ANTITHESIS BETWEEN THE GENTILE GREEKS FROM ABROAD WHO DO HOMAGE TO CHRIST, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE THAT FALL AWAY FROM CHRIST IN UNBELIEF AND OCCASION HIS RETURN INTO CONCEALMENT. SYMBOLISM OF THE JEWISH PASCHAL-FEAST, OF HELLENISM, OF THE GRAIN OF WHEAT. THE GLORIFICATION BY SUFFERING AND DEATH, OR THE SPIRITUAL SELF-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST IN THE TEMPLE
Joh_12:20-36
(Joh_12:24-26. Laurentius-Pericope; Joh_12:31-36. Elevation of the Cross.)
20And [But] there were certain Greeks [
Ἕëëçíåò
, Gentile Greeks, not
Ἑëëçíéóôáß
, Greek Jews] among them that [those who] came up [made pilgrimage up to Jerusalem] to21worship at the feast. The same [These] came therefore to Philip, which [who] was of [from] Bethsaida of Galilee, and desired [asked] him, saying, Sir, we would see22[wish, or, desire to see] Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: and again [omit23and again] Andrew [cometh] and Philip [, and they] tell Jesus. And [But] Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is [hath] come, that the Son of man should be glori-fied. 24Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn [the grain] of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone [isolated, by itself alone]: but if it die, it bringethforth much fruit. 25He that loveth his life [his own soul,
ôὴí öõ÷ὴí áὑôïῦ
] shall lose it; and he that hateth his life [his own soul] in this world shall [will] keep it unto life26[
æùÞí
] eternal. If any man [any one would] serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall [will] also my servant be: if [
ἐÜí
without
÷áß
] any man [any oneshall] serve me, him will my [the] Father honour. 27Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: [!] but [But] for this cause camel unto [I came to] this hour. 28Father, glorify thy name. [!] Then came there a voice from heaven, saying [omit saying], I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29The people [multitude] therefore that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake [hath spoken,
ëåëÜëç÷åí
] to him.
30Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me [for my sake,
äἰí ἐìÝ
], but for your sakes [
äἰ ὑìᾶò
]. 31Now is the judgment of this world: now shall [will] the prince of this world be cast out. 32And I, if I [shall] be lifted up from the33earth, will [shall] draw all men unto me [myself,
ðñὸò ἐìáõôüí
]. This he said, signifying what death he should die [by what manner of death he was about to die, 34or, what kind of death he was to die]. The people [multitude, therefore,
ïῦ
̓
í
] answered him, We have heard out of the law that [the] Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou [how then dost thou say], The Son of man must be lifted up? who35is this Son of man? Then Jesus [Jesus therefore] said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you [within you]. Walk while [as] ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you [that darkness may not overtake you,
ἵíá ìὴ ó÷ïôßá ὑìᾶò ÷áôáëÜâῃ
]: for [and] he that walketh in [the] darkness knoweth not whither hegoeth. 36While ye have [the] light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light [become sons of light,
ἵíá õἱïὶ öùôὸò ãÝíçóèå
].
These things spake [spoke] Jesus, and departed, and did hide [and, having departed, he hid, or, withdrew] himself from them.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Joh_12:20. Certain Greeks [
Ἕëëçíåò
].—By these we are 1. not to understand (after Semler and Baumgarten-Crusius [Calvin, Ewald],) Jews who spoke Greek [Hellenists]; this view is contradicted by the name, comp. Joh_7:35, the whole scene and the deduction of Christ, Joh_12:23; Joh_12:32,—the reference to the universal extension of His ministry. 2. Not perfect or pure heathen (after Chrysostom, Euthymius, Schweizer), against which interpretation
ἀíáâáßíïíôåò
militates,—but, as this very word proves, 3. proselytes of the gate [half Jews, or Judaizing pagans], like the treasurer, Act_8:27. See Comm. on Acts [p. 155, Am. ed.]. “If they were from Galilee, which was partly inhabited by Gentiles, we might imagine them to have been previously acquainted with Philip; yet (Grecianized) Syrians inhabited the country from Lebanon to Lake Tiberias (Josephus, De bello Jud., III. 4, 5); Peræa had Greek cities (Joseph. Antiq., XVI. 11, 4), etc. Philip’s consultation with Andrew must be attributed to the unusualness of seeing the Master hold intercourse with Gentiles (Mat_10:5)—for the uncircumcised proselytes of the gate were still so considered—(Acts 10).” Tholuck. On this we remark that it is not altogether probable that these Gentiles were from Galilee, or from any part of Canaan, because in that case they might easily have had an earlier opportunity of seeing Jesus. Furthermore, Jesus had already had dealings with the Gentile captain at Capernaum, and the Canaanitish woman; the disciples, however, might for reasons of policy, hesitate for a while before bringing the Lord, after He had just been proclaimed King of Israel, into contact with Gentiles, in the sight of all the Jews. For, doubtless, the scene occurred within the area of the temple, i.e., the porch. Perhaps Jesus was, by the mediation of His disciples, to be called back into the court of the Gentiles. This locality is supported by 1. the testimony of the Synoptists, that in the days subsequent to the Palm-entry Jesus abode continually in the temple; 2. the character of these Gentile visitors to the temple; 3. the concourse of people, Joh_12:29. (Contrary to all indications Michaelis and others have shifted the scene to Bethany; Baur places it “in the idea of the author!”) As to the day, the thirty-sixth verse seems to indicate that it was the last of the three days of Jesus’ stay in the temple, i.e., Tuesday (see Doctrinal and Ethical Notes, No. 1).
[These God-fearing Greeks, who (in their groping after “the unknown God,” embraced the monotheism and the Messianic hopes of the Jews, without being circumcised) belonged to the church invisible, to the children of God scattered among the heathen, Joh_10:16; Joh_11:52, and were the forerunners of the Gentile converts. Stier: “These men from the West at the end of the life of Jesus, set forth the same as the Magi from the East at its beginning; but they come to the cross of the King, as those to His cradle.” We find such chosen outsiders under the Old Testament, as Melchisedek, Jethro, Job, Ruth, king Hiram, the queen of Sheba, Naaman the Syrian. Augustine, exclusive as was his system, yet adduces the case of Job as an example of genuine piety outside of the visible theocracy, and infers from it that among other nations also there were persons “qui secundum Deum vixerunt eique placuerunt, per-tinentes ad spiritualem, Jerusalem” (De civit. Dei xviii. 47).—P. S.]
Joh_12:21. These therefore came to Philip.—Philip might be accidentally in the court of the Gentiles, and hence, as the first of the disciples who was forthcoming, be charged with the communication of their request to the Lord. It is still remarkable, however, that both Philip and Andrew had Greek names and, according to tradition, their labors were likewise in part among the Greeks.
Sir, we wish to see Jesus.—[
Êýñéå
, not in the higher sense, yet with reverence]. The expression of their desire is threefold: 1. The solicitation; 2. the respectful manner of addressing even the disciple of the celebrated Master; 3. the strong and yet modest expression of the wish. To see can here mean nothing less than: to speak with. (Goldhorn: They wished to propose to Him that He should go to the Hellenists. A misapprehension of the proselytes and also of the situation. Brückner: They wished merely to see Him. Too literal). As proselytes of the gate they shared Israel’s hope and the enthusiastic feelings of the people.
Joh_12:22. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew.—Meyer: Philip was of a deliberate disposition. The other characteristics of Philip are in no wise indicative of a deliberate man. The case was of sufficient importance, as an official question, for two disciples, and Mar_3:18 we find these two in close contact; Joh_6:7-8, however, they even act in concert, as in this place, and in measure, likewise, in “foreign affairs.”—Andrew cometh and,etc.—Andrew seems to take the lead.
Joh_12:23. And Jesus answered them.—The following discourse is framed so decidedly for the Greeks that we cannot assume their request to have been denied by Jesus (Ewald [Hengstenberg, Godet]),—such a proceeding would, moreover, be unprecedented; neither can we hold that the admission of the Gentiles had been resolved upon, but that the voice from heaven changed the scene (Meyer). De Wette thought the answer unsuitable. Tholuck, in accordance with the usual conception, supposes the meeting between Jesus and the Greeks to have preceded this discourse; Luthardt: the disciples had given Jesus occasion to speak in presence of the Greeks. The scene certainly seems to have changed; either the Greeks must have immediately followed the two disciples to Jesus, or else Jesus directly accompanied the disciples to the Greeks. He seems to have intentionally avoided addressing Himself particularly to the Greeks, preferring to discourse in their presence to the circle of disciples, with special reference to them and their desire. For at this moment and in this place it was of the utmost importance that He should withhold from His enemies every pretext for reproach.
Joh_12:23. The hour is come.—From the visit of the Gentiles Jesus deduces the preparation of His mission for the Gentiles, i.e., His resurrection. From the nearness of the period when the bounds which have encompassed Him shall be removed, and His ministry be rendered a universal one, He infers His imminent, death. Universalness and resurrection are for Him reciprocal ideas; universalness and preceding death are for Him inseparably connected, Joh_10:15-16; John 17. And so this saying also again recalls the barrier which hinders Him from surrendering Himself to full communion with the Greeks. But the decisive hour which is to conduct Him across this barrier is at hand; it announces itself in this petition. The hour, however, is not His hour of death by itself, but that together with the hour of His departure out of this world. The two are comprehended in one, as in the idea of exaltation, Joh_12:32; Joh_12:34, and Joh_3:14. Thus Christ saw in the Samaritans (John 4) and in the Gentile centurion (Mat_8:11) a distant indication of the future approach of the believing Gentiles; here the future of the believing Gentile world, the future of its access to Him, is before Him in its nearest representatives as an incipient present (comp. Joh_13:31).
Be it observed that, here it is the glorification of the Son of Man that is spoken of, not simply that of the Son of God, as Joh_11:4. The glorification of the Son of Man is the exaltation of Christ in His human nature above death (a transit from the first stage of human life to the second), above the limits of the servant to the boundless liberty of the lord; above a qualified working by individual words and signs to unqualified activity through the Spirit. It is a development of His inner wealth, according to Joh_12:24; a personal lifting up, according to Joh_12:32; a local, but at the same time a universal one, according to Joh_12:33. For the Greeks, whom we conceive to have been true Hellenes, a peculiar significance attached to the announcement that Christ as the Son of Man should be manifested in His glory. This glorification presupposes a suffering of death, in accordance with a law of nature (Joh_12:24) and in accordance with an ethical law obtaining in this world, Joh_12:25.
Joh_12:24. Except the grain of wheat fall into the ground and die,etc. [
ἐὰí ìὴ ὁ êüêêïò ôïῦ óßôïõ ðåóὼí åὶò ôὴí ãὴí ἀðïèÜíῃ
,
áὐôὸò ìüíïò ìÝíåé
].—First oxymoron. A fundamental truth is again announced with verily, verily. We assume the subsequent words to have been intended to correct the Greek view of the world, just as those contained in Joh_18:36 are applicable to the ideas entertained by the Romans. Human nature does not attain in this world a true and essentially beautiful appearance by the aid of poetry and art; but it arrives at the true and the beautiful by passing through death into a new life (see 1Jn_3:2). The grain of wheat here symbolizes the new life which must proceed from death in order to appear in its richness, its fruit. Hence the thought is no mere elucidation of the preceding sentence. It advances from the idea of the personal glory of Christ in the new life (the glorification of His human nature) to the idea of His glorification in the universal Church. Thus even nature protests against the Hellenic fear of death, against the Hellenic isolation of the personality in the outward individuality. In the way of death, not only does the single grain of wheat develop into many, but these many, as fruit for nourishment and new seed, appear as an infinite power, a universal life. It is evident that this symbolism of the grain of wheat is indirectly illustrative of simple death in the physical nature itself. This death, however, is in particular a symbolism of the ethical, sacrificial death. [Alford: “The symbolism here lies at the root of that in John 6, where Christ is the Bread of life.”]
Joh_12:25. He that loveth his own life [Lange translates: Eigenleben; better: his own soul,
ὁ öéëῶí ôὴí øõ÷ὴí áὑôïῦ
], etc.—Comp. Mat_10:39; Mat_16:25; Luk_9:24; Luk_17:33. This is the watch-word of Christ, and it should be that of His people also, Mat_10:38, 1Jn_2:6. The egoism that clings to the outward life of appearance, and lives for that, loses its true life which is conditional on surrender to God; the spirit of sacrifice which does not cleave to its life of self, nay, which hates it in its old form in this old world, i.e., joyfully sacrifices it, the sooner the better, and even hates it, if it be about to become a hindrance—regains it unto a higher, eternal life. That
øõ÷Þ
must here mean soul in our conception of the word, does not result (as Meyer maintains) from the distinction made between
øõ÷Þ
and
æùÞ
(
áἰþíéïò
); for the latter is expressive not simply of an endless duration of natural life, but of divine life. The declaration Mat_16:25 [“for whosoever will save his life,
ôὴí øõ÷ὴí áὑôïῦ
, shall lose it,” etc.] is undoubtedly intended as the rationale of the foregoing
ἀðáñíçóÜóèù ἑáõôüí
and hence it is proved that
øõ÷Þ
means “self” as well as “life” (Tholuck). But the reason of this is that the false love of life is one with, and has its root in, false self-love. With the life of self the selfishness of the soul, the false self, must be sacrificed; thus with the life in God, in the true self, new life also is gained. But the point in question is the sacrifice of life, since the opposite is death. On the
ìéóåῖí
comp. Luk_14:26. Augustine; “Magna et mira sententia, quemadmodum sit hominis in animam suam amor ut pereat, odium ne pereat; si male amaveris, tunc odisti, si bene oderis, tunc amasti.”—Unto life eternal.—First promise.
Joh_12:26. Follow me.—Indicative of the way of suffering and death, so readily forgotten by the disciples, as they witness the fresh homage rendered him by the Greeks; a way which Hellenic worldly-mindedness in particular must henceforth tread.
And where I am, there,etc.—Not simply on the same road (Luthardt); that is expressed in the preceding sentence; nor only in the Parousia (Meyer), but first in the state of humiliation, of death, then in the state and land of
äüîá
, beyond death,—the idea of the raising of the servant being thus involved (see Joh_6:39; Joh_6:44; Joh_6:54; Joh_17:24; 2Ti_2:11-12). Second promise.
Him will the Father honour [
ôéìÞóåé
].—Third promise. The Father Himself will esteem him as a personality connected with Himself and exalted above death.
Joh_12:27. Now is my soul troubled [
Íῦí ἡ øõ÷Þ ìïõ ôåôÜñáêôáé
].—The agitation of soul experienced by Jesus has been already introduced by the whole train of thought from Joh_12:24. Primarily, indeed, Jesus fixed His eye upon the great goal of the death-road; now the road itself engages His attention. Another thing the Greeks must learn by His example, viz., neither to be fanatically enthusiastic about the conditions of death, nor to turn away their eyes from them in cowardly dread. He therefore gives free utterance to His emotion. This change of mood is, however, not unlooked for in the life of the Lord. In the perfect life of the spirit the most blissful moods pass, in the sublimest transition of feeling, into the saddest. Thus in the Palm-entry (Luk_19:41), thus here, thus after the high-priestly prayer, thus at the Supper, Joh_13:31. On the other hand, the saddest moods likewise pass into the most blissful. Thus at the departure from Galilee (Mat_11:25), thus at the Supper (Joh_13:31), thus in Gethsemane (Joh_18:15 ff.), thus en the Cross (see Comm, on Matthew,Joh_11:25; comp. Luk_12:49-50). The difference between the
ἡ øõ÷Þ ìïõ ôåôÜñáêôáé
and the
ἐôÜñáîåí ἐáõôüí
, Joh_11:33, does not lie in the antithesis of
ðíåῦìá
and
øõ÷Þ
(as Olshausen affirms; since the latter passage does not treat of a
ôáñÜóóåóèáé ôῷ ðíåýìáôé
), but in the fact that there the psychico-corporeal agitation is an effect of His indignation in spirit, an act of His spirit (Origen:
ôὸ ðÜèïò ῆ
̓
í ἐñ÷üìåíïí ôῇ ἐðéêñáôåßᾳ ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò
), while here it is an affection of suffering inflicted upon Him by the objective situation. It is the horror of death which the contemplation of death brings upon the inward life of feeling. The soul may and must be thus troubled,—prepared, as it were, for its death; but not so the
êáñäßá
(Joh_14:1; Joh_14:27). So then, the subject under consideration is neither the trichotomy nor the dichotomy, body and soul (Tholuck), but the antithesis of passive and actual consciousness, or of the life of feeling and the will. The thought of death moves Him as the law of His death, as of the death of all His followers who must be baptized with His baptism into His death. And doubtless this, rightly understood, is a feeling of divine wrath, not as confronting Jesus within His conscience, but as perceived by Jesus in the law of death governing sinful humanity, to which law He has submitted Himself. A “momentary abhorrence of the pains of death, induced by human weakness” (Meyer), must be out of the question, inasmuch as abhorrence involves an active inclination of the will. We might with equal truth talk of an innocent abhorrence of suffering or the cross. (Beza, Calov, Calvin: Mortem, quam subibat, horroris plenam esse oportuit, quia satisfactione pro nobis perfungi non poterat, quin horribile dei judicium sensu suo apprehenderet.) Schleiermacher gives special prominence to the thought, that to Jesus the coming of the Hellenes was attended with the full presentiment of the fact that His people would reject Him, and that the salvation of the Gentiles was conditional upon the great judgment on the Jews. That was the great tragic grief of Paul also (Romans 9; comp. 2Co_12:7). We have seen how, also in Gethsemane, Christ’s sufferings were especially grievous to him as a being betrayed and delivered up (see Comm. on Matthew,Joh_20:17; Note 3).
And what shall I say?etc.—[On the punctuation compare the Textual Note.—P. S.]. It is difficult to suppose with Euthymius [
ἀðïñïþìåíïò ἀðὸ ôῆò ἀãùíßáò
] and others (Lücke, Meyer, etc., even Calvin [Alford]), that Jesus is uncertain what to pray for; that in this uncertainty He at first prays: Father, save me from this hour; but then, in the subsequent words, retracts “this momentary wish of a human abhorrence of death.” In opposition to this view: 1. the assumption of such an uncertainty on the part of Jesus is not justified by Rom_8:26; Romans 2. the presentation of such a retracted wish would be explained neither by the words, Heb_5:7, nor by the prayer in Gethsemane; 3. the idea of a self-correction is inappropriately applied to Jesus. We prefer, therefore, the interrogative explanation with most Greek exegetes and Erasmus (Lampe, Tholuck [Ewald, Godet], etc.), the interrogative interpretation of
ðÜôåñ
, etc. After Jesus has revealed His quaking heart to His auditors He can also show them how He works off the affection, that they in like situations may behave similarly. They too should accord to grief its sacred right. We cannot discover that such a reflection is incongruous with this mood replete with emotion, as Meyer maintains. Comp. Joh_11:42. They may thus see that He stands at the junction of two ways. What shall I say? He asks them. Hence the subsequent words are part of the question. Would you advise Me to give utterance to My feeling in these words: Father, save Me? etc.
From this hour.—Meyer: “The hour of suffering is made present to His mind as if He had actually entered into it.” But He has indeed actually entered it, for here as little as in Gethsemane is He speaking of the hour of external death in itself alone (comp. Comm. on Matthew). It is the convulsion itself in its deathlike might. In Gethsemane, when He was similarly and yet more powerfully affected, He could conceal Himself in some measure from His most intimate friends; it humiliates Him to be obliged to stand here before representatives of the Gentile world who are to greet in Him the King of Glory, in this sad figure. [?] But He is directly able to reconcile Himself to this juncture, and with the question there begins already His elevation above the nameless grief which has come upon Him from the historical world.
But for this cause I came into this hour.—[But: Christ controls and corrects the natural shrinking of His true humanity from the horrors of death by the consideration that He came to this world for the very purpose of enduring death for the redemption of the world. To do full justice to the deep commotion of our Lord on this occasion and in Gethsemane of which this was a foretaste, we must keep in view the vicarious nature of His passion by which He bore the sins of the whole world.—P. S.] For this cause [
äéὰ ôïῦôï
], not that by My mortal sufferings Thy name may be glorified (Lücke, Meyer), but in order to be thus troubled, and in order to appear before you in this commotion. He knows: 1. that grief itself has its holy aim, and 2. that the humiliation in His grief, like every one of His humiliations (see the Baptism, the conflict in Gethsemane), is connected with a glorification, to the glorification of the Father. And because in His grief He has just sacrificed Himself to the Father, He can now pray as follows.
Joh_12:28. Father, glorify Thy name [
äüîáóüí óïõ ôὸ ὅíïìá
].—The
óïõ
emphatically comes first, yet not in antithesis to an “egotistical “reference of the preceding prayer [Meyer]. It expresses the idea: it is Thy cause and for Thine honor that there should be a compensation for this humiliation also. Whereby is the Father to glorify His name: 1. Greek exegetes [and Alford]: by His death (Comp. chap, Joh_21:18); 2. Bengel: quovis impendio mei; 3. Tholuck: by the bearing of fruit, Joh_12:34; Joh_15:8. The most obvious explanation is: by the issue of this mood itself. By this the name of the Father, i.e., the one God of revelation, must be glorified in presence of the Greeks in particular. And this purpose was served by the heavenly voice, in and for itself, irrespective of its purport; a form of revelation exactly suited to the exigencies of the Gentile disciples.
Then came there a voice from heaven.—The evangelist, in writing
ïῦ
̓
í
here, expresses the assurance of his faith. The answer to Christ’s prayer could not fail. We must first distinguish the voice itself from its purport, because the voice, in the abstract, was a glorification at once of the Father and the Son. interpretations of this wonder:
1. “Since Spencer many (Paulus, Kuinoel, Lücke, etc.) have apprehended this heavenly voice to be the Jewish Bath-Kol (
áַּú ÷åֹì
daughter of a voice), and this has been regarded as a voice issuing from a peal of thunder—according to modern rationalistic interpretation (as in his time Maimonides) the subjective interpretation of a peal of thunder on the part of Jesus and His disciples.” Tholuck. However “the Bath-Kol itself cannot be traced to a peal of thunder, and how much less the voice mentioned here, where the narrator expressly excluded the idea of thunder” (the same). Still it is remarkable that by the Bath-Kol a derivative voice is to be understood, one developed from another, the echo of a voice, a voice in the second power, i.e., the transformation of an apparently fortuitous sound into a spirit-voice by the interpretation of the Spirit conformably to the situation (comp. Tholuck on this passage; Lübkert Stud. u. Krit, 1835, III. Herzog’s Real-Encyklopædie: Bath-Kol).
2. A voice actually issuing from heaven, considered by John as an objective occurrence.
a. Acoustic. The voice sounds directly over Christ’s head; hence those who stand at some distance from Him perceive only a heavenly talking, those still further removed, but a sound as of thunder (ancient commentators). But in the case of purely objective sounds as loud as thunder, even those at a distance must have understood the words as well. Untenable, likewise, is the interpretation which affirms that the
óáñêéêïß
soon forgot the more exact impression of what they had heard (Chrysostom).
b. Resembling thunder, so that the precise words sounding through these tones were unperceived by the insusceptible (Meyer). There is a lack of clearness in this reasoning in the case of a purely objective voice, for in such case perception would depend upon the acuteness of the hearing, not upon the degrees of spiritual susceptibility.
c. Of an angelic nature, mediated by angelic ministry (Hofmann). Apart from the arbitrary interpretation of an intensified doctrine of angels, this would afford not the slightest explanation of the voice.
d. A spirituo-corporeal [a spiritual and celestial, yet audible] voice, which was understood more or less according to the corresponding frame of mind (Tholuck; my Leben Jesu, II. p. 1207).
Manifestly, the voice now heard by Jesus is entirely analogous to the voice at His baptism (see Comm, on Matthew, the baptism of Jesus, and at His transfiguration (see Comm. on Matthew, the Transfiguration). Its distinguishing point is the circumstance of its sounding here openly above the temple, in the hearing of all the people and of the Greek proselytes, and the trait of its striking even the insusceptible with the force of a sound like thunder, ringing upon the ears of the more susceptible with a beauty of tone which they can liken only to angelic voices, while Jesus, and with Him doubtless the most intimate of His disciples, perceive the perfectly distinct expression of the words which even contain an antithesis. Just this latter trait of a twofold gradation converts the event into a revelation concerning the nature of celestial voices. In the voice heard by Samuel, and not by Eli (see the note in Tholuck, p. 333), the subjective, ecstatic condition of the voice was clearly conspicuous, as in the case of the two angels seen by Mary Magdalene, and not by the disciples, this contrast became apparent in reference to miraculous visions. In the history of Paul there is a proportional, simple gradation between Paul himself, who sees the Christ within the shining light and hears the word of His voice, and the attendants who perceive only the brilliant light and the sound (see Apostol. Zeitalter, II. p. 115). But here a twofold gradation appears: the hearing of Christ and His intimate friends, the hearing of the people, the hearing of others. The ecstatic conditions of such a hearing are clearly manifest, Act_9:7; comp. Act_22:9. The condition upon which an apprehension of the voice by those not standing in the centre of revelation (as here Christ; Acts 9, Paul) depends, is spiritual connection, fellowship of feeling,—sympathy; this results especially from the rapport between Christ and the Baptist at the baptism in Jordan. But the objectivity of the voice which proceeds from the living God is proved by sensuous evidence which it creates and procures. Tholuck: “Voices from heaven, as in this place, are found also, Dan_4:31; 1Ki_19:11-12; Mat_3:17; Mat_17:5; Act_9:7; Act_10:13; Rev_1:10; Rev_4:5, where we read of
öùíáß
together with
âñïíôáß
;—on this Züllich: articulate sounds contrasted with the inarticulate thunderings.”
Purport of the voice:I have glorified it, and will glorify it again [
Êáὶ ἐäüîáóá êáὶ ðÜëéí äïîÜóù
.
ÐÜëéí
is no mere repetition, but an intensification of the glorification]. Meyer makes the first sentence of the voice refer to the works of Jesus hitherto, the second to the impending glorification through death to
äü îá
. Taking into consideration the antithesis, chap. 10, and the existing state of matters, we assume that the consummated glorification of the name of God refers to His revelation in Israel, closing of course in the labors of Christ, and the new glorification of His name to the impending revelation of God in the Gentile world, this of course being conditioned by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Joh_12:29. The multitude therefore,etc. Perception of the voice. 1. The comprehension of it was probably not confined to Jesus, but was shared by His disciples, or by some chosen ones among them. 2. For the surrounding people the voice had a tone like thunder. Is this expressive simply of the third degree of susceptibility? Perchance it contains also an intimation of the judgment impending over the people of Israel. 3. To this hearing the hearing of others seems to form an antithesis. Those hear a voice of thunder; they, on the other hand, angelic speech. Is it not possible that by these others the Greek proselytes are meant? Such a thing is not positively expressed. Be it observed, however, that it is these very men whom Jesus seems to answer in the subsequent speech. At all events, their attitude towards the people is that of a more susceptible minority.
Joh_12:30. This voice came not [was not audibly uttered] for my sake, but for yours.—The disciples were really no longer in need of this attestation of Jesus. Neither was it needed by that portion of the people that believed on Him on account of the raising of Lazarus. From the words immediately following it seems to be spoken with special reference to the Greeks. Hence He continues:
Joh_12:31. Now is the judgment of this world,etc.—The Jewish world is assuredly included; the words, however, relate pre-eminently to the heathen world. Therefore Satan is spoken of as the prince of this world who is now being cast out. The words are explanatory of the heavenly voice: I will glorify it again. Judgment was also now proclaimed to the world. It proclaimed itself with His woful feeling of death; it was put in execution by His death, made manifest by His resurrection, published and appropriated to the world by His Holy Spirit (Joh_16:11). The judgment upon the world should, however, be the world’s salvation; a judgment in which it was judged but as an ungodly world, its prince (2Co_4:4; Eph_2:2; Joh_6:12) being cast out of it and Christ in his stead assuming the sovereignty over it. In the rabbins, Satan, as regent of the heathen world, bears the name; Prince of the world (according to Lightfoot, Schöttgen and Eisenmenger. Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychologie, p. 44). The expulsion from heaven (Luk_10:18) is not again meant here. Satan had penetrated into the Paradise of the first man when he tempted the first of the human race; when he tempted Christ in the wilderness he had ventured into heaven itself (the heaven of spiritual life) as a tempter. With the victory of Christ over Satan in the wilderness, the latter fell from heaven like lightning; and upon this transaction rested the victories of Jesus’ disciples over demons in Israel (see Leben Jesu, II. 3, p. 1070; III. p. 428). Now Satan is likewise cast out of the world, the
êüóìïò ïῦ
̓
ôïò
i.e., the old pre-Messianic and non-Messianic world—with special reference to the Gentile world whose highest cosmical formation is the very Hellenism that is confronting Him. Satan’s empire over the world is shattered with the death and resurrection of Jesus. He is indeed still tarrying and working over the earth (Eph_2:2); here he retains his “
Åîù
, the air and wind regions of the human world as far as it is not yet spiritual, whence he reacts upon the church of Christ. Subsequently he is cast upon the earth (Rev_12:9), i.e., he possesses himself of traditional, ancient ordinances, now deadened—lifeless. But in time to come he is also cast out of the earth into the bottomless pit, Revelation 20. Thus this saying opens up a perspective of the final judgment, whilst Hilgenfeld has pretended to discover in it a negation of the last judgment (together with other favorite gnostic ideas).
Joh_12:32. And I, if I shall be lifted up [
êἀãὼ ἐὰí ὑøùèῶ ἐê ôῆò ãῆò
]. See chap Joh_3:14; Joh_8:28. As in those passages both events are understood by the lifting up; the lifting up upon the cross and the lifting up upon the heavenly throne; in this place, pre-eminently the latter. This double meaning of the word (Erasmus, Tholuck, etc.), is disallowed here by Meyer; he particularly denies that there is any reference to the crucifixion (the Fathers, most of the ancients, Kling, Frommann), maintaining that the
ἐê ôῆò ãῆò
conflicts with such an interpretation, though indeed it is that of John himself. However, the crucifixion itself in its inward essence was an exaltation of Christ above the earth. With the dethroning of Satan, the dark usurper in the world, the enthroning of Jesus corresponds; hence: “And I.” With the breaking of the Satanic principle and the power of the spirits of darkness by the expiatory and redemptive death of Christ, the full power of the Christian spirit releases itself; then comes the Holy Ghost, Joh_7:39; Joh_14:26 ff.
Will draw all men unto Myself [
ðÜíôáò ἑëêýóù ðñὸò ἐìáõôüí
].—All is referred: 1. by Chrysostom, Cyril, Calvin, Lampe, to the antithesis of Jews and Gentiles, after Joh_10:16; John 2. by Lutheran theologians to all who hear the preaching of the Gospel and do not resist the drawing of Christ; 3. by individual Reformed theologians to the elect; 4. Meyer: without restriction. We suppose it to be indicative of the totality of the nations in antithesis to the firstlings of the Greeks who have here inquired after Him; similarly: I will draw them forms a contrast to the announcement sent by these individuals. It is the attraction of the cross,—its medium the preaching of the crucified One,—made effectual by His Spirit, which draws the nations to baptism and death with Him, and to new life. But the
ἑëêýåéí
of the Son does not here assume the place of the
ἐëêýåéí
on the part of the Father, Joh_6:44 (Tholuck); for the drawing of the Son is the gratia convertens in vocation which joins the drawing of the Father in the gratia præveniens or fore-ordination. All must experience the powerful drawing of calling grace; yet it is a drawing without moral compulsion because it is a drawing of free love calling unto freedom. The emphasis contained in
ðñὸò ἐìáõôüí
(comp. Joh_14:3) signifies of course: to Myself. They will not stay with Philip or Andrew, or require the mediation of a Jewish or priestly church.
Joh_12:33. Signifying what kind of death he was to die [
ðïßῳ èÜíáôῳ ἤìåëëåí ἀðïèíÞóêåéí
].—Not simply a Johannean interpretation (Meyer) or a mere hint perchance (Tholuck). For the death of the cross was not only objectively the condition of the lifting up of Christ; it is also subjectively the strongest and the single decisive attraction to the exalted Christ (
ðïῖïò èÜíáôïóò
!).
Joh_12:34. That the Christ abideth forever [
ὁ
X
ñéóôὸò ìÝíåé åἰò áἰῶíá
].—A people is spoken of that recognizes the Christ in Jesus. They have heard out of the law [
ἐê ôïῦ íüìïõ
], i.e., by the reading, as well as by the explanation of the Holy Scriptures generally, that the Messiah should abide forever. This conception was occasioned in them by passages such as Psa_110:4; Isa_9:7, and the like. According to Meyer also Dan_7:13. But with this last passage in their minds, Christ’s being lifted up from the earth could not have appeared strange to them, for there the Son of Man is brought to the Ancient of Days before whom His kingdom is given to Him. Neither was that passage popularly supposed to refer to the Messiah. According to Meyer it was likewise from the Danielic passage that they took the expression: the Son of Man, and put it into His mouth; such an explanation of their use of the term is entirely unnecessary since Jesus has just entitled Himself the Son of Man (see Joh_12:23)—(although even Tholuck can remark, in opposition to Luthardt, that this reference to Christ’s words is too remote). Neither is it alone the distinction of the earthly and the spiritual Messianic hope which here comes under consideration, even though an elucidation is found in the fact that Jonathan translates the
àֲáִéÎòֵã
, Isa_9:6, precisely as the people express themselves: “He that abideth forever, the Messiah;” the Septuagint, however, has it:
ðáôὴñ ôïῦ ìÝëëïíôïò áἰῶíïò
.” Tholuck. But the people, as also the disciples, lack as yet all discrimination between the first and the second coming of Christ. They imagine that if the Messiah had but come (with the breaking forth of the “Messianic travail-pangs,” perchance) the Kingdom of Glory would at once be ushered in with His residence at Jerusalem. At this they first stumbled,—that their Christ should be removed again from the earth, like Enoch and Elijah. But manifestly at this also, that He has again exchanged the name of Messiah for the designation of the Son of Man. And hence they ask: who is this Son of Man? Meyer considers their meaning to be: Who is this anti-Scriptural Son of Man who is not to abide in accordance with Daniel, but is to be lifted up from the earth? Thus too Tholuck. But in that case they would not ask: who is this Son of Man? but, how does that agree with the Son of Man? The first offence, namely at His being lifted up, concerns the spiritual and heavenly side of the Messianic picture set up by Christ; the second concerns that universality in the idea of the Son of Man, which they doubtless feel. The Greeks, evidently, have again excited their Jewish jealousy, manifested on a former occasion, Joh_7:35. Especially prominent in the response of the people is this practical trait; their carnal Messianic hope prevents them from having the slightest suspicion of what is impending over the Messiah, and hence also over them in their relation to Him during the next days. To this the answer of Christ has reference.
Joh_12:35. Yet a little while is the light among you.—[
ôὸ öῶò
refers to Christ Himself; see Joh_1:4-5; Joh_1:7-8; Joh_7:33; Joh_8:12; Joh_9:4-5.—P. S.] Jesus does not enter upon a theological disquisition with the view of convincing them of their error in stumbling at His sayings, because the reason of their stumbling lies in their want of obedience to His word, in their lack of true surrender to the light. In the path of this surrender they should be freed from stumbling. Thus He practically lays hold of them in the centre, the conscience. They have not the slightest suspicion or presentiment of what awaits Him and them. Therefore: Walk as ye have the light (
ὡò
stronger than
å
͂
ùò
), in accordance with the fact that the light is about being taken from you, unless, by submissive faith, ye appropriate it permanently to yourselves as inward light.
That darkness may not overtake you, [
ἴíá ìὴ óêïôßá ὑìᾶò êáôáëÜâῃ
].—Namely unprepared, and so to your destruction. The great night of temptation came upon them on the day of crucifixion, and to those who confronted it unsuspiciously, with their outward Messianic hope, it likewise became an inward night of apostasy and ruin.
He that walketh in the darkness.—He that acts then, walks then (comp. Joh_11:10). This
ðåñéðáôåῖí
is expressive of the fault by which outward darkness is converted into inward obscurity.—Knoweth not whither he goeth.—The figure drawn from outside life is strikingly demonstrative of the fate of the Jews. They knew not whither they went—into perdition, into dispersion to the ends of the world, into the curse of judgment until the end of time. Antithesis to Christ’s going to the sure goal of glory.
Joh_12:36. Believe in the light that,etc.—Faith here especially conditional upon obedience. The stumbling of these believers on the Messiah proved that they had not yet true faith in the sense of submissive obedience. The walk should be in conformance to the light, i.e., with trust in the light.—That ye may become [not be] sons of light [
ἵíá õἱïὶ öùôὸò ãÝíçóèå
. It is by believing in the light that men become sons of light]. Then should the inward light of illumination conduct them safely through the outer darkness, Luk_16:8. It is most fitting that these should be the last words of Christ to the believing portion of the people. Nothing but trust in that light which had risen upon them in Him, could lead them safely through the fearful night of trial.
And He departed and hid Himself from them [
êáὶ ἀðåëèὼí ἐêñýâç ἀð
ʼ
áὐôῶí
].—This moment coincides, as regards the main point, with the departure from the temple described by the Synoptists (see Comm. on Matthew, p. 415, Am. Ed.) Meyer [and Alford]: “Probably to Bethany [Luk_21:37], in order to spend the last days of His life, before the coming of His hour, in the circle of the disciples.” These last days of His life amounted at the utmost to two. On Tuesday evening Christ left the temple; on Thursday, towards evening, He returned to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. John’s description of the close of the public ministry of Christ forms a most important supplement to the description of the same given by the Synoptists, Mat_23:39; Mar_13:1; Luk_21:38. They depict pre-eminently the departure of Jesus from the hostile portion of the people (with the exception of Luke, whose account in this respect is less definite), while John delineates His departure from the more friendly portion. But if we regard the Palm-entry as the introduction to this history, then John has supplemented an account not only of the immediate occasion of the Palm-procession, but also of the grand acme of it,—the coming of the Greeks and the glorification of Jesus by the voice from heaven within the precincts of the temple itself. In accordance with this presentation of the subject, we should conjecture that the introduction of the Greeks took place on the great, festive Monday when Christ displayed His glory in the temple undisturbed (see Leben Jesu, III. 1, p. 1200). It were possible so to incorporate these words (descriptive of His stay in the temple) with the Johannean account, that we should find in the
ἀðåëèþí
Joh_12:36 an intimation of the farewell discourse of Jesus, Matthew 23 together with the preceding great contests on the Tuesday. But since the denunciatory discourse, at all events, which Matthew records as pronounced against the Pharisees by Jesus, was followed by His still longer stay in the temple over against the treasury, according to Mark and Luke,—since Matthew is induced by the order of affairs to alter the historical sequence, not so, however, John,—since, furthermore, the definite announcement, in the temple, of His speedy death, nay, the very presentiment of death which has already entered His soul, seem to presuppose His final, open rupture with the Hierarchs on the great day of contest, Tuesday,—we now assume this conference of Jesus with the Hellenes, the glorification consequent upon it, and His charge to the people, to be significant of the last grand sunbeam which His presence shed on Mount Zion; the very reference to the remnant of day-light still illumining the nation is apparently indicative of the decline of this, the last day of His public ministry. These proselytes of the gate remind one involuntarily of the tradition (protested against indeed) that Luke was one of the seventy disciples. Comp. Luk_24:13 ff.
2. The last facts recorded by John do not present the motive for Christ’s departure from the people and the temple as distinctly as do those related by the Synoptists; nevertheless, the cause is intimated by the final question of the people that recognize Him as the Messiah. They have not the faintest foreboding of the state of matters, and even their lofty enthusiasm of the day of Palms begins to be obscured again by Judaistic expectations. This exhibition of the mind of the multitude seems to the evangelist sufficiently expressive; but he too subjoins his explanation in his epilogue on the public ministry of Jesus and the motive for His retirement.
3. Remarkable is the glorious, threefold climax with which, according to John, the public ministry of Jesus closes: 1. The anointing of Jesus in Bethany before His official Messianic entry into Jerusalem; 2. the Palm-entry itself, originating particularly with festal pilgrims going forth to Bethany out of Jerusalem; contrasted with this, the despair of the Supreme Council; 3. the announcement of the Greeks, and the glorification of Jesus through the voice from heaven, upon Mount Zion itself, in the hearing of the whole nation,—together with the proclamation from His own mouth of His redemptive death, His glorification for all nations, and the universal Gospel.
4. Christ’s last words of farewell to the people on the temple-mount a gentle warning, according to John, and yet also an earnest explanation of Jewish stumblings. Therefore did Jesus return no answer to these stumblings themselves. Obedience from the heart unto truth alone can free from the prejudices of tradition.
5. At the moment of the consummated apostasy of the sacerdotal party from the Christ on Zion, the first Gentiles most significantly made their public appearance as His disciples. The hypothesis of Sepp assuming them to have been a deputation sent to Jesus by king Abgarus of Edessa, after the well-known account of apocryphal sound in Eusebius, cannot avail to enrich this event.
6. The Hellenes. A literal fulfilment of the predictions of the prophets, especially of Isaiah 2; also a fulfilment of the type contained in the history of the wise men from the East. A foretoken of the ensuing conversion of the proselytes of the gate, then of the Gentile world itself.
7. The pure historical truth, the clear picture of the situation in the intercession of the disciples Philip and Andrew.
8. The Hour. To the Lord the presentiment of His death is connected with the presentiment of His glorification. Be it observed that John regards even the humiliation of Jesus unto death as a particular form of Christ’s exaltation, and that not simply in the ironical sense of the being lifted up upon the cross. It is the perfect exaltation of Jesus in His love, to the perfect glorification of the grace of God.
9. Stier very ingeniously remarks: “For this He now appeals—not to the testimony of the prophets, but to a secretly prophetic mystery of nature (as a proof also that His discourse is aimed at the Greeks as well as the Jews) which yet on the instant shines transfigured in His mouth.” Symbolism of the grain of wheat. See Note on Joh_12:24. The word concerning the grain of wheat has a threefold reference: (1) It declares a universal law of life: a death-like metamorphosis, as a condition whereon depends the renewal of life, is a type of the fundamental law in the kingdom of God, which law provides that we by a priestly surrender of our own wills to the will of God do obtain new kingly life in God. (2) The law of life of sinful humanity; in God’s kingdom of this earth real death is a condition of the transition from the old life to the new; a symbol of the propitiatory sacrificial death of Christ for the reconciliation and glorification of the world; likewise of the death of thank-offering in which believers die with Christ in order to walk with Him in new life. (3) In the most special sense, the law of life of the regeneration of Hellenism, whose peculiar essence consists in a fleeing from death and the cross in the embellishment of the present life (Leben Jesu, II. p. 1203; III. p. 665). The Greek’s aim is levelled at beauty of appearance. Even these Greeks, religious though they be, betray themselves with the expression: “We wish to see Jesus.” Essentially eternal youth, beauty and glory in the new world are attained by the Christian only through death.
Hence the butterfly alone does not suffice for a symbol of immortality; the symbol of the grain of wheat must be added to it. The butterfly symbolizes the capacity of man for a paradisaical, death-like metamorphosis which yet is not dead and is merely a symbol of an individual renewal; the grain of wheat symbolizes the renewal of life through death,—and that a renewal which is at once its infinite enrichment and extension, and its glorification in spirit. Jesus did not indeed see corruption, but He drew very near to it; and thus it is, at bottom, with the grain of wheat; it passes through the semblance of corruption, but, in respect of its innermost kernel, its life leaps out from corruption into the metamorphosis of the butterfly, just, as on the other hand, the butterfly must strip itself of a corruptible something—the dead pupa. Christ has glorified both forms of transit from the old to the new life. Moreover all the chief moments in the life of Christ are prefigured in the history of the grain of wheat: Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension, Whitsuntide.
10. The two oxymora, Joh_12:24-25; the three promises, Joh_12:24-26. See the Exegetical and Critical Notes.
11. Joh_12:27. The first presentiment of the death of Jesus in the temple a fulfilment of the foretoken of His baptism, the announcement of His baptism of suffering (Luk_12:50); again, a foretoken of the mortal conflict of His soul in Gethsemane, the sure prophecy of His death; crowned, therefore, as a great moment in the pathway of His humiliations, with a glorification,—like the baptism, like the announcement of His sufferings (Mat_16:21 by the transfiguration Joh_17:1), like His conflict in Gethsemane, like His death. We have too mean an idea of the emotional life of Jesus if we refer these moods to a fear of death. See Exegetical and Critical Notes on Joh_12:23 and the conclusion of that on the first clause of Joh_12:27. The present moment denotes nothing less than the mental self-sacrifice of Jesus in the temple.
12. The voice within the precincts of the temple. See Exegetical and Critical Notes.
13. Joh_12:31. The different stages in the subjection of Satan, the prince of this world. See exegetical and critical notes. The death of Jesus a judgment, glorified by the Spirit. See Joh_16:1. The foundation and beginning of the separation between Satan and the world; 2. the foundation and beginning of the separation between believers and unbelievers;
