Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 12:34 - 12:34
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_12:34. The people—rightly understanding ἐὰν ὑψ . ἐκ τ . γῆς , Joh_12:32, of an exaltation to take place by the way of death—gather thence, that in accordance therewith no everlasting duration of life ( μένει , see on Joh_21:22) is destined for Him on the earth, and do not find this reconcilable with that which they on their part ( ἡμεῖς ) had heard out of the Scripture ( νόμος , as in Joh_10:34) of the Messiah ( ἠκούσ ., namely, by reading, comp. Gal_4:21). 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 Psa_110:4, Isa_9:5; Isa_9:7, and particularly Dan_7:13-14.
From the latter passage, not from Joh_12:23, where He does not speak to the people, they put in the mouth of Christ the words τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρ ., as He had designated Himself so frequently by this Messianic appellation, in order at once to make manifest that He, although He so terms Himself, yet on account of the contradictory token of the ὑψωθῆναι ἐκ τ . γῆς which He ascribes to Himself, cannot be the Danielian Son of man, He who was so characterized in the Scripture; the Son of man, by which name He is wont to designate Himself, must in truth be quite another person.
οὗτος ] this strange Son of man, who is in opposition to the Scripture, over whom that ὑψωθῆναι is said to be impending.[117] That the speakers, however, were unacquainted with the appellation ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρ . for Jesus (Brückner) is, after the first half of the verse, not to be assumed.
[117] 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 Danielian Son of man an everlasting kingdom is given, Dan_7:14. This also in answer to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 79.