성경 주석서

CHAPTER 16

John 16:3. After ποιήσ. Elz. has ὑμῖν, against decisive testimony.

John 16:4. ἡ ὤρα] Lachm.: ἡ ὤρα αὐτῶν, according to A. B., a few Cursives, Syr.; also L., Cursives, Vulg. It. Arr. Cypr. Aug., who, however, omit the αὐτῶν that follows. This betrays an already ancient variation in the position of the αὐτῶν, which was only at one time original, which, placed before μνημον., was readily drawn to ὥρα, and then also again restored after μνημον. D. 68, Arm. have no αὐτῶν at all, which is explained from its original position after μνημον., in which it appeared superfluous.

John 16:7. ἐὰν γὰρ ἐγώ] ἐγώ, which is wanting in Elz. Tisch., has important testimony against (B.D. L. א.) and for it (A. E. G. H. K. M. U. Δ. Λ.). It was, however, because unnecessary, and also as not standing in opposition, more readily passed over than added.

John 16:13. εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν] Lachm.: εἰς τὴν ἀλήθ. πᾶσαν (A. B. Y. Or. Eus.); Tisch.: ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ (D. L. א. Cursives, Verss. Fathers). The reading of Lachm. has stronger attestation, and is, in respect of the position of the words, supported by the reading of Tisch., which latter may have arisen through a comparison of the construction of ὁδηγ. with ἐν in the LXX. (Psalm 86:10; Psalm 119:35, et al.; Sap. John 9:11, John 10:17).

John 16:15. λαμβάνει] Elz.: λήψεται, against decisive testimony; from John 16:14.

John 16:16. οὐ] B. D. L. Λ. א. Curss. Verss. (including Vulg. It.) Or. et al.: οὐκέτι. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. An interpretation in conformity with John 16:10; John 14:19.

ὅτι ὑπάγω πρὸς τ. πατ.] is wanting in B. D. L. Copt. Sahid. Cant. 16 :Verc. Corb. Bracketed by Lachm., deleted by Tisch. An addition from John 16:17, whence also the ἐγώ in Elz. after ὅτι,—which ἐγώ, however, is in John 16:17, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted, in conformity with A. B. L. M. Λ. א. Curss. Verss., since it is supported by only very weak testimony in the above addition in John 16:16.

John 16:19. After ἔγνω, Elz. Lachm. have οὖν. A connective addition, instead of which δέ is also found.

John 16:20. The second δέ has been justly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. in conformity with B. D. Λ. א. 1, It. Copt. Arm. Syr. Goth. Cypr. It was added in mechanical repetition of the antithesis.

John 16:22. The order νῦν μὲν οὖν λύπ. ἔχ. is, with Tisch., to be preferred on preponderating testimony. But instead of ἔχετε, read with Lachm. ἔξετε, after A. D. L. Curss. Verss. Fathers; the present was mechanically introduced after ἔχει, John 16:21, and on occasion of the νῦν.

αἴρει] Lachm.: ἀρεῖ, according to B. D.* Γ. Vulg. Codd. It. Cypr. Hil. Explanatory alteration in accordance with the preceding futures.

John 16:23. ὅτι ὅσα ἄν] Many variations. As original appears the reading in A., ὅ τι ἄν (so Lachm. in the margin), in connection with which copyists were induced, through the preceding λέγω ὑμῖν, to take OTI (differently from John 14:13) recitatively, which thus led to the readings ἄν τι (so Lachm. and Tisch., comp. John 20:23), ἐάν τι, ὅσα ἄν, and thus the ὅτι, which had now become superfluous, disappeared in many copies (not א., which has ὅτι ὃ ἄν).

ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. μου] is placed by Tisch. after δώσει ὑμε͂ν, in conformity with B. C.* L. X. Y. Δ. א. Sahid. Or. Cyr. Rightly; the ordinary position after πατέρα is determined by John 14:13, John 15:16, and appeared to be required by John 16:24.

John 16:25. Before ἔρχεται, Elz. and Lachm. (the latter in brackets) have ἀλλʼ, contrary to important testimony. A connective addition.

Instead of ἀναγγελῶ, ἀπαγγελῶ is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be adopted on decisive testimony. The former flowed from John 16:13-15.

John 16:27. θεοῦ] B. C.* D. L. X. א.** Verss. Cyr. Did.: πατρός. A gloss by way of more precise definition (Verss. have: a deo patre).

John 16:28. παρά] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐκ, which is sufficiently attested by B. C.* L. X. Copt. Epiph. Hil. (in D. is wanting ἐξῆλθον … πατρός), and, in conformity with what immediately precedes, was dislodged by παρά.

John 16:29. παῤῥησ.] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐν παῤῥησ., in conformity with B. C. D. א. Rightly; ἐν, because unnecessary, after John 16:25, came to be dropped, and the more readily after ΝΥΝ.

John 16:32. νῦν] is, in conformity with decisive testimony, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted.

John 16:33. ἔχετε] So also Tisch. But Elz. Lachm.: ἕξετε only, after D. Verss. (including Vulg. It.) and Fathers. The present is so decisively attested, that the future appears to be simply a closer definition of the meaning (comp. John 16:22).

John 16:1. Ταῦτα λελάλ. ὑμῖν] As the same expression, John 15:11, pointed back to the preceding section, John 16:1-10, and then ταῦτα ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν, John 16:17, to John 16:11-16, so here ταῦτα λελ. ὑμ. refers to John 15:18-27, so that the substantial contents of this section are intended, namely, that which had been said of the hatred of the world.

ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλ.] Comp. Matthew 13:21; Matthew 24:10; Matthew 11:6. Prepared beforehand, and armed by Christ’s communications, they were not to be made to stumble at Him, but were to oppose to the hatred of the world all the greater efficiency and constancy of faith.

John 16:2-3. Of the ταῦτα, John 16:1, He now gives certain concrete manifestations, which might tend to their becoming offended.

ἀποσυναγ.] See on John 9:22, John 12:42.

ἀλλʼ] At, i.e. nay, further! it introduces the antithesis of a yet far heavier, of a bloody fate. Comp. on 2 Corinthians 7:11. To take ἀποσυναγ. ποιήσ. ὑμ. interrogatively (Ewald), is unnecessarily artificial.

ἵνα] That which will take place in the ὥρα is conceived as the object of its coming: there is coming an hour, in order that, etc. Comp. on John 12:23.

πᾶς ὁ ἀποκτ., κ.τ.λ.] that every one, who shall have put you to death, may think that he offers a sacrificial service to God (namely, through the shedding of your blood). On λατρεία, cultus (Plat. Apol. p. 23 C, Phaedr. p. 224 E; Romans 9:4), here, by means of the προσφέρειν, the standing word used of sacrifices (see Matthew 5:23; Matthew 8:4; Acts 7:32; Hebrews 5:1; Schleusner, Thes. IV. p. 504), in the special reference of sacrificial divine service, comp. Romans 13:1; Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:6. The maxim of Jewish fanaticism is well known (and how often was the pagan enmity against the apostles no better!): “Omnis effundens sanguinem improborum, aequalis est illi, qui sacrificium facit,” Bammidbar Rabba, f. 329. 1. On this δοκεῖν, comp. Saul’s example, Acts 26:9; Galatians 1:13-14.

On John 16:3, comp. John 15:21. Jesus once more recalls with profound sadness this tragic source of such conduct, the inexcusableness of which, however, He had already decisively brought to light (John 15:22 ff.). The supposed purpose of making the adversaries contemptible in the eyes of the disciples (Calvin, Hengstenberg) must have been indicated had it existed.

John 16:4. Ἀλλά] At, breaks off the enumeration (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 15). Jesus will not go further into details, and recurs to the thought in John 16:1. The explanation: “although it is not to be expected otherwise, I have nevertheless foretold it to you” (Lücke, De Wette), is the less agreeable to the text, since ταῦτα λελάλ. had just been already said, and that without any antithetic reference of the kind. The explanations of Tholuck and Lange, again, are importations: “but so little would I terrify (?) you hereby, that I have only (?) said it to you,” etc.

ταῦτα] What was said in John 16:2-3.

αὐτῶν, ὅτι ἐγὼ εἶπ. ὑμ.] Attraction. See Winer, p. 581 f. [E. T. p. 665 ff.]

ἐγώ] with weighty emphasis: I, the Person, with whom your faith is concerned. Comp. John 16:1, ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλ.

ἐξ ἀρχῆς] John 15:27. The question, how this declaration of Jesus may be reconciled with the announcements found in the Synoptics, even from the time of the Sermon on the Mount, of predestined sufferings (Matthew 5:10 ff.; Luke 6:22 ff.; Matthew 10:16 ff.; Luke 12:4 ff.; Matthew 21:12 ff; Matthew 24:9), is not solved by saying that here φοβερώτερα ἐκείνων (Euth. Zigabenus, comp. also Chrysostom) are announced (see, on the contrary, Matthew 10:16-18; Matthew 10:28); or that Christ spoke at an earlier period minus aperte et parcius (Bengel, comp. Grotius), and in much more general terms (Ebrard), but now more expressly set forth in its principles the character of the world’s attitude towards the disciples (Tholuck, comp. Lange); or, that He has now stated more definitely the cause of the hatred (Lampe); or, that He utters it here as a parting word (Luthardt); or even, that at an earlier period, because the thoughts of the disciples had not yet dwelt upon it, it was “for them as good as not said” (Hengstenberg); but the difference lies clearly before us, and is simply to be recognised (comp. also Godet), to be explained, however, from the fact that in the Synoptics more general and less definite allusions belonging to the earlier time appear with the more definite form and stamp of later expressions. The living recollection of John must here also preponderate as against the Synoptics so that his relation to theirs here is that of a corrector.

ὅτι μεθʼ ὑμῶν ἤμην] It would have been unnecessary in the time of my personal association with you, since it is not till after my departure that your persecution (up to that time the hatred of the world affected Himself) is to commence. “Because you have me with you, they cannot well but leave you in peace, and can do nothing to you, they must have done it to me previously, but now it will begin,” etc., Luther. Comp. Chrysostom, Euth. Zigabenus, Grotius. As yet they had suffered no persecution; hence the thought, “I could console you” (Lücke, De Wette, and older expositors), is not to be introduced. The interpretation also: “now first, when I promise you the Spirit, can I thus openly speak to you” (Bengel, Tholuck), is not in harmony with the words.

John 16:5-6. Now, however, this my μεθʼ ὑμᾶν εἶναι is past! Now I go away to Him who has sent me, and in what a mood of mind are you at the prospect of this my impending departure! None of you asks me: whither dost Thou go away? but because I have spoken this to you, namely, that after my departure such sufferings shall befall you, grief has filled your heart, so that you have become quite dumb from sorrow, and blunted to the higher interest which lies in my going home to Him who sent me. According to De Wette and Lücke, there is said to be a want of exactness in the entire presentation, resting on the fact that John 16:6 does not stand before καὶ οὐδείς. The incorrectness of this assumption, in itself quite unnecessary, lies in this, that the first proposition of John 16:5 is thus completed: “But now at my departure I could not keep silence concerning it,” by which the 6th verse is anticipated. According to Kuinoel and Olshausen, a full point should be placed after πέμψ. με, and a pause is to be assumed, in which Jesus in vain awaited a question, so that He continued subsequently with an interrogation: “Nullusne vestrum me amplius interrogat, quo abiturus sim?” But the assumption of pauses (others, including De Wette, make the pause after John 16:5) is, when the correlation of the conjunctions is so definitely progressive, unwarranted.

The fact that already in John 13:36 the question had been put by Peter ποῦ ὑπάγεις (comp. the question of Thomas, John 14:5), does not stand in contradiction with the present passage; but Jesus censures simply the degree of distress, which they had now reached, in which none among them fixed his eye on the goal of the departing One, and could come to a question for more definite information respecting it.

ἡ λύπη] simply, in abstracto: sadness.

John 16:7. Nevertheless, how should you raise yourselves above this λύπη! How is my departure your own gain! By its means the Paraclete indeed will be imparted to you as a support against the hatred of the world.

ἐγώ] in the consciousness of this personal guarantee.

ἵνα ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω] ἐγώ in contradistinction to the Paraclete, who is to come in His place (John 14:16); ἵνα expresses the δεῖ as divinum, as in John 11:50. On the dependence of the mission of the Paraclete upon the departure of Jesus, see on John 7:39.

John 16:8.[171] The threefold ministry of the Paraclete towards the unbelieving Jews and Gentiles. Thus will He be your counsel against the κόσμος!

ἐλέγξει] convict, namely, through His testimony of me, John 15:26. This ἔλεγξις, of which the apostles were to be the bearers in their office, is the activity which convinces the person concerned (arguendi ratio exprobans), which reveals to him his unrighteousness, and puts him to shame (John 3:20, John 8:9; John 8:46; 1 Corinthians 14:24; Titus 1:9; Matthew 18:15; Luke 3:19, et al.), and the consequence of which may be in the different subjects either conversion (1 Corinthians 14:24), or hardening and condemnation (Acts 24:25; Romans 11:7 ff.). To apprehend it only of the latter side of the matter (Erasmus and many others, including De Wette, Brückner, and especially Wetzel, following the Fathers), is not justified by περὶ κρίσεως, since the κρίσις is intended, not of the κόσμος, but of the devil, and stands opposed to the Johannean view of the deliverance of the world through Christ; the unbelieving world (John 16:9) is to be convicted of the sin of unbelief; and this, to him who is not hardened, is the way to faith (comp. John 17:20-21), and therewith to separation from the world. Godet well designates the threefold ἔλεγξις as the moral victory of the Spirit through the preaching of the apostles. As the first prominent example, see the discourse of Peter, Acts 2, with its consequences.

περὶ ἁμαρτίας, κ.τ.λ.] The objective contents of the ἔλεγξις set forth separately in three parts (themata). See, respecting the individual points, on John 16:9-11.

[171] See Wetzel, üb. d. Elenchus des Parakl. John 16:8-13, in the Zeitschrift f. Luth. Theol. 1856, p. 624 ff.

John 16:9. First part: in reference to sin He will convince them. The more exact definition, as to how far He will convince them περὶ ἁμαρτίας; so far as they, namely (ὅτι, equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο ὅτι, John 2:18, John 9:17, John 11:51), do not believe on me, which He will reveal to them as sin, and will bring them to a consciousness of guilt; ὅτι ἁμαρτάνουσι μὴ πιστεύνοτες ἔτι, Euth. Zigabenus. Following Calvin (comp. already Apollinarius, Ammonius, and also Luther), De Wette and Brückner (comp. also Ebrard) interpret not of the conviction of sin, so far as the unbelief of the world will be brought to its consciousness as sin, but of sin generally (“qualis in se sit hominum natura,” Calvin), of the condition under the wrath of God, in which the world, as opposed to the ever-increasing multitude of believers, who are victorious through the power of truth, appears involved, because it does not believe, for faith is the bond between the sinful world and God. Comp. Lange, who understands the rejection of Christ as the essential manifestation of all sin, as also Wetzel and Godet; which, however, does not correspond to the simplicity of the words.[172] On the ἜΛΕΓΞΙς of the world ΠΕΡῚ ἉΜΑΡΤ., and that with regard to its converting power, comp. 1 Corinthians 14:24-25. Tholuck makes out of the simple ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς the guilt of sin, and that the unpardonable (John 9:41).

Note further that ὅτι is the exponent, not of ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, but of ἘΛΈΓΞΕΙ ΠΕΡῚ ἉΜ.

[172] The sense would be this: in reference to sin He will convince them that unbelief is the true essence of sin. How easy would it have been for Jesus to have actually said this! for example, by: περὶ ἁμαρτίας, ὅτι ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀπιστία. And such an expression of the thought assumed would have been quite Johannean.