Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 11:6 - 11:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_11:6-7. Οὖν ] Resumption of the narrative after the observation in Joh_11:5.
After Joh_11:6 a colon only ought to be placed, for the course of the narrative is this: “When He now heard that he was sick, He remained there, indeed, etc.; (but) then,” etc.
μέν ] logically is quite correct after τότε : then, indeed (turn quidem), when He heard, He did not immediately go away, but remained still two days. There is no corresponding δέ after ἔπειτα , as one would naturally expect, because the adversative relation, which was in view at first, has given way to one of simple succession (comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 539; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 89 A; Baeumlein, Partic. p. 163).
ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο ] deinde postea (Cic. p. Mil. 24), as in the Classics also (comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 258 E: ἔπειτα λέγει δὴ μετὰ τοῦτο ) synonymous adverbial expressions are frequently conjoined (Kühner, II. p. 615; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22). Comp. τότε ἔπειτα , which occurs frequently even in Homer; Nägelsbach on the Ilias, p. 149, ed. 3.
The question why Jesus did not at once leave for Bethany is not solved by the assumption, that He designed to test the faith of the parties concerned (Olshausen; Gumlich also mixes this reason up with his otherwise correct view), which would, in opposition to Joh_11:5, have amounted to a harsh and arbitrary delaying on His part; nor is it explained by the similar notion, that the message of Joh_11:4 was meant first to produce its effect (Ebrard), as though there had not been without that time enough for this; just as little is it accounted for by the supposition that important business connected with His work in Peraea still detained Him (Lücke, Krabbe, Neander, Tholuck, Lange, Baumgarten), for John gives not the slightest hint of such a reason, and it is a purely à priori assumption. It is to be explained by a reference back to Joh_11:4, according to which Jesus was conscious of its being the divine will that the miracle should be performed precisely under the circumstances and at the time at which it actually was performed, and no otherwise (comp. Joh_2:4), for the glory of God. The divine δεῖ , of which He was conscious, decided Him, and that, under a moral necessity, lest He should act ὑπὲρ μοῖραν , to remain still; the same δεῖ again impelled Him at once to depart, when, in virtue of His immediate knowledge, He became aware of the death of His friend. Comp. on Joh_11:17. All the more groundless was it to make use of the delay of Jesus as an argument against the historical truth of the narrative (Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Gfrörer, Baur, Hilgenfeld), according to which Jesus intentionally allowed Lazarus to die, in order that He might be able to raise him up again (Baur, p. 193).
εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ] for they were in Peraea, Joh_10:40. The more definite goal, Bethany, is not at first mentioned; but is specified afterwards, Joh_11:11; Joh_11:15. The less reason, therefore, is there for finding a special design in the use of the words εἰς τ . Ἰουδ . (Luthardt: “into the land of unbelief and hostility”), a meaning which Godet and Gumlich import also into πάλιν .