Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 12:44 - 12:45
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_12:44-45. The closing observations on Jewish unbelief, Joh_12:37-43, are ended. Over against this unbelief, together with that faith which stood in fear of men, Joh_12:42-43, John now gives further, Joh_12:44-50, an energetic summing up, a condensed summary of that which Jesus has hitherto clearly and openly preached concerning His personal dignity and the divinity of His teaching, in condemnation of such conduct (“Jesus, on the other hand, cried and said,” etc.), whereby the reprehensible nature of that unbelief and half—belief comes clearly into view. So substantially Bengel, Michaelis, Morus, Kuinoel, Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, Schweizer, B. Crusius, Reuss, Baur,[120] Lange, Brückner, Weizsäcker,[121] Ebrard, Baeumlein, Ewald, Godet. Joh_12:36 is decisive for the correctness of this interpretation, according to which Jesus has departed from the public scene of action without any announcement 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, ἐλάλησα , Joh_12:48-49, pointing to the concluded past. This is not in opposition to ἔκραξε καὶ εἶπεν (against Kling, De Wette, Hengstenberg; also Strauss in the interest of the non-originality of the Johannean discourses), since these words (comp. Joh_7:28; Joh_7:37, Joh_1:15) do not of themselves 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 passivity he is thereby charged with! and see, in opposition, Brückner); 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 ( ἐνδόντος τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις τοῦ θυμοῦ , πάλιν ἀνεφάνη κ . διδάσκει , 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, Joh_12:36 (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 ἔκραξε 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 was cut off from them.
ὁ πιστ . εἰς ἐμὲ , κ . τ . λ .] A saying. which John has not in the previous discourses. Comp., however, as to the thing, Joh_5:36 ff., Joh_7:29, Joh_8:19; Joh_8:42, Joh_10:38.
οὐ … ἀλλʼ ] 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 (Joh_5:43),—but God, so far as the latter reveals Himself in Him as in His ambassador, by means of His words and deeds. Comp. Joh_7:16; Mar_9:37. Similarly: He who beholds me, etc., Joh_12:45. Comp. Joh_1:14, Joh_14:9. Yet in this connection the negation ( οὐ θεωρεῖ ἐμέ ) 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 beholding of His Sender. In His working and administration, the believing eye beholds that of the Sender; in the δόξα of the Son, that of the Father, Joh_1:14; Heb_1:3.
[120] 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.
[121] Yet the ideas (against Weizsäcker, 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.