Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 4:43 - 4:44
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_4:43-44.[198] Τὰς δύο ἡμέρας ] The article is to be explained by Joh_4:40.
αὐτός ] ipse, not merely others with reference to Him, but “He Himself did not hesitate to testify,” etc. As to the fact itself, see Mat_13:57; Mar_6:4; Luk_4:24. When Schenkel concludes from προφήτης that Jesus did not yet regard Himself as the Messiah, this is a misuse of the general term within the category of which the conception of Messiah is embraced.
ἐμαρτύρ .] not in the sense of the Pluperfect (Tholuck, Godet; see on Joh_18:24), but then, when He returned to Galilee.
γάρ is the ordinary for; and πατρίδι is not the native town, but, as is clear from Γαλιλαίαν , Joh_4:43; Joh_4:45, the native country. So also usually in Greek writers, from Homer downwards. The words give the reason why He did not hesitate to return to Galilee. The gist of the reason lies in the antithetical reference of ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ πατρίδι . If, as Jesus Himself testified, a prophet had no honour in his own country, he must seek it abroad. And this Jesus had done. Abroad, in Jerusalem, He had by His mighty works inspired the Galilaeans who were there with that respect which they were accustomed to deny to a prophet at home. Thus He brought the prophet’s honour with Him from abroad.[199] Accordingly (Joh_4:45) He found a reception among the Galilaeans also, because they had seen His miracles in Jerusalem (Joh_2:23). It is therefore obviously incorrect to understand Γαλιλαίαν specially of Upper Galilee, as distinct from Lower Galilee, where Nazareth was situated. So Lange, in spite of the fact that Γαλιλ . here must be the universal and popular name for the whole province, as distinct from Samaria ( ἐκεῖθεν ), whether we retain καὶ ἀπῆλθεν as in the Elzevir or not. It is further incorrect, and an utterly arbitrary gloss, to interpret πατρίς as meaning Nazareth, and γάρ as referring to the fact that He had gone, indeed, to Galilee, but not to Nazareth (Chrysostom and even Euthymius Zigabenus: to Capernaum). So Cyril, Nonnus, Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Aretius, Grotius, Jansen, Bengel, and many; also Kypke, Rosenmüller, Olshausen, Klee, Gemberg in Stud. u. Krit. 1845, I.; Hengstenberg, Bäumlein. It is also incorrect, because not in keeping with the context, nor with the general view, which is also that of John, which regards Galilee as Christ’s home (Joh_1:46, Joh_2:1, Joh_7:3; Joh_7:41; Joh_7:52), to take πατρίς as denoting Judea, and γάρ as stating the reason (in the face of the quite different reason already given, Joh_4:1-3) why Jesus had left Judea (Origen, Maldonatus, B. Bauer, Schwegler, Wieseler, B. Crusius, Schweizer, Köstlin, Baur, Hilgenfeld, and formerly also Ebrard); whence some, e.g. Origen and Baur, take πατρίς in a higher sense, as signifying the native land of the prophets,[200] and therefore of the Messiah also, and most, like Hilgenfeld, as having reference to the birth at Bethlehem. Lücke has rightly, in his 3d ed., abandoned this interpretation; but, on the other hand, he takes γὰρ as equivalent to namely, and explains it as referring not to what precedes, but to what follows (so substantially also Tholuck, Olshausen, Maier, de Wette), so that Joh_4:44 gives an explanation in passing on the point: “that the Galilaeans on this occasion received Jesus well, but only on account of the miracles which they had seen in Jerusalem” (de Wette). It is against this, however, that though in the classics γὰρ explicative often precedes the sentence to be explained (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 467; Bäumlein, Partik. p. 75 ff.), especially in parenthesis (see Bremi, ad Lys. p. 66; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. 338), yet this form of expression is quite without precedent in the N. T. (Rom_14:10, Heb_2:8, are not instances in point), and especially would be quite foreign to John’s simple progressive style of narration; moreover, the “indeed,—but only,” put into Joh_4:45, is quite obtruded on the words, inasmuch as John wrote neither μέν after ἐδέξ ., nor thereafter a μόνον δέ , nor any such expression.[201] According to Brückner, Jesus came to Galilee because, (but see Joh_4:1-3) He had supposed that He would find no honour there, and consequently with the intention of undertaking the conflict for the recognition of His person and dignity. According to Luthardt, whom Ebrard now follows (comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. 88, also Schriftbew II. 1, p. 171), the words imply the hope entertained by Jesus of being able to remain in rest and silence in Galilee more easily than anywhere else. But both explanations are incompatible with the following ὅτε οὖν , κ . τ . λ ., which certainly means that the Galileans received Him with honour, as He was called immediately thereafter to perform a miracle. We should certainly expect ΔΈ or ἈΛΛΆ (comp. Nonnus) to introduce the statement, and not ΟὖΝ . In what follows, moreover, regarding the residence in Galilee, we are told neither about conflict nor about the repose of Jesus, but simply of the healing at a distance of the nobleman’s son. Lastly, it is contrary to the words (because ὍΤΕ ΟὖΝ ἮΛΘΕΝ in Joh_4:45 directly resumes the ΕἸς Τ . ΓΑΛ . of Joh_4:43, and admits of no interval), when Hauff, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1849, p. 117 ff., makes the train of thought to terminate with Joh_4:44, and takes Joh_4:44 itself as a general description of the result of Christ’s Galilean ministry. Thus ἐδέξαντο is said to indicate that He did and taught much there; which is clearly a gloss foisted into the text.
[198] See Ewald, Jahrb. X. 1860, p. 108 ff. He agrees for the most part with my rendering; comp. also his Johann. Schr. I. p. 194; in like manner Godet, who, however, without the slightest hint of it in the text, supposes a purpose on the writer’s part, in connection with Joh_3:24, to correct the synoptical tradition. John wishes “constater l’intervalle considérable qui sépara du baptême de Jésus son retour définitif et son établissement permanent en Galilée.” In Joh_3:24 he states the fact, and here he gives the motive. Scholten puts the emphasis which prompts the following γὰρ upon ἐκεῖθεν , a word which is quite unessential, and might just as well have been omitted.
[199] Baeumlein urges, against my explanation: “We cannot believe that, after the words ‘He betook Himself to Galilee,’ there should follow the reason why He had before left Galilee.” This, however, is not the logical connection at all.
[200] So also B. Crusius, who compares Joh_7:52. Quite erroneously, when the general and proverbial character of the statement is considered. After Joh_4:3, however, the reader can expect no further explanation of the reason why Jesus did not remain in Judea. Schwegler and B. Bauer suppose that here Judea is meant as the native land of Jesus, and make use of this as an argument against the genuineness and historical truth of the Gospel. Comp. also Köstlin in the Theol. Jahrb. 1851, p. 186. Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 266: “a remarkable inversion of the synoptical statement, wherein the Gospel appears as a free compilation by a post-apostolic author” (Zeitschr. 1862, p. 17). Schweizer also finds it such a stumbling-block, that he regards it as proving the following narrative to be a Galilean interpolation. Gfrörer, heil. Sage, II. 289, rightly indeed understands the words as referring to Galilee, but considers that we should supply the following: “save very slowly and reluctantly, for,” etc.
[201] Weizsäcker also, in the Jahrb. F. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 695, regards γάρ not as introducing a reason, but as demonstrative. John intimates that he will not narrate much of Christ’s ministry in Galilee; he refers to that saying as if shrinking from unpleasant recollections. But this is not in the text, nor is it compatible with the connection in ver. 45, and the history that follows. Weizsäcker, indeed, thinks (comp. his Unters. üb. d. ev. Gesch. p. 276) that in this synoptic saying John refers to the synoptic account of that Galilean ministry, which he would not himself describe. Who ever could imagine that? especially when John at once goes on to narrate the good reception given to Jesus in Galilee, and His miracle of blessing there. Did the Lord betake Himself to “a voluntary obscurity,” concerning which John wishes to be silent?