Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 14:4 - 14:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_14:4-5. In order now to lead the disciples to that which, on their side, in respect of the promise contained in Joh_14:3, was the main practical matter, He says, arousing inquiry: And whither I go … ye know the way (so, according to the amended reading, see critical notes) which leads thither, namely, to the Father. And the disciples, had they already been more susceptible to the communications of the Lord respecting His higher Messianic destiny, must have known it,—this way,—since Christ had already so frequently set Himself forth as the only Mediator of salvation, as in chap. 6, Joh_10:1 ff., Joh_11:25, et al. He means, that is, not the way to suffering and death, which He Himself is about to tread (Luther, Jansen, Grotius, Wetstein, also Tholuck and Luthardt), but the way designated in Joh_14:6 (He Himself is that way!) along which every one is directed who would attain to that glorious fellowship with the Father.
ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω is an anacoluthon, with the emphasis of the certainty of the near and blessed completion, and ἐγώ has the accent of self-conscious and unique pre-eminence.
Thomas, as in Joh_20:25, speaks the language of sober, hesitating intelligence, not of dejection, at the approaching suffering of the Lord, as Ebrard thinks. He seeks information; ᾤετο γὰρ αἰσθητὸν εἶναί τινα τόπον , ὅπου ὑπάγει , καὶ ὁδὸν ὁμοίως τοιαύτην , Euth. Zigabenus. The heavenly ποῦ , however distinctly Jesus had already designated it, Thomas did not yet know clearly how to combine with his circle of Messianic ideas; but he desired to arrive at clearness. That Thomas is here cited without the name Δίδυμος , which is added in Joh_11:16, Joh_20:24, Joh_21:2, is accidental, and without the design which Hengstenberg imports (that he does not speak here according to his individual spiritual character).
πῶς , κ . τ . λ .] “Quodsi ignoretur, quae sit meta, non potest via sub ratione viae concipi,” Grotius.