Bibelkommentare

CHAPTER 17

John 17:1. ἐπῇρε] B. C.* D. L. X. א. Curss. Or. Cyr.: ἐπάρας without the following καί. So Lachm. Tisch. A frequently-occurring improvement of the style. In like manner is the reading τελειώσας, John 17:4, instead of ἐτελείωσα. to be regarded.

ἵνα καί] καί is condemned by decisive witnesses.

John 17:3. γινώσκωσι] Tisch.: γινώσκουσιν, following A. D. G. L. Y. Δ. Λ. An error in transcription, instead of which Lachm., following B. C. E. א., has rightly retained the conjunctive.

John 17:4. Between the forms δέδωκα and ἔδωκα, the Codd. in this chap. vacillate in various ways.

John 17:7. ἐστίν] Tisch.: εἰσίν, according to preponderant evidence. The Recepta is an attempted improvement.

John 17:11. Instead of ᾧ Elz. has οὕς, against decisive witnesses. The too weakly attested reading ὅ (D.* U. X.), which is a resolution of the attraction, testifies also in favour of ᾧ.

John 17:12. ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] after αὐτῶν, is wanting in the majority of witnesses; deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An addition after John 17:11.

Instead of οὕς, Tisch. has ᾧ, according to B. C.* L. Mechanical repetition from John 17:11.

John 17:16. The position of οὐκ εἰμί after ἐγώ (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.

John 17:17. After ἀληθεία the Edd., except Lachm., have σου, which must be deleted on the decisive testimony of A. B. C.* D. L. 1, Vulg. It. Goth. Sahid. Cyr. Did. Ambr. Aug. A more definite exegetical definition in accordance with what follows. Bengel aptly remarks in his Appar.: “persaepe veritas apud Joh.… nunquam additur Dei.”

John 17:19. The order ὦσιν καὶ αὐτοί (Lachm. Tisch.) is decisively attested.

John 17:20. Instead of πιστευόντων Elz. has πιστευσόντων, contrary to decisive testimonies.

John 17:21. ἐν ἡμῖν ἕν ὦσιν] B.C.*D. Codd. of It. Sahid. Arm. Ath. Hil. Vig. Tisch. have merely ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν. Lachm. has ἕν in brackets. This ἕν is a glossematic addition.

John 17:23. καὶ ἵνα] B. C. D. L. X. Curss. Verss. Fathers have merely ἵνα. καί is rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpolation irrelevant to the connection, made without attending to the construction of John 17:21.

John 17:24. οὕς] B. D. א. Copt. Goth. Vulg. ms.: ὅ. So Tisch. Considering the weighty attestation, and that οὕς very readily suggested itself as an improvement, ὅ must be regarded as the original reading. Comp. on John 17:11.

John 17:1-2.[185] The parting discourses to the disciples are finished, and that with the words, giving assurance of victory, ἘΓῺ ΝΕΝΊΚ. Τ. ΚΌΣΜ. But now, before Jesus goes forth into the fatal night, as He casts a parting glance on His disciples, who are standing there ready to move on (John 14:31), and on the whole future of His work, now to be completed on behalf of earth, His communion with the Father impels Him to prayer. He prays aloud (John 17:13) and long on His own behalf (John 17:1-5), on behalf of His disciples (John 17:6-19), and on behalf of those who are to become believers at a later time (John 17:20 ff.), with all the depth, intensity, clearness, and repose of the moral need, and of the childlike devotion of the Fulfiller. Because He, by this prayer, prepares Himself for the high-priestly act of the atoning self-sacrifice (see especially John 17:19), it is justly termed the precatio summi sacerdotis (Chytraeus), an appellation which is arbitrarily explained by Hengstenberg from the Aaronic blessing (Leviticus 9:22; Numbers 6:22 ff.). Luther aptly says: “that He might fully discharge His office as our sole high priest.”

ταῦτα ἐλάλησεν … καὶ … καί] Not negligence of style (De Wette), but solemn circumstantiality.

ΕἸς Τ. ΟὐΡ.] does not serve to establish the point that Jesus spoke in the open air (see on John 14:31; so Ruperti, Grotius, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, and many others), nor is the suggestion needed (Gerhard) that through the window of the room the heavens were accessible to view, but the eye of one who prays is on all occasions raised toward heaven. Comp. Acts 7:55.

ἡ ὥρα] The hour κατʼ ἐξοχήν, i.e. the hour of my death, as that of my passage to Thee, John 13:1, John 12:23.

δόξασον … δοξάσῃ] The former through the elevation into the heavenly glory (comp. John 17:5), the latter through the revelation of the glory of God, so far, that is, as the victory of the gospel in the world, and the entire continuance and consummation of the divine work of redemption was conjoined with the heavenly glorification and ministry of Christ. To refer δόξασον to the earthly, moral glorification of Christ in the recognition of His Person and cause (Didymus, Nösselt, Kuinoel, De Wette, Reuss), or to the communication of the true God-consciousness to humanity (Baur), is opposed to the context, because Christ means His glorification through His death, but this in John is constantly the personal heavenly glorification. Note further σου τὸν υἱόν and Ὁ ΥἹΌς ΣΟΥ; the emphasis of the ΣΟΥ, which is moved to the first place, is related to the prayer as assigning a reason for it; it is in truth Thy Son whom Thou art to glorify.

John 17:2 presents to the Father the definite motive for the fulfilment of that which was prayed for, and that in such a manner that καθὼς … σαρκός corresponds to the preceding ΔΌΞΑΣΟΝ ΣΟΥ ΤῸΝ ΥἹΌΝ, and ἽΝΑ ΠᾶΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ., which contains the purpose of ἜΔΩΚΑς ΑὐΤῷ ἘΞΟΥΣ. Π. Σ., is correlative to ἽΝΑ Ὁ ΥἹΌς Σ. ΔΟΞ. ΣΕ.[186]

καθώς denotes the motive contained in the relation of fitness, in the measure that, according as. Comp. on John 13:34.

Full power over all men has the Father given to the Son on His mission (John 13:3), for He has endowed Him as the sole Redeemer and Saviour with power for the execution of the decree of salvation, which extends to all; none is exempted from His Messianic authority. But this ἐξουσία He cannot carry out without returning to the heavenly δόξα, whence He must carry on and complete His work. By πάσης σαρκός, however, the whole of humanity—and that in its imperfection (see on Acts 2:17), conditioned by the very fact of the σάρξ, John 3:6, by which it is destitute of eternal life—is, with a certain solemnity of the O. T. type (כל בשר), designated. The expression is not elsewhere found in John, but it corresponds exactly to this elevated mood of prayer.

ἵνα πᾶν, κ.τ.λ.] Not a mere statement of the contents and compass of the ἐξουσία (Ebrard): no, in the attainment of the blessed design of that fulness of power (comp. John 5:26-27) lies precisely that glorification of the Father, John 17:1. Not all, however, without distinction, can receive eternal life through Christ, but (comp. John 17:6) those whom the Father has given to the Son (through the attraction by grace, John 6:37; John 6:39; John 6:44; John 6:65) are such, designated from the side of the divine efficiency, the same who, on their side, are the believing (John 1:12, John 3:15, et al.), not “the spiritual supramundane natures” whom Hilgenfeld here discovers. Comp. besides, on John 6:37; John 6:39.

αὐτοῖς] to be referred to the subjects of the absolute (Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 325 [E. T. pp. 379, 380]) collective ΠᾶΝ (Bremi, ad Isocr. I. Exc. X.). Note further the weighty parallel arrangement δέδωκας αὐτῲ, δώσῃ αὐτοῖς. On the form δώσῃ, see Buttmann, N. T. Gr. p. 31 [E. T. p. 36]. Not future conjunctive (Bengel, Baeumlein), but a corrupt form of the aorist.

[185] Luther’s exposition of chap. 17 belongs to the year 1534.

[186] Ewald begins a new sentence with καθώς, which is first completed in ver. 4, so that ver. 3 is a parenthesis: “Even as Thou gavest to Him full power … I glorified Thee upon the earth.” But the periodic form which thus arises is less in harmony with the manner of this prayer; and the change of persons in vv. 2 and 4 betrays the want of mutual connection.

John 17:3. The continuative δέ adduces, in keeping with the connection, a more precise definition[187] of ζωὴ αἰώνιος (not a transposition of its idea, as Weiss holds), and that with a retrospective glance to the glorification of the Father in John 17:1. On ἐστίν, comp. on Romans 14:17; John 3:19.

In this consists eternal life, that they should recognise (ἵνα, comp. on John 6:29) Thee as the only true God (as Him to whom alone belongs the reality of the idea of God, comp. 1 Corinthians 8:4), and Thy sent one Jesus as Messiah. This knowledge of God here desired (which is hence the believing, living, practical knowledge, καθὼς δεῖ γνῶναι, 1 Corinthians 8:2), is the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, so far as it is the essential subjective principle of the same, unfolding this ζωή out of itself, its continual, ever self-developing germ and impulse (comp. Sap. John 15:1; John 15:3), even now in the temporal evolution of eternal life, and at a future time, besides, after the establishment of the kingdom, in which faith, hope, and love abide (1 Corinthians 3); the fundamental essence of which is in truth nothing else than that knowledge, which in the future αἰών will be the perfected knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:12), comp. 1 John 3:2. The contents of the knowledge are stated with the precision of a Confession,—a summary of faith in opposition[188] to the polytheistic (τ. μόνον ἀληθ. θεόν, comp. John 5:44; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:9) and Jewish κόσμος, which latter rejected Jesus as Messiah, although in Him there was given, notwithstanding, the very highest revelation of the only true God. It is in the third person, however, that the praying Jesus speaks of Himself from John 17:1 forwards, placing Himself in an objective relation towards the Father during the first intensity of this solemn mood, and first at John 17:4 continuing the prayer with the familiar ἐγώ; He indeed mentions His name in John 17:3, because in the connection of the self-designation through the third person, it here specifically suggested itself, in correspondence to the confessional thought.

Χριστόν] is an appellative predicate: as Messiah, comp. John 9:22. To connect it as a proper name with Ἰησ. (Jesus Christ, comp. John 1:17), to ascribe to the evangelist an offence against historical decorum (Bretschneider, Lücke, De Wette), and to see in this a proof of a later reproduction (comp. Tholuck and Weizsäcker, p. 286; also Scholten, p. 238), would be to accuse the writer, especially in the report of such a prayer, of a surprising want of consideration. Luthardt also takes Χριστόν as a proper name, which he thinks was here, in this extraordinary moment, used for the first time by Jesus, and thereby at the same time determined the use of the word by the apostles (Acts 2:38). So also Godet, comp. Ebrard. But Jesus prayed in Hebrew, and doubtless said יֵשׁוּע חַמָּשִּׁיהַ, from which expression a proper name could by no means be recognised. The predicative view of Τ. ΜΌΝ. ἈΛ. ΘΕΌΝ and of ΧΡΙΣΤΌΝ is also justly held by Ewald.

Although Τ. ΜΌΝΟΝ ἈΛΗΘ. ΘΕΌΝ refers solely to the Father, the true divine nature of Christ is not thereby excluded (against the Arians and Socinians, who misused this passage), all the less so as this, in accordance with His (Logos) relationship as dependent on the Godhead of the Father, forms the previous assumption in ὋΝ ἈΠΈΣΤΕΙΛΑς, as is certain from the entire connection of the Johannean Christology, and from John 17:5. Comp. Wetstein, and Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 162. Hence it was unnecessary,—moreover, even a perversion of the passage, and running counter to the strict monotheism of John, when Augustine, Ambrose, Hilary, Beda, Thomas, Aretius, and several others explained it as if the language were: ut te et quem misisti Jesum Christum cognoscant solum verum Deum. Only One, the Father, can absolutely be termed the μόνος ἀληθ. θεός (comp. ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεός, Romans 9:5), not at the same time Christ (who is not even in 1 John 5:20 the ἀληθινὸς θεός), since His divine entity stands in the relation of genetic subsistence to the Father, John 1:18, although He, in unity with the Father, works as His commissioner, John 10:30, and is His representative, John 14:9-10.

[187] No formal definition. See the apposite observations of Riehm in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 539 f.

[188] An antithesis which might present itself naturally and unsought to the world-embracing glance of the praying Jesus, on the boundary line of His work, which includes entire humanity. But He had also thought further of the ἐξουσία πάσης σαρκός, which was given to Him. This likewise in opposition to Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 56, who considers the antithesis foreign to the connection.

John 17:4-5. Once more the prayer of John 17:1, δόξασόν σου τὸν υἱόν, but stating a different reason for it (“ostendit, non iniquum se petere,” Grotius), and setting forth the δόξα more definitely.

ἐγώ σε ἐδοξ. ἐπὶ τ. γ.] By what, is expressed by the following parallel proposition, which is subjoined with asyndetic liveliness. The Messianic work glorified God, to whose highest revelation, and therewith to His knowledge, praise, and honour it bore reference. Comp. John 17:6.

The aorists ἐδόξ. and ἐτελεί. are employed, because Jesus stands at the goal of His earthly activity, where He already includes in this account the fact which puts a close to His earthly work, the fact of His death, as already accomplished. Christ is not passive in His sufferings; His obedientia passiva is active, the highest point of His activity.

καὶ νῦν] And now, when I take leave of this my earthly ministry.

In what follows note the correlation of με σύ with ἐγώ σε, in which the thought of recompense (comp. διό, Php 2:9) is expressed. The emphasis lies on ἐγώ and σύ, hence after με no comma should stand.

παρὰ σεαυτῷ] so that I may be united with Thyself in heavenly fellowship (Colossians 3:3), corresponding to ἐπὶ τ. γῆς. Comp. on John 13:32.

The δόξα, which Jesus possessed before the creation of the world, and thus in eternity before time was (εἶχον, which is to be understood realiter, not with the Socinians, Grotius, Wetstein, Nösselt, Löffler, Eckermann, Stolz, Gabler, comp. B. Crusius, Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 286 f., Scholten, ideally of the destinatio divina), was the divine glory, i.e. the essentially glorious manifestation of the entire divine perfection and blessedness, the μορφὴ θεοῦ (Php 2:6) in His pre-existent state (John 1:1), of which He divested Himself when He became man, and the resumption of which, in the consciousness of its once enjoyed possession,[189]He now asks in prayer from God. Had Christ contemplated Himself as the eternal archetype of humanity in His pre-historical unity with the proper personal life of God, and attributed to Himself in this sense the premundane δόξα (Beyschlag, p. 87 f.), His expression ΕἾΧΟΝ ΠΑΡᾺ ΣΟΊ would stand in contradiction therewith, because this latter separates the subject that had been in possession from the divine subject in such a manner that the former was with the latter, and possessed the glory, as then also the glory again prayed for would not be adequate to that already formerly possessed; for the essence of the former is the σύνθρονον εἶναι θεοῦ, which consequently that of the latter must also have been. Comp. on John 6:62.

For the fulfilment of this prayer: Php 2:9; 1 Timothy 3:16; Hebrews 1:8; Hebrews 1:13; Acts 2:34; 1 Peter 3:22, et al. The δόξα, however, which His believing ones beheld in Him in His earthly working (John 1:14), was not the heavenly majesty in its Godlike, absolute existence and manifestation,—that He had as λόγος ἄσαρκος, and obtained it again in divine-human completeness after His ascension,—but His temporally divine-human glory, the glory of God present in earthly and bodily limitation, which He had in the state of ΚΈΝΩΣΙς, and made known through grace and truth, as well as through His entire activity. Comp. on John 1:14; see also Liebner, Christol. I. p. 323 f.

[189] Not merely in a momentary anticipation, in which it appeared before the eye of His spirit (Weizsäcker). Comp. on John 8:58. It is a perversion of the exegetically clear and certain relation when Weizsäcker finds in such passages, instead of the self-consciousness of Jesus reaching back into His pre-human state, only “the culminating point of an advancing self-knowledge.” That here, however, and in ver. 25, different modes of apprehending the person of Christ are intimated (Weizsäcker in the Jahrb. f. D. Th. 1862, p. 645 ff.), cannot be established on exegetical grounds. See on ver. 25.

John 17:6-8. Hitherto Jesus has prayed on behalf of Himself. But now He introduces His intercession on behalf of His disciples, which begins with John 17:9, by representing them as worthy of this intercession.

σου] With emphasis, as opposed to τοῖς ἀνθρώπ., in the deep feeling of the holiness and greatness of the task discharged.

What the name of God comprises in itself and expresses (see on Matthew 6:9), was previously made known to the disciples only in so far as it brought with it its O. T. imagery; but the specific disclosures respecting God and His counsel of salvation resting in Christ, and His entire redemptive relation to men, which Christ had given them by virtue of his prophetic office (the Christian contents, therefore, of the divine name), entitled Him to pray; ἐφανέρωσά σου τ. ὄν., κ.τ.λ. Comp. Colossians 1:26-27. A reference to the Jewish practice of keeping secret the name of Jehovah (Hilgenfeld) lies entirely remote from the meaning.

οὓς δέδωκ. μοι ἐκ τ. κόσμου] Necessary definition of τοῖς ἀνθρώποις (hence not to be connected with σοὶ ἦσαν); whom Thou hast given to me out of the world (separated from out of the unbelieving, John 15:19), that is, the disciples (see John 17:8; John 17:11), as objects of the divine counsel of salvation God has given them through attracting them by His grace; see on John 6:37.

σοί] Possessive pronoun, as in John 17:9; they belonged to Thee, were Thine, “per fidem V. T.,” Bengel. Comp. John 1:37; John 1:42; John 1:46; John 1:48, and generally John 8:47, John 6:37; John 6:44. Therefore not in the sense of predestination (Beza, Calvin), but of motive, from which God, to whom they indeed already inwardly belonged, has drawn them to Christ. God knows His own. The non-ethical interpretation of property generally (Cyril.: ἴδια γὰρ πάντα θεῷ), or, as “Thy creatures” (Hengstenberg), yields no special statement of reason.

καὶ τὸν λόγον σου τετηρ.] and with what result gavest Thou them to me! On τ. λόγον σου, comp. John 7:16, John 12:48-49, and on τετηρ., they have kept Thy word (by faith and deed), John 8:51, John 14:23.

νῦν ἔγνωκαν, κ.τ.λ.] Progress in the representation of this result, which is now advanced so far, that they have recognised (and do recognise, perfect) all that the Father has communicated to Christ as that which it is, as proceeding from God. All which Thou hast given to me points not merely to the doctrine (De Wette), but to the entire activity of Jesus (Luthardt), for which He has received from the Father a commission, direction, power, result, etc. Comp. John 17:4; John 12:49; John 5:36. A more definite limitation is arbitrary, because not demanded by what follows, which rather establishes the general expression (John 17:7) by means of the particular (τὰ ῥήματα).

John 17:8 gives the causative demonstration (ὅτι, for), how they attained to the knowledge of John 17:7,[190] namely, (1) on the part of Jesus, in that He communicated to them the words given Him by God, i.e. that which He, as Interpreter of God, had to announce (nothing else); and (2) on their part (αὐτοί), in that they have adopted this,[191] and have actually known it (John 7:26). Thus with them that ἔγνωσαν in John 17:7 has come to completion.

καὶ αὐτοί] is only to be separated by a comma from what precedes, and, further, is connected with ὍΤΙ. The ΚΑῚ ἘΠΊΣΤΕΥΣΑΝ, Κ.Τ.Λ., parallel to ἜΓΝΩΣΑΝ ἈΛΗΘῶς, Κ.Τ.Λ., adding faith to knowledge (see on John 6:69), and the above ἐξῆλθον (comp. on John 8:42), leading back to the Fatherly behest, whereby it is accomplished, completes the expression of the happy result attained in the case of the disciples. Note, further, the historical aorists ἔλαβ. and ἘΠΊΣΤ. in their difference of sense from the perfects.

[190] Ewald begins with ὅτι (because), a protasis, the apodosis of which (I therefore beg) follows in ver. 9, in such a manner, however, that from οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου to ἔρχομαι, ver. 11, a parenthesis is introduced, and then first with πάτηρ ἅγιε comes the supplication conveyed by ἐρωτῶ. But this complicated arrangement is neither necessary nor appropriate to the clear and peaceful flow of the language of this prayer as it stands.

[191] i.e. They have not rejected the ῥήματα, but have allowed them to influence themselves. This is the necessary pre-condition of knowledge and of faith. Comp. Weiss, Lehrbegr. p. 28.

John 17:9. I pray for them! Both in ἐγώ and in περὶ αὐτῶν there lies a motive element in reference to God. That which lies in περὶ αὐτῶν is then further made specially prominent, first negatively (οὐ π. τ. κόσμ. ἐρ.), and then positively (ἀλλὰ περὶ, κ.τ.λ.).

οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου] has no dogmatic weight, and is therefore not to be explained in the sense of the condemnation of the world (Melanchthon), or of absolute predestination (Calvin, Jansen, Lampe), or of the negation of such intercession in general (Hengstenberg), but refers simply and solely to this present intercession, which has in truth no relation to those who are strangers to God, but to His own, whom He has given to Jesus,—and this should all the more move Him to fulfil the prayers. Prayer for the unbelieving has been enjoined by Jesus Himself (Matthew 5:44), and was, moreover, offered by Himself upon the cross (Luke 23:34), and for them did He die, comp. also John 17:20; but here He has only the disciples in view, and lays them, by the antithesis οὐ περὶ τ. κόσμου, the more earnestly on the Father’s heart. Luther well says: “At other times one should pray for the world, that it may be converted.” Comp. John 17:21.

ὅτι σοί εἰσι] Ground of the intercession: because they—although given to me—are Thine, belonging to Thee as my believing ones, since they were Thine (John 17:6) already, before Thou gavest them to me.

John 17:10. Καὶ τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα … ἐμά] is parenthetic (on καί parentheticum, see Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. 13, p. 35), and καὶ δεδόξ. ἐν αὐτοῖς is still in connection with ὅτι, John 17:9, containing a second ground of the intercession.

As regards the above parenthesis, when Jesus prayed ὅτι σοί εἰσι, John 17:9, His glance was extended from this concrete relation to the category, to the general reciprocal community of property, which, in matters relating to His work, exists between Him, the Son and plenipotentiary of the Father, and the Father. Both have the same work, the same aim, the same means, the same power, the same grace and truth, etc., in common; neither has and works separate from the other, and for Himself; God in Christ, and He in God. Comp. on John 16:15. Luther aptly remarks: “It would not yet be so much if He simply said: All that is mine is Thine; for that every one can say …; but this is much greater, that He inverts the relation, and says: All that is Thine is mine; this no creature can say in reference to God.”

δεδόξ. ἐν αὐτ.] I am glorified in them, in their person and activity, in so far as they are bearers and furtherers of my glory and knowledge upon earth, so precious and important, then, that I pray for them. What is already begun, and is certainly to be further accomplished in the near future, Jesus views, speaking in the perfect with prophetic anticipation, as completed and actually existing (Kühner, II. p. 72), and ἐν denotes the relation resting on, contained in them, as in John 13:31-32, John 14:13.

John 17:11. Before He now gives expression to the special supplication itself (πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον, κ.τ.λ.), He first brings forward the peculiar ground of need, connecting in profound emotion its individual members unperiodically by καί.

οὐκέτι εἰμὶ, κ.τ.λ.] Thus He speaks, “nunc quasi provincia sua defunctus,” Calvin.

καὶ οὗτοι, κ.τ.λ.] “hos relinquam in tantis fluctibus,” Grotius.

ἅγιε] As in John 17:25, δίκαιε, so here ἅγιε is added significantly; for to guarantee that which Jesus would now pray (τήρησον, κ.τ.λ.) is in harmony with the holiness of His Father, which has been revealed to Him in entire fulness, a holiness which is the absolute antithesis of the ungodly nature of the profane world.[192] Placed by their calling in this unholy κόσμος, they shall be guarded by the holy God so as to abide faithfully in His name. In harmony with this antithesis of the holiness of God to the nature of the world, stands the petition, “hallowed be Thy name,” at the head of the Lord’s Prayer. Comp. also 1 John 2:20; Hebrews 12:10; 1 Peter 1:16; Revelation 6:10. Thus the Father discharges the obligation lying on Himself, if He keeps the disciples of the Son in His name.

ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. σ.] Specific sphere, in which they are to remain through being so kept; the name of the Father is made known to them (John 17:6; John 17:26), and with a happy result (John 17:6-8); thus are they to persevere in His living acquaintance and believing confession, not to depart out of this holy element of their life.

ᾧ δέδωκ. μοι] ᾧ by attraction, instead of ὅ, which, however, does not stand instead of οὕς (Bengel, comp. Ewald and Godet, who would read ὅ, see the critical notes), but: God has given His name to Christ, and that not in the sense of the divine nature entering into manifestation, as Hengstenberg here drags in from Exodus 23:21, but rather in the sense of John 17:6, for revelation to the disciples; He has for such a purpose delivered His name to Him as the object of a holy commission. In conformity with this, the Lord prays that God would keep them in this His name, in order that they, in virtue of the one common faith and confession resting on the name of God, may be one (in the spiritual fellowship, of like mind and love, comp. John 17:22-23), in conformity with the archetype[193] of the ethical unity of the Father and the Son (comp. the Pauline εἷς θεὸς κ. πατὴρ πάντων, κ.τ.λ., Ephesians 4:6). Hence ἵνα expresses the object of τήρησον, κ.τ.λ., not of δέδωκ. μοι.

[192] According to Diestel in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1859, p. 45, God is here conceived of as ἅγιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which is the completion of the N. T. ἅγιος τοῦ ʼΙσραήλ. But of this there is neither any indication in the context, nor do we find generally the idea of God as of the ἅγιος τοῦ Χριστοῦ expressed. Hengstenberg refers too exclusively to the power of the holy God.

[193] Bengel: “Illa unitas est ex natura, haec ex gratia; igitur illi haec similis est, non aequalis.”