Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 12:1 - 12:2
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_12:1-2. Οὖν ] is the simply resumptive particle by which the narrative returns to Jesus, whom it had quitted at Joh_11:55. To assume a sequence from Joh_11:57, so that He is supposed to go to Bethany, either on account of His safety, or of its nearness to Jerusalem (Luthardt: “so consciously and freely He went to meet death”), and in order to put to shame the thought mentioned in Joh_11:55-57 (Hengstenberg), as though δέ or ἀλλά were expressed,—is not supported by any indication in the text.
πρὸ ἕξ . ἡμ . τοῦ π .] six days before the Passover. Comp. Amo_1:1. Frequently thus in Plutarch, Appian, Josephus. See Kypke, I. p. 393 f. Analogously in definitions of space, as in Joh_11:18. It is no Latinism. As regards the reckoning of the six days, it is to be observed that, since the 14th Nisan, on the evening of which the paschal meal was kept, was wont to be counted as already belonging entirely to the feast (see on Mat_26:17), and hence also had been already called ἡμέρα τοῦ πάσχα (see Introd. § 2), the 13th Nisan is most naturally assumed to be the first day before the Passover; consequently the sixth day will be the 8th Nisan, i.e. (since the 14th Nisan, on which Jesus, according to John, died, was a Friday) the Saturday before Easter. So also Ebrard, Godet, and Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 511, who, however, in the Johann. Schr. I. p. 329, without any sufficient grounds, finds the previous evening probable, so that John at once names the full day of the sojourn, with which Godet also substantially agrees. But according to the Synoptics—because they make the 14th Nisan a Thursday—it would have been the Friday before Easter.[101] Against the above assumption of the Saturday as the day of arrival, the law of the Sabbath day’s journey (see on Mat_24:20) is no objection (against Grotius, Tholuck, Wieseler, and several others), since it is not clear from what place Jesus started on that day; He may, indeed, have arrived from a place that lay very near at hand. Others, reckoning the 14th Nisan as the first day before Easter, regard the 9th Nisan as the day of arrival.[102] Others, again, including in their calculation even the 15th Nisan, arrive at the result of the 10th Nisan (Monday); so Hilgenfeld, Baur, Scholten, where we have the twofold interest directed against the historical truth of the Gospel, to obtain the day of the month for the selection of the paschal lamb (Exo_12:3), and find the day of the week which opened the Christian Easter week, and from this chronology to demonstrate the secondary relation of our evangelist to the Synoptics. Yet Baeumlein also reckons in this way.
ἦλθεν εἰς Βηθανίαν ] according to the Harmonists (including Hengstenberg and Godet), making a circuit by Jericho, which is as inappropriate to the Johannean as to the synoptical account (see on Mat_21:1). The return by Jericho is not reconcilable with the notice in Joh_11:54, where He, in fact, by the healing of the blind men, and by the visit to Zacchaeus, awakened so much attention.
ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ΛΆΖΑΡΟς , Κ . Τ . Λ .] added, on account of the great importance of the matter, without any further special purpose, yet with emphatic circumstantiality.
ἘΠΟΊΗΣΑΝ ] the family of Bethany, namely, Joh_11:1-2, which is clear from the following Κ . Ἡ Μ . ΔΙΗΚ .[103] On this and the other variations from the narrative of Mat_26:6 ff., Mar_14:3 ff., which, however, do not set aside the identity of the occurrence (different from Luk_7:3 ff.), see on Mat_26:6 ff. The peculiarity of John’s account is founded on the fact of the writer’s being an eye-witness; but is referred by Baur, p. 256 ff., to an eclectic and arbitrary treatment, dependent on an ideal point of view; comp. also Hilgenfeld.
ὁ δὲ Λάζαρος εἶς ἦν , κ . τ . λ .] appears, indeed, a matter of course (hence Baeumlein and others believe Simon the leper to be indicated as the entertainer); but the complete restoration of him who had been raised from the dead is so weighty a consideration with John, that he further specially brings him forward as the present table companion of his Restorer. This also in answer to Marcker, Passim, p. 17.
[101] As also Wieseler, Hengstenberg, and others assume, who (see on Joh_18:28) regard the account of John, in respect to the day of Jesus’ death, as agreeing with that of the Synoptics.
[102] This must therefore, according to the calculation which gave Saturday for the 8th Nisan, have been the Sunday (Hase, De Wette). But if we hold that John does not fix the day of death differently from the Synoptics, we get as the result the Saturday (Wichelhaus and several others), reckoning backwards from Thursday the 14th Nisan inclusive. Further, the 9th Nisan is expressly fixed as the day of arrival in Bethany by Theophylact, and recently by Lücke and several others.
[103] That this meal is to be placed still on the same day, therefore Saturday, at the usual time of the evening repast, appears from the fact that the ἐπαύριον does not follow before ver. 12 (against Wichelhaus, p. 153 f.). The Sabbath is not opposed to this, since the preparations which had possibly been necessary for the meal might already have been made on the preceding day, if the family—which is a supposition sufficiently obvious—knew that Jesus was coming.—But the supposition that the meal was a solemn banquet, where Godet, following Bengel, introduces a company of the inhabitants of Bethany as the subject of ἐποίησαν , finds no support in the text, where, besides Jesus and the disciples, only the members of the family (no other participators) are named, and has the serving of Martha against it, which only bespeaks the usual domestic entertainment, although the gratitude and respect of the family had more richly set forth the meal expressly given to Him, to which the description δεῖπνον ποιεῖν (Mar_6:21) with the dative points.