Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 6:61 - 6:62
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_6:61-62. Ἐν ἑαυτῷ ] In Himself, without communication; αὐτόματος , Nonnus.
γογγύζ .] as in Joh_6:41.
περὶ τούτου ] concerning this harshness of His discourse.
τοῦτο ὑμ . σκανδ .] Question of astonishment: this, namely, which you have found so hard in my discourse (Jesus knew what it was), does this offend you? Are you so mistaken in your opinion and feelings towards me? Comp. Joh_6:66.
ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε , κ . τ . λ .] Aposiopesis, which, especially “in tam infausta re” (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 362), takes the place of the impassioned statement. See on Luk_19:41; Act_23:9; Rom_9:22. The completion of it must be derived solely from the context, and therefore is not τί ἐρεῖτε or the like (Nonnus, Euthymius Zigabenus, Kuinoel, and many); but τοῦτο ὑμᾶς οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον σκανδαλίσει (comp. Winer, p. 558 [E. T. p. 750]; Fritzsche, Conject. pp. 22, 31): “Will not this impending sight serve to offend you still more?” By ἀναβαίνειν ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον Jesus indicates His death; and, indeed, as He—in whom Daniel’s prophecy of the Son of man was to be fulfilled (comp. Joh_12:23; Mat_26:24)—contemplated it in the consciousness of His heavenly origin and descent (Joh_3:13), of which He had already spoken in Joh_6:58. His death, therefore, so far as it would be to Him, by means of the resurrection and ascension therewith connected, a return to the δόξα which He had before His incarnation. Comp. Joh_17:5, and the ὑψωθῆναι ἐκ τῆς γῆς , Joh_12:32. To the spectators, who only saw the humiliating and shameful outward spectacle of His death, it served only to give the deepest offence. The concluding argument a minori ad majus which lies in οὖν , is like that in Joh_3:12. The interpretation of the ancient Church, which referred the words to the corporeal ascension in and by itself (so also Olshausen, Lindner, Maier, Ebrard, Kahnis, p. 120, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Hengstenberg, Baeumlein, Godet, Harless), would require us of logical necessity to supply, not the supposed increase of offence (Baeumlein), but a question expressing doubt or denial: “would ye still take offence then?” Comp. Joh_8:28. But this import of the aposiopesis, which even Ewald and Brückner adopt, though not explaining the words merely of the ascension, has the οὖν itself decidedly against it, instead of which ἀλλά would be logically required; and the reference to the ascension as such, as an event by itself, is totally without analogy in the discourses of Jesus, and quite un-Johannean.[247] So also the θεωρῆτε , in particular, is against this view; for, with the Present participle ἀναβαίνοντα , it would describe the ascension expressly as a visible event (in answer to Luthardt’s observations, who explains it of the ascension, but with Tholuck regards its visibility as a matter of indifference, so far as the present passage is concerned), though its visible occurrence is attested by no apostle, while in the non-apostolic accounts (Mar_16:19; Luk_24:51; Act_1:9) only the disciples in the narrower sense, the twelve, who are just those not meant by the “ye” in our text, are represented as the eye-witnesses. On the other hand, the opinion that there lies in θεωρ . only the possibility of those present being eye-witnesses (Kahnis, Hofmann)[248] is nothing more than a subtle evasion, unsupported by the ἐάν (comp. Joh_12:32, Joh_14:3, Joh_16:7), and no better than Hengstenberg’s assertion (comp. Tholuck): “those who were present at the ascension were the representatives of the collective body of the disciples.” Parallel with ἀναβαίνειν is the designation of the death of Jesus as a going to God, Joh_7:33, Joh_13:3, Joh_14:12; Joh_14:28, Joh_16:5; Joh_16:28, Joh_17:11; Joh_17:13. That He here describes His death not according to its low and painful phase, but according to the essence of its triumphant consummation as present to His own consciousness, is therefore quite Johannean; comp. also Joh_17:5, Joh_12:23. The reference to the gift of the Spirit, the exaltation being intended as the medium of effecting this (Lange), is remote from the context, and is not indicated by any word in the sentence, for nothing is spoken of but the seeing with the eyes the future departure.
Upon τὸ πρότερον , see on Gal_4:13. It refers to the period preceding His present form of being, when as to the divine part of His nature, i.e. as the Logos, He was in heaven;[249] comp. Joh_17:5; Joh_17:24, Joh_8:58.
[247] Appeal is made, but unreasonably, not only to Joh_3:13, but likewise to Joh_20:17 (see especially Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 517, and Godet). Jesus there is speaking after His death, when that blessed end was still future, in reference to which before His death he was wont to describe that event as a departure and an ascension to the Father. There, accordingly, He could not avoid mentioning the ascension alone.
[248] “For they would certainly see Him die, but they would see Him ascend only if they remained His disciples,” Hofmann. The former is as incorrect as the latter. For Jesus is speaking to His Galilean disciples, and, indeed, to His disciples in the wider sense (ver. 67), of whom therefore we cannot say that they would certainly he present at His death in Jerusalem; while the witnesses of the ascension were not those who remained faithful to Him generally, but the apostles. According to Harless, Christ means to say that they must not think of His flesh and blood in His state of humiliation, but of both in His state of glory. But flesh and blood is the contradictory of δόξα . The glorified body of Christ in the form of flesh and blood is inconceivable (1Co_15:49-50).
[249] The meaning is not that “we immediately substitute another subject” (Beyschlag, Christol. p. 29); but, in harmony with the witness of Jesus regarding Himself elsewhere in John, we have given us a more definite mention of the state wherein the Son of man had His pre-existence in heaven. That He had this as the Son of man, as Beyschlag, p. 85, explains (understanding it of the eternal divine image, whose temporal realization Jesus, by an intuition given Him on earth, knew Himself to be), the text does not say; it says: “the Son of man, i.e. the Messiah, will ascend up where He was before.” There can be no doubt, if we will follow John, in what form of existence He previously was in heaven. Neither is there any doubt if we ask Paul, who speaks of the pre-existence of Jesus ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ . See on Php_2:6; comp. 2Co_8:8-9. He does not there mean that He pre-existed as Jesus, but as the υἱὸς τ . θεοῦ . For the rest, comp. ver. 46, Joh_8:58, Joh_7:5, Joh_1:8. If it be true, as Keim says (Geschichtl. Chr. p. 102, ed. 3), that “not one particle of the self-consciousness of Jesus reaches back beyond His temporal existence,” the fundamental Christological view not only of the fourth Gospel, but of Paul also, is based upon a great illusion. As to the Synoptics, see on Mat_11:27; Mat_8:20.