Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 5:46 - 5:46
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_5:46. Proof that Moses was their accuser. Moses wrote of Christ, referring to Deu_18:15, and generally to all the Messianic types (comp. Joh_3:14) and promises of the Pentateuch, and to its general Messianic import (Luk_24:44; Rom_10:5); in this, that they did not believe Christ (i.e. that He spoke the truth), is implied that they rejected the truth of what Moses had written concerning Him. This unbelief is the subject-matter of Moses’ accusation. Well says Bengel: “Non juvit Judaeos illud: Credimus vera esse omnia, quae Moses scripsit. Fide explicita opus erat.”
Joh_5:47. δέ ] Further conclusion from the unbelief with regard to Moses, pointed out in Joh_5:46. Thus the discourse ends with a question implying hopelessness.
The antithesis is not between γράμμασιν and ῥήμασι (as if the writings were easier of belief than the words), but between ἐκείνου and ἐμοῖς (faith in him being the necessary condition of faith in Christ); while the distinction of Moses having written (comp. Joh_5:46), and Christ spoken, simply presents the historical relation. Were the antithesis between γράμμ . and ῥήμ ., these words would have taken the lead; were it between both, in γράμ . and ῥήμ ., and at the same time in ἐκείνου and ἐμοῖς likewise, this twofold relationship must have been shown, thus perhaps: τοῖς γράμμασιν τοῖς ἐκείνου … τοῖς ῥήμασι τοῖς ἐμοῖς .
Note.
The discourse, Joh_5:19-47, so fully embodies in its entire progress and contents, allowing for the necessary Johannine colouring in the mode of representation, those essential doctrines which Jesus had to advocate in the face of the unbelieving Jews, and exhibits, in expression and practical application, so much that is characteristic, great, thoughtful, and striking, that even Strauss himself does not venture to deny that it came substantially from the Lord, though as to its form he attaches suspicious importance to certain resemblances with the first Epistle; but such a suspicion is all the less weighty, the more we are warranted to regard the Johannine idiosyncrasy as developed and moulded by the vivid recollection of the Lord’s words, and as under the guidance of His Spirit, which preserved and transfigured that recollection. The reasons which lead Weisse to see nothing in the discourse but synoptical matter, and B. Bauer to regard the whole as a reflection of the later consciousness of the Church, while Gfrörer supposes a real discourse, artificially shaped by additions and formal alterations, consist so much of arbitrary judgments and erroneous explanations and presuppositions, that sober criticism gains nothing by them, nor can the discourse which is attacked lose anything. Certainly we have in it “a genuine exposition of Johannine theology” (Hilgenfeld, Evang. p. 273), but in such a manner, that this is the theology of Christ Himself, the miracle of healing at Bethesda being historically the occasion of the utterance in this manner of its main elements. This miracle itself is indeed by Baur regarded as a fictitious pretext, invented for the delivery of the discourse, so much so that “every feature in it seems to have been intended for this purpose” (p. 159); and this in the face of the fact that no reference whatever is made (in Joh_5:19 ff.) to the point in connection with the miracle at which the Jews took offence, viz. the breaking of the Sabbath (Joh_5:16). Nothing whatever is specially said concerning miracles (for ἔργα denotes a far wider conception), but the whole discourse turns upon that Messianic faith in the person of Jesus which the Jews refused to entertain. The fundamental truths, on this occasion so triumphantly expressed, “were never taught by Him so distinctly and definitely as now, when the right opportunity presented itself, at the very time when, after the Baptist’s removal, He came fully forth as the Messiah, and was called upon, quietly and comprehensively, to explain those highest of all relations, the explanation of which was previously demanded.” Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 298 f.; comp. his Johann. Schr. I. 206 ff. At this crisis of His great mission and work, the references in the discourse to the Baptist, and the apologetic statements concerning His life-giving work and the divine witness of Scripture, connect themselves so necessarily with His historical position, that it cannot even remotely suffice to suppose, with Weizsäcker, p. 282, that the discourse was composed simply with an eye to the synoptical statements of Matthew 11.