Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 17:3 - 17:3
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_17:3. The continuative δέ adduces, in keeping with the connection, a more precise definition[187] of ζωὴ αἰώνιος (not a transposition of its idea, as Weiss holds), and that with a retrospective glance to the glorification of the Father in Joh_17:1. On ἐστίν , comp. on Rom_14:17; Joh_3:19.
In this consists eternal life, that they should recognise ( ἵνα , comp. on Joh_6:29) Thee as the only true God (as Him to whom alone belongs the reality of the idea of God, comp. 1Co_8:4), and Thy sent one Jesus as Messiah. This knowledge of God here desired (which is hence the believing, living, practical knowledge, καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι , 1Co_8:2), is the ζωὴ αἰώνιος , so far as it is the essential subjective principle of the same, unfolding this ζωή out of itself, its continual, ever self-developing germ and impulse (comp. Sap. Joh_15:1; Joh_15:3), even now in the temporal evolution of eternal life, and at a future time, besides, after the establishment of the kingdom, in which faith, hope, and love abide (1 Corinthians 3); the fundamental essence of which is in truth nothing else than that knowledge, which in the future αἰών will be the perfected knowledge (1Co_13:12), comp. 1Jn_3:2. The contents of the knowledge are stated with the precision of a Confession,—a summary of faith in opposition[188] to the polytheistic ( τ . μόνον ἀληθ . θεόν , comp. Joh_5:44; Deu_6:4; 1Co_8:5; 1Th_1:9) and Jewish κόσμος , which latter rejected Jesus as Messiah, although in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation of the only true God. It is in the third person, however, that the praying Jesus speaks of Himself from Joh_17:1 forwards, placing Himself in an objective relation towards the Father during the first intensity of this solemn mood, and first at Joh_17:4 continuing the prayer with the familiar ἐγώ ; He indeed mentions His name in Joh_17:3, because in the connection of the self-designation through the third person, it here specifically suggested itself, in correspondence to the confessional thought.
Χριστόν ] is an appellative predicate: as Messiah, comp. Joh_9:22. To connect it as a proper name with Ἰησ . (Jesus Christ, comp. Joh_1:17), to ascribe to the evangelist an offence against historical decorum (Bretschneider, Lücke, De Wette), and to see in this a proof of a later reproduction (comp. Tholuck and Weizsäcker, p. 286; also Scholten, p. 238), would be to accuse the writer, especially in the report of such a prayer, of a surprising want of consideration. Luthardt also takes Χριστόν as a proper name, which he thinks was here, in this extraordinary moment, used for the first time by Jesus, and thereby at the same time determined the use of the word by the apostles (Act_2:38). So also Godet, comp. Ebrard. But Jesus prayed in Hebrew, and doubtless said éÅùÑåÌò çÇîÌÈùÑÌÄéäÇ , from which expression a proper name could by no means be recognised. The predicative view of Τ . ΜΌΝ . ἈΛ . ΘΕΌΝ and of ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ is also justly held by Ewald.
Although Τ . ΜΌΝΟΝ ἈΛΗΘ . ΘΕΌΝ refers solely to the Father, the true divine nature of Christ is not thereby excluded (against the Arians and Socinians, who misused this passage), all the less so as this, in accordance with His (Logos) relationship as dependent on the Godhead of the Father, forms the previous assumption in ὋΝ ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΑς , as is certain from the entire connection of the Johannean Christology, and from Joh_17:5. Comp. Wetstein, and Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 162. Hence it was unnecessary,—moreover, even a perversion of the passage, and running counter to the strict monotheism of John, when Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Beda, Thomas, Aretius, and several others explained it as if the language were: ut te et quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant solum verum Deum. Only One, the Father, can absolutely be termed the μόνος ἀληθ . θεός (comp. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός , Rom_9:5), not at the same time Christ (who is not even in 1Jn_5:20 the ἀληθινὸς θεός ), since His divine entity stands in the relation of genetic subsistence to the Father, Joh_1:18, although He, in unity with the Father, works as His commissioner, Joh_10:30, and is His representative, Joh_14:9-10.
[187] No formal definition. See the apposite observations of Riehm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 539 f.
[188] An antithesis which might present itself naturally and unsought to the world-embracing glance of the praying Jesus, on the boundary line of His work, which includes entire humanity. But He had also thought further of the ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός , which was given to Him. This likewise in opposition to Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 56, who considers the antithesis foreign to the connection.