744 KATA ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ Vv.
i Constr. cp. ὥραν ἐν τῷ uti αὐτοῦ. Μι.ν. 2ο.
36. ἐγὼ δὲ ἔχω τὴν µαρτυρίαν µείζω τοῦ Ἰωάννου: τὰ γὰρ ἔργα ἃ ἐδωκέ] por ὁ πατὴρ ἵνα τελειώσω αὐτὰ,
fe. A ” a 2) 8 A a ‘ > - @ c Ul auTa Ta εργα α εγω ποιω, µαρτυρει περι εμου οτι ο πατηρ µε
ἀπέσταλκε: 37. καὶ 6 πέµψας µε πατὴρ, αὐτὸς ” μεμαρτύρηκε περὶ
j Exod. ἐμοῦ. XXVIi. 17. ε ἑωράκατε.
io 5 a > > ~ / ς a > a rPs.cxix.2.6Tt ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος, τούτῳ ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετε.
οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ ἀκηκόατε πώποτε, οὔτε εἶδος αὐτοῦ 38. καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔχετε µένοντα ἐν ὑμῖν,
390. " Ἔρευ-
I Mt. iii.9. vate® τὰς γραφὰς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς } δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν,
1 δεδωκεν in NBL 1, 33. 3 εραυνατε in QB* ; Tr. Τι. Ν.Π.
could have shown them the way to salva- tion, ver. 34” (Weiss). Others find a reference to Ps. cxxxii. 17, ἠτοίμασα λύχνον τῷ Χριστῷ σον. Grotius and Liicke think the reference is to Ecclus. xIviii. 1, καὶ ἀνέστη Ἐλίας προφήτης ὡς Tp καὶ 6 λόγος αὐτοῦ ὡς λαμπὰς ἐκαίετο. In the medieval Latin Hymns the Baptist is ‘“non Lux iste, sedlucerna’’. [Cicero, pro Milone, 21, and elsewhere, calls certain illustrious citizens ‘ lumina,” but with a somewhat different signifi- cance.]— 6 καιόµενος, “burning and shining are not two different proper- ties,’ Meyer; a lamp must burn if it is to shine.—vpeis δὲ ἠθελήσατε ἀγαλ- λιασθῆναι πρὸς ὥραν ἐν τῷ φωτὶ αὐτοῦ; the expression seems intended to suggest the thoughtless and brief play of insects in the sunshine or round alamp. [' Wie die Miicken im Sonnen- schein spielen,” Hausrath in Holtzmann.] Like children following in a bridal pro- cession, dancing in the torchlight: the type of sentimental religionists revelling in their own emotions.—Ver. 36. ἐγὼ δὲ “But I” in contrast to the tpets of ver. 33, ἔχω τὴν µαρτυρίαν µείζω, “have the witness which is greater,” 1.ε., of greater weight as evidence than that of John.— τὰ γὰρ ἔργα . . . ἀπέσταλκε, ‘the works which the Father ἔδωκε [or as modern editors read δέδωκεν] to Him” comprise all that He was commissioned to do, but with a more special reference to His miracles. Liicke well says, ‘‘ He who looked at the miracles as separate and individual displays of supernatural power and did not view the entire mani- festation of Christ in its solidarity, was bound to find the miracles without signifi- cance and the latter incomprehensible”. The ἔργα are cited as evidence, chaps. x. 25, 38, and xiv. 11; evidence as here to the fact that the Father had sent Him.— Ver.37. But over and above the evidence
Σεκεινος in NBL. The difference here is slight.
of the works καὶ ὁ πέµψας µε πατήρ, αὐτὸς μµεμαρτύρηκε, “And the Father who sent me has Himself also testified’’. Where and how this testimony of the Father’s separate from the works has been given, is explained, vv. 38 and 40 But, first, Jesus states how it has no been given: οὔτε φωνὴν αὐτοῦ . .
ἑωράκατε. It is not by coming into your midst in a visible form and speaking as I speak that the Father has testified. κ His voice you have never heard: His form you have never seen.’’ It is not by sensible sights and sounds the Father has given His testimony. [This inter- pretation is however ignored by most: by Meyer, who thinks the reference is to their insensibility to the revelation of God in Scripture; by Westcott, who says ‘‘the Jews by their disbelief ot Christ failed to hear and see Him”’; by Godet, who finds “a declaration ot man’s natural impotence to rise to the immediate and personal knowledge of God”’. Reference to the baptism is put out of the question by πώποτε. The reference to the two chief forms of prophetic revelation (Weiss) is too re- mote.J—Ver. 38. καὶ τὸν λόγον... you have not heard His voice—as you have heard mine (ver. 25)—and His word which you have heard, and which has been coming to you through all these centuries, you do not admit to an abiding and influential place within you.—rov λόγον αὐτοῦ is God’s revelation, which the Jews were conscious they had re- ceived; but though the word of God had come to them, they did not have it ‘‘ abiding in” them; cf. 1 John ili, 15; a phrase which in John denotes permanent possession and abiding influence. God’s message does no good until it inwardly possesses those to whom it comes. The proof that the Jews had not thus received itis: ὅτι ὃν ἀπέστειλεν . . . ‘‘whomGod