Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 16:10 - 16:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_16:10. The second particular: in reference to righteousness, accordingly to the opposite of ἁμαρτία . As, however, in ἁμαρτίας the subject is the world itself, the ἔλεγξις of which is described, so the subject of δικαιοσύνη is Christ; hence the more exact definition: so far as I, namely, go to my Father, and you see me no more; δικαίου γὰρ γνώρισμα τὸ πορεύεσθαι πρὸς τὸν θεὸν κ . συνεῖναι αὐτῷ , Euth. Zigabenus; δικαιοσύνη , since it thus, in virtue of the context, is necessarily an attribute of Christ, denotes His guiltlessness and holy moral perfection. The unbelieving held Him to be an ἁμαρτωλός (comp. Joh_9:24), and put Him to death as such (Joh_18:30); He was, however, the δίκαιος (1Jn_2:1; 1Jn_2:29; 1Jn_3:7; comp. Act_3:14; Act_7:52; 1Pe_3:18), and was proved to be such by the testimony of the Paraclete, in virtue of which the apostles preached the exaltation of Christ to the Father (comp. Act_2:33 ff.), and thereby the world was convicted as guilty περὶ δικαιοσύνης , the opposite of which the unbelieving assumed in Christ, and thought to be confirmed by the σκάνδαλον of His cross. So substantially Chrysostom and his successors, Beza, Maldonatus, Bengel, Morus, Tittmann, and several others, including Lücke, Klee, Olshausen, De Wette, B. Crusius, Maier, Godet, Baeumlein. Since, according to the analogy of the remaining parts, Christ must be the subject of δικαιοσύνη , then already on this ground we must reject not only the interpretation of Grotius of the compensatory justice of God,[173] and that of the Socinians and Kuinoel, quod jus et fas est (Mat_12:15), but also that of Augustine, Erasmus, Luther,[174] Melanchthon, Calvin, Calovius, Jansen, Lampe, Storr, Hengstenberg, and several others, that the righteousness of man through faith in the Pauline sense is intended,[175] which also De Wette (with the modification that it is its victorious power in the world which is spoken of) inappropriately mixes up with the other interpretation. The form which Luthardt gives to the interpretation of Augustine, etc., that the passage does not indeed express that Christ has by means of His departure acquired righteousness, but rather that He has rendered righteousness possible, because faith in Himself as invisible, is likewise opposed by the fact that Christ would not be the subject to which δικαιοσύνη was ascribed; and it contains, moreover, too artificial a reflection, which is not even appropriate, since faith in Christ cannot be conditioned by His invisibility, although faith must exist in spite of the invisibility of Christ (Joh_20:29). The thought is rather: “The fact that I go to the Father, and that I shall then be removed from your eyes, will serve to the Spirit in His ἔλεγξις of the world as a demonstration of the fact that I am δίκαιος .”[176] And thus the by no means idle, but tender and sympathetic expression, κ . οὐκέτι δεωρεῖτέ με , as denoting the translation into the invisible world, is an outflow of the thoughtful and feeling interest of Jesus in the approaching pain of separation which the disciples were to experience, to whom this grief, in view of the higher object of that ἔλεγξις of the world, could not be spared. A reference to the scorn of the world to be expected on the removal of Jesus, as if He were thereby to be manifested an impostor (Linder, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1867, p. 514 ff.), is remote from the connection. De Wette’s remark is incorrect: that κ . ὑμεῖς θεωρεῖτέ με was rather to be expected. That must have been expected if, with Tholuck, it had to be explained of the moral purity (= ζωή ) only to be found in Christ, the revelation of which was completed by the spiritual communication of the exalted One, who now may be contemplated spiritually instead of bodily. But thus all essential points would have been read between the lines.
[173] “Deum aequum esse rectorem, ut qui me extra omnem injuriae contactum in suae majestatis consortium receperit.” Comp. also Ewald, Jahrb. VIII. p. 199, and Johann. Schr. I. p. 381.
[174] “For Christians should know no other righteousness, as the ground of their standing in the sight of God …, than this departure of Christ to the Father, which is nothing else than that He has taken our sins on His neck,” etc.
[175] Here also Ebrard’s view comes in, who, indeed, considers the Pauline sense of δικαιοσύνη to be remote, but explains it: of the righteousness, which the world should have and has not, since it has cast out the Lord, and compelled Him to go to the Father, and to hold intercourse with His own only in an invisible manner. This interpretation is incorrect, for the reason that, in accordance with it, the ἔλεγξις περὶ δικαιοσύνης would substantially coincide with the ἔλεγξις περὶ ἁμαρτίας . Moreover, the rejection of Christ and His invisible intercourse with His society is an imported meaning.
[176] What Wetzel finds over and above this in the words: that in Christ “all righteousness rests, and from Him again all righteousness proceeds,” is indeed a correct dogmatic deduction from the present passage, but is not contained in the words themselves as their meaning.