성경 주석서

CHAPTER 11

John 11:12. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ] A. 44 have merely αὐτῷ. D. K. Π. א. Curss. Verss.: αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταί (so Lachm. and Tisch.). B.C.*L.X. Copt.: οἱ μαθ. αὐτῷ. The simple αὐτῷ is the original reading; οἱ μαθ. was written in the margin; then was introduced into the text partly before and partly after αὐτῷ; and in the former position brought about the partial change of αὐτῷ into αὐτοῦ.

John 11:17. ἐλθὼν … εὗρεν] Lachm.: ἦλθεν … καὶ εὗρεν, solely after C.* D. Partly before (so Lachm. in the margin), partly after ἡμέρας (so Elzev. and Lachm.), stands ἤδη, which, however, is altogether omitted (so Tisch.) by A.* D. Curss. Verss.: τέσσ. ἤδη ἡμ. must be regarded as the original reading (B. C.*). The word ἤδη, beginning and ending with H, was easily passed over, as standing immediately before ἡμέρας, which also begins with H, and was then restored in the wrong place.

John 11:19. Instead of καὶ πολλοί, we must, with decisive testimonies, read πολλοὶ δέ with Lachm. and Tisch.

αὐτῶν] after ἀδελφοῦ must, with Tisch., after B. D. L. א., be deleted as a usual addition.

John 11:21. ὁ ἀ δελφ. μου οὐκ ἂν ἐτεθνήκει] Lachm. and Tisch., after decisive witnesses, read οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανεν ὁ ἀδ. μου. If ἐτεθνήκει had been the original reading, it would have been found as a various reading also in John 11:32; it is a clumsy interpretation.

John 11:22. ἀλλά] is wanting in B. C.* X. א. Curss. Verss. Chrys. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An antithetical interpolation.

John 11:29. ἐγείρεται] B. C.*D. L. א. Curss. Verss.: ἠγέρθη. So Lachm. A mechanical transposition into the historical tense, with which the reading ἤρχετο (instead of ἤρχεται) in the same Codd., except D., is also connected.

John 11:30. After ἦν Lachm. and Tisch. have ἔτι (B. C. X. א. Curss. Verss.). An addition more precisely determining the meaning, which other witnesses place before ἦν.

John 11:31. λέγοντες] B. C.*D. L. X. א. Curss. Verss.: δόξαντες, which, as an unusual expression, must with Tisch. be received into the text on the authority of these decisive witnesses.

John 11:32. The position of αὐτοῦ before εἰς τ. πόδ. (Elz. and Lachm. place it after) has the decision of the Codd. in its favour.

εἰς] B. C.* D. L. X. א. Curss.: πρός. So Tisch., and the witnesses are decidedly in its favour.

John 11:39. Instead of τετελουτηχότος, Elz. has τεθνηκότος, in opposition to decisive testimonies. A gloss.

John 11:40. The future form ὄψῃ has decisive evidence in its favour (Lachm. and Tisch.).

John 11:41. After λίθον Elz. places οὗ ἦν ὁ τεθνηκὼς κείμενος, in opposition to decisive testimony. Other witnesses have other explanatory additions.

John 11:45. ἄ] Lachm. has ὅ, after A.** B. CD. Curss. Verss. (in John 11:46, also, the ὅ is adopted by Lachm., although the evidence in its favour is weaker). The one act, which is meant, would easily suggest the singular.

After ἐποίησεν Elz. inserts ὁ Ἰησοῦς. An unusual addition, opposed to overwhelming evidence.

John 11:50. διαλογίζεσθε] A. B. D. L. א. Curss. Or. Cyr. Chrys.: λογίζεσθε. Recommended by Griesbach; adopted by Lachm. and Tisch., and correctly too; διαλογίζεσθαι was more familiar to the copyists from the other Gospels.

John 11:57. δὲ καί] Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted καί on the authority of decisive witnesses.

Instead of ἐντολήν, B. J. M. א. Curss. Or. (twice) have ἐντολάς, which, with Tisch., is to be adopted. The Recepta is a correction.

John 11:1 f.[68] This stay of Jesus in retirement, however, is terminated by the sickness of Lazarus (δέ).

Simplicity of the style of the narrative: But there was a certain one sick, (namely) Lazarus of Bethany, of the town, etc: ἀπὸ (John 7:42; Matthew 2:1; Matthew 27:57) and ἘΚ both denote the same relation (John 1:46 f.), that of derivation; hence it is the less allowable to regard the two sisters and the brother as Galileans, and Mary as the Magdalene (Hengstenberg).[69] That Lazarus lived also in Bethany, and was lying ill there, is plain from the course of the narrative. For change of preposition, without any change of relation, comp. John 1:45; Romans 3:30; 2 Corinthians 3:11; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 1:7; Philemon 1:5; Kühner, II. p. 219.

This Bethany, situated on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives, and, according to John 11:18, about three-quarters of an hour’s walk from Jerusalem (see on Matthew 21:17), was characteristically and specially known in evangelistic tradition owing to the two sisters who lived there; hence its more exact description by the words ἐκ τῆς κώμης Μαρίας, etc.,[70] for the sake of distinguishing it from the Bethany mentioned in John 1:28 (see critical note on John 1:28).

For the legends about Lazarus, see especially Thilo, Cod. Apocry. p. 711; Fabric. Cod. Apocr. III. pp. 475, 509.

ἦν δὲ Μαρία, etc.] Not to be put in a parenthesis. A more exact description of this Mary,[71]—who, however, must not be identified with the woman who was a sinner, mentioned in Luke 7, as is done still by Hengstenberg (see on Luke 7:36-37 f.)—from the account of the anointing (Matthew 26:6 ff.; Mark 14:3 ff.), which John presupposes, in a general way, as already known, although he himself afterwards takes occasion to narrate it in John 12:1 ff. So important and significant did it appear to him, while tradition, besides, had not preserved it in its pure original form (not even in Matthew and Mark).

ἧς ὁ ἀδελφὸς, etc.] Thus, to refer to Lazarus as the brother of Mary, was perfectly natural to the narrative, and after John 11:1 is clear in itself. Entirely baseless is Hengstenberg’s remark: the relation of Lazarus to the unmarried Mary was more intimate than to the married Martha, who had been the wife of Simon the leper, Matthew 26:6 (which is a pure invention). See in general, against the erroneous combinations of Hengstenberg regarding the personal relations of the two sisters and Lazarus, Strauss, Die Halben und die Ganzen, p. 79 ff.

[68] On the whole section relating to the raising of Lazarus, see Gumlich in the Stud. u. Kritiken, 1862, pp. 65 ff., 248 ff.

[69] In the Constitt. Apost. 3. 6. 2, also, Mary Magdalene is expressly distinguished from the sister of Lazarus.

[70] This genitive, presupposing, as it does, the nominative form Μαρία, is opposed to the adoption in John of the Hebrew form Μαριάμ, which, in the various passages where the name occurs, is supported by very varying testimony, in some cases by very strong, in other passages, however, by no evidence at all.

[71] On account of her predominant importance, and from being so well known, Mary is mentioned first in ver. 1. Had she been the elder sister (Ewald), there would be no apparent reason why Martha should be mentioned first in vv. 5, 19, and 20. Comp. also Luke 10:38, where Martha appears as mistress of the house.—Lazarus seems to have been younger than the sisters, and to have held a subordinate place in the household, John 12:2.

John 11:3-4. Merely the message that the beloved one is sick. The request lay in the message itself, and the addition ὃν φιλεῖς supplied the motive for its fulfilment.

εἶπεν] spoken generally, and not addressed to any definite person, but in the hearing of those present, the messenger and the disciples. Sufficient for the moment as a preparation both for the sisters and the disciples.

οὐκ ἔστι πρὸς θάνατον] πρός refers to destination (comp. afterwards ὑπέρ): it is not to have death for its result, which, however, does not mean, as the antithesis shows: it is not deadly, he will not die of it. The idea of death is used with a pregnancy of meaning, and the words signify: he shall not fall a prey to death, as death usually is, so that no reawakening takes place; θάνατος γὰρ κυρίως ὁ μέχρι τῆς κοινῆς ἀναστάσεως, Euth. Zigabenus. Comp. Matthew 9:24. That Jesus certainly knew, by His higher knowledge, that the death of Lazarus was certain and near at hand, though the death must be conceived as not having yet actually taken place (see on John 11:17), is confirmed by John 11:14;—for the assumption of a second message (Paulus, Neander, Schweizer) is purely arbitrary. With this significant declaration, Jesus designed to supply to the sisters something fitted, when the death of their brother took place, to stimulate the hope to which Martha gives actual expression in John 11:22. There is no warrant for dragging in a reference to the spiritual and eternal life of the resurrection (Gumlich).

ὑπὲρ τῆς δόξ. τ. θ.] i.e. for the furtherance of the honour of God. Comp. John 9:3. The emphatic and more definite explanation of the expression is given in ἵνα δοξασθῇ, etc.—words which, containing the intention of God, state the kind and manner of the ὑπὲρ τ. δόξ. τ. θ., so far, namely, as the glorification of the Son of God involves the honour of God Himself, who works through Him (comp. John 5:23, John 10:30; John 10:38). It is in these words, and not in John 11:25 (Baur), that the doctrinal design of the narrative is contained. Comp. John 11:40; John 11:42.

John 11:5 is not an elucidation of John 11:3 (De Wette), seeing that John 11:4 intervenes; nor is it a preparation for John 11:6 (B. Crusius: “although He loved them all, He nevertheless remained”); but explains the motive impelling Him to open up to them the consolatory prospect referred to in John 11:4 : “Felix familia,” Bengel.

ἠγάπα] An expression chosen with delicate tenderness (the more sensuous φιλεῖν is not again used as in John 11:4), because the sisters are also mentioned. Comp. Xen. Mem. ii. 7. 12; Tittmann, Synon. p. 53; and Wetstein. Martha is named first, as being the mistress of the house, and the eldest (John 11:19 f.). Compare the preceding note. Hengstenberg’s remark is arbitrary: “Mary could not bear to be separated from Lazarus, because she had been most deeply affected by his death.”

John 11:6-7. Οὖν] Resumption of the narrative after the observation in John 11:5.

After John 11:6 a colon only ought to be placed, for the course of the narrative is this: “When He now heard that he was sick, He remained there, indeed, etc.; (but) then,” etc.

μέν] logically is quite correct after τότε: then, indeed (turn quidem), when He heard, He did not immediately go away, but remained still two days. There is no corresponding δέ after ἔπειτα, as one would naturally expect, because the adversative relation, which was in view at first, has given way to one of simple succession (comp. Klotz, ad Devar. p. 539; Stallbaum, ad Plat. Phaed. p. 89 A; Baeumlein, Partic. p. 163).

ἔπειτα μετὰ τοῦτο] deinde postea (Cic. p. Mil. 24), as in the Classics also (comp. Plat. Phaedr. p. 258 E: ἔπειτα λέγει δὴ μετὰ τοῦτο) synonymous adverbial expressions are frequently conjoined (Kühner, II. p. 615; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 22). Comp. τότε ἔπειτα, which occurs frequently even in Homer; Nägelsbach on the Ilias, p. 149, ed. 3.

The question why Jesus did not at once leave for Bethany is not solved by the assumption, that He designed to test the faith of the parties concerned (Olshausen; Gumlich also mixes this reason up with his otherwise correct view), which would, in opposition to John 11:5, have amounted to a harsh and arbitrary delaying on His part; nor is it explained by the similar notion, that the message of John 11:4 was meant first to produce its effect (Ebrard), as though there had not been without that time enough for this; just as little is it accounted for by the supposition that important business connected with His work in Peraea still detained Him (Lücke, Krabbe, Neander, Tholuck, Lange, Baumgarten), for John gives not the slightest hint of such a reason, and it is a purely à priori assumption. It is to be explained by a reference back to John 11:4, according to which Jesus was conscious of its being the divine will that the miracle should be performed precisely under the circumstances and at the time at which it actually was performed, and no otherwise (comp. John 2:4), for the glory of God. The divine δεῖ, of which He was conscious, decided Him, and that, under a moral necessity, lest He should act ὑπὲρ μοῖραν, to remain still; the same δεῖ again impelled Him at once to depart, when, in virtue of His immediate knowledge, He became aware of the death of His friend. Comp. on John 11:17. All the more groundless was it to make use of the delay of Jesus as an argument against the historical truth of the narrative (Bretschneider, Strauss, Weisse, Gfrörer, Baur, Hilgenfeld), according to which Jesus intentionally allowed Lazarus to die, in order that He might be able to raise him up again (Baur, p. 193).

εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν] for they were in Peraea, John 10:40. The more definite goal, Bethany, is not at first mentioned; but is specified afterwards, John 11:11; John 11:15. The less reason, therefore, is there for finding a special design in the use of the words εἰς τ. Ἰουδ. (Luthardt: “into the land of unbelief and hostility”), a meaning which Godet and Gumlich import also into πάλιν.

John 11:8. The question breathes solicitude for the safety and life of the beloved Master.

νῦν] just now, refers to the recent events which, though past, seemed still to form part of the present, John 10:31. Hence the use of the imperfect; see Kühner, II. p. 385.

πάλιν] emphatically at the beginning.

ὑπάγεις] Present, as in John 10:32.

John 11:9-10. The sense of the allegorical answer is this: “The time appointed to me by God for working is not yet elapsed; as long as it lasts, no one can do anything to me; but when it shall have come to an end, I shall fall into the hands of my enemies, like him who walketh in the night, and who stumbleth, because he is without light.” In this way Jesus sets aside the anxiety of His disciples, on the one hand, by directing their attention to the fact that, as His time is not yet expired, He is safe from the apprehended dangers; and, on the other, by reminding them (John 11:10) that He must make use of the time apportioned to Him, before it come to an end.[72] So substantially Apollinaris (διδάσκει ὁ κύριος, ὅτι πρὸ τοῦ καιροῦ τοῦ πάθους οὐκ ἂν ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων πάθοι· καὶ διδάσκει τοῦτο διὰ παραβολῆς, ἡμέρας μὲν καιρὸν ὀνομάζων τὸν πρὸ τοῦ πάθους, τὸν δὲ τοῦ πάθους νύκτα), Ruperti (only partially), Jansen, Maldonatus, Corn.a Lapide, Wolf, Heumann, and several others; also Maier and B. Crusius; comp. Ewald and Hengstenberg. On individual points, note further: (1) ΔΏΔΕΚΑ is placed emphatically at the beginning, signifying that the day referred to is still running on, and that anxiety is still premature (not: only twelve hours; Bengel correctly remarks: “jam multa erat hora, sed tamen adhuc erat dies”). The supposition that Jesus spoke the words early in the morning, at sunrise (Godet, Gumlich), is as arbitrary as it is unnecessary. (2) τὸ φῶς τ. κόσμ. is the light of the sun, so designated in harmony with the elevated tone which marks the entire saying; the words ὅτι … βλέπει belong merely to the details of the picture, and are not intended to be specially interpreted (for example, of the guidance of the divine will, as Godet thinks, following older commentators). (3) Applying the figure to Jesus, night (John 11:10) commenced with the ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, John 17:1 (comp. John 12:27); the ἩΜΈΡΑ with its twelve hours was then over for Him, and, according to the divine decree, the ΠΡΟΣΚΟΠΉ in His path which, with the close of the twelfth hour, had become dark, must now follow,[73] in that He fell into the hands of His enemies; till then, however, οὔπω ἐληλύθει ἡ ὥρα αὐτοῦ, John 7:30, John 8:20. (4) The expression ὍΤΙ ΤῸ Φῶς ΟὐΚ ἜΣΤΙΝ ἘΝ ΑὐΤῷ, which is also a detail not intended for interpretation, is not equivalent to: he has not, etc. (Ewald; it is also inadmissible to take this view of Psalm 90:10), but is an outflow of the notion that, in the case of a man walking in the night, it is dark in him, i.e. his representation of his surroundings is dark and without light, so that he cannot discover his whereabouts in his consciousness of that which is round about him. Grotius: “in oculis ejus;” but the expression ἐν αὐτῷ suggests the inner intuition and representation. (5) Substantially the same, and decisive for the view which the disciples would take, are the thought and figure in John 9:3 f.; hence also here neither is ἩΜΈΡΑ to be taken as an image of tempus opportunum (Morus, Rosenmüller, Paulus, Kuinoel), nor νύξ of tempus importunum; nor is it any more allowable to say, with Gumlich and Brückner (comp. Melanchthon, Beza, and Calvin), that φῶς τοῦ κ. τ. is God, who shows the Son the way, so that this latter thus walks in the day, and His person and work remain unendangered (οὐ προσκόπτει[74]); similarly Baeumlein; Lücke, on the other hand, rightly refers Τῆς ἩΜΈΡΑς to the “day’s work” of Christ, which has its definite limit (its twelve hours); but then he explains ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ of fulfilling the duties of His calling (comp. Melanchthon), which is always the way of safety, and takes νύξ as an image of unfaithfulness to one’s calling, which leads to destruction. In this way, however, two totally different meanings are assigned to the figurative term ἡμέρα, the second of which is the more decidedly to be rejected, as the mention of twelve hours is evidence that the temporal explanation alone is correct. For this reason, further, we must reject not only the view taken by De Wette, who regards the day as the image of “upright, innocent, clear action,” the twelve hours, as the ways and means of action, and the night as the lack of prudence and singlemindedness; but also that of Luthardt: “He who keeps within the limits of his calling will not strike against anything, will not make false steps, for the light of the world, i.e. the will of God, gives him light; he, however, who passes beyond the limits of his calling will go wrong in his doings, seeing that he is guided, not by God’s will, but by his own pleasure.” Tholuck also diverges from the consistent carrying out of the temporal view; for, though understanding the twelve hours of the day of the fixed time of the vocation, he afterwards introduces the calling itself: “Whoso abides not by his calling will come to damage.” Comp. Schweizer, p. 106; also Lange, who combines several very different views. According to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euth. Zigabenus, the walking in the day denotes either a blameless walk, in which a man has no need to be afraid; or fellowship with Christ (so also Erasmus: “quamdiu vobis luceo, nihil est periculi; veniet nox, quando a me semoti conturbabimini.”[75] Vatablus, Clarius, Lampe, Neander). Both are incorrect, for the simple reason that the disciples had expressed concern, not for themselves, but for Christ, by their question in John 11:8 (Chrysostom and his followers arbitrarily remark that they had been more in anxiety, ὑπὲρ ἑαυτῶν); and because the former of these views would furnish no explanation of the mention of the hours, which is just the key to the figure. This objection holds good also against Hilgenfeld, Lehrbegr. p. 263, who brings out as the meaning of Jesus: He has the light absolutely in Himself, and for Him, therefore, no dark point can exist in His earthly course. On this view, moreover, John 11:10 remains without explanation. Olshausen, adopting the second view of Chrysostom, is prepared to accept an unhermeneutical double meaning of ἡμέρα;—in the one case, mindful of His near brotherly relationship to men, Jesus regarded Himself as accomplishing His ordained day’s work; but, in the other case, He had in view His higher dignity as the spiritual enlightener, in the rays of whose brightness the disciples would have nothing to fear.[76] Comp. Bengel, who thinks that τὸ φῶς τ. κόσμ. τούτου signifies the “providentia Patris respectu Jesu, et providentia Christi respectu fidelium.

[72] Not, as Godet interprets: that He dare not lengthen the working time appointed to Him by the divine will, that He may not venture to add to it as it were a thirteenth hour. Such a thought was totally foreign to the minds of the disciples in giving their warning. All that they desired was, that He should not shorten His life by exposing Himself to the threatening danger of death.

[73] The idea set forth is therefore not “the wish to be active beyond the ordained goal and limit of life,” which would, indeed, be absurd (Tholuck’s objection); but to be set free of activity on the attainment of the ordained goal of life. When the twelfth hour has passed, night falls on the wanderer, and he stumbles.

[74] Ver. 10. τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ is then explained by Brückner, after Matthew 6:22 f., to mean that the eye, which has received the light, becomes itself a lamp, and so the whole man is illumined. But how could Jesus expect the disciples to understand so far-fetched an illusion? If such had been His meaning, He must have used, in agreement with Matthew 6:23, some such words as: ὅτι τὸ φῶς τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ σχότος ἐστιν.

[75] So in the Paraphr. But in the Annotat. he takes substantially our view: “Dies habet suas horas, nec is nostro arbitrio fit brevior aut longior; et ego tempus habeo praescriptum, quo debeam redimendi orbis negotium peragere, id Judaeorum malitia non potest anticipari: proinde nihil est, quod mihi timeatis.”

[76] Ebrard adopts Olshausen’s view in the following more definite shape: “The day has its determinate measured duration. If a man use the day as day, i.e. the time for working given him by God as a time of working, he needs to be in no fear that his working will bring him mischief, for the light of the mundane sun illumines him. But he who walks as though it were night, i.e. without working the will of God, would procure for himself eternal mischief, because he had not in him the light (in the absolute sense, John 1:5).” In this way the essential elements are read into the passage; and what a strange difference in the conceptions found in the same expressions! How could the disciples have possibly understood their Master!

John 11:11-13. Καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο λέγει] This representation separates the two discourses, between which a pause is to be conceived as intervening.

The death of Lazarus, which had just taken place, and became the occasion of the determination to leave at once (John 11:7; see on John 11:17), is described (comp. Matthew 9:24), in view of his resurrection, by the word κεκοίμ., has fallen asleep, the event having become known to Him by immediate knowledge (spiritual far-seeing). Hence also the definiteness of His statement, to which the addition of the words ὁ φίλος ἡμ. communicates a touch of painful sensibility. In saying ἡμῶν also, He claims the loving sympathy of His disciples.

ἐξυπνίσω] awaken out of sleep; a late Greek word, rejected by the Atticists. Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 224. Comp. Acts 16:27.

The misunderstanding of His disciples, who thought of the sleep which follows after a crisis has been passed through (see examples of the same thing in Pricaeus; comp. also Sir 31:2, and Fritzsche’s remarks thereon), loses its apparent improbability (against Strauss, De Wette, Reuss) when we refer back to John 11:4, the words of which they had naturally understood, not in the sense intended by Jesus, which was that He would raise him up from the dead, but, after the analogy of John 9:3, as signifying that He purposed to come and miraculously heal him. The journey thereby involved, however, they did not desire (John 11:8); the expression κεκοίμηται accordingly corresponded to their wishes; hence the conclusion at once drawn, that he must be on the way to recovery, and the effort, by calling attention to this fact, to make the journey appear unnecessary. The very earnestness of this their desire, caused them to overlook the significant nature of the words ἵνα ἐξυπνίσω αὐτόν, and to fail to see that it would have been absurd thus to speak of one who was really asleep. Such a mistake on their part is psychologically intelligible enough.[77] The notion that John 11:4 had led them to believe that Jesus had already healed at a distance (Ebrard, Hengstenberg), and that, in consequence, they necessarily understood sleep to refer to recovery, is incompatible with the fact that the words of John 11:4 do not at all suggest such a healing (how different in John 4:50!); and that if they had thought of such a healing having taken place, they would have grounded their σωθήσεται on that fact, and not on the approach of sleep; they would consequently, too, have dissuaded from this journey as unnecessary in a very different way. According to Bengel (and Luthardt), the disciples believed, “somnum ab Jesu immissum esse Lazaro ut eveniret quod praedixerat ipse John 11:4.” But there is no exegetical support for this view, not even in the use of the first person singular πορεύομαι, which finds its very natural explanation in the connection with ἘΞΥΠΝΊΣΩ (the case is different with ἌΓΩΜΕΝ, John 11:7), without that supposition (against Luthardt).

[77] “Discipuli omni modo quaerunt Dominum ab isto itinere avocare,” Grotius; “libenter hanc fugiendi periculi occasionem arripiunt,” Calvin.