Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:25 - 8:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_8:25. The Jews understand the ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι well enough, but refuse to recognise it, and therefore ask pertly and contemptuously: σὺ τίς εἶ ; tu quis es? σύ being emphasized for the purpose of expressing disdain; comp. Act_19:15. Jesus replies with a counter-question of surprise at so great obduracy on their part; but then at once after Joh_8:26 discontinues any further utterance regarding them, His opponents. His counter-question is: τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅ , τι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν ? What I from the very beginning also say to you? namely, do you ask that? Who I am (to wit, the Messiah, Joh_8:24; Joh_8:29), that is the very thing which, from the very beginning, since I have been among you, and have spoken to you, has formed the matter of my discourse;[14] and can you still ask about that, as though you had not yet heard it from me? They ought to have known long ago, and to have recognised, what they just now asked with their wicked question σὺ τίς εἶ . This view is not complicated, as Winer objects, but corresponds simply to the words and to the situation. On ἀρχήν as used frequently in an adverbial sense, both among the Greeks and by the LXX., with and without the article, to denote time, ab initio, from the very beginning, see Schweighaüser, Lex. Herod. I. p. 104 f.; Lennep ad Phalar. p. 82 ff. It precedes the relative, because it is the point which makes the obduracy of the Jews so very perceptible; comp. Joh_4:18; Buttmann, Neut. Gram. p. 333 d. [E. T. p. 389].
ὅ , τι ] interrogatively, in relation to a question with τίς immediately preceding,—as is frequently the case even in the Classics, so that some such words as thou askest must be supplied in thought. See Kühner, II. § 837, note 1; Bernhardy, p. 443; Krüger, § 51. 17. 3.
καί ] also, expresses the corresponding relation (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152), in this case, of speech to being: what from the very beginning, as I am it, so also, I say it to you.
λαλῶ ] speak, not: say. Comp. on Joh_8:26; Joh_8:43; and see on Rom_3:19. Nor does He use λελάληκα , because it is a continuous speaking; the sound of it is, in fact, still ringing in their ears from. Joh_8:23-24.
The passage is also taken interrogatively by Matthaei, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Lücke. The latter[15] renders: Why, indeed, do I still speak to you at all? With this view, it is true, τὴν ἀρχήν is quite compatible; for it is confessedly often used in the Classics for ab initio, in the sense of omnino (Raphel, Herod. in loc.; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 723; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 237; Breitenbach, ad Xen. Oec. ii. 12), though only in negative propositions, or such whose signification really amounts to a negation,[16] which latter, however, might be the case here (as in Plat. Demod. p. 381 D; Philo, de Abr. p. 366 C); it is also allowable to take ὅ , τι in the sense of why (see on Mar_9:11; Buttmann, neut. Gram. p. 218 [E. T. p. 253]). But the thought itself has so little meaning in it, and is so little natural, expressing, besides, a reflection, which is at the bottom so empty, and, at the same time, through τὴν ἀρχήν , so expanded and destitute of feeling, that we should scarcely expect it at the lips of the Johannean Jesus, especially in circumstances so lively and significant as the present. Further thus understood, the saying would have no connection whatever with what follows, and the logical connection assumed by Lücke would require the insertion of some such words as ΠΕΡῚ ἘΜΟῦ . The words would thus likewise stand in no relation to the question ΣῪ ΤΊς ΕἾ , whereas John’s general manner would lead us to expect an answer which had reference in some significant way or other to the question which had been put. The following are non-interrogative views:—(1) “What I have already said to you at the beginning, that am I!” So Tholuck after Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Maldonatus, Clericus, Heumann, and several others; also B. Crusius. Jesus would thus be announcing that He had already, from the very beginning in His discourses, made known His higher personality. The Praes. λαλῶ , as expressing that which still continues to be in the present, would not be opposed to this view; but it does not harmonize with the arrangement of the words; and logically, at all events, ΚΑΊ ought to stand before ΤῊΝ ἈΡΧΉΝ (comp. Syriac). (2) “From the very first (before all things), I am what I also speak to you.” So De Wette; comp. Luther (“I am your preacher; if you first believe that, you will then learn what I am, and not otherwise”), Melancthon, Aretius, and several; also Maier, who, however, takes τὴν ἀρχὴν incorrectly as thoroughly (nothing else).[17] On this view Jesus, instead of answering directly: “I am the Messiah,” would have said that He was to be known above all things from His discourses.[18] But τὴν ἀρχὴν does not mean “above all things,” not even in Xen. Cyr. i. 2, 3, where we read: τὴν ἀρχὴν μὴ τοιοῦτοι , at the very outset not such, i.e. not such at all, omnino non tales; just as little too in Herod. i. 9, where also, as frequently in Herodotus, it denotes omnino; comp. Wolf, Dem. Lept. p. 278. And how entirely without any reference would be the words ante omnia (surely some sort of posterius would need to be supplied in thought). Brückner has rightly, therefore, rejected the “above all things” in De Wette’s rendering, though regarding it as the only correct one, and keeping to the interpretation “from the very first” in its temporal sense. One cannot, however, see what is really intended by the words “from the very first, I am, etc.,” especially as placed in such an emphatic position at the commencement of the clause. For Jesus had neither occasion nor ground for giving the assurance that He had been from the beginning of His appearance, and still was, such as He had declared Himself to be in His discourses, and therefore had not since become different. (3) “Undoubtedly (nothing else) am I what I also say to you.” So Kuinoel;—a view which assigns an incorrect meaning to τὴν ἀρχήν , and confounds λαλῶ with λέγω ; objections which affect also the similar interpretation of Ebrard: “I am altogether that which I also say to you (that I am He).” (4) “At the very outset I declared of myself what I also explain to you, or what I also now say.” So Starck, Not. sel. p. 106; Bretschneider. But the supplying of λελάληκα from the following λαλῶ (comp. Dissen, Dem. de Cor. p. 359) would only be suggested if we read ὅ , τι καὶ νῦν λαλῶ ὑμῖν . (5) Fritzsche (Lit. Bl. z. allg. Kirchenz. 1843, p. 513, and de conform. Lachmann, p. 53), whom Hengstenberg follows, takes the view: “Sum a rerum primordiis (Joh_1:1) ea natura, quam me esse vobis etiam profiteor.” Jesus would thus have designated Himself as the primal Logos. Quite unintelligibly for His hearers, who had no occasion for taking τὴν ἀρχήν in the absolute sense, as though reminded of the angel of the Lord in Malachi 3 and Zechariah 11, nor for understanding ὅ , τι κ . λ . ὑμ . as Fritzsche does; at all events, as far as the latter is concerned, λέγω ought to have been used instead of λαλῶ . (6) Some connect τὴν ἀρχήν with πολλὰ ἔχω , etc., Joh_8:26, and after λαλῶ ὑμῖν place merely a comma. So already Codd., Nonnus, Scaliger, Clarius, Knatchbull, Raphel, Bengel, and, more recently, Olshausen, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 65, II. p. 178, and Baeumlein. In taking the words thus, ὅ , τι is either written ὅτι , because, with Scaliger and Raphel (so also Bengel: “principio, quum etiam loquor vobis [Dativus commodi: ‘ut credatis et salvemini’] multa habeo de vobis loqui, etc.”[19]), or is taken as a pronoun, id quod. In the latter way, Olshausen explains it, following Clarius: “In the first place, as I also plainly say to you, I have much to blame and punish in you; I am therefore your serious admonisher.” Baeumlein, however, renders: “I have undoubtedly—as I also do—much to speak and to judge concerning you.” But on this view of the words Jesus would have given no answer at all to the question σὺ τίς εἶ ; according to Olshausen, ΤῊΝ ἈΡΧΉΝ would have to be transformed into ΠΡῶΤΟΝ , in the first place; and the middle clause, according to Olshausen and Baeumlein, would give a quite superfluous sense; while, according to the view of Bengel and Hofmann, it would be forced and unnatural. (7) Exegetically impossible is the interpretation of Augustine: “Principium (the very beginning of all things) me credite, quia ( ὅτι ) et loquor vobis, i.e. quia humilis propter vos factus ad ista verba descendi;” comp. Gothic, Ambrose, Bede, Ruperti, and several others. Calvin rightly rejects this interpretation, but himself gives one that is impossible. (8) Obscure, and an importation, is Luthardt’s view ( ὅτι , that: “from the beginning am I, that I may also speak to you”), that Jesus describes the act of His speaking, the existence of His word, as His presence for the Jews; that from His first appearance onwards, He who was then present as the Word of God on the earth had been always used to give Himself a presence for men in the Word. If, according to this view, as it would seem, τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅτι denotes: “from the beginning it is my manner, that,” this cannot possibly be in the simple εἰμί , which has to be supplied in thought; besides, how much is forced into the mere ΛΑΛῶ ὙΜῖΝ !
[14] According to John, at His very first appearance in the temple, Joh_2:19.
[15] So, without doubt, Chrysostom also, who gives as the meaning: τοῦ ὅλως ἀκούειν τῶν λόγων τῶν παρʼ ἐμοῦ ἀνάξιοί ἐστε , μήτι γε καὶ μαθεῖν ὅστις ἐγώ εἰμι . Comp. Cyril and Theophylact, also Euth. Zigabenus. Matthaei explains the words in exact accordance with Lücke: “Cur vero omnino vobiscum loquor? cur frustra vobiscum disputo?” See ed. min. I. p. 575. With this also is in substantial agreement the view of Ewald, who, however, regards the words rather as the expression of righteous indignation than as a question: “That I should, indeed, speak to you at all!” It would be more correct to say: “That I should at all even (still) speak to you!” But how greatly is the at all thus in the way! “ Οτι , too, would then need a supplement, which is not furnished by the text. Besides, the following words, especially if introduced without an ἀλλά or μέντει (indicating that Jesus had collected Himself again, and suppressed His indignation), would not be appropriate. In the Theol. QuartalsChr. 1855, p. 592 ff., Nirschl renders: “To what purpose shall I speak further to you of the origin, i.e. of God, and my own derivation from Him?” But on this view Christ ought, at the very least, to have said τὴν ἀρχήν μου .
[16] See especially Lennep, l.c. and p. 94; Brückner on the passage.
[17] Comp. Winer, p. 432 [E. T. p. 581], who gives as the meaning: “I am entirely that which I represent myself as being in my discourses.” So also Godet: “Absolument ce que je vous dis; ni plus ni moins que ce que renferme ma parole.” But τ . ἀρχήν is used in the sense of completely, entirely, only in connection with negations (usually, too, without the article): not at all, not in the least; “cum negatione praefracte negando servit,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. l.c.
[18] Under this head belongs also the view taken by Grotius (which is substantially adopted by Lange): “Primum (in the first instance) hoc sum, quod et dico vobis, hoc ipsum quod me hoc ipso tempore esse dixi, i.e. lux mundi.” As though we read: πρῶτον μὲν ὅ , τι καὶ λέγω ὑμῖν . In the same way as Grotius, has Calov. also explained it, taking, however, τὴν ἀρχήν in the sense of omnino, plane (consequently like Winer).
[19] Comp. Hofmann: “At first, namely for the present, because this is the time, when He speaks to them, He has much to speak and to judge about them in words.” Τὴν ἀρχήν is alleged, to be used in opposition to a τὸ τέλος , i.e. to a time when that which He now speaks will be proved by deeds, ver. 28. In this way meaning and connection are imported into the passage, and yet the καί (with an appeal to Hartung, Partik. I. p. 129) is completely neglected, or rather transferred from the relative to the principal clause. How the passages adduced by Hartung may be explained without any transference, see in Klotz, ad Devar. p. 635 ff. In particular, there is no ground for supposing the existence of a trajection of the καί in the N. T. Hofmann explains, as though John had written: τὴν ἀρχήν , ὅτι νῦν λαλῶ ὑμῖν , καὶ πολλὰ ἔχω , etc.