Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 13:1 - 13:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_13:1-5. On the construction, note: (1) Joh_13:1-5 are not to be taken together as a single period (Griesbach, Matthaei, Schulz, Scholz, Bleek, Ebrard, and several others); as Paul also (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 362 ff., 1867, p. 524 ff.) defines the connection: “He stands up before the Passover feast at the meal then taking place,” which latter would be a collateral definition of πρὸ τ . ἑορτ . τ . π . To take the whole thus together will not do, because εἰς τέλος ἠγάπ . αὐτοὺς being connected with πρὸ δὲ ἑορτ . τ . π . gives an orderly finish to the construction of Joh_13:1, and with καὶ δείπνου γιν . a new period begins; consequently (this also in answer to Knapp, Lücke, Ebrard, and several others) εἰδώς , Joh_13:3, cannot be the resumption of εἰδώς , Joh_13:1. Rightly have Lachmann and Tischendorf closed Joh_13:1 with a full stop. Comp. Hengstenberg and Godet, also Ewald. (2) It is not correct to join πρὸ τῆς ἑορτ . τ . πάσχα to εἰδώς (Kling, Luthardt, Riggenbach, Graf in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 741 ff.; before him also Baeumlein in the Stud. u. Krit. 1846, p. 397), because the expression would be too vague and indefinite as a statement of the point of time in which the definite consciousness of His hour had entered the mind of Jesus; the definite day before the feast would be designated as such (perhaps by πρὸ μιᾶς ἡμέρας τοῦ πάσχα , comp. Joh_12:1; Plut. Sull. 37). But that πρὸ τῆς ἑορτῆς —comp. with Joh_12:1—must denote this very day before the feast, namely, the 14th Nisan (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 295, Lange, Baeumlein, and several others, including Paul and Hengstenberg), is an altogether arbitrary assumption. Just as incorrect is it (3) to refer it to ἀγαπήσας (Wieseler, Tholuck, see in opposition Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 203), so that the love entertained before the feast stands over against the love entertained until the end,—which assumption is extorted simply by an attempt at harmonizing, is opposed to the order of the words ( ἀγαπήσας … κόσμῳ must in that case have stood before εἰδὼς , κ . τ . λ .), and—through the division which is then made to appear of the love of Jesus (the love before the feast, and the love from the feast onwards)—is in contradiction with John’s more reflective and spiritual manner; while it leaves, moreover, the participial clause εἰδὼς … πατέρα without appropriate significance. The simple literal mode of connection is rather: Before the feast, Jesus gave, as He knew, etc., to His own the closing proof of love. Whilst, then, a meal is being observed, as the devil already, etc., He arises from the meal, although He knew that the Father, etc. There is thus nothing to place in a parenthesis.