ϱ3-- 27.
A a - a , τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ οἱ ἀκούσαντες ζήσονται.ὶ
741
26. ὥσπε ap Oxi. το. reat Wisd.
Q 3” 9 3 c ~ o 3, 4 ~ ta ‘ ” 3 as πα εχει ἑωην εν εαυτω, ουτως ἔδωκε και τω ULW ζωὴν εχειν ἐν κχνι. 2. δν t ‘
~ ~ , coy) a c ἑαυτῷ: 27. καὶ *éfouciay ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ καὶ ” κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς
y Gen. xviii, 25.
1 Modern editors read ζησουσι with NBDL 1, 22, 33.
dead hear but not all give ear (Weiss). ἀκουσούσιν in the former clause means hearing with the outward ear, ἀκούσαντες hearing with faith. The question, how can the spiritually dead hear and believe ? is the question, how could the impotent man rise in response to Christ’s word ? Perhaps psychologically inexplicable, it is, happily, soluble in practice.—Ver. 26. The 26th verse partly explains the apparent impossibility. domep γὰρ... ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. ‘ The particles mark the fact of the gift and not the degrees of it’? (Westcott). As the Father has in Himself, and therefore at His own com- mand, life which He can impart as He will: so by His gift the Son has in Himself life which He can communicate directly to whom He will.—év ἑαντῷ [similarly used Mk. iv. 17, John iv. 14, etc.] excludes dependence for life on anything external toself. From this it follows that what is so possessed is possessed with uninter rupted fulness, and can at will be im- parted. —éSwxe, ‘‘ the tense carries us back beyond time,” says Westcott. This is more than doubtful ; although several in- terpreters suppose the eternal generation of the Son is inview. That is precluded both by the word “‘ gave [ which “‘ denotat id quod non per naturalem generationem, sed per benevolam Patris voluntatem est concessum,” Mt. xxviii. 18 Lk. i. 32; John iii. 34, vi. 37, Lampe] and by the context, especially by the last clause of ver. 27. The opinions of the Fathers and Reformers are cited in Lampe. See further Stevens, fohan. Theol., p. 60.— Ver. 27. Not only has the Father given to the Son this great prerogative, but καὶ ἐξουσίαν . . . ἀνθρώπου ῥἐστί. κρίσιν ποιεῖν, like judicium facere, and our do judgment, is used by Demosthenes, Xenophon, Polybius, etc., in the sense ‘‘to judge,” ‘‘to act as judge’’. This climax of authority [although καὶ is omitted before κρίσιν by recent editors on good authority] is based upon the fact ὅτι vids ἀνθρώπον ἐστί. [Strangely enough, Chrysostom ascribes this punctuation to Paul of Samosata, and declares it to be an inconsequence. He himself begins ver. 28 with this clause, and reads ‘‘ marvel not at this, that He is the Son of Man’’.] The absence ot
the article condemns all interpretations which render these words ‘‘ the Son of Man ”’ and understands that Jesus claims the prerogative of judgment as the Messiah. Where “the Son of Man” means the Messiah the articles regularly appear. Besides, direct allusion to the Messianic functions would here be out of place. The words must be rendered ‘‘ because He is a son of man,’’ that is, a man. How is this a reason for His being Judge of men? Various explana- tions are given: the Judge must be visible since the judgment is to take place with human publicity (Luther. Maldonatus, Witsius), because as man the Son carries out the whole work of redemption (Meyer, etc.), because men should be judged by the lowliest and most loving of men (Stier), because the Judge must share the nature of those who are brought before Him (Westcott), because only as man could Jesus enter into the sphere in which the judicial office moves or have the compassion which a judge of men should possess (Baur), because the judgment of humanity is to be a homage rendered to the holiness of God, a true act of adoration, a worship; and therefore the act must go forth from the bosom of humanity itself (Godet). But un- doubtedly Beyschlag is right when he says: ‘‘ The eternal love condemns no one because he is a sinner; as such it does not at all condemn; it leaves it to men to judge themselves, through rejec- tion of the Saviour who is presented to them. The Son of Man is the judge of the world, just because He presents the eternal life, the kingdom of heaven to all, and urges all to the eternal decision, and thus urges those who continue un- believing to a continuing self-judgment”’ (Neutest. Theol.,i. 290). By His appear- ing in human form as God’s messenger, and by His offer of life eternal, He necessarily judges men. As His offer of life to the impotent man tested him and showed whether he would abide in death or pass into life: so are all men judged precisely by that appearance among them in human torm which stumbles them and tempts them to think His claims absurd, and which yet as the em-