Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:28 - 8:29
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_8:28-29. Οὖν ] not merely “a continuation of the narration” (De Wette), but: therefore, in reference to this non-understanding, as is also confirmed by the words τότε γνώσεσθε , which refer to οὐκ ἔγνωσαν in Joh_8:27, and, indeed, considered as to its matter, logically correct, seeing that if the Jews had recognised the Messiahship of Jesus, they would also have understood what He said to them of the Father.
ὅταν ὑψώσητε , etc.] when ye shall have lifted up, namely, on to the cross. Comp. on Joh_3:14, Joh_6:62. The crucifixion is treated as an act of the Jews, who brought it about, as also in Act_3:14 f.
τότε -g0- γνώσ -g0-.] Comp. Joh_12:32, Joh_6:62. Then will the result follow, which till then you reject, that you will know, etc. Reason: because the death of Jesus is the condition of His δόξα , and of the mighty manifestations thereof (the outpouring of the Spirit; miraculous works of the apostles; building up of the Church; punishment of the Jews; second coming to judgment). Then shall your eyes be opened, which will take place partly with your own will, and still in time (as in Act_2:36 ff; Act_4:4; Act_6:7; Rom_11:11 ff.); partly against your will, and too late (comp. on Mat_23:39; Luk_13:34 f.). Bengel aptly remarks: “cognoscetis ex re, quod nunc ex verbo non creditis.”
καὶ ἀπʼ ἐμαυτοῦ , etc.] still dependent on ὅτι , and, indeed, as far as μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν ; so that to the universal ποιῶ , the special λαλῶ and the general μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν (is my helper and support) together correspond. Hence there is no brevity of discourse requiring to be completed by supplying in thought λαλῶ to ποιῶ , and ποιῶ along with λαλῶ (De Wette, after Bengel). Nonnus already took the correct view (he begins Joh_8:29 with ὅττι καὶ , etc.); and the objection (Lücke, De Wette, and several others) that οὐκ ἀφῆκε , etc. would then stand too disconnected, has no force, since it is just in John that the asyndetic continuation of a discourse is very common, and, in fact, would also be the case here if καὶ ὁ πέμψ . etc. were no longer dependent on ὅτι .
ταῦτα ] is arbitrarily and without precedent (Mat_9:33 cannot be adduced as one) explained as equivalent to οὕτως , from a commingling of two notions. By the demonstrative ταῦτα Jesus means His doctrine generally (comp. Joh_8:26), with whose presentation He was now occupied. But of this He discoursed in harmony with the instructions received from the Father, i.e. in harmony with the instructions derived from His direct intuition of divine truth with the Father prior to His incarnation. Comp. Joh_8:38; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:13; Joh_6:46; Joh_7:16 f.
οὑκ ἀφῆκε , etc.] Independent corroboration of the last thought, negatively expressed on account of His apparent forsakenness in the face of many and powerful enemies. The Praet. refers to the experience felt in every case, during the course of His entire activity, until now (comp. afterwards πάντοτε ), not to the point of time when He was sent; the reason afterwards assigned would not be appropriate to this latter reference. Comp. also Joh_16:32.
ὅτι ἐγὼ , etc.] because I, etc. Reason assigned for the οὐκ ἀφῆκε , etc. How could He ever leave me alone, as I am He who, etc.? ( ἐγώ with emphasis). Comp. Joh_15:10. Olshausen regards οὐκ ἀφῆκε , etc. as the expression of equality of essence, and ὅτι as assigning the ground of His knowledge. The former idea is erroneous, as the meaning of οὐκ ἀφῆκε , etc. is identical with that of μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν ; and the latter would be an inadequate reason, because it relates merely to moral agreement.