sabbath, 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 praeceptum observat, ille ab observatione alterius praecepti liber est,” Sohar, Deut. princ. f. 107, c. 427. This also in answer to Isenberg, J.c. Besides, the paschal lamb was a sacrifice, the arrangements connected with which the Sabbath con- sequently did not prevent, even if the 14th Nisan itself was a Sabbath. 2 The whole behaviour of Pilate in 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, Schenkel), can appear CHAP. XVIII. 31. 327 comes forth to them, and demands first of all, in accordance with regular procedure, a definite accusation, although he knew it, ver. 33; “sed se scire dissimulabat,’ Ruperti. The de- fiance of the hierarchy, however, uttered in an evil conscience, demands of him, contrary to all forms of legal procedure, that he should assume the delivering-wp of the prisoner itself as a warrant of crime. Him who is not a mis-doer, they reply, they would not have delivered up to the procurator. They had in truth themselves sufficient power to punish, although not extending to execution. If, therefore, the offence exceeds this power of theirs to punish, so that the surrender to the pro- curator takes place, this surrender is sufficient proof that the person is a criminal. The kind and manner of the crime (Tholuck: criminal offence against the citizens) is not yet defined by their words. The idea: “one hand washes the other” (Lange), lies entirely remote.—xata tod avOp. Tov- tov] is, further, uttered with a feeling of 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 his competency to act must first arise, cowld take no other course than at once refer the matter to the regular Jewish authority, he also inewrred no danger in taking that course; because if the xpiveu, 2.c. the judicial procedure against Jesus, should terminate in assigning the punishment of death, they must nevertheless come back to him, while it was at the same time a prudent course (POovoy 6&0 voncas, Nonnus) ; because if they did not wish to with- draw with their business unfinished, they would, it might be presumed, be under the necessity of laying aside their in- solence, and of still coming out with an accusation. If xpivesy, which, according to this view, is by no means of doubtful only as the consequence of presuppositions, which lie quite outside the history. Note particularly how just his swspicion against the Jews, owing to their per- sonal behaviour, must have been from the first ; and how, on the other hand, owing to Jesus’ personal bearing, his sympathy for Him must have developed and increased, so that in the mind of the procurator strength of character and of conscience alone was wanting, to prevent him, after perverted measures and concessions, from yielding ignominiously at last. See also Steinmeyer, Leidens- gesch. p. 143 ff. 328 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, signification (Hengstenberg), be understood as meaning to — condemn, or even to execute (Liicke, de Wette, who, as already Calvin and several others, finds therein a sneer), which, how- ever, it does not in itself denote, and which sense it cannot acquire by means of the following azroxvetvar, something of a very anticipatory and relatively impertinent character is put in the procurator’s mouth. — vets] With emphasis. — The answer of the Jews rests on the thought that this xpivew was, on their part, already an accomplished fact, and led up to the sentence for execution, which they, however, were not com- petent to carry out. They therefore understood the xpwew not as equivalent to amoxtetvat, but regarded the latter as the established veswlé of the former. Any limtation, however, of juty ovn e€ect, «.7.r. (to the punishment of the cross, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, Calovius, and several others think; or to the feast day, as Semler and Kuinoel suppose ; or to political crimes, so Krebs), 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; see Lightfoot, p. 455, 1133 ff.), lost the jus vitae et necis generally; they could, indeed, sentence to death, but the confirmation and execution belonged to the superior Roman authority. See generally Iken, Diss. II. p. 517 ff.; Friedlieb, Archdol. p. 96 f. The stoning of Stephen, as also at a later period that of James, the Lord’s brother (Josephus, Anti. xx. 9. 1), was a tumultuary act. Comp. also Keil, Archdol. II. p. 259. Ver. 32. The aim ordained in the divine purpose, why the Jews, in consequence of having lost the right of life and death, were obliged to answer “piv ov« éeotw, «.7.r.” Otherwise, Jesus, as a false prophet and blasphemer 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 Messiah, could not but appear to be before the Roman courts; and the word of Jesus, xii. 32, would have remained unfulfilled. Vv. 33, 34. Pilate does not, indeed, enter at present into further discussion with the Jews, but, because he quite per- CHAP. XVIII. 33, 34. $29 ceived 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 definite ground of accusation, and waiting first for some further step on the part of the Jews. His question: Thow art the king of the Jews? which, moreover, carries with it a contemptuous sound of unbelief (he does not ask, for example, od réyews, «.7.r., or the like), is explained, even without a xatnyopia on the part of the Jews, from the fact that the arrest, because made with the help of the oveipa, ver. 3, could not have taken place without previous intimation to and approval by Pilate, who therefore must also have been acquainted with its reason,—hence all the less, with Ewald, is the presentment of a written accusation to be presumed, or, as is ordinarily done, need it be suggested that the Jews, even after ver. 31, had come forward with the xarnyopia. This agrees with Luke xxiii. 2, but is not indicated by a single word in John, who could not have passed over so essential a point as a matter of course, and how easily and briefly could he have done so! By his counter-question, ver, 34, Jesus does not desire, as Olshausen, Neander, Godet, Ewald, and several others suppose, to gather the more exact sense of the question,—whether, namely, it is intended in a Jewish 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, which was contained in the words of Pilate; to know, therefore, whether Pilate put to Him the above question at his own instance, and without foreign prompting ; or, on the other hand, at the prompting of others. That the latter was the case, He indeed knew; the adroz stood, in fact, before the door; but Pilate ought to speak out ‘and set forth clearly the status causae. It was that which Jesus could demand, and with all the intrepidity of innocence did demand, without exactly intending to evoke a movement of conscience (Hengstenberg), which He could not at this point 330 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. expect in the cold man of the world; or to call his attention to the suspicious source of the accusation (Luthardt, Tholuck, Briickner), to which the ado, which is altogether without bias, is not appropriate. Vv. 35, 36. The answer of the procurator, irritated and haughty, gives in prjre... eis an indirect denial of the first question, and therewith also an affirmation of the second. — pyre eyo Iovdaios eipuc] Eye, with proud emphasis: you do not surely suppose that Z, I your procurator, am a Jew? How should J of myself think of trying thee as a Jew and as. king of the Jews? The emphasis of éy#, Nonnus denotes by: Bi yap ’Lovdaios nayo médov ;— the opposite of that: Thine own nation (ro ébvos TO cov), and especially (Kai) the high priests, have delivered thee to me; what hast thou done? No further ceremony !— Jesus now confesses His kingship,’ but, in the first instance, only negatively (positively: ver. 37): “The kingdom which is mine does not arise (like other king- doms) out of this world (which endures only until the estab- | lishment of my kingdom); if the kingdom which is mine proceeded out of this world, the servants whom J (oi é€uo/) have would assuredly fight that I should not be delivered (which is done, xix. 16) to the Jews (the hierarchical opposi- tion) ; but as it is (since they do not fight for me), my kingdom is not from thence” (évtedOev=éx Tod Koop. TovTOV). — Note in this Demonstratio ad oculos the solemn repetition of é« tod Koopou T. and of 7 Bacirela 7% €u7, as well as that évtedOer, from here, hence, is expressed deictically, as a vivid opposition to that which is coelitus, and, finally, that in é« tod xoopou TovTov, not TovTov, which might also have been omitted, but koopov bears the emphasis. The tanpérac ot éwot are not the servants whom He would have in the case supposed (Liicke, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, and several others), but He has His servants, they are His disciples and adherents (not the angels, as Luthardt thinks), xu. 26; 1 Cor. iv. 1; 2 Cor. vi. 4, xi. 23; 1 Tim. iv. 6; but even not from this world (xvii. 16), they also do not jight, etc. Note how also, in the 1 This confession must, according to Schenkel, have probably been spoken on another occasion. Groundless supposition. Comp. 1 Tim. vi. 13, and Huther in loc, CHAP. XVIII. 37. $31 designation of His own by tmnpéras, the kingly consciousness expresses itself. Ver. 37. A Bacireia Jesus had actually ascribed to Him- self 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 Bacitieta, On ovxodv, not elsewhere found in the N. T., see Kiihner, ad Yen. Mem. Exe. Il. p. 517 ff.; Baeumlein, Partih. p. 198. The sentence is an inference, but asking (ds dt not then true, that thou art a king?) whether the ques- tioned person agrees.— 67] Confirmation of the assertion expressed by od Aéyers (comp. Matt. xxvi. 25).— éyo] Cor-: responding to the contemptuously emphasized ov at the end of Pilate’s question, emphasized with noble self-consciousness, and still more emphatically brought info prominence by the éy®, which immediately begins the next sentence (“potens anadiplosis,” Bengel); the repetition of efs todto twice also adds weight.—yeyévy. and édjXd. ets 7. Koop] must, according to Grotius, Liicke, and De Wette, designate the birth and the official appearance ; a separation which is not justified by the Johannean épyec@ae eis 7. xdcy., in which the birth is substantially included (iii. 17, ix. 39, xi. 27, xii. 47, xvi. 28, i. 9). The éAnr. ets tr. Koc. sets forth the birth once - again, but in relation to its specific higher nature, as the entrance of the sent of God into the world, so that the divine atrooté\new eis Tov Kocpop (iii, 17, x. 36, xvii. 18) is corre- lative.’ 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. — ‘va waprtup. TH ar70.| He was to bear testimony on behalf of the divine truth, for He had seen and heard it with God. Comp. iii. 11, 32, i. 17, 18.—o oy ex vr. adO.] Genetic designation (comp. on Gal. iii. 7) of the adherents of His kingdom; their origin is the divine truth, ze. their entire spiritual nature is so constituted, that divine truth exercises its formative in- 1 Calovius aptly says: Christ was so born, ‘‘ut quum antea fuerit apud patrem, in tempore nascendo in mundum venerit, a patre in mundum missus.” Contrary to the words and the context is Scholten’s view, that ysyév. denotes the premundane procession from God. Fi bop} THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, fluence 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: “ Hsse ex veritate praecedit, audire sequitur.” —axovet pou tT. bovis] hears from me the voice, i.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 what subjects He has; and thus He has completely answered the question ; in no sense, however, as Hengstenberg thinks, has He omitted to answer it as too difficult for Pilate’s com- prehension, and expressed Himself instead concerning His prophetic office. The mas o dv, «7.2. belongs essentially to the characteristic of His kingdom; a special design, however, entertained in this point, with reference to Pilate (an appeal to his religious consciousness, Chrysostom, Olshausen, Neander ; justification as to why Jesus has not more adherents, Calvin ; a reminder for Pilate, how he would have to lay hold upon salvation), lies entirely remote from the sense, equally remote with an appeal “a caecitate Pilatc ad captum fideliwm,” Bengel, or from the judge to the man (Hengstenberg). Ver. 38. Pilate, now fully convinced that he has before him an innocent and harmless enthusiast, asks, with that air of contemptuous deprecation which is peculiar to the material understanding in regard to the abstract and supersensual sphere, What is truth? A non ens, a phantom, he thus con- ceives it to be, with which He would found a kingdom; and weary of the matter, and abruptly breaking it off, he goes straightway forth to the Jews, and declares to them that he finds no guilt in Jesus,’ from which definite declaration it is seen that by the above question he does not mean at all to designate the matter merely as not coming within his jurisdic- tion (Steinmmeyer). Something of good-nature lies in this conduct, but it is the weak and shallow good-nature of the 1 Here we are to think of the sending away of Jesus to Herodes Antipas. See on Luke, note after xxiii. 12, But how could the fourth evangelist have omitted this episode, had he been a Gentile Christian, and had designed to concentrate the guilt of the death of Jesus as much as possible on the "Iovdaio.? This in answer to Baur and Schenkel. CIIAP. XVIII. 39, 40. oda man of the world who is indifferent towards higher things ; nothing of the disconsolate tone of the searcher for truth (Olshausen) is to be imported. 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: cal ITidaros OauBnoe); itis at once decisive that he immediately turns his back and goes out.— Whence did John learn of this con- versation of Pilate. with Jesus? He can hardly have been himself an ear-witness of it.!| But whether the fact be that it was communicated by Pilate in his own circles, and that hence it reached John, or whether it be that some ear-witness of the interview himself brought the information to John, the matter is not inconceivable (in answer to Scholten), and in no case have we the right to ascribe the account merely to the com- position of John (Strauss), as Baur especially finds impressed on the declarations of Pilate that he “finds no guilt in Jesus,” only the tendency of the evangelist to roll the guilt as far as possible off Pilate’s shoulders, and place it on those of the Jews, which purpose also the question, What is truth? is intended to serve, in which Baur suggests the sense: how can one make a crime out of truth ? Vv. 39, 40. Instead of stedfastly protecting the innocence of Jesus, he seeks, unwisely enough, in order not to be unpopular, a circuitous way, by which he practically surrenders the innocent one. — tva, «.7.r.] A custom exists amongst you: I ought to release to you, etc. On the thing itself, see on Matt. xxvii. 15. — év 76 wacyxa] Pilate could thus express himself as well on the 14th (against Hengstenberg), as also 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 statement of the time of this customary release as one that was legally stationary is expressed even in the strict sense of To mdoya (Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. xxviii. 16).— BovrAeaBe... dodvco] Do you wish that I should release? Deliberative conjunctive. Comp. on Matt. xiii. 28; Kiihner, II. § 464.—rov Baoun. tr. Iovd.] Unwise and scornful bitterness. Hengstenberg 1So Steinmeyer, Leidensgesch. p. 143. 304 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. imports a serious view of the idea of Messias, which certainly Pilate was not equal to.— maddy] presupposes a general clamour already raised in vv. 30 and 31.— BapafB.] See on Matt. xxvii. 16.—4v Sé o B. AnorHs] Tragical addition. The designation by Ayorjs does not exclude the statement in Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19; Anorai dovetovci, Soph. 0. R.'719. According to Matt. xxvii. 17, Pilate offered a choice between Barabbas and Jesus; Mark, and also Luke, agree with John. CHAP, XIX. (oh) co Ort CHAPTER XIX. Ver. 3. xa) 2rcyov] BLL. U. X. A. 1.8. Curss., most Verss. Cyr. Nom. Aug.: xa? apyovro apis wiriv nul ¢rsyov. Rightly adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Recepta originated in a mechanical way, just as readily through an erroneous transition from the first airéy to the second, as through the apparently unnecessary, indeed unsuitable, character which jy, zp. air. might possess. — ¢d/dovv] Lachm. and Tisch.: 2é/doou». But see on xv. 22.—Ver. 4. Elz. Scholz: 2&7adev ofv. Lachm.: xa? zé7Adev. The witnesses are very much divided, but there is preponderant testimony in favour of zai 2&720, (A. B. K. L. X, 1. Curss. Syr. Aeth. Cyr.). Nevertheless, considering the frequency of such insertions, the omission of the particle (Griesb. Tisch.) is sufficiently justified by D. r. &. Curss. Verss. — év air. 006. air. cip.]| Very many variations, amongst which the simple air. ody ep. would, with Tisch., be preferable, if it were not that it has only &.* in its favour. — Ver. 6. airéy] is omitted after the second cradp. in Elz. Tisch., but has the pre- ponderance 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 xxi. 21, Mark xv. 13, John xix. 15, that it is to be regarded as a supplement. — Ver. 7. 7% ] is wanting in B.D. L. A. 8. 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. Lachm. have ov, which, indeed, is wanting only in A. 8. Curss. Syr. Perss. Copt. Arm. Slav. Cyr. (deleted by Tisch.); considering, however, the appropriateness of the connec- tion 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. efyes] A. D. L. X. Y. a. 1. 8, Curss.: yes. Defended by Buttmann in the Stud. wu. 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 #yw.— Ver. 12. #xpaZov] Lachm. Tisch.: 336 THE GOSPEL OF JOIN. éxpavyatov, according to important witnesses, indeed, but derived from vv. 6, 18, 40, whence B. D. Curss. have directly repeated éxputyacuy.— Wer. 13. rodrov roy Aéyov] The genit. plur., and that either rodrwy rav Adywv, or, more strongly still, rév Adyow sourwy, is so decisively attested, that the latter, with Lachm. and Tisch., is to be adopted. The Recepta is derived from ver. 8. — Ver. 14. Instead of 62 after dpa, Lachm. and Tisch. have 7, on decisive testimony ; dé is a stylistic correction. — éx%r7] D. L. X. A. 8.** Curss. Chronic. alex. (the latter appealing to the axnpi37 dvriypaoa, nay, even to the /d:ée:pov of John !) Nonn. Sev. ant. (appealing to Euseb.) Ammon. Theophyl.: rgiry, 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 7yavov, Elz. has arjyayov, against decisive testimony. But B. L. X. Curss. Codd. N. Copt. Cyr. entirely omit xa/ jyayov. So Lachm. and Tisch. But if the continuation had here been supplied from the parallel passages, not 7yauyov, but axqyoyov (comp. Matt. xxvii. 31; Luke xxiii. 26), would have the preponderance of testimony. Kai jyayov, however, might easily have disappeared in the course of transcription, owing to a transition having been at once made from the first xa/ to the second. — rdv oraup. wirod] Lachm.: ais +. or. (B. X.); Tisch. : taura ¢. or. (L. 8. Or.). The latter, in favour of which D. also testifies with éaurof,is to be preferred. The reflexive pronoun was frequently neglected. The Recepta is an altera- tion in conformity with the most current mode of expression. — Ver. 20. The order of the words ‘E§p., ‘Pay., ‘EAA. (so Tisch., according to B. L. X. &. Curss. Copt. Sah. Aeth. Cyr.) has pro- bability, considering the standpoint of Pilate, in its favour. — Vv. 26, 27. Instead of #604, we should, in conformity with important testimony, read both times with Lachm. and Tisch. 76z, frequent in John (he has #éod only in iv. 35, xvi. 32, and from the LXX. xii. 15), though we are not to assume any differ- ence of meaning between the two forms. — Ver. 29. odv] is wanting in A. B. L. X. Codd. It., whilst a few other witnesses (including 8.) have 62 Rightly deleted by Lachm. Tisch. — of Of TAKO. oréyy. 6& xai| Lachm.: oviyy. ody weorty rod oFous, according to B. L. X. 8. Curss. Verss. Cyr. Hilar. So also Tisch., but without sod, which X. &. do not contain. The fecepta is shaped in conformity with Matt. xxvii. 48, Mark xv. 36, where of 6: was readily suggested as an insertion on account of the change of persons. — Ver. 31. Instead of 2xetvov, Elz. has exsivn, against decisive testimony. — Ver. 35. xai ders] Elz. has merely ducts. But xa is so strongly attested, and might be so readily omitted- as being without reference, that it must be CHAP. XIX. 1-5. Sat preserved. — Ver. 40. 2v 6dov.] The mere ééov. (Elz. Lachm.) is very strongly attested (B. K. L. X. Y. 1. &.), but the super- fluous ¢v might readily be passed over, comp. xii. 44, especially as the preponderance of parallel passages present the mere dative. Vv. 1-3. Ovv] After the miscarriage of this attempt at deliverance, Pilate will at least make this further venture to see whether the compassion of the Jews is not to be awakened. Hence he causes the scowrging to be carried out on Jesus’ person, to which punishment He in any case, if He were to be crucified, must be subjected; and hopes, in the folly of his moral vacillation, by means of such maltreatment, although inflicted without sentence and legality, to satisfy the Jews, and avert something worse. Comp. on Matt. xxvii. 26. With a like purpose in view, he also gives Him up to the contumelious treatment of the soldiers, who deck Him out as king (xviii. 39) with a crown of thorns (see on Matt. xxvii. 29) and a purple mantle (comp. on Matt. xxvii. 28; Mark xv. 17). —édaBev] shows the simple style of the narrative. — x. npxX. mp.avt.| See the critical notes. It is a pictorial trait. He stands arrayed before them; they go up to Him and do obeisance to Him!—pamicpata] As in xviii. 22. Codd. of It. add in faciem. Vv. 4, 5. ITaXcv] 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 like the caricature of a king, he causes to be led forth in his train. — viv] Vobis; what follows gives the more exact explanation of this reference. — fva yv@re, x.7.d.] For had he found Him guilty, he would certainly not make the repeated attempt, implied in this leading forth and presentation of Jesus to them, to change the mind of the Jews, but would dispose of the matter by ordering execution. — Ver. 5. €&7Oev . uatvov is not a parenthesis, but the narrative, according to which Jesus comes forth im the train of Pilate, proceeds without interruption, in such a manner, however, that with Aéyes (Pilate) the subject suddenly changes; see Heindorf, ad Plat. Euthyd. p. 275 B; Kiithner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 8.— popav]| Not ¢épwv; for the kingly attire is now to the close VOL. II. Y 338 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of the proceedings His permanent garb (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 585).— The short significant ecce homo! behold the man, whose case we are condemning ! has its eloquent commentary in the entire manifestation of suffering in which the ill-treated and derided one was set forth. This suffering form cannot be the usurper of a throne! The words are gently and com- passionately spoken, and ought to excite compassion (comp. already Chrysostom) ; it is in ver. 14 that he first says with bitterness: ide 0 Pactreds var. 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 "Iovéatot, xviii. 31, 38, were just pre-eminently the apyvepeis of the present passage. — OTe otv etdov] The spec- tacle, instead of calming their bitterness, goads them on. — NaBete avtrov duets, «.7.r.] A paradox, amounting to a peevish and irritated refusal, since the Jews did not possess the right of execution, and crucifixion was certainly not a Jewish capital 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 (Steinmeyer), is not con- tained in this; it is only another turn given to the charge. — wets] With haughty emphasis, opposed to the preceding ey... aitiav, On 64 vidv, «7.r., comp. v. 18, x. 33.— wadrrov €poP.] His fear only became the greater (uarx., see v. 18), namely, of suffering Jesus to be executed. To the previous ‘fear of conscience was now, in truth, added the fear of the vengeance 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 vids Qeod after the analogy of pagan heroes, like the centurion, Matt. xxvii. 54. That he was moved by the idea of the unity of God (Hengstenberg) CHAP.- XIX. 9-11. 339 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 praetorium for a private audience. — 70 Oev] asks after His origin, but not in the sense of the place of birth (Paulus), but in the sense occasioned by viov Oeod, ver. 7, in order to obtain a declaration from Jesus on this point, whether He were of human or divine origin. Comp. on viii. 14; Matt. xxi. 25.— dmréxp. ov Edwx. avT@] Both this observation, as well as the peculiarity of Pilate’s question, betraying a certain timidity, wo0ev eZ ov (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 indicated His heavenly origin, xvill. 36, 37, had Pilate only possessed susceptibility for the truth. But as it was, he was unworthy of further discussion, and in the silence of Jesus it is precisely the self-assurance and greatness of the Son of God which are implied. Luthardt explains it from the asswmption 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 assuredly neither hoped nor feared. — Ver. 10. Kai foBetrar kal doPet, Euth. Zigabenus.— éwot od Aadezs;] euot bears the emphasis of mortified power, which then also attempts alike to terrify and to entice. To mention at first the cravpacat ce, and then, not before, the a7roAtcai/ ce, corresponded to the state of the procedure. But A. B. E. 8. Lachm. Tisch. have the converse order, which would, however, more readily suggest itself to the mechanical copyist. The repetition of é£ouc. éyw is solemn. Ver. 11. With a clear and holy defiance, to defend against this expression of personal power at least, the supremacy of the Father, Jesus now speaks His last word to Pilate. He points the latter, with his ¢fouvc/a which he has put forward, ta) 340 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. by the reference ctavpadcai ce, to the highest authority which has invested him with that é£ovcia, 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. —ov« etxyes] Thow wouldst not have. “ Indicativus imper- fecti sine av h. 1. in firmissima asseveratione longe est aptissimus,” Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. vii. 6. 21. See also Stallbaum, ad Plat. Sympos. p. 190 C; Bremi, ad Lys. Hae. IV. p. 438 ff.; Winer, p. 286 [E. T. p. 383]. — dedopévor] Namely, the é£ovo.dfew xar’ éwod. See Kiihner, II. sec. 421; Bernhardy, p. 335. Not: the definite act of condemnation (Steinmeyer). — dvw@ev| ic. from God, iii. 3, 31. That even the heathen could understand. Had Jesus said é« tod matpos pov, he would not have understood it. Pilate stands before Jesus with the éfovc/a 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 (64a togro), that is, because he here acts not in independent self-determination, but as the divinely-ordained organ of the procedure which is pending against Him, he is not indeed free from sin, since he con- demns Jesus contrary to his own conviction of His innocence ; but greater is the guilt of him who delivered Jesus into Pilate’s hands, since that divinely-bestowed éovcia is wanting to the latter. The logical connection of the ia rodro rests on the fact that the wapadidovs wé cos is the high priest, to whom, consequently, zo 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 1 Buttmann, on account of the absence of é@», would interpret the reading elxes as follows: ‘‘ Thow hadst, i.e. when thou didst receive the accusation against me... no power over me, unless it was given to thee by God for that purpose.” See Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 501. But irrespective of the dragging in, in this necessitous manner, of this exacter definition of time in ¢fyes, it is in truth precisely the wzdoubted possession of the tgeveie which forms the presup- position of the 3 rodro x... that follows. With the reading 7x ss, which Butt- mann prefers, he explains : ‘‘ how hast no power over me, if it had not been given thee from above,” p. 494. But why in that case should the pluperf. av dedouévov stand? Instead of xy, é¢7/ must have been used, in conformity with the sense. CHAP. XIX. 11. 341 concerning every one who is brought before his court, and therefore also concerning the Messiah, who has been accused and delivered up as a pretender to acrown. This power Pilate possessed simply as a Loman potentate; hence this point of view does not confuse the matter (Luthardt), but makes it clear. As Sedop. is not to be transmuted into the notion of permission (Chrysostom), so also there is nothing to be found in 64a todTo which is not yielded by the immediate context. Hence we are not to understand with Euth. Zigabenus (comp. Theophylact): Siére eEovciay eyes Kal odK arorvELs ME, SO that the lesser degree of guilt rests on the weakness and timidity of Pilate (comp. Luther); nor with Grotius (comp. Bengel, Baeumlein, and already Ruperti): because thou canst not know so well as the Jews (to whom 6 srapaé. is referred) who I am; nor even with Lampe: because the Jews have received no such power from God, have rather asswmed it to themselves (Luthardt); but solely in harmony with the con- text: because thow hast the disposal of me, not from thy proper sovereignty, but from having been divinely empowered thereto. — 0 mapadidovs] he who delivers me up to thee; the affair is still 2x actw, those who deliver Him up stand without ; hence the pres. The expression itself, however, cannot, as elsewhere -in John (xviii. 2, xiii. 2, xi, 21, xii. 4, vi. 64, 71; comp. Mark xiv. 21), mean Judas, who here lies entirely remote from the comparison, especially since cos is used with it, nor even (so most interpreters) be understood collectively of the Jews. It is rather the chief of the Jews, the high priest Caiaphas, who is meant (so also Bengel, and now Ewald ; comp. Luthardt, Baumgarten, p. 388, Hengstenberg), who ought to have recognised the Messiah, and not to have assumed to himself any power over Him. — peifova] com- pares the sin of the wapaéidovs with that of Pilate, not with itself, so that its guilt is designated as aggravated by the misuse of the é£oucda of Pilate (Calvin, Wetstein, Godet, also Baur).! The guilt which belonged to the apadsdovs in and 1 Baur in the Theol. Jahrb. 1854, p. 283: ‘Since thou hast in my case the magisterial 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.” 942 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 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 tovrov] Not: from this time forward (so usually) ; for é&jret, «.7.r., is a particular act, which is im- mediately answered by the Jews with loud outcries ; but: on this ground, as vi. 66, occasioned by this speech of Jesus (so also Luthardt and Lange). — éyreu, «.7.X., he sought to release Him (x. 30; Luke v. 18, xiii, 24, xix. 3; Acts xxvii. 30, et al.). In what this attempt, which, though made, yet re- mained, unaccomplished (hence imperf.), may more definitely have consisted, John does not say, and therefore it was, probably, only in renewed representations which he made. That which is usually supplied, as though wadXor, as in v.-18, were expressed therewith: he sought stil 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. (Steinmeyer). — With éav rodtov, «.7.X., the Jews cunningly enough again return to and fasten upon the political side of the accusation, @s od mapomtéoy TH ITinNdt@ Sua Tov amo ToD Kaicapos doBov, Euth. Zigabenus. How greatly must he, who in so many features of his administration had anything but clean hands (Josephus, Anté. xviii. 3. 1 ff; Philo, de legat. ad Caj. p. 1033), have desired to see avoided an accusation before Tiberius, so suspicious and jealous of his authority! (Suetonius, 77d. 58; Tacitus, Ann. ii. 38.) Comp. Hausrath, Christl. Zeitgesch. I. p. 312 ff— diros tod Kaic.] Not in the titular sense of amicus Cacsaris, as high officials bore this title (see Wetstein; Grimm on 1 Macc. ii. 18), in which, however, the sense of confidant (counsellor) of Caesar exists ; but faithful to the emperor, friendly to him, and readily devoted to his interests (Xen. Anabd. ii. 2. 5).— He who makes him- self a king, by the fact, that is, of declaring himself to be such 1 According to Steinmeyer, p. 156, Jesus would say: ‘‘Thy power, on the other hand, to release me, is already as good as wrested from thee on the part of the rapadid. wé oor; but on that very account thy sin is the less.” But this interpretation of 3s retro is in truth altogether untextual, as the entire concep- tion to which it would refer is first imported. CHAP. XIX. 13, 14, 343 (comp. x. 33), thereby declares himself (dvtinéyer) against the emperor. Accordingly, avridéyer is not generally : he opposes (Grotius, De Wette, Maier) ; but the emphasis lies upon the correlates Bacvéa and Kaicapu. Ver. 13. These speeches penetrate the mind of Pilate, dis- mayed at the thought of Rome and the emperor. He will now, formally and solemnly, deliver the final sentence, which must be done, not 7 the praetorium, but outside in the open air (see Josephus, Bell. ii. 9. 3, ii, 14. 8); he therefore causes Jesus to be brought out, and seats himself, taking his place on the judicial seat, at the place which is called Lithostroton, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.—émt tod Bywatos] Modal definition of éxa0. eis Tomov.— Since tovos here denotes a definite and distinguished place, the article is as little required as with mons, wypos, and the like in such cases. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 33; Kiihner, IJ. p. 129.— The place where the tribunal stood, before the praetorium in Jerusalem, bore the Greek name, derived from its Mosaic floor (see Wetstein and Krebs, p. 158 f.) of Av@dortpartor, ic. stonejoining, but in the Aramare dialect that of 8N33, arising from its elevated position ; two different names, therefore, derived from different properties + of the same place. Further, this place is mentioned neither in Josephus nor in the Rabbins. The name IafB. is not to be derived from 7¥33, jad (Hengstenberg), against which would be the double 8 (comp. Ta8a6a, Josephus, Antt. v. 1. 29, vi. 4. 2), but from 13, ridge, hump. See generally Fritzsche, Verdienste Tholuck’s, p. 102; Tholuck, Beitr. p. 119 ff. Ver. 14. Day and hour of the decisive moment, after which the narrative then proceeds with «at Aéyee, «.7.r., without the necessity of placing #v dé... é«tn in a parenthesis (rather, with Lachm. and Tisch., between two points).—7apack. tod wacxa] That the wapackevy may not be understood of the weekly one, referable to the Sabbath (vv. 31, 42; Luke xxi. 54; Mark xv. 42; Matt. xxvii. 62; Josephus, Anit. xvi. 6. 2, e¢ al.), but may be referred to the Passover feast-day, 1 Ewald attempts to refer Tah6ée also back to the signification of Asésorpuray by assuming a root 335, but in the signification of yap (Aram. : insert). Too bold an hypothesis. In the LXX. aséoorp, (Cant. iii, 10; 2 Chron. vii. 3; Esth. i. 7) corresponds to the Hebr. )y5. 344 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of which it was the preparation-day, John expressly subjoins tod mdoya. It was certainly a Friday, consequently also a preparation-day before the Sabbath ; but it is not ‘iis 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 ex- pression corresponds to the Hebr. ND37 27, not indeed verbally (for mapacKevy = NNINY), but as to the thing. Those expositors who do not recognise 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 (see especially Wieseler, p. 336 f.; Wichelhaus, p. 209 f., and Hengstenberg in loc., also Riggenbach). But it is in the later ecclesiastical language © that wapaox. first denotes directly Friday (see Suicer, Zhesaur.), 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. 13. interpol., where it is said that one should not fast on the Sunday or Sabbath, way évds caBPBatrov tov wacyxa; for (1) cd488arov in and of itself is a complete designation of a day; (2) caB8B. tod macya here denotes by no means the Sabbath in the Easter-tide, but the Sabbath of the Easter-day, i.e. the Saturday which precedes Easter-day, Easter Saturday. All the more decidedly, how- ever, is this harmonistic and forced solution to be rejected, since, further, all the remaining statements of time in John place the death of Jesus before the first feast-day (see on xiii. 1, xviii. 28); 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 wishes to proceed with such precision that he states even the hour. Comp. further Bleek, Beitr. p.114 f; Riickert, Abendm. p. 31 ff.; Hilgenfeld, Paschastr. p. 149 f., and in his Zezéschr. 1867, p. 190. Against Schneckenburger, Beitr. p. 1 ff., who, by referring zapack. to the feast of harvest, likewise brings CHAP. XIX. 14. 345 out the 15th Nisan as the day of death, but makes it a Wednesday, see Wieseler, p. 338 f.— &«tn] 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 the determination of this great point of time includes much too large a space of time to allow us to resolve it into a mere indefiniteness 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 already expressly ascribed to the sixth hour. Since, however, with Hofmann,’ with whom Lichtenstein agrees, we cannot divide the words: qv S&é TapacKeun, TOD Taya dpa hv ws Extn, but it was prepara- tion-day, it was about the sixth hour of the paschal feast (reckoned, namely, from midnight forwards), which forced and artificial explanation would absolutely set aside mapacxevy, in spite of tov mwaoxa therewith expressed, and would yield an unex- ampled mode of computation of hours, namely, of the /cast, not of the day (against i. 40, iv. 6, 52); since, further, the reading in our present passage is, both externally and inter- nally, certain, and the already ancient assumption of a copyist’s mistake (Eusebius, Beza, ed. 5, Bengel; according to Ammonius, Severinus, tivés in Theophylact, Petavius: an interchange of the numeral signs y and s) is purely 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 (Rettig, Tholuck, Olshausen, Krabbe, Hug, Maier, Ewald, Isenberg ; substantially so Wieseler, p. 414, who calls to his aid the first feast-day, Ex. xii. 29, which 1In the Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1853, Oct. p. 260 ff., and Schriftbew. i. 2, p. 204 f. 2 In fact, it is precisely in the present rassage that the iradmissidility of the Roman enumeration of hours is shown. For if Jesus was brought xpwi, xviii. 28, to the practorium, 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 ty Adyors ixavois, Luke xxiii. 9, and derided Him), the case can have been matured for sentence as early as six o’clock in the morning, that is, at the end of about two, or at most three hours. 346 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. begins precisely at midnight) ; since, finally, the guarter of a day beginning with this hour cannot be made out of the third hour of Mark (Calvin, Grotius, Jansen, Wetstein, and others, comp. Krafft, p. 147; see in opposition, Mark xv. 33, 34), 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 thus be left as it is, and the preference must be given to the disciple who stood under the cross. The Johannean statement of the hour is not, however, in itself improbable, since the various proceedings in and near the praétorium, in which also the sending to Herod, Luke xxiii. 7 ff., is to be included (see on xviii. 38), may probably have extended from poi, xviii. 28, until noon (in answer to Briickner); while the execution, on the adjacent place of execution, quickly followed the judicial sentence, and without any intermediate occurrence, and the death of Jesus must have taken place unusually early, not to take into account the space which woe: leaves open. Comp. Marcus Gnost. in Irenaeus, Haer. i. 14. 6: ryv exrnv apav, év % TpoonrwOn TH EYXw. For the way, however, in which even this statement of time is deduced from the repre- sentation of the paschal lamb (the writer desired to bring out the nyanyn ps, Ex. xii. 6; Lev. xxiii, 5; Num. ix. 3), see in Weisse, HLvangelienfrage, p. 181.— ide 0 Bacir. tpav!| Pilate is indeed determined, on ascending his judicial seat, to overcome his sentiment of right; but, notwithstanding, in this decisive moment, with his moral weakness between the two- fold 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, without effect, but at least satisfying in some degree the irony of the situation, into the pinch of which he sees himself brought. Vv. 15, 16. The bitterness is still further embittered. To 1 On this theory Hengstenberg forms the certainly very simple example: the combination of the statements of Mark and John yields the result, that the sentence of condemnation and the leading away falls in the middle, between the third and sixth hour, therefore about 10.30 o’clock. Were this correct, the statements of both evangelists would be incorrect, and we should avoid Scylla to fall into Charybdis. —Godet only renews the idle subterfuge that in Mark xv. 25 the crucifixion is reckoned from the scourging forwards. CHAP, XIX. 17, 18. 347 the impetuous clamour which demands crucifixion, the ques- tion of Pilate: your king shall I crucify? is only the feeble echo of iSe 6 Bac. tu., whereupon, with the decisive ov« éyo- pev Baciréa, «.7-r., although it perfidiously denied the sense of the hierarchy, the again awakened fear of the emperor at last completely disarms the procurator, so that now then (rote ody) the tragic and ignominious final result of his judicial action comes out: Xpictoy éxov aécwv adixw Tapé- Swxev d€Opw, Nonnus. — avrois] to the chief priests. ver. 15. To these Jesus was given over, and that, as a matter of fact, not merely by the sentence of itself (Hengstenberg), that He might be crucified under their direction by Roman soldiers (ver. 23, comp. Matt. xxvii. 26, 27). Comp. viii, 28; Acts ii, 23, iii 15. sapéd. does not signify to yield to their desire (Grotius, B. Crusius, Baeumlein).—On crucifixion in general, see on Matt. xxvil. 35. Vv. 17, 18. The subject of wapéXaBov, which is corre- lative to wapédwxev, ver. 16, and of *yayov, is necessarily, according to ver. 16, the dpyvepets, not the soldiers (De Wette, B. Crusius, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, and older expositors). The former are the persons' who act, which does not exclude the service and co-operation of the soldiers (ver. 23). — Bact. -€avtT@® Tov otaup. (see critical notes): Himself bearing the cross. See on Matt. xxvi. 32, and Charit. iv. 2; and on Gol- gotha, on Matt. xxvii. 33. — évredO. «, évted0.] Comp. LXX. Dan. xii. 5; ev cat &vOev, Herod. iv. 175 ; Soph. Aj. 725; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3.3; 1 Mace. vi. 38, ix. 45; 3 Mace. ii. 22, not Rev. xxii. 2. Onthe thing itself, comp. Luke xxiii. 33. John gives peculiar prominence to the circumstance, adding further, pécov dé t.’Ino. Whether, and how far, the Jews thus acted intentionally, is undetermined. That, 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 1 By which also the fact is confirmed that John had not in his mind the first feast-day, which certainly possessed the authority of the Sabbath. 2 The assistance of Simon in this, John, who here gives only a compendious account, has passed over as a subordinate circumstance, not, as Scholten thinks, in conformity with the idea that the Son of God needed no human help. 348 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. subject of éoravp. is the Jews, under whose direction the crucifixion of the principal person takes place, and, at the same time, the two subordinate individuals are put to death along with Him. [Pilate first appears, ver. 19. Of special divine conceptions in the intermediate position assigned to the cross of Christ (see Steinmeyer, p. 176), John gives no indication. Vv. 19, 20. "Eypawe] Not a supplemental statement: he had written (De Wette, Tholuck), but: he wrote (caused to be written), whilst the crucifixion took place without; and when it had taken place, he caused the tirAos (solemn Roman ex- pression for a public inscription, particularly for the tablets, 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.—0 Baown. trav ’Iovd.] Consistent bitterness in the designation of Jesus. Ver. 20. tdv Iovdaiwr] of the hierarchic party. — éyyds Vv, «.7.r.] See on Matt. xxvii. 33. — cal Hv yeypapm, K.TAr.] No longer dependent on 67e, since tév ’Iovdaiwv, ver. 20, unlike ver. 19, is not to be taken in a general sense. It rather attaches to the first circumstance, on account of which the apysepets made their proposal, ver. 21, to Pilate (rodTov ... Lovdaiwv, ver. 20), a second assigning a reason therefor, namely: i (that which ran on the titAos) was written in three languages, so that it could be read by everybody, including foreigners. For an inscription, even in four languages, on the tomb of Gordian, see in Jul. Capitolin. 24. Vy. 21, 22. The Jewish opponents of Christ have, with hierarchic tact, deciphered the resentful bitterness in the titXos, hence the chief priests among them suggest to Pilate, etc. The expression of apxvep. tT. Iovd. does not stand in contrast to the Baoideds 7. "Iovd. (Hengstenberg, Godet), but the high clerus of the opposition desired not to see the ancient sacred designation of Messiah profaned. — 2) ypade] The writing, because still capable of being altered, is conceived as not yet concluded. — 6 yéypada, 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 Mace. xiii. 38; dca éorjxapev... €atnxe. Now, too late, he who was previously so weak in CITAP. XIX. 28, 24, 549 character stands firm. In this subordinate point at least he _ will have his own opinion, and not expose his weak side! Vv. 23, 24. Ovv] again connects the history, after the intermediate narrative respecting the superscription, with ver. 18. — €ctavpwcar] For they were the executioners of the crucifixion. — ta iwdt. advtod] His garments, with the exception, however, of the ytwv, which is afterwards specially mentioned, the shirt-like under-garment. The account of John is more exact. and complete than that of the Synoptics (Matt. xxv. 35; Mark xv. 24; Luke xxiii. 34).— réccapa] There were accordingly four soldiers, the ordinary tetpadiov otpa- tuwto@v (Acts xi. 4).—é« Tov dvwbev bgpavtos 8’ Grov] From the top (where the button-hole was, az’ avyévos, Nonnus) woven quite through, throughout, so that thus the garment was a single texture, woven from above entirely throughout, with- out seam, similar to the priestly vestment in Joseph. Ante. iii. 7.4. See Braun, de vestitw Hebr. p. 342 ff. ; Rosenmiiller, Morgenl. V. p. 273 f. On the adverbial 6’ édov, comp. Asclep. Hoy oicand., 1;°Plut> Mor. p. 695 f.; Bernhardy,.p; 235, also 6” éAwv, Plat. Soph. p. 253 C.— iva 4 ypady, «.72.] This casting of lots for the ytd, after the division of the (uatia, Was not an accidental occurrence, but was in connec- -tion with the divine determination for the fulfilment of Scrip- ture, which says, etc. The passage is Ps. xxii. 19, closely following the LXX. The suffering of the theocratic sufferer, in this psalm, is the prophetic type of the suffering of the Messiah. “ They have divided my garments amongst one another (éaut. = dAdjdovs, 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 con- nected, has found its Messianic fulfilment in the corresponding treatment of Christ, in so far as lots have also been cast over His raiment (in reality, over His under-garment). In this fulfilment the yet#v was that portion of His clothing on which the él rov (watucpov pov éBadov KAnpous was historically car- ried out; but we are not, for this reason, to say that John took tov (waticpov as equivalent to 7. yut@va (Liicke, De Wette. — of wév ody otpart. T. évot] Simple (reminding one 350 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. of Herod., Xen., and others) concluding formula for this scene of the soldiers’ proceedings. On pév ody, see on Luke iii. 18. —tavdra] That related in vv. 23, 24.