• - • B ACCORDING TO ST JOHN: WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES BY B. F. WESTCOTT, D.D., D.C.L., LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM. NINTH THOUSAND. H LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1892 Uniform with the Present Volume. THE PSALMS OF DAVID. With Notes, Explanatory and Critical. By the late DEAN JOHNSON, M.A., and CANON C. J. ELLIOTT, and Canon F. C. COOK, M.A. Medium 8vo., los. 6d. THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. With Notes, Ex- planatory and Critical. By E. H. GIFFORD, D.D., Archdeacon of London. Medium 8vo., "js. 6d. Reprinted from "THE SPEAKER'S COMMENTARY." CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL. i. Internal Evidence ...... v i. Indirect evidence v (/?) The author was a Jew . . v (£) a Jew of Palestine ... x (f) an eye-witness xviii (d) an Apostle xxi (?) St John xxi ii. Direct evidence xxv (a) i. 14 xxv (£) xix. 35 xxv (c) xxi. 24 xxvii a. External Evidence xxviii II. THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Author xxxii a. The Occasion and Date .... xxxv 3. The Object xl PACK 4- The Plan xlii j. The Style 1 6. Historical Exactness .... liii 7. The Last Discourses .... Ixiii III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. 1. Relation to the Old Testament . Ixvi 2. The unfolding of the Messianic idea Ixix 3. The Characters Ixxi 4. Symbolism Ixxv IV. RELATION TO THE OTHER APO- STOLIC WRITINGS. i. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels . Ixxviii a. To the Apocalypse Ixxxiv 3. To the Epistles of St John . . . Ixxxviii V. THE HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Text Ixxxviii a. The interpretation of the Gospel , xciv ADDITIONAL NOTES: On chap, i a8 On chap. ii. n, 24 45 On chap, iii 63 On chap. iv. 21 79 On chap. v. i, 3 93 On chap, vi na On chap. vii. 39 125 On chap. vii. 53 — viii. ii, and chap, viii. aj, 44 141 ADDITIONAL NOTES : On chap. ix. 35 15O On chap. x. 1 6, aa, 39 i6a On chap. xiii. 18 199 On chap. xiv. 16, a8 211 On chap, xviii. ....... a6a On chap, xix 28a On chap. xx. 21 298 On chap, xxi 305 THE present volume is reprinted from The Speaker s Com- mentary. I have corrected a few misprints, defined more exactly a few references, and changed two or three words and phrases which seemed liable to misapprehension. I have not however felt at liberty to make any other alterations or additions. B. F. W. CAMBRIDGE, Dec. 6th, 1881. ST. JOHN. INTRODUCTION. I. THE AUTHORSHIP or THE GOSPEL. 1. Internal Evidence v i. Indirect evidence v (<z) The author was a Jew . . v (b) a Jew of Palestine ... x (c) an eye-witness .... xviii (d) an Apostle xxi (e) St John xxi ii. Direct evidence xxv (a) i. 14 : . . xxv (b) xix. 35 xxv (c) xxi. 24 xxvii 2. External Evidence xxviii II. THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL. 1. The Author xxxii 2. The Occasion and Date .... xxxv 3. The Object xl I. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE GOSPL-L. i. Internal Evidence. THE Gospel itself forms the proper starting-point for a satisfactory in- quiry into its origin. Doubts may be raised as to the early history of the book owing to the nature of the available evi- dence, but there can be no question that it is impressed with an individual cha- racter, and that it contains indications of the circumstances under which it was composed. These indications, therefore, must first be examined : this character must first be defined so far as it illus- trates the relation of the writer to the religious and social circumstances of the first century ; and when this is done, we shall be in a position to consider with a fair appreciation the value of the his- torical testimony in support of the uni- versal tradition of the Early Church which assigned the work to the Apostle St John. What then is the evidence which the New Test. — VOL. II. 4. The Plan xlii 5. The Style 1 6. Historical Exactness liii 7. The Last Discourses Ixiii III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. i. Relation to the Old Testament . . Ixvi a. Tbf unfolding of the Messianic idea Ixix 3. The Characters Ixxi 4. Symbolism Ixxv IV. RELATION TO THE OTHER APO- STOLIC WRITINGS. 1. Relation to the Synoptic Gospels . Ixxvii 2. To the Apocalypse Ixxxiv 3. To the Epistles of St John . . Ixxxviii V. THE HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL. 1. The Text Ixxxviii 2. The interpretation of the Gospel . xciv fourth Gospel itself bears to its author- ship, first indirectly, and next directly? These are the two questions which we have to answer before we can go further. i. The indirect evidence of the Gospel as to its authorship. In examining the indirect evidence which the fourth Gospel furnishes as to its authorship, it will be most convenient, as well as most satisfactory, to consider the available materials in relation to successive questions which become more and more definite as we proceed. How far then can we infer from the book itself, with more or less certainty, that the author was, or was not, a Jew, a Jew of Palestine, an eye-witness, an Apostle, and, last of all, St John, the son of Zebedee ? (a) The Author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew. A candid examination of the evidence appears to leave no room b VI for reasonable doubt on this point. The whole narrative shews that the author was a Jew. He is familiar with Jewish opinions and customs, his composition is impressed with Jewish characteristics, he is penetrated with the spirit of the Jewish dispensation. His special know- ledge, his literary style, his religious faith, all point to the same conclusion. The few arguments which are urged on the other side derive whatever force they have from the isolation of particular phrases which are considered without regard to the general aspect of the life to which they belong. These statements must be justified in detail. (a) The familiarity of the author of the fourth Gospel with Jewish opinions is shewn most strikingly by the outline which he gives of the contemporary Mes- sianic expectations. This subject will be brought before us more in detail after- wards (in. § 2). For the present it will be enough to refer to the details which are given or implied in i. 21, iv.' 25, vi. 14 f., vii. 40 ff., xii. 34, &c. In all these cases the points are noticed without the least effort as lying within the natural circle of the writer's thoughts. So again he mentions casually the popular esti- mate of women (iv. 27), the importance attached to the religious schools (vii. 15), the disparagement of " the Dispersion " (vii. 35), the belief in the transmitted punishment of sin (ix. 2), the hostility of Jews and Samaritans (iv. 9), the su- percilious contempt of the Pharisees for " the people of the earth " (vii. 49). The details of Jewish observances are touched upon with equal precision. Now it is the law of the sabbath which is shewn to be overruled by the require- ment of circumcision (vii. 22 f.): now the ceremonial pollution which is con- tracted by entering a Gentile court (xviii. 28). The account of the visit to the Feast of Tabernacles only becomes fully intelligible when we supply the facts at which the writer barely hints, being him- self filled with the knowledge of them. The pouring of water from Siloam upon the altar of burnt sacrifice, and the kindling of the lamps in the court of the women, explain the imagery of the "living water" (vii. 38), and of "the light of the world " (viii. 1 2). And here, again, a Jew only who knew the festival would be likely to describe " the last day of the feast," which was added to the original seven, as "the great day" (vii. 37). The same familiar and decisive knowledge of the people is shewn in glimpses which are opened on domestic life at the marriage feast (ii. i — 10), and at the burial of Lazarus (xi. 17—44). The tumultuary stoning of Stephen (Acts vii. 57 ff.), which could not but be a well-known incident in the early church, would have hindered any one who had not clear information upon the point from recording the answer of the Jews " It is not lawful for us to put any one to death" (xviii. 31); and so in fact these words were afterwards misunderstood by the Greek fathers. But, on the other hand, it is said that the author of the fourth Gospel was so ignorant of Jewish affairs that he repre- sents the high-priesthood as an annual office when he speaks of Caiaphas as "high-priest in that year" (xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13). It would be sufficient to reply that such ignorance could not be recon- ciled with the knowledge already indi- cated ; but a consideration of the clause solemnly repeated three times shews that the supposed conclusion cannot be drawn from it. The emphatic reiteration of the statement forces the reader to connect the office of Caiaphas with the part which he actually took in accomplish- ing the death of Christ. One yearly sacrifice for atonement it was the duty of the high-priest to offer. In that me- morable year, when all types were ful- filled in the reality, it fell to Caiaphas to bring about unconsciously the one sacrifice of atonement for sin. He was high-priest before and after, but it was not enough for the Evangelist's purpose to mark this. He was high- priest in that year — "the year of the Lord" (Luke iv. 19), — and so in the way of divine Providence did his ap- pointed part in causing " one man to die for the people" (xi. 50). (/3) From the contents of the fourth Gospel we tura now to its form. And it may truly be affirmed that the style of the narrative alone is conclusive as to its Jewish authorship. The vocabulary, the structure of the sentences, the symmetry and numerical symbolism of the compo- THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. vit sition,the expression and the arrangement of the thoughts, are essentially Hebrew. These points will require to be discussed at greater length when we come to examine the composition of the Gospel (n. § 5). It must suffice now to call attention to such terms as "light," "darkness," "flesh," "spirit," "life," "this world," "the king- dom of God," and the like : to such images as "the shepherd," "the living water," "the woman in travail:" to the simplicity of the connecting particles : to the parallelism and symmetry of the clauses. The source of the imagery of the narrative, to sum up all briefly, is the Old Testament. The words are Greek words, but the spirit by which they live is Hebrew. (y) The Old Testament is no less certainly the source of the religious life of the writer. His Jewish opinions and hopes are taken up into and transfigured by his Christian faith ; but the Jewish foundation underlies his whole narrative. The land of Judaea was " the home " (TO ?Sia; comp. xvi. 32, xix. 27) of the Incarnate Word, and the people of Judaea were "His own people" (i. n). This was the judgment of the Evangelist when the Messiah had been rejected by those to whom He came ; and on the other hand, Christ, when He first en- tered the Holy City, claimed the Temple as being "the house of His Father" (ii. 1 6). From first to last Judaism is treated in the Fourth Gospel as the divine starting-point of Christianity. It is true that the author records discourses in which the Lord speaks to the Jews of the Law as being "their Law;" and that he uses the name "the Jews" to mark an anti-Christian body; but even these apparent exceptions really illustrate his main position. The Pharisees as a party strove to keep "the Law" in its widest acceptation, the monument, that is, of the various revelations to Israel (x. 34, xv. 25, notes), for themselves alone, and to bar the progress of the life which it enshrined. In the process it became " their Law." With the same fatal nar- rowness they reduced the representatives and bearers of the ancient revelation to a national faction ; and " the Jews " em- bodied just that which was provisional and evanescent in the system which they misunderstood (comp. in. § i). These two characteristic thoughts of the Gospel will become clear when we consider the general development of the history. Meanwhile it must be noticed that the Evangelist vindicates both for the Law and for the people their just historical position in the divine economy. The Law could not but bear witness to the truths which God had once spoken through it. The people could not do away with the promises and privileges which they had inherited. Side by side with the words of Christ which describe the Law as the special possession of its false in- terpreters (viii. 17, x. 34, xv. 25), other words of his affirm the absolute authority of its contents. It is assumed as an axiom that The Scripture cannot be broken (x. 35; see v. 18, note). That which is written in the prophets (vi. 45; comp. vi. 31) is taken as the true expression of what shall be. Moses wrote of Christ (v. 46. Comp. i. 45). The types of the Old Testament, the brazen serpent (iii. 14), the manna (vi. 32), the water from the rock (vii. 37 f.), perhaps also the pillar of fire (viii. 12), are applied by Christ to Himself as of certain and acknowledged significance. Abraham saw His day (viii. 56). It was generally to "the Scriptures " that Christ appealed as wit- nessing of Him. Even the choice of Judas to be an apostle was involved in the portraiture of the divine King (xiii. 1 8, note, that the Scripture might be ful- filled; comp. xvii. 12); and the hatred of the Jews was prefigured in the words written in their Law, They hated me without a cause (xv. 25). Such words of Christ must be con- sidered both in themselves and in the consequences which they necessarily carry with them, if we are to understand the relation of the fourth Gospel to the Old Testament. They shew conclusively that in this Gospel, no less than in the other three, He is represented as offer- ing Himself to Israel as the fulfiller, and not as the destroyer, of " the Law." And it follows also, whatever view is taken of the authorship of the Gospel, that the Evangelist in setting down these sayings of Christ accepts to the full the teaching which they convey. Nor is this all. Just as the words of the Lord recorded in the fourth Gospel confirm the divine authority of the Old b 2 vni INTRODUCTION TO Testament, so also the Evangelist, when he writes in his own person, emphasizes the same principle. The first public act of Christ reminded the disciples, as he relates, of a phrase in the Psalms (ii. 17). The Resurrection, he says, con- firmed their faith in the Scripture, and the word which Jesus spake, as if both were of equal weight. In the light of the same event they understood at last what they had done unconsciously in accordance with prophetic utterances (xii. 14 ff.). So again at the close of his record of Christ's public ministry, he points out how the apparent failure of Christ's mission was part of the great scheme of Providence foreshadowed by Isaiah. The experience, and the words of the prophet, made such a result in- evitable (xii. 37 ff.). This fulfilment of the wider teaching of prophecy is further confirmed by examples of the fulfilment of its details. Special incidents of the Passion are connected with the language of the Old Testament. The division of the garments, and the casting lots for the seamless robe (xix. 23 f.); the ex- pression of thirst (xix. 28), the limbs left unbroken (xix. 36), the side pierced (xix. 37) — significant parallels with the treat- ment of the paschal lamb — give occasion to quotations from the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets ; and these fulfilments of the ancient Scriptures are brought forward as solid grounds of faith (xix. 35)- " The Law," in short, is treated by the writer of the fourth Gospel, both in his record of the Lord's teaching, and, more especially, in his own comments, as only a Jew could have treated it. It was misinterpreted by those to whom it was given, but it was divine. So far as it was held, not only apart from, but in opposition to, its true fulfilment, it lost its true character. This character the Evangelist unfolds. ' The object with which he wrote was to shew that Jesus was not only the Son of God, but also the Christ, the promised Messiah of the Jews (xx. 31), just as Nathanael, the true representative of Israel (i. 47), had re- cognised Him at first under this double title. The portraiture of the people in the fourth Gospel is no less indicative of its Jewish authorship, whatever false deduc- tions may have been popularly drawn from the use of the characteristic title "the Jews" for the adversaries of Christi- anity. Writing as a Christian the Evan- gelist still records the central truth, true for all ages, which Christ declared : We — as Jews — worship that which we know, for the salvation — the salvation promised to the world — is from the Jews (iv. 22), rising by a divine law out of the dispen- sation intrusted to their keeping. No- thing which was said at a later time neutralised these words of the Lord in which He identified Himself with the old people of God, and signalised their in- herent prerogatives. The knowledge which the Jews had was the result of their acceptance of the continuous reve- lation of God from age to age; while the Samaritans who refused to advance beyond the first stage of His manifesta- tion, worshipped the true Object of wor- ship, but ignorantly. They worshipped that which they kneiv not (iv. 22). This was the rightful position of the Jews towards Christ, which is every- where presupposed in the Gospel, but they failed to maintain it, and when the Evangelist wrote their national failure was past hope. They received Him not. But the sources and the kinds of their unbelief were manifold, and the narra- tive reflects the varieties of their cha- racter. For the people are not, as is commonly assumed to be the case, a uniform, colourless mass. On the contrary, dis- tinct bodies reveal themselves on a care- ful examination of the record, each with its own distinctive marks. Two great divi- sions are portrayed with marked clear- ness, " the multitude," and " the Jews." The multitude (o oxA-os) represents the general gathering of the Jewish inhabi- tants of Palestine, Galilseans for the most part, who are easily swayed to and fro, with no settled policy, and no firm convictions. These, when they saw the signs which Jesus had wrought at Jeru- salem, received Him in Galilee (iv. 45), and followed Him, and, at a later time, would have made Him King (vi. 15). When they went up to the feasts they gathered round Him in expectation and doubt, ignorant of the deadly hostility of their rulers to the new prophet (vii. 20), and inclined to believe (vii. 40; THE GOSPEL OF S. JOHN. IX compare the whole chapter). On the eve of the Passion they brought Him in triumph into the city (xii. 12) ; and, in the last scene in which they are pre- sented in the Gospel, listen in dull per- plexity to Christ's final revelation of Himself (xii. 29, 34). In the fourth Gospel they do not appear in the narra- tive of the Trial and the Crucifixion. They may have been used as instru- ments, but the guilt of this issue did not belong to them as a body. In contrast with "the multitude" stand "the Jews1." Both titles are ge- neral terms, including various elements ; both have local centres ; both express tendencies of religious feeling. Just as "the multitude" reflect the spirit of Galilee, " the Jews " reflect the spirit of Jerusalem (i. 1 9), and this term is perhaps used exclusively of those who lived in the limited region of Judaea. " The multi- tude" have vague, fluent, opinions; "the Jews " hold fast by the popular expecta- tion of a national Messiah, and a na- tional sovereignty. From first to last they appear as the representatives of the narrow finality of Judaism (ii. 18, xix. 38). They begin their opposition by a charge of the violation of the Sabbath (v. i off.; comp. xix. 31). Those of them who are present at Capernaum give ex- pression to "murmurings" at the teach- ing to which "the multitude" had apparently listened with awed respect (vi. 41, 52; comp. vi. 22 — 40). They reduce the wavering multitude to silence at Jerusalem (vii. n — 13). If they be- lieve Christ, they do not at once believe on Him, and while they cling to their own prejudices yield themselves to the perils of fatal error (viii. 31 ff. note). In their zeal for the Law they would at once stone Christ (viii. 59, x. 31); and to them generally the Crucifixion is attri- buted (xviii. 12, 14, 31, 36, 38, xix. 7, 12, 14). Yet even these are struck with wonder (vii. 15) and doubt (vii. 35, viii. 22); they are divided (x. 19), and ask peremptorily for a clear enunciation of Christ's claim (x. 24); and the defection of many from among them to Him marks the last crisis in the history (xii. 10 f. ; comp. xi. 45, 48, ix. 40, xii. 42). 1 The term occurs rarely in the discourses of the Lord : iv. 11, xiii. 33, xviii. 20, 36. See note on the last passage. "The Jews" thus presented to a writer who looked back from a Christian point of sight1 upon the events which he described the aggregate of the people whose opinions were opposed in spirit to the work of Christ. They were not, as they might have been, " true Israel- ites" (i. 47; comp. #.31). But at the same time he does not fail to notice that there were among them two distinct tendencies, which found their expression in the Pharisees and Sadducees respec- tively. The latter are not mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel, but the writer describes them more character- istically, and with a more direct know- ledge, by their social position at the time. They were " the high-priests," the faction of Annas and Caiaphas (Acts v. 17), the reckless hierarchy, whose policy is sharply distinguished in one or two life-like traits from that of the religious zealots, the Pharisees. Several times indeed the two parties appear as acting together in the great Council (vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, xviii. 3; comp. vii. 26, 48, xii. 42 the rulers), yet even in these cases the two are only once so grouped as to form a single body (vii. 45 irpo? roO? dpx- Kal $>ap.), and "the chief priests " always stand first as taking the lead in the designs of violence. This is brought out very vividly in the fatal scene in the Sanhedrin after the raising of Lazarus (see xi. 47 note). In other places when the two parties are mentioned separately the contrast between them familiar to the historian underlies the record. The Pharisees are moved by the symptoms of religious disorder : the high priests (Sadducees) by the prospect of ecclesiastical danger. The Pharisees are the true representa- tives of "the Jews" (i. 19 Hi. 24, ix. 13 1| ix. 1 8, ix. 2 2 || xii. 42). They send to make inquiries about the mission of John (i. 24); they hear, evidently as of something which deeply concerned them, of baptism among the followers of the Lord (iv. i); they scornfully reject the opinion of the illiterate multitude (vii. 47); they question the authority of Christ (viii. 13); they condemn His miracles as wrought on the Sabbath (ix. 1 The phrase "the Passover of the Jews" evidently implies a familiar Christian Passover : ii. 13 note. Comp. ii. 6, v. i, vii. 2, xix. 42. INTRODUCTION TO 1 3 ff.); they excommunicate His followers (xii. 42 ; comp. ix. 22); but at last they look with irresolute helplessness upon the apparent failure of their opposition (xii. 19). From this point they appear no more by themselves. "The chief priests" take the direction of the end into their own hands. Five times they are mentioned alone, and on each oc- casion as bent on carrying out a purpose of death and treason to the faith of Israel. They plotted the murder of Lazarus because many for his sake be- lieved on Jesus (xii. n). Pilate sees in them the true persecutors of Christ : Thy nation and the chief priests delivered Thee up to me (xviii. 35). Their voices first raise the cry, Crucify, Crucify Him (xix. 6). They make the unbelieving con- fession, We have no king but Cccsar (xix. 15), and utter a vain protest against the title in which their condemnation was written (xix. 21, the chief priests of the Jews), This most significant fact of the de- cisive action of the Sadducsean hierarchy in compassing the death of the Lord, which is strikingly illustrated by the relative attitude of Pharisees and Sad- ducees to the early Church as described in the Acts, explains the prominent posi- tion assigned to Annas in the fourth Gospel (xviii. 13). Annas was the head of the party. Though he had ceased to be high-priest for many years, he swayed the policy of his successors. St Luke in his Gospel significantly sets him with Caiaphas as "high-priest" (eV dp^iepew? not l-ir dpx<.fpeuVi iii- 2), as if both were united in one person ; and in the Acts he, and not Caiaphas (iv. 6), is alone called "high-priest." The coincidence is just one of those which reveal the actual as distinguished from the official state of things. One further remark must be made. The general use of the term " the Jews " for the opponents of Christ not only belongs necessarily to the position of an apostle at the close of the first century, but it is even possible to trace in the books of the New Testament the gradual change by which it assumed this specific force. In the Synoptic Gospels it occurs only four times except in the title " king of the Jews ;" Matt, xxviii. 15; Mark vii. 3 ; Luke vii. 3, xxiii. 5 1 ; and in the first of these, which is probably the latest in date, the word marks a position of antagonism. In the Acts the title oscillates between the notions of privi- lege and of opposition, but the course of the history goes far to fix its adverse meaning. The word is comparatively rare in the Epistles of St Paul. It occurs ' most commonly (twelve times out of twenty-four) in contrast with "Greek," both alike standing in equal contrast with the idea of Christianity ; and for St Paul, "a Hebrew of Hebrews," his countrymen, "Jews by nature" (Gal. ii. 15), are already separated from himself. The name of a race has be- come practically the name of a sect (Rom. iii. 9; i Cor. i. 22 ff., ix. 20, x. 32 ; comp. Gal. ii. 13, i. 13 f.). The word is not found in the Catholic epi- stles, but in the Apocalypse it is used twice (ii. 9, iii. 9), evidently to describe those who insisted on their literal descent and ceremonial position, and claimed the prerogatives of Israel outside the Church. Such false-styled Jews were the worst enemies of the Gospel; and a Christian writing at the close of the cen- tury could not but speak of the people generally by the title which characterized them to his contemporaries. (b] The Author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine. The facts which have just been noticed carry us beyond the conclusion which they were alleged to establish. They shew that the writer of the fourth Gospel was not only a Jew, but a Palestinian Jew of the first century. It is inconceivable that a Gentile, living at a distance from the scene of religious and political controversy which he paints, could have realised, as the Evangelist has done, with vivid and unerring ac- curacy the relations of parties and interests which ceased to exist after the fall of Jerusalem; that he could have marked distinctly the part which the hierarchical class — the unnamed Saddu- cees — took in the crisis of the Passion ; that he could have caught the real points at issue between true and false Judaism, which in their first form had passed away when the Christian society was firmly established : that he could have portrayed the growth and conflict of opinion as to the national hopes of THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XI the Messiah side by side with the pro- gress of the Lord's ministry. All these phases of thought and action, which would be ineffaceably impressed upon the memory of one who had lived through the events which the history records, belonged to a state of things foreign to the experience of an Alexandrine, or an Asiatic, in the second century. For in estimating the value of these conclusions which we have gained, it must be remembered that the old land- marks, material and moral, were de- stroyed by the Roman war : that the destruction of the Holy City — a true coming of Christ — revealed the essential differences of Judaism and Christianity, and raised a barrier between them : that at the beginning of the second century the influence of Alexandria was substi- tuted for that of the Jewish schools in the growing Church. (a) And these considerations which apply to the arguments drawn from the religious and political traits of the his- tory, apply also in corresponding degrees to the more special indications that the author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew of Palestine. Among these, the most con- vincing perhaps is to be found in his local knowledge. He speaks of places with an unaffected precision, as familiar in every case with the scene which he wishes to recall. There is no effort, no elaborateness of description in his narratives : he moves about in a country which he knows. His mention of sites is not limited to those which are found ejsewhere in Scripture, either in the Gospels or in the Old Testa- ment. "Cana of Galilee" (Kava 1-17? TaXi- Xaias, ii. i, n, iv. 46, xxi. 2), thus exactly distinguished, is not noticed by any earlier writer. " Bethany beyond Jordan " (i. 28), a place already forgotten in the time of Origen, is obviously distinguished from the familiar Bethany " near Jerusalem," the situation of which is precisely fixed as "about fifteen furlongs" from the city (xi. 1 8). Ephraim, again, situated "near the wilderness" (xi. 54) may be identical with Ophrah (i Sam. xiii. 17), but it is not otherwise named in Scripture. Once more, ^Enon (iii. 23) is not known from other sources, but the form of the name ' 1 This is true whether the word be taken as an adjectival form "abounding in springs" (comp. Ez. xlvii. 17); or as a corruption of a dual form is a sure sign of the genuineness of the reference, and the defining clause, "near to Salim," even if the identification were as difficult now as it has been repre- sented to be, shews that the place was clearly present to the writer1. Nothing indeed but direct acquaintance with the localities can account for the description added in each of these cases. A writer for whom these spots were identified with memorable incidents which were for him turning-points of faith, would naturally add the details which recalled them to his own mind : for another the exact definition could have no interest. Other indications of minute knowledge are given in the implied notice of the dimensions of the lake of Tiberias (vi. 1 9 ; comp. Mark vi. 47), and of the relative posi- tions of Cana and Capernaum (ii. 12, went doum}. One name, however, has caused much difficulty. Tlif city of Samaria named Sychar (iv. 5) has been commonly identi- fied with Shechem (Sychem, Acts vii. 16), and the changed form has been confi- dently attributed by sceptical critics to the ignorance of the Evangelist. The importance of Shechem, a city with which no one could have been unacquainted who possessed the knowledge of Pales- tine which the writer of the fourth Gospel certainly had, might reasonably dispose of such a charge. And more than this : the picture with which the name is connected is evidently drawn from life. The pros- pect of the corn-fields (v. 35), and of the heights of Gerizim (v. 20), are details which belong to the knowledge of an eye-witness. The notice of the depth of the well (v. n) bears equally the stamp of authenticity. If then there were no clue to the solution of the prob- lem offered by the strange name, it would be right to acquiesce in the belief that Sychar might be a popular distortion of Shechem, or the name of some unknown "the two springs," but it is doubtful whether it can be so rendered. It is said that Ainan and Ainaim, "the two springs," are the names of several places in Arabia. The Syriac versions write the name as two words, "the spring of the dove." 1 Lieut. Conder in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund (July, 1874, pp. 191 f.) identifies it with 'Ayniin near to Salim, due east of Nablus. The use of the phrase be- yond Jordan (iii. 26) implies that the country was on the West of the river. Xll INTRODUCTION TO village. But the case does not stand so absolutely without help towards a de- cision. The earliest ancient authorities (4lh cent.) distinguish Shechem and Sychar. Shechem could hardly have been described as near to the plot of ground which Jacob gave to Joseph (v. 5). There are, moreover, several references to Sukra, Sukar, ain-Sukar (iDD, JTO1D "O1D fW) in the Talmud ; and a village 'Askar still remains, which answers to the conditions of the narrative. Some difficulty has been felt in identifying 'Askar with Sychar, since it is written at present with an initial 'Am, but in a Samaritan Chronicle of the i2th century, the name appears in a transitional form with an initial Yod COD11), and the Arabic translation of the Chronicle gives 'Askar as the equivalent. The description [of S. John], Lieut. Conder writes, " is most accurately applicable to 'Askar. ... It is merely a modern mud village, with no great indications of antiquity, but there are remains of ancient tombs near the road beneath it." (Report of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1877, pp. 149 f., 1876, p. 197.) The notices of the topography of Je- rusalem contained in the fourth Gospel are still more conclusive as to its author- ship than the notices of isolated places in Palestine. The desolation of Jeru- salem after its capture was complete. No creative genius can call into being a lost site. And the writer of the fourth Gospel is evidently at home in the city as it was before its fall. He knows much that we learn from independent testi- mony, and he knows what is not to be found elsewhere. But whether he men- tions spots known from other sources, or named only by himself, he speaks simply and certainly. As he recalls a familiar scene he lives again in the past, and for- gets the desolation which had fallen upon the place which rises before his eyes. " There is," he writes, " at Jerusalem a pool called Bethesda" (v. 2), and by the form of the sentence carries us back to the time when the incident first became history. " Bethesda by the sheep-gate," " the pool of Siloam " (ix. 7), " the brook Kidron" (xviii. i), which are not named by the other evangelists (yet see Luke xiii. 4), stand out naturally in his narra- tive. What imagination could have in- vented a Bethesda (or Bethzetha) with its five porches, and exact locality (v. 2)? What except habitual usage would have caused the Kidron to be described as " the winter torrent1"? How long must the name Siloam have been pondered over before the perfectly admissible ren- dering " Sent " was seen to carry with it a typical significance ? The Prcetorium and Golgotha are mentioned by the other evangelists ; but even here the writer of the fourth Gospel sees the localities, if I may so speak, with the vividness of an actual spectator. The Jews crowd round the Prajtorium which they will not enter, and Pilate goes in and out before them (xviii. 28 ff.). Golgotha is "nigh to the city" where people pass to and fro, and "there was a garden there" (xix. 17, 20, 41). And the fourth Evangelist alone notices the Pavement, the raised plat- form of judgment, with its Hebrew title, Gabbatha (xix. 1 3). The places Bethesda and Gabbatha are not, in fact, mentioned anywhere except in the fourth Gospel, and the perfect simplicity with which they are introduced in the narrative, no less than the accuracy of form in the Aramaic titles (whatever be the true reading of Bethesda), marks the work of a Palestinian Jew, who had known Jerusalem before its fall. The allusions to the Temple shew no less certainly the familiarity of the writer with the localities in which he represents Christ as teaching. The first scene, the cleansing of the Temple, is in several details more lifelike than the similar passages in the Synoptists (ii. 14 — 16). It is described just as it would appear to an eye-witness in its separate parts, and not as the similar incident is summed up briefly in the other narratives. Each group engaged stands out distinctly, the sellers of oxen and sheep, the money- changers sitting at their work, the sellers of doves ; and each group is dealt with individually. Then follows, in the course of the dialogue which ensues, the singu- larly exact chronological note, "Forty and six years was this Temple in building" (ii. 20). The incidents of the Feast of Taber- 1 For the discussion of the reading see note on xviii. i. If the reading "the torrent of the Cedars" be adopted, the argument is not affected. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Xlll nacles (which are given in chapters vii. and viii.) cannot be understood, as has been already noticed, without an accu- rate acquaintance with the Temple ritual. The two symbolic ceremonies — com- memorating the typical miracles of the wilderness — the outpouring of water on the altar of sacrifice, and the kindling the golden lamps at night, furnish the great topics of discourse. The Evange- list is familiar with the facts, but he does not pause to dwell upon them. Only in one short sentence does he appear to call attention to the significance of the events. "These things" he says, "Jesus spake in the treasury, as he taught in the Temple" (viii. 20). The mention of the exact spot carried with it to minds fa- miliar with the Herodian Temple a clear revelation of what was in the Apostle's mind. For the treasury was in the court of the women where the great candelabra were placed, looking to which Christ said, "/ am the light" — not of one people, or of one city, but — "of the world." And there is still another thought suggested by the mention of the place. The meet- ing-hall of the Sanhedrin was in a cham- ber adjacent to it. We can understand therefore the hasty attempts of the chief priests and Pharisees to seize Christ, and the force of the words which are added, that even there, under the very eyes of the popular leaders, " no man laid hands on Him." The next visit to Jerusalem, at the Feast of Dedication, brings a new place before us. "// was winter" we read, "and Jesus was walking in Solomon's Porch" (x. 22), a part of the great eastern cloister suiting in every way the scene with which it is connected. Once again, as I believe, we have a significant allusion to the decoration of the Temple. On the eve of the Passion, at the close of the discourses in the upper chamber, the Lord said, "Arise, let us go hence" (xiv. 31). Some time after we read that when He had finished his High-priestly prayer, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Kidron. It seems to be impossible to regard this notice as the fulfilment of the former command. The house, therefore, must have been left before, as is clearly im- plied in the narrative, and the walk to the Mount of Olives might well include a visit to the Temple ; and over the gate of the Temple was spread the great vine of gold, which was reckoned among its noblest ornaments. Is it then a mere fancy to suppose that the image of the vine and its branches was suggested by the sight of this symbolic tracery, lighted by the Paschal moon, and that the High- priestly prayer was offered under the shadow of the Temple walls ? However this may be, it is inconceiv- able that any one, still more a Greek or a Hellenist, writing when the Temple was rased to the ground, could have spoken of it with the unaffected certainty which appears in the fourth Gospel. It is monstrous to transfer to the second century the accuracy of archaeological research which is one of the latest ac- quirements of modern art. The Evan- gelist, it may be safely said, speaks of what he had seen. (/?) The arguments which have been already drawn from the political, social, religious, and local knowledge of the author of the fourth Gospel, shew beyond all doubt, as it appears, that he was a Palestinian Jew. A presumption in favour of the same conclusion may be derived from the quotations from the Old Testa- ment which are contained in the Gospel. These shew at least so much that the writer was not dependent on the LXX. ; and they suggest that he was acquainted with the original Hebrew. A rapid summary of the facts will en- able the student to estimate the weight of this additional evidence. (i) Quotations by the Evangelist. ii. 17. ...yeypa/i/xeVov cVnV 'O £17X0? TOU OLKOV <rov KaTa<£ay£Tai fjif. Ps. Ixix. (Ixviii.) 9. Kare'^ayc (Symm. Kcmji'aA.oxre). So Hebr (i) xii. 14, 15. Ka0a>s C'OTIV ytyp M?? <£o/3ov, dvyaTrjp 2iwv loov Xcvs o~ov tp^erai, Ka.6ijp.evos CTTI ovov. Zach. ix. 9. Xcupe <r<£d8pa, 6vya.Tff> Sicov, . . . iSov d /3a<riAevs crov £p^erai...c7ri- ftf(3if]K(a<; CTTI . . . weoXov ve'ov. (All the Greek versions have eVi/Je^Kws. Theo- dotion has eVi ovov Kal TrtSXov vlov ovov.) Hebr. nunx-p -virgin •nsrr^y. (2) Xll. 38. ... Iva. d Xdyos 'Hcrcuov. . .TrX^.w^y XIV INTRODUCTION TO oV tl-n-fv Kupie, Tt's eVicrTEWev rfj aKofj T/jtxdjv ; Kal d (3pa\i<i)V Kvpiov TIVI at Is. liii. i (exact) ...................... (3) xii. 40. ... OTI ci-jrev 'Ho-cuas TETTJ- pa)o-€v avrtJv rr/v Kap&tav, iva ftr) iduxriv rots o<j)6a\fj.ols Kal vor/Vcoo-iv rfj napBia Kal (rrpa<f>w<riv, Kal la.arofj.aL avrovs. Is.vi.IO. fTra^vvOf] 77 KapSia rov XaoD Tovrov...Kai TOVS o<f>@a\p.ov<; eKO-Hfivo-av, pi] IT ore iSojcrt rots Q(j>6a\fj.oi<; . . . /cat rfj KapSia crwcocrt *cai tTrts'Tpej/'axri Kai iuo-o/x.ai autoes. (The version of Symm. uses the same words generally as LXX.) Comp. Matt. xiii. 13 ff.; Mark iv. 12. ......... (4) xix. 24. iva 77' ypacfrrj irXrjpudf} Aieyne- pLcravro ra. t/xana /xov eaiJTOts Kat em TOK ^uaricr/xov /AOU e^aXov K\.rjpov. Ps. xxii. (xxi.) 1 8 (exact) .......... (5) xix. 36. iva 77 ypafyf] irXypwQfj 'Ocrrow oil crwTptjSifcreTai avrov. Ex. xii. 46. OCTTOVV ov (TWTptyere O.TT avTov (al. O-WTPM//CTCU). Num. ix. 12. o. ou trvvrptyovcrLv a. ai. (al. crwrpti^erat). Cf. Ps. xxxiv. (xxxiii.) 2,0 ........ ..... (6) xix. 37. ercpa ypa(j>r) Xe'yei "Oij/ovrai ets ov e^eKevrrja-av. Hebr. 11pl. Zach. xii. IO. em/3Xf\j/ovrai Trpos fte av$' toi/ Karwp^T/cravro (Theodot. tis oi/ Aq. Symm. e^eKcY Comp. Rev. i. 7 (7) (2) Quotations in the Lord's discourses. v. 45. ecmv yeypa/jijiui'oi/ e TOIS Trpo- <^>^Tais Kat €crovTat Trai/res SiSa/croi ^toi). Is. liv. 13. Kal (^cro)) Travras TOI)S vious crov StSaKTovs ^eou. The words are not connected as in LXX. with v. 12, but treated as in the Hebrew, independently ................ (8) vii. 38. Karoos elirfv 77 ypa<f>r] Trora/xoi ex 7775 KOtXtas avrou pwa-ovviv vSaros There is no exact parallel. The re- ference is probably general .......... (9) X. 34. OVK f.(TT(.v yeypa/x/x.€i/ov . . . 'Ey a> tiTra ©eoi co-re ; Ps. Ixxxii. (Ixxxi.) 6 (exact) ....... (10) xiii. 1 8. iva 77 ypatyr) TrXrjpwOfj 'O rpw- ywv fjiov TOV aprov tTT^pev CTT e/« TT^V Trrepvav avrov. Ps. xii. (xl.) 9 (10). ...o «r0ia>v aprovs ^xou t/icyaXvvcv CTT' e/xe TrTepvwr/Aov. (Aq. Symm. Theodot. Kare/AeyaXuV^ JU.OT;). Hebr. spy ^y 'pHSH ................... ^(n) xv. 25. Lva ?rX. o Xdyos...'E/xtcr^o-civ /x,e Swpeav. Ps. xxxiv. (xxxv.) 19. ot /ato-ovvres /xe Swpeav. Fs. Ixviii. (Ixix.) 5 .......... (12) (3) Other quotations. By John the Baptist. i. 23. eyw <£wv?7 /Sowvros «v rfj ep^V1? 'Evdvvare rrjv 6$ov Kuptov. Is. xl. 3. £Toi|u,acraTe...eii$€i'as Trotare Ta? Tpi'/3ous TOV ^eou T/'/XWV (Aq. Theodot. e. Symm. eurpeTrio-are) ____ (13) By Galilasans. vi. 31. KaOws Icrnv yeypa/x/xei/ov Aprov IK rov ovpavov e'Swfcev airots </>ayetv. Ps. Ixxviii. (Ixxvii.) 24... (p.dvva ^ayeiv) Kat aprov ovpavqv eSoJKev avrot?. Ex. xvi. 4, 15. . . . rw . . . aprous «K Toi5 oupavou... OVTOS o apros ov eSwKe Ki;ptos v/x,tv ^>ayeti/. ......... (14) The triumphal cry (xii. 13; Ps. cxvii. 25) can hardly be treated as a quotation. In preserving the Hebrew form Hosanna St John agrees with the Synoptic Evan- gelists and differs from the LXX. An examination of these fourteen cita- tions (i — 7 by the Evangelist; 8 — 12 by the Lord; 13, 14 by others) shews that they fall into the following groups : 1. Some agree with the Hebrew and LXX., where these both agree; (3), (5), (10), (12). 2. Others agree with the Hebrew against the LXX. ; (7), (8), (n). 3. Others differ from the Hebrew and LXX. where these both agree ; «• 4. Others differ from the Hebrew and LXX. where they do not agree ; (2), (4). 5. Free adaptations ; (6), (9), (i3), (14). But there is no case Avhere a quota- tion agrees with the LXX. against the Hebrew. (y) There is yet another argument to be noticed in support of the Palestinian authorship of the fourth Gospel, which appears to be of great weight, though it THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xv has commonly been either passed over, or even regarded as a difficulty. The doctrine of the Word, as it is presented in the Prologue, when taken in connexion with the whole Gospel, seems to shew clearly that the writer was of Palestinian and not of Hellenistic training. In considering St John's teaching on the Logos, " the Word," it is obvious to remark, though the truth is very often neglected in practice, that it is properly a question of doctrine and not of nomen- clature. It constantly happens in the history of thought that the same terms and phrases are used by schools which have no direct affinity, in senses which are essentially distinct, while they have a superficial likeness. Such terms (e.g. idea] belong to the common dialect of speculation ; and it is indeed by the pecu- liar force which is assigned to them that schools are in many cases most readily distinguished. A new teacher neces- sarily uses the heritage which he has received from the past in order to make his message readily understood. It may then be assumed that St John, when ht speaks of " the Word," " the Only-begotten," and of His relations to God and to the world, and to man, employs a vocabulary and refers to modes of thought which were already current when he wrote. His teaching would not have been intelligible unless the general scope of the language which he employed, without explanation or pre- paration, had been familiar to his readers. When he declares with abrupt emphasis that " the Word was in the beginning," and that "the Word became flesh," it is evident that he is speaking of "a Word" already known in some degree 'by the title, though he lays down new truths as to His being. He does not 'speak, as in the Apocalypse (xix. 13; comp. Heb. iv. 12) of "the Word of God," but of "the Word" absolutely. Those whom he addressed knew of Whom he was speaking, and were able to understand that which it was his office to make known about Him. In this case, as in every other similar case, the thoughts of men, moving in different directions under the action of those laws of natural growth which are the expres- sion of the divine purpose, prepared the medium and provided the appropriate means for the revelation which was to be conveyed in the fulness of time. In this respect the manifold forms of speculation, Western and Eastern, ful- filled a function in respect to Christian philosophy similar to that which was fulfilled in other regions of religious ex- perience by the LXX. ; and the results which were gained were embodied in Greek modes of speech, which were ready at last for the declaration of the divine message. It becomes then a question of pecu- liar and yet of subordinate interest to determine from what source St John derived his language. It is admitted on all hands that his central affirmation, " the Word became flesh," which under- lies all he wrote, is absolutely new and unique. A Greek, an Alexandrine, a Jewish doctor, would have equally re- fused to admit such a statement as a legitimate deduction from his principles, or as reconcileable with them. The mes- sage completes and crowns " the hope of Israel," but not as " the Jews " expected. It gives stability to the aspirations of humanity after fellowship with God, but not as philosophers had supposed, by " unclothing " the soul. St John had been enabled to see what Jesus of Naza- reth was, " the Christ " and " the Son of God : " it remained for him to bring home his convictions to others (xx. 31). The Truth was clear to himself: how could he so present it as to shew that it gave reality to the thoughts with which his contemporaries were busied ? The f answer is by using with necessary modi- fications the current language of the highest religious speculation to interpret a fact, to reveal a Person, to illuminate the fulness of actual life. Accordingly he transferred to the region of history the phrases in which men before him had spoken of "the Logos" — "the Word," " the Reason " — in the region of metaphysics. St Paul had brought home to believers the divine majesty of the glorified Christ : St John laid open the unchanged majesty of "Jesus come in the flesh." But when this is laid down it still remains to determine in which direc- tion we are to look for the immediate source from which St John borrowed the cardinal term Logos, a term which en- XVI INTRODUCTION TO shrines in itself large treasures of theo- logical speculation. The scantiness of contemporary reli- gious literature makes the answer more difficult than it might have been if the great Jewish teachers had not shrunk from committing their lessons to writing. And, in one sense, the difficulty is in- creased by the fact that a striking aspect of Jewish thought has been preserved in the copious writings of PHILO of Alex- andria (born c. B. c. 20), who is naturally regarded as the creator of teaching, of which he is in part only the representa- I tive. However far this view may be from the truth, the works of Philo fur- nish at least a starting-point for our in- quiry. This typical Alexandrine Jew speaks constantly of " the divine Logos" (6 tfeios Aoyos) in language which offers striking, if partial, parallels with the epistle to the Hebrews and St Paul. The divine Logos is "Son of God," "firstborn Son" (irpwroyovos, I. 4J4)> " image of God " (eucwv 0eov, I. 6), "God" (i. 655), "high-priest" (aPX"- pevs, i. 653), " man of God," " archetypal man" (avtipwiros Ofov, I. 411, o /car' eiKoVa av0pw7ros, i. 427), "the head of the body" (i. 640; comp. I. 121), " through whom the world was created " (n. 225). At first sight it might seem that we have here beyond all doubt the source of I St John's language. But the ambiguity of the Greek term Logos, which means both Reason and Word, makes it neces- sary to pause before adopting this con- clusion. When Philo speaks of "the divine Logos" his thought is predomi- nantly of the divine Reason and not of the divine Word. This fact is of deci- sive importance. The conception of a divine Word, that is, of a divine Will sensibly manifested in personal action, is not naturally derived from that of a divine Reason, but is rather comple- mentary to it, and characteristic of a different school of thought. Is it then possible to find any clear traces of a doctrine of a divine Logos elsewhere than at Alexandria ? The Targums furnish an instructive answer to the question. These para- phrases of the Hebrew Scriptures have preserved, as it appears, the simplest and earliest form in which the term "the Word " was employed in connexion with God. They were most probably not committed to writing in the shape in which we now have them, till some time after the Christian sera; but all evidence goes to shew that they embody the in- terpretations which had been orally cur- rent from a much earlier time. In the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, which is the oldest in date, the action of God is constantly though not consis- tently referred to " His Word " (Memra, •«m SID^D). Thus it is said that " the Lcfrd protected Noah by His word, when he entered the ark" (Gen. vii. 16) : that He "made a covenant between Abraham and His word " (Gen. xvii. 2) ; that the word of the Lord was with Ishmael in the wilderness (xxi. 20). At Bethel Jacob made a covenant that " the Word of the Lord should be His God " (Gen. xxviii. 21). Moses at Sinai "brought forth the people to meet the Word of God " (Exod. xix. 1 7). And in Deutero- nomy the Word of the Lord appears as a consuming fire talking to His people, and fighting for them against their ene- mies (Deut. iii. 2, iv. 24). Such examples might be multiplied indefinitely ; and it may be noticed that the term Debura (xim) occurs in this sense as well as Memra. Thus it is said in the Jerusalem Targum on Numb. vii. 89, the word (anm) was talking with him; and again Gen. xxviii. 10, the word ("i) desired to talk with him. In connexion with this usage it must also be observed that " a man's word " is used as a periphrasis for " himself." So we read Ruth iii. 8 ('Targ. Jon.'), "between his word (i.e. himself) and Michal " (Buxtorf and Levy, s. z>.). The "word." is in fact the active expression of the rational character, and so may well stand for the person from whom it issues. As applied to God, the term was free from any rude anthropomor- phism, while it preserved the reality of a divine fellowship for man. One striking difference between the Aramaic and Greek terms will have been remarked. Logos, as we have seen, is ambiguous, and may signify either reason or word, but Memra (Debura) means word only. If now we return to Philo, the importance of this fact becomes ob- vious. With Philo the Palestinian sense THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XVll of word sinks entirely into the back- ground, if it does not wholly disappear. He has borrowed a term which was al- ready current in the Greek Scriptures, and filled it with a new meaning. Three currents of thought in fact meet in Philo's doctrine of " the Logos," tthe Stoic, the Platonic, and the Hebraic. He was nothing less than a creative genius. He felt rightly that the reve- lation of the Old Testament contained implicitly the harmony of the mani- fold speculations of men, and he there- fore adopted boldly the thoughts of Greek philosophy for the interpretation of its language. He found a " Logos" in the Greek Bible which he accepted as the record of revelation, and he ap- plied to that what Greek writers had said of the " Logos," without thinking it ne- cessary to inquire into the identity of the terms. At one time he borrows from Plato when he speaks of the Logos as " the archetypal idea " (' de spec, leg.' 36, n. p. 333 f.), or as bearing "the idea of ideas" ('demigr. Abr.' 18, i. p. 452 m.). More commonly he uses the Stoic con- ception of the Logos, as the principle of reason, which quickens and informs matter. At the same time, while it appears that Philo borrowed both the title of the Logos as Reason, and the most prominent features of His office, from Hellenic sources, he sought the confirmation of his views in the Old Testament ; and in doing this he shews that he was not un- acquainted with Jewish speculations on the Word. But in spite of the unwaver- ing faith with which he found in the letter of the law the germ and the proof of the teaching which he borrowed from Greece, he abandoned the divine posi- tion of the Jew. The whole scope of the writers of the Old Testament is reli- gious. They move in a region of life and history. Their idea of God is that of the Lord who rules the world and His chosen people, not simply as the Author of ex- istence, but as One who stands in a moral relation to men, " sp'eaking " to them. The whole scope of Philo on the other hand is metaphysical. He moves in a region of abstraction and thought. His idea of God is pure being. With him the speculative aspect of the Logos-doc- trine overpowers the moral. He does not place the Logos in connexion with the Messiah, nor even specially with Jewish history. It is perhaps of less significance that he speaks of it now as if it were personal, and again as if it were imper- sonal : now as an attribute, and now as "a second god." If now we ask with which of these two cqnceptions of the Logos, current respec- tively in Palestine and Alexandria, the teaching of St John is organically con- nected, the answer cannot be uncertain. Philo occupied himself with the ab- stract conception of the divine Intelli- gence, and SQ laid the foundations of a philosophy. The Palestinian instinct seized upon the concrete idea of " the Word of God," as representing His personal action, and unconsciously pre- pared the way for a Gospel of the In- carnation. St John started from the conception of "the Word;" and by this means in the end he gave reality to the conception of " the Reason." The development of the action of the Logos, the Word, in the Prologue to the fourth Gospel places the contrast be- tween Philo and the Evangelist in the broadest light. However wavering and complex Philo's description of the Logos may be, it is impossible not to feel that he has in every case moved far away from the idea of an Incarnation. No one, it is not too much to say, who had accepted his teaching could without a complete revolution pf thought accept the state- ment "the Logos became flesh." The doctrine of the personality of the Logos, even if Philo had consistently main- tained it, would not have been in reality a step towards such a fact. On the other hand, in the Prologue the description of the Logos is personal from the first (f/v Trpos T. 0.), and His creative energy is at once connected with man. "The Life was the light of men." " The Light was coming into the world (iyv.. tpx-)-" And in due time " the Logos became flesh." Thought follows thought naturally, and the last event is seen to crown and com- plete the history which leads up to it. Philo and St John, in short, found the same term current, and used it according to their respective apprehensions of the truth. Philo, following closely in the track of Greek philosophy, saw in the Logos the divine Intelligence in relation xviii INTRODUCTION TO to the universe : the Evangelist, trusting firmly to the ethical basis of Judaism, sets forth the Logos mainly as the re- vealer of God to man, through creation, through theophanies, through prophets, through the Incarnation. The Philonean Logos, to express the same thought dif- ferently, is a later stage of a divergent interpretation of the term common to Hebrew and Hellenist. It is however very probable that the teaching of Philo gave a fresh impulse to the study of the complementary concep- tion of the Logos as the divine Reason, which was shadowed forth in the Biblical doctrine of Wisdom (tro^i'a). Nor is there any difficulty in supposing that the apostolic writers borrowed from him either directly or indirectly forms of language which they adapted to the essentially new announcement of an In- carnate Son of God. So it was that the treasures of Greece were made contri- butory to the full unfolding of the Gospel. But the essence of their doctrine has no affinity with his. The speculations of Alexandria or Ephesus may have quick- ened and developed elements which otherwise would have remained latent in Judaism. But the elements were there ; and in this respect the evangelic message "the Word became flesh," is the com- plete fulfilment of three distinct lines of preparatory revelation, which were se- verally connected with "the Angel of the Presence " (Gen. xxxii. 24 ff. ; Exod. xxxiii. 12 ff., xxiii. 20 f. ; Hos. xii. 4f.; Isai. vi. i [John xii. 41], Ixiii. 9; Mai. iii. i); with "the Word" (Gen. i. i; Ps. xxxiii. 6, cxlvii. 15; Isai. Iv. n ; comp. Wisd. xviii. 15); and with "Wisdom" (Prov. viii. 22 ff., iii. 19; Ecclus. i. i — 10, xxiv. 9 (14); Bar. iii. 37, iv. i; comp. Wisd. vii. 7 — n). In short, the teaching of St John is characteristically Hebraic and not Alex- andrine. It is intelligible as the final coordination through facts of different modes of thought as to the divine Being and the divine action, which are con- tained in the Old Testament. And on the other hand it is not intelligible as an application or continuation of the teach- ing of Philo. The doctrine of the Logos has been very frequently discussed. An excellent account of the literature up to 1870 is given by Dr Abbot in his appendix to the article on " the Word " in the Ameri- can edition of the 'Dictionary of the Bible.' Several later works are included in the list given by Soulier, 'La Doctrine du Logos chez Philon d' Alexandrie,' Turin, 1876. The works of Gfroerer, ' Philo u. d. Jud.-Alex. Theosophie,' 1835; Daehne, 'Jud.-Alex. Religions- Philosophic,' 1854; Dorner, 'The Person of Christ' (Eng. Trans.); Jowett, ' St Paul and Philo' ('Epistles of St Paul,' i. 363 ff.) ; Heinze, ' Die Lehre v. Logos in Griech. Philosophic,' 1872 ; Siegfried, 'Philo v. Alex.,' 1875, may be specially mentioned. Grossmann has given a complete summary of the word "Logos" in Philo, in his 'Qusestiones Philonese,' 1829. (c) The Author of the fourth Gospel was an eye-witness of what he describes. The particularity of his knowledge, which has been already noticed summarily, leads at once to the next point in our inquiry. The writer of the Gospel was an eye-witness of the events which he describes. His narrative is marked by minute details of persons, and time, and number, and place and manner., which cannot but have come from a direct ex- perience. And to these must be added various notes of fact, so to speak, which seem to have no special significance where they stand, though they become intelligible when referred to the impres- sion originally made upon the memory of the Evangelist. (a) Persons. The portraiture of the chief characters in the Gospel will be noticed afterwards. In this connexion it is suffi- cient to observe the distinctness with which the different actors in the history rise before the writer. There is no purpose, no symbolism to influence his record. The names evidently belong to the living recollection of the incidents. The first chapter is crowded with figures which live and move : John with his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter, Philip, Nathanael. Momentous questions are connected with definite persons. He saith unto Philip, Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat?. . .Philip answered him...(vi. 5, 7; comp. Matt. xiv. 14 ff. and parallels). Certain Greeks said to Philip, Sir, we would see Jesus. Philip cometh and telleth Andrew: Andrew THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XIX cometh and Philip and they tell Jesus (xii. 21 f.). Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest ; how do we know the way 1 (xiv. 5). Philip saith, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us (xiv. 8). Judas saith, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself to us, and not unto the world? (xiv. 22). The disciple whom Jesus loved. . .falling back upon His breast, saith, Lord, who is it? (xiii. 25; comp. xxi. 20). Nicodemus (iii. i ff., vii. 50, xix. 39), Lazarus (xi. i ff., xii. i ff.), Simon the father of Judas Iscariot1 (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26), and Malchus (xviii. 10), are mentioned only in the fourth Gospel. The writer of this Gospel alone mentions the relationship of Annas to Caiaphas (xviii. 13), and identifies one of those who pointed to Peter as the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off (xviii. 26). (/?) Time. The details of time be- long perhaps more obviously to the plan of the narrative than the details of persons. The greater seasons, even though they are not noted in the Synop- tists, may be supposed to have been preserved in tradition, as the first Pass- over (ii. 13, 23), the Feast of the New Year (v. i), the Second Passover (vi. 4), the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2), the Feast of Dedication (x. 22); but other specifications of date can only be referred to the knowledge of actual experience. Such are the indications of the two marked weeks at the beginning and end of Christ's ministry (i. 29, 35, 43, ii. i, xii. i, 12 (xiii. i), xix. 31, xx. i), of the week after the Resurrection (xx. 26), the enumeration of the days before the rais- ing of Lazarus (xi. 6, 17, 39), the note of the duration of Christ's stay in Samaria (iv. 40, 43 ; compare also vi. 22, vii. 14, 37). Still more remarkable is the mention of the hour or of the time of day which occurs under circumstances likely to have impressed it upon the mind of the writer, as the tenth hour (i. 40), the sixth hour (iv. 6), the seventh hour (iv. 52), about the sixth hour (xix. 14), it was night (xiii. 30), in the early 1 In this connexion it is interesting to notice that the writer of the fourth Gospel knew that the title Iscariot was a local or family name. He applies it both to Judas and to his father Simon: vi. 71, xiii. 2, 26, xii. 4, xiv. 22. morning (xviii. 28, xx. i, xxi. 4), the evening (vi. 16, xx. 19), by night (iii. 2). (y) Number. The details of number, though fewer, are hardly less significant. It is unnatural to refer to anything ex- cept experience such definite and, as it appears, immaterial statements as those in which the writer of the fourth Gospel mentions the tivo disciples of the Bap- tist (i. 35), the six waterpots (ii. 6), the Jive loaves and two small fishes (vi. 9), the jive-and-twenty furlongs (vi. 19), the four soldiers (xix. 23. Cp. Acts xii. 4), the two hundred cubits (xxi. 8), the hundred and fifty and three fishes (xxi. 1 1). The number of the loaves and fishes is preserved in the Synoptic narrative, but this single parallel does not in any way lessen the value of the whole group of examples as a sign of immediate observa- tion in the Evangelist. Other records of number shew the clearness if not the directness of the writer's information, as \hefive husbands (iv. 18), the thirty and eight years sickness (v. 5), the estimate of three hundred pence (xii. 5 ; comp. Mark xiv. 5), the weight of a hundred pounds (xix. 39). (8) Place. Many of the local details characteristic of the fourth Gospel have been already noticed. Here it is only necessary to observe that the manner in which the scenes of special acts and utterances are introduced shews that they belong to the immediate knowledge of the writer. We cannot naturally ac- count for the particularity except on the supposition that the place was an integral part of the recollection of the incidents. Thus the scenes of John's baptism are given at Bethany and ^Enon (i. 28, iii. 23 ; comp. x. 40). The son of the noble- man was sick at Capernaum while Jesus was at Cana (iv. 46 f.). Jesus found the paralytic whom He had healed in the Temple (v. 14). He gained many ad- herents when He went towards the close of His ministry beyond Jordan to the place where John was at first baptizing (x. 40 ff.). When Mary came to Him He had not yet come to the village, but was in the place where Martha met Him (xi. 30). He spent the interval between the raising of Lazarus and His return to Bethany on the eve of the Passion in the country near the wilderness, in a city called Ephraim (xi. 54). The people as XX INTRODUCTION TO they stood in the Temple speculated on His reappearance (xi. 56). So again Christ spoke certain memor- able words in a solemn gathering («> o-uvaywyfj) at Capernaum (vi. 59, note), in the treasury (viii. 20), in Solomon's porch (x. 23), before crossing the Cedron (xviii. i). («) Manner. More impressive still are the countless small traits in the de- scriptions which evince either the skill of a consummate artist or the recollec- tion of an observer. The former alter- native is excluded alike by the literary spirit of the first and second centuries and by the whole character of the Gospel. The writer evidently reflects what he had seen. This will appear most clearly to any one who takes the record of a special scene and marks the several points which seem to reveal the impressions of an eye-witness, as (for example) the calling of the first disciples (i. 35 — 51), or the foot- washing (xiii. i — 20), or the scene in the high-priest's court (xviii. 15 — 27), or the draught of fishes (xxi. i — 14). In each one of these narratives, and they are simply samples of the nature of the whole narrative, it is almost impossible to overlook the vivid touches which cor- respond with the actual experience of one who had looked upon what he de- scribes. Thus, to take a single illustra- tion from the first (i. 35 — 51), we can- not but feel the life (so to speak) of the opening picture. John is shewn standing, in patient expectation of the issue, as the tense implies (dcm/fcet, comp. vii. 37, xviii. 5, 1 6, 1 8, xix. 25, xx. n), with two of his disciples. As Christ moves away, now separate from him, he fixes his eyes upon Him (jpt/3Xtya?, comp. v. 43), so as to give the full meaning to the phrase which he repeats, in order that his dis- ciples may now, if they will, take the lesson to themselves. Each word tells ; each person occupies exactly the position which corresponds to the crisis. And the description becomes more significant when contrasted with the notice of the corresponding incident on the former day (i. 29 ff.). Not to dwell at length on these scenes, one or two detached phrases may be quoted which will serve to shew the kind of particularity on which stress is laid. The loaves used at the feeding of the five thousand are barley loaves which a boy has (vi. 9; comp. v. 13); when Mary came to Jesus she fell at His feet (xi. 32; contrast vv. 20 f.) ; after the ointment was poured out the house was filled from its fragrance (xii. 3) ; the branches strewn in the way of Jesus were taken from the palm-trees which were by the road-side (xii. 13) ; it was night when Judas went forth (xiii. 30) ; Judas brings a band of Roman soldiers as well as officers of the priests to apprehend Jesus (xviii. 3) ; Christ's tunic was without seam, woven from the top throughout (xix. 23) ; the napkin which had been about His head was wrapped together in a place by itself (xx. 7) ; Peter was grieved because Jesus said to him the third time, Lovest thou me? (xxi. 17). Compare also xiii. 24, xviii. 6, xix. 5, xxi. 20. Each phrase is a reflection of a definite external impression. They bring the scenes as vividly before the reader as they must have presented themselves to the writer. If it be said that we can conceive that these traits might have been realised by the imagination of a Defoe or a Shakes- peare, it may be enough to reply that the narrative is wholly removed from this modem realism ; but besides this, there are other fragmentary notes to which no such explanation can apply. Sometimes we find historical details given bearing the stamp of authenticity, which represent minute facts likely to cling to the memory of one directly con- cerned (i. 40), though it is in fact diffi- cult for us now to grasp the object of the writer in preserving them. It is equally impossible to suppose that such details were preserved in common tradi- tion or supplied by the imagination of the writer. Examples are found in the exact account of Andrew finding first his own brother Simon (i. 41), of the passing visit to Capernaum (ii. 12), of John's baptism (iii. 23), of the boats from Tiberias (vi. 22 f.), of the retire- ment to Ephraim (xi. 54). Sometimes the detail even appears to be in conflict with the context or with the current (Synoptic) accounts, though the discrepancy vanishes on a fuller realisation of the facts, as when the words Arise, let us go hence (xiv. 31) mark the separation between the discourses in THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xxi the upper chamber and those on the way to the garden (compare i. 21 with Matt xi. 14; iii. 24 with Matt. iv. 12). Elsewhere a mysterious saying is left wholly unexplained. In some cases the obscurity lies in a reference to a previous but unrecorded conversation, as when the Baptist says to the disciples who had followed him, Behold the Lamb of God (i. 29; comp. vi. 36, xii. 34), or, per- haps, to unknown local circumstances (i. 46). In others it lies in a personal but unexpressed revelation, as in the words which carried sudden conviction to Nathanael, Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee (i. 48). Apparent contradictions are left without any comment, as v. 31 compared with viii. 14 ; xiii. 36 com- pared with xvi. 5 ; xiv. 19 compared with xvi. 19 ; and, on the other hand, an explanation is given which, though it might appear superfluous at a later time, becomes at once natural in one who in the process of narration is carried back to the scene itself with all its doubts and perplexities, as when it is said in inter- pretation of the words, ye are clean, but not all; " for He knew him that betrayed (was betraying) Him ; for this reason He said, Ye are not all clean" (xiii. u). (d) The Author of the fourth Gospel was an Apostle. Such touches as those which have been now enumerated, and every page of the Gospel will supply examples, shew that the writer was an eye-witness of many at least of the scenes which he describes. The age of minute historical romance had not yet come when the fourth Gospel was written, even if such a record could possibly be brought within the category. A further examination of the narrative shews that the eye-witness was also an apostle. This follows almost necessarily from the character of the scenes which he de- scribes, evidently as has been shewn from his own knowledge, the call of the first disciples (i. 19 — 34), the journey through Samaria (iv.), the feeding of the five thousand (vi.), the successive visits to Jerusalem (vii. ix. xi.), the Passion, the appearances after the Resurrection. But the fact is further indicated by the inti- mate acquaintance which he exhibits with the feelings of " the disciples." He knows their thoughts at critical moments New Test. — VOL. II. (ii. u, 17, 22, iv. 27, vi. 19, 60 f., xii. 1 6, xiii. 22, 28, xxi. 12 ; comp. Luke xxiv. 8; Matt. xxvi. 75). He recalls their words spoken among themselves (iv. 33, xvi. 17, xx. 25, xxi 3, 5) as to their Lord (iv. 31, ix. 2, xi. 8, 12, xvi. 29). He is familiar with their places of re- sort (xi. 54, xviii. 2, xx. 19). He is acquainted with imperfect or erroneous impressions received by them at one time, and afterwards corrected (ii. 21 f., XL 13, xii. 16, xiii. 28, xx. 9, xxi. 4). And yet more than this, the writer of the fourth Gospel evidently stood very near to the Lord. He was conscious of His emotions (xi. 33, xiii. 21). He was in a position to be well acquainted with the grounds of His action (ii. 24 f., iv. i, v. 6, vi. 15, vii. i, xvi. 19). Nor is this all; he speaks as one to whom the mind of the Lord was laid open. Before the feeding of the five thousand he writes, This He (Jesus) said trying him, for He Himself knew what He was about to do (vi. 6). Jesus knew in Himself the mur- murings of the disciples (vi. 61); He knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that would betray Him (vi. 64) ; He knew the hour of His Passion (xiii. i, 3), and who should betray Him (xiii. ii); He knew indeed all the things that were coming upon Him (xviii. 4) ; He knew when all things were accomplished (xix. 28). (e) The Author of the fourth Gospel was the Apostle John. Such statements when they are taken in connexion with the absolute simplicity of the narrative necessarily leave the impression that the Evangelist was conscious of having had the opportunity of entering, more deeply even than others, into the conditions of the Lord's life. And this reflection brings us to the last point If the writer of the fourth Gospel was an apostle, does the narrative indicate any special apostle as the writer? In the Epilogue (xxi. 24) the authorship of the book is assigned, as we shall see afterwards, to the disciple whom Jesus loved (ov ifyaTra o MTJO-OVS). This disciple appears under the same title twice in the narrative of the Passion (xiii. 23, xix. 26), as well as twice after- wards (xxi. 7, 20), and once in connex- ion with St Peter under a title closely resembling it (xx. 2, 6V «</>iAei o 'I XX11 INTRODUCTION TO He is known to the high-priest (xviii. 15), and stands in very close relationship with St Peter (xiii. 24, xx. 2, xxi. 7; comp. xviii. 15; Acts iii.). Though his name is not mentioned, there is nothing mys- terious or ideal about him. He moves about among the other apostles quite naturally, and from the enumeration (xxi. 2 ; comp. i. 356°.) of those present at the scene described in the last chapter, it follows that he must have been either one of the sons of Zebedee, or one of the two other disciples not described more particularly. If now we turn to the Synoptic narra- tive we find three disciples standing in a special sense near to Jesus, Peter and the sons of Zebedee, James and John. There is then a strong presumption that the Evangelist was one of these. St Peter is out of the question. Of the two sons of Zebedee, James was martyred very early (Acts xii. 2), so that he could not have been the author of the Gospel. John therefore alone remains; and he completely satisfies the conditions which are required to be satisfied by the writer, that he should be in close connexion with St Peter, and also one admitted to peculiar intimacy with the Lord. Does then this definite supposition that St John was the anonymous disciple who wrote the fourth Gospel find any subsidiary support from the contents of the history? The answer cannot be doubtful. St John is nowhere mentioned by name in the Gospel ; and while it appears incredible that an apostle who stands in the Synoptists, in the Acts (iii. i, iv. 13, &c.), and in St Paul (Gal. ii. 9), as a central figure among the twelve, should find no place in the narrative, the nameless disciple fulfils the part which would naturally be assigned to St John. Yet further, in the first call of the dis- ciples one of the two followers of the Baptist is expressly named as Andrew (i. 40) ; the other is left unnamed. An- drew, it is said, found first his own brother Simon (i. 41). The natural in- terpretation of the words suggests that the brother of some other person, and if so, of the second disciple, was also found. A reference to the last scene at the sea of Galilee (xxi. 2) leads to the certain inference that these two brothers were the sons of Zebedee, and so that the second disciple was St John. Another peculiarity of the Gospel confirms the inference. The Evangelist is for the most part singularly exact in defining the names in his Gospel. He never mentions Simon after his call (i. 42 f.) by the simple name, as is done in the other Gospels, but al- ways by the full name Simon Peter, or by the new name Peter. Thomas is three times out of four further marked by the correlative Greek name Didymus (xi. 1 6, xx. 24, xxi. 2), which is not found in the Synoptists. Judas Iscariot is de- scribed as the son of a Simon not else- where noticed (vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26). The second Judas is expressly distin- guished from Iscariot even when the latter had left the eleven (xiv. 22). Nico- demus is identified as he that came to Jesus by night (xix. 39 [vii. 50]). Caia- phas on each of the two separate occa- sions where he is introduced is qualified by the title of his office as the high-priest of that year (xi. 49, xviii. 13). But in spite of this habitual particu- larity the Evangelist never speaks of the Baptist, like the three other Evangelists, as "John the Baptist," but always simply as "John." It is no doubt to be no- ticed that in most places the addition of the title would have been awkward or impossible ; but elsewhere such an iden- tification might have been expected (i. 15 and v. 33, 36; comp. Matt. iii. i, xi. 1 1 ff.). If however the writer of the Gospel were himself the other John of the Gospel history, it is perfectly natural that he should think of the Baptist, apart from himself, as John only1. But it is said that if it is admitted that the Apostle John is to be identified with the nameless disciple of the fourth Gospel, the second of the two disciples of the Baptist, the companion of St Peter, the disciple whom Jesus loved ; it is still impossible, in spite of the at- testation of the Epilogue, that he could have written the Gospel. The Gospel, such is the contention, must have been written by some one else, for it is argued that the author could not have spoken 1 It is also to be observed that the writer of the fourth Gospel does not give the name of Salome, the wife of Zebedee (xix. 25. Comp. Matt, xxvii. 56), or of James (xxi. 2), or of the Mother of the Lord. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xxiu of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved, claiming in this way for himself, and not as he might reasonably have done for another whom he took as his hero, a pre-eminence over his fellow- apostles ; and (it is further urged in par- ticular) that St John would not have " studiously elevated himself in every way above the Apostle Peter" as this writer does. The last objection may be disposed of first. The notion that the author of the fourth Gospel wishes to present St John as the victorious rival of St Peter, is based mainly upon the incident at the Last Supper, where St Peter beckoned to St John to ask a question which he did not put himself (xiii. 24 ff.) ; and it is asserted that the same idea is supported by the scenes in the court of the High Priest, and by the Cross. It would be sufficient to reply that all these incidents belong to details of personal relationship, and not to official position, and St John was (as it appears) the son of the sister of the Mother of the Lord. But if we go into details an examination of the narrative as a whole shews that it lends no support whatever to the theory of any thought of rivalry or comparison between St Peter and St John existing in the writer's mind. St John stands, just as he stands in the Acts, silent by the side of the Apostle to whom the office of founding the Church was as- signed (cf. xxi. 21 ; Acts iii. i). And as for the incident at the Last Supper, the person who occupied the third and not the second place would be in a posi- tion to act the part assigned to St John (John xiii. 23, note). Here then St Peter takes the precedence ; and elsewhere he occupies exactly the same place with regard to the Christian Society in the fourth Gospel as in the other three. He receives the promise of his significant surname (i. 42); he gives utterance to the critical confession of Christ's majesty (vi. 68) ; he is placed first (as it seems) at the foot-washing during the Last Sup- per (xiii. 6); he is conspicuous at the betrayal in defence of his Lord (xviii. TO) ; he stands patiently without the high priest's door till he is able to obtain ad- mission (xviii. 1 6); the message of the Resurrection is brought to him and to " the other disciple " only as second to him (xx. 2); he first sees the certain signs that Christ had risen (xx. 7) ; he directs the action of the group of apostles during their time of suspense (xxi. 3) ; he is the first to join the Lord upon the seashore, and the chief in carrying out His command (xxi. 7, n); he receives at last the Great Commission (xxi. 15 ff.). The representative official precedence of St Peter thus really underlies the whole narrative of the fourth Gospel. The nearness of St John to the Lord is a relation of sympathy, so to speak, different in kind. But this ascription of a special rela- tion of the unnamed disciple to the Lord as the disciple whom Jesus loved, with a feeling at once general (jydira) and personal (tyi'Aci, xx. 2), requires in itself careful consideration. And if it were true, as is frequently assumed, that St John sought to conceal himself by the use of the various periphrases under which his name is veiled, there might be some difficulty in reconciling the use of this exact title with the modest wish to be unnoticed. But in point of fact the writer of the fourth Gospel evidently insists on the peculiarity of his narrative as being that of a personal witness. He speaks with an authority which has a right to be recognised. It is taken for granted that those whom he addresses will know who he is, and acknowledge that he ought to be heard. In this respect the fourth Gospel differs essen- tially from the other three. They are completely impersonal, with the excep- tion of the short preface of St Luke. We can then imagine that St John as an eye-witness might either have written his narrative in the first person throughout, or he might have composed an imper- sonal record, adding some introductory sentences to explain the nature of the book, or he might have indicated his own presence obliquely at some one or other of the scenes which he describes. There is no question of self-concealment in the choice between these alternatives; and there can be also no question as to the method which would be most natural to an apostle living again, as it were, in the divine history of his youth. The direct personal narrative and the still more formal personal preface to an im- C 2 XXIV INTRODUCTION TO personal narrative seem to be alien from the circumstances of the composition. On the other hand, the oblique allusion corresponds with the devout contempla- tion from a distance of events seen only after a long interval in their full signifi- cance. The facts and the actors alike are all separated from the Evangelist as he recalls them once more in the centre of a Christian Society1. But if it be admitted that the oblique form of reference to the fact that the writer of the fourth Gospel was an eye- witness of what he describes was gene- rally the most natural, does it appear that this particular form of oblique refer- ence, to which objection is made, was itself natural? The answer must be looked for in the circumstances under which it is used. After the distinct but passing claim to be an eye-witness (i. 14), the Evangelist does not appear per- sonally in the Gospel till the scenes of the Passion. He may be discovered in the call of the disciples (i. 41), but only by a method of exhaustion. So far there was nothing to require his explicit attes- tation. But in the review of the issue of Christ's work it might well be asked whether the treachery of Judas was in- deed foreseen by Christ. St John shews how deeply he felt the importance of the question (vi. 70, 71, xiii. n; comp. xiii. 1 8 f). It was then essential to his plan that he should place on record the direct statement of the Lord's foreknow- ledge on the authority of him to whom it was made. That communication was a special sign of affection. Can we then be surprised that, in recalling the memor- able fact that it was made to himself, he should speak of himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved (r)ya?ra) ? The words express the grateful and devout acknow- ledgment of something received, and 1 In illustration of this view, reference may 6e made to Mr Browning's noble realisation of the situation in his 'Death in the Desert." "...much that at the first, in deed and word, Lay simply and sufficiently exposed, Had grown (or else my soul was grown to match, Fed through such years, familiar with such light, Guarded and guided still to see and speak) Of new significance and fresh result ; What first were guessed as points I now knew stars." contain no assumption of a distinction above others. Christ loved all (xiii. i, 34, xv. 9) ; St John felt, and confesses, that Christ loved him, and shewed His love in this signal manner. The same thought underlies the second passage where the phrase occurs (xix. 26). The charge to receive the Mother of the Lord almost necessarily calls out the same confession. In the last chapter (xxi. 7, 20) the title seems to be repeated with a distinct reference to the former passages, and no difficulty can be felt at the repetition. The remaining passage (xx. 2) is different, and ought not to have been confounded with those already noticed. There can be no doubt that if the words she cometh to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved, had stood alone, the reader would have included St Peter under the description ; the word " other " has no meaning except on this interpretation (contrast xxi. 7). But it has been assumed that the entirely different phrase used here (Sv e<£i'A.«) must be identical with that used else- where of St John alone (oV TJyewra), and the passage has been accordingly mis- understood. Yet the contrast between the two words equally translated " love," gives the clue to the right meaning. St Peter and St John shared alike in that peculiar nearness of personal friendship to Christ (if we may so speak) which is expressed by the former word (faXeiv, see xi. 3, 36), while St John acknow- ledges for himself the gift of love which is implied in the latter; the first word describes that of which others could judge outwardly; the second that of which the individual soul alone is con- scious. The general conclusion is ob- vious. If that phrase (6V e^t'Aet o 'Iijo-oCs) had been used characteristically of St John which is in fact used in relation to St Peter and St John, there might have been some ground for the charge of an apparent assumption of pre-eminence on the part of the Evangelist ; as it is, the phrase which is used is no affectation of honour ; it is a personal thanksgiving for a blessing which the Evangelist had experienced, which was yet in no way peculiar to himself. As far therefore as indirect internal evidence is concerned, the conclusion THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXV towards which all the lines of inquiry converge remains unshaken, that the fourth Gospel was written by a Pales- tinian Jew, by an eye-witness, by the disciple whom Jesus loved, by John the son of Zebedee. We have now to con- sider the direct evidence which the Gospel offers upon the question. ii. The direct evidence of the Gospel as to its authorship. Three passages of the Gospel appear to point directly to the position and per- son of the author: i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24. Each passage includes some difficulties and uncertainties of interpretation which must be noticed somewhat at length. (a) Ch. i. 14. The Word became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled} among us, and we beheld His glory... (o Ao'yos vdp£ eye- vero, Kai eo-KTfvaxrcv fv T^fJ-lv, Kcu f6facrdp.f6a rr)v 86£av avTov...). The main question here is as to the sense in which the words we beheld are to be taken. Are we to understand this " beholding " of the historical sight of Christ, so that the writer claims to have been an eye-witness of that which he records ? or can it be referred to a spiritual vision, common to all believers at all times ? Our reply cannot but be affected by the consideration of the parallel passage in the beginning of the first Epistle of St John, which was written, it may cer- tainly be assumed, by the same author as the Gospel : That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life...(\ John i. i, o rjv oV aPX17s> ° 0-KyKoap.fv, o itopa.Ka.fi.fv TOIS d<£- 6a.Xp.ol1;, o f6fa.crdp.t6a Kal at ^etpes •qp.^v f\j/Tf])(.d<f>r)<ra.v, Trept TOU Adyou rfj<> £<i>fj<s...). Now there cannot be any doubt that the " beholding " here, from the connexion in which it stands (we have seen with our eyes, our hands handled}, must be under- stood literally. Language cannot be plainer. The change of tense moreover emphasizes the specific historical refe- rence (we beheld, and not as of that which ideally abides, we have beheld [i John iv. 14; John i. 32, n.]). This being so, the same word in the same tense and in the same general connexion cannot reasonably be understood otherwise in the Gospel. It may also be added fur- ther, that the original word (6facr6a.i) is never used in the New Testament of mental vision (as fewpeiV)1. The writer then (such must be our conclusion) claims to have beheld that glory which his record unfolds. But it is said that the phrase among us cannot be confined to the apostles or immediate disciples of Christ exclusively, and that it must be taken to include all Christians (Luke i. i), or even all men. If however this interpretation of among us admits the wider interpretation of the pronoun, it does not exclude the apostles, who are in this connexion the repre- sentatives of the Church and of humanity, and it does not therefore touch the meaning of the following clause, in which the sense of beheld is fixed independently. The whole point of the passage is that the Incarnation was historical, and that the sight of the Incarnate Word was historical. The words cannot without violence be made to give any other testi- mony. The objection is thus, on a view of the context, wholly invalid ; and the natural interpretation of the phrase in question, which has been already given, remains unshaken. The writer professes to have been an eye-witness of Christ's ministry*. (b) Ch. xix. 35. This second pas- sage, which, like the former one, comes into the narrative parenthetically, is in some respects more remarkable. After speaking of the piercing of the Lord's side, the writer adds, And forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that hath seen hath borne witness, and his wit- ness is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye also may believe. For these things came to pass that. . . (KQ\ o eopaKws (JLffjLapruprjKfv KOI dh.r)6ivrj avroS torii' 17 [laprvpia, Kai CKCIVOS olSfv OTL dXr]6rj Ae'yei fva Kai v/xeis iriaTtvr[Tf. cyevtTO yap... John xix. 35 ff.). One point in this pas- sage, the contrast between the two words rendered true, cannot be given ade- quately in an English version. The wit- 1 The word occurs in John i. 31, 38, iv. 35, vi. 5, xi. 45; i John i. i, iv. 12, 14. 2 The significant variation of language in v. 16 supports the view which has been given. The Apostolic we is distinguished from the Christian we all. The use of the direct form in these two cases (we beheld, we received) is remarkable. Contrast xx. 30 (ivuir. XXVI INTRODUCTION TO ness is described as " fulfilling the true conception of witness" (oAT/flivog), and not simply as being correct (dXr)9rj<i) ; it is true to the idea of what witness should be, and not only true to the fact in this special instance (comp. viii. 16, note) so far as the statement is true. There is therefore no repetition in the original in the two clauses, as there appears to be in the English version. This detail is not without significance for the right understanding of the whole comment. It brings out clearly the two conditions which testimony ought to satisfy, the first that he who gives it should be competent to speak with authority, and the second that the account of his experience should be exact. But the main question to be decided is whether the form of the sen- tence either suggests or admits the belief that the eye-witness to whose testimony appeal is made is to be identified with the writer of the Gospel. The answer to this question has been commonly made to turn upon a false issue. It has been argued, with a pro- fusion of learning, that the use in the second clause of the pronoun which ex- presses a remote, or rather an isolated personality (e'/cetvos), is unfavourable to the identification of the Evangelist and the eye-witness, or, at least, lends no support to the identification. It has also been asserted, as might have been ex- pected, by less cautious scholars, that the use of this pronoun is fatal to the identification. On the other hand, it has been shewn by examples from classical authors and also from St John's Gospel (ix. 37) that a speaker can use this pro- noun of himself1. But in reality the problem contained in the passage must be solved at an earlier stage. If the author of the Gospel could use the first clause (he that hath seen, &c.) of himself, there can be no reasonable doubt that he could also use of himself the particular pronoun which occurs in the second clause ; and to go even further, there can be no reasonable doubt that according to the common usage of St John he would use this particular pronoun to resume and emphasize the 1 The most complete discussion of this part of the problem is to be found in a set of papers in the 'Studien u. Kritiken,' 1859, 1860, by Steitz on the one side, and by Ph. Buttmann on the other. reference (i. 18, v. 39, 37). No one, in other words, with any knowledge of St John's style can seriously dispute the fact that the "he" of the second clause is the same as the "witness" of the first clause. This being so, only two interpretations of the passage are possible. The Evan- gelist either makes an appeal to an eye- witness separate from himself, but not more definitely described, who is said to be conscious of the truth of his own testimony; or he makes an appeal to his own actual experience, now solemnly recorded for the instruction of his readers. We are thus brought to the right issue. Is it the fact that the second alternative is, as has been confidently affirmed, excluded by the nature of the case? Is it the fact that we cannot suppose that St John, if he were the writer, would have referred to his own experience obliquely ? On the contrary, if we realise the conditions under which the narrative was drawn up, it will be seen that the introduction of the first person in this single place would have been more strange. The Evangelist has been already presented as a historical figure in the scene (vv. 26, 27); and it is quite intelligible that an Apostle who had pondered again and again, as it may well have been, what he had gradually shaped, should pause at this critical point, and, dwelling upon that which he felt to be a crucial incident, should separate himself as the witness from his immediate position as a writer. In this mental attitude he looks from without upon himself (c/cetvos) as affected at that memorable moment by the fact which he records, in order that it may create in others the present faith (iruTTeorrrt) which it had created in his own soul. The comment from this point is there- fore perfectly compatible with the iden- tification of the witness and the author. We may however go further. The comment is not only compatible with the identification; it favours the identifica- tion, not indeed by the use of the par- ticular pronoun, which tells neither one way nor the other, but by the whole con- struction of the passage. The witness is spoken of as something which abides after it has been given; he hath borne THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXVll witness ; and, more than this, the witness is given still; he knowetk that he saith true; and, yet again, the giver of the witness sets himself in contrast with his readers; he hath given his witness... that ye may believe. It is not possible then to doubt that the words taken in their context assert that the eye-witness was still living when the record was written ' ; and if so, it is most natural to suppose that his present utterance, to which ap- peal is made, is that contained in the Gospel itself. It is difficult to appreciate the evidential force of an appeal to the consciousness of an undefined witness. In this connexion another point must be observed. If the author were appeal- ing to the testimony of a third person he would almost necessarily have used an aorist and not a perfect, he that saw bore witness, and not he that hath seen hath borne witness. For the mere narrator the testimony centres in the moment at which it was rendered ; for the witness himself it is a continuous part of his own life. The conclusion to which these remarks converge will appear still more certain if the comment be reduced to its simplest elements. If it had. stood, He that hath seen hath borne witness, that ye also may believe, no ordinary reader would have doubted that the writer was appealing to his own experience, recorded in the his- tory, since no other testimony is quoted. But the intercalated clauses do not in any way interfere with this interpretation. They simply point out, as has been al- ready noticed, the relation in which this special statement stands to its attestation. They shew that this testimony satisfies the two conditions, which must be rati- fied for the establishment of its authority, that it is adequate in relation to its source, and that it is correct in its actual details. For a witness may give true evidence and yet miss the essential fea- tures of that of which he speaks. Hence the writer affirms the competency of the witness, while he affirms also that the testimony itself was exact. On the whole therefore the statement which we have considered is not only compatible with the identity of the eye- witness and the writer of the Gospel, 1 This conclusion holds good to whomsoever the comment be referred. but it also suggests, even if it does not necessarily involve, the identification of the two. On the other hand, the only other possible interpretation of the pas- sage is wholly pointless. It supposes that an appeal is made with singular emphasis to an unknown witness, who is said to be conscious of the truthfulness of his own testimony. Such a comment could find no place in the connexion in which the words stand. (c) Ch. xxi. 24. The third passage which occurs in the appendix to the Gospel (ch. xxi.) is different in character from the other two. After the narrative of the Lord's saying with regard to " the disciple whom he loved," the record con- tinues : this is the disciple who witnesseth concerning these things, and who wrote these things: and we know that his witness is true (OVTO'S «rriv d p.a6rjr>]<; d fiaprvpwv Trept TovT<av Kai d ypai/fas ravra, *cai oiSa/xev OTI d\r)6rj<i aurov r) /laprupta «rriV). There can be no doubt as to the meaning of the words. The writing of the Gospel is distinctly assigned by them to " the be- loved disciple" (v. 21). But it is not at once obvious to whom the words are to be assigned. Is the author of the Gospel himself the speaker? or must the note be referred to others who published his Gospel, as, for example, to the Ephesian elders? Before we attempt to answer this question it must be observed that whichever view be taken, the sentence contains a declaration as to the author- ship of the Gospel contemporaneous with its publication, for there is not the least evidence that the Gospel was ever circulated in the Church without the epilogue (ch. xxl). And yet further, the declaration extends both to the sub- stantial authorship (he that witnesseth con- cerning these things) and also to the literal authorship of the record (he that wrote these things). So much is clear; but perhaps it is impossible to press the present tense (he that witnesseth} as a certain proof that the author was still alive when the work was sent forth. The form as it stands here by itself may simply indicate the vital continuity of his testimony. However this may be, the note at least emphasizes what was felt to be a real presence of the writer in the society to which he belonged. If we now proceed to fix the author- XXV111 INTRODUCTION TO ship of the note, it will at once appear that the passage (xix. 35) which has been already considered practically decides the question. The contrast between the two notes is complete. In that the note is given in the singular and in the third person; in this it is given in the plural and in the first person. In that the witness is regarded as isolated and remote (he that. ..and he...}} in this the witness is regarded as present (this is...}. If we believe that the former is, as has been shewn, a personal affirmation of the writer himself, it seems almost impos- sible to believe that this is a personal affirmation also. No sufficient reason can be given for the complete change of position which he assumes towards his own work. The plural (we know] by it- self would be capable of explanation, but the transition from the historical singular (this is...) to the direct plural (we know. ..} is so harsh and sudden as to be all but inadmissible ; and the difficulty is aggra- vated by the occurrence of the first person singular (/ suppose} in the next sentence. On the other hand, if we bear in mind that the Gospel as origi- nally composed ended with xx. 31, to which xxi. 25 may have been attached, and that the narratives in xxi. i — 23 were drawn up by the same author at a later time under circumstances which called for some authoritative interpreta- tion of a mistaken tradition, we can readily understand how the note was added to the record by those who had sought for this additional explanation of the Lord's words, and preserved when the completed Gospel was issued to the Church. At the same time, if v. 25 formed the last clause of the original Gospel, it would naturally be transferred to the end of the enlarged record. The general result of the examination of these passages is thus tolerably dis- tinct. The fourth Gospel claims to be written by an eye-witness, and this claim is attested by those who put the work in circulation. 2. External evidence as to the author- ship. In considering the external evidence1 1 The character of the present Introduction necessarily excludes detailed criticism of the for the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, it is necessary to bear in mind the con- ditions under which it must be sought. It is agreed on all hands that the Gospel was written at a late date, towards the close of the first century, when the Evangelic tradition, preserved in com- plementary forms in the Synoptic Gospels, had gained general currency, and from its wide spread had practically deter- mined the popular view of the life and teaching of the Lord. And further, the substance of the record deals with prob- lems which belong to the life of the Church and to a more fully developed faith. On both grounds references to the contents of this Gospel would natu- rally be rarer in ordinary literature than references to the contents of the other Gospels. Express citations are made from all about the same time. Christian theological literature prac- tically begins for us with Irenseus, Cle- ment of Alexandria, and Tertullian, and these writers use the four Gospels as fully and decisively as any modern writer. The few letters and apostolic treatises and fragments which represent the earlier literature of the second century give very little scope for the direct use of the New Testament. But it is most signifi- cant that Eusebius, who had access to many works which are now lost, speaks without reserve of the Fourth Gospel as the unquestioned work of St John, no less than those three great representative Fathers who sum up the teaching of the century. If he had known of any doubts as to its authorship among ecclesiastical writers, he would without question have mentioned these, as he has quoted the criticism of Dionysius of Alexandria on the Apocalypse. We start then with the undeniable fact that about the last quarter of the second century, when from the nature of the case clear evidence can first be obtained, the Gospel was accepted as authoritative by heretical writers like Ptolemseus and authorities which are quoted. But it may be said, once for all, that the passages which are set down are used after a careful examination of all that has been urged against their validity. The original texts have been discussed in detail by Dr Sanday ('The Gospels in the Second Century,' 1876) and by Dr Lightfoot in the 'Contemporary Review,' 1875, f., who have noticed at length the most recent literature on the subject. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXIX Heracleon, and used by the opponents of Christ like Celsus, and assigned to St John by Fathers in Gaul, Alexandria, and North Africa, who claimed to re- produce the ancient tradition of their churches, and this with perfect natural- ness, there being evidently no trace within their knowledge of a contrary opinion. It is true that the Gospel was not received by Marcion, but there is no evidence to shew that he was influenced by anything but subjective considera- tions in the formation of his collection of Scriptures. Irenaeus also mentions an earlier sect, of doubtful affinity, which, claiming for itself the possession of pro- phetic gifts, rejected the Gospel of St John and its characteristic promises of the Paraclete (Iren. -'c. Haer.' in. n. 9, "Alii ut donum Spiritus frustrentur quod in novissimis temporibus secundum placitum Patris effusum est in humanum genus, illam speciem non admittunt quae est secundum Joannis evangelium, in qua Paracletum se missurum Dominus promisit; sed simul et evangelium et pro- pheticum repellunt Spiritum"). But the language of Irenaeus lends no support to the supposition that this sect questioned the authority of the Gospel on critical grounds. At the same time it must be noticed that Epiphanius (' Haer.' LI. 3) and Philastrius (' Haer.' 60) assert that a body of men whom they call Alogi assigned the authorship of the Gospel and of the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. The statement as it stands is scarcely intelligible ; and it seems to have arisen from the mistaken extension to the authorship of the Gospel, by way of ex- plaining its rejection, of a late conjecture as to the authorship of the Apocalypse. Such an exception can have no weight against the uniform ecclesiastical tradi- tion with which it is contrasted. This tradition can be carried still further back than Irenaeus, who is its fullest exponent The first quotation of the Gospel by name is made by THEOPHILUS of An- tioch (c. 181 A.D.): " ...The holy Scrip- tures teach us, and all the inspired men (01 7rv€u/xaTo<£o'poi), one of whom John saith : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God... Afterwards he saith: and the Word was God : all things were made through Him, and without Him was not even one thing made (' ad Autol.' 11. 22). ATHENAGORAS (c. 176 A. D.) paraphrases and combines the lan- guage of the Gospel in such a way as to shew that it was both familiar and authoritative, and had been carefully weighed by him : "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in idea and actually (ev iSe'a Koi evepyeta). For all things were made in dependence on Him and through Him (wpds avrov [Acts xxvii. 34] /cal 6V aurov), the Father and the Son being One. But since the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son, by unity and power of the Spirit (Ivorrfn KOI SiW/xci irvevfJ.a- TOS), the Son of God is the Mind and Word of the Father" ('Leg.' 10; comp. John i. 3, x. 30, xvii. 21). About the same time CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, speaking of the different opinions as to the day of the Last Supper, evidently treats "the dis- agreement of the Gospels" (i.e. the Sy- noptists and St John) as something really out of the question (Routh, 'Rell.' i. 167 ff.; comp. 'Hist, of N. T. Canon,' p. 224) ; and he gives an explana- tion of John xix. 34 (see note), which shews that the incident had become a subject of deep speculation. Still earlier TATIAN, the scholar of Justin (c. 160 A. D.), quotes words of the Gospel as well known : "This is in fact," he says, "that which hath been said : The darkness ap- prehendeth not the light" ('Orat.' 13, TOUTO COTIV dpa TO flpr)fjL€vov [Acts ii. 1 6] 77 (TKOTia. TO <£u>s ov «aTaXa/x)8avc(, John i. 5; comp. John i. 3 with 'Orat.' 19); and the latest criticism confirms the old belief that his ' Diatessaron ' was con- structed from the texts of the four Canon- ical Gospels (Lightfoot, ' Contemporary Review,' May, 1877). So far the line of testimony appears to be absolutely beyond doubt. The traces of the use of the fourth Gospel in the interval between TOO — 160 A. D. are necessarily less clear; but as far as they can be observed they are not only in perfect harmony with the belief in its apostolic origin, but materially strengthen this belief. The EPISTLE OF CLEMENT to the Corinthians was probably written before the Gospel of St John, but already this writing shews traces of the forms of thought which are characteristic of the book (cc. vn. xxxvi. ' Hist, of Canon of XXX INTRODUCTION TO N. T.' pp. 25 f.). The EPISTLE OF BARNABAS again offers some correspond- ences and more contrasts with the teach- ing of St John in the common region of " mystical " religious thought. In the LETTERS OF IGNATIUS, which even if they are not authentic certainly fall within the first half of the century, the influence of the teaching, if not de- monstrably of the writings, of St John is more direct. The true meat of the Christian, for example, is said to be the " bread of God, the bread of heaven, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ? and his drink is " Christ's blood, which is love incorruptible " (' ad Rom.' vn.; comp. John vi. 32, 51, 53). And again : " The Spirit is not led astray, as being from God. For it knoweth whence it cometh and whither it goeth, and testeth (tXe'yxci) that which is hidden" ('ad Philad.' vn. ; comp. John iii. 8, xvi. 8). It is however with POLYCARP and PAPIAS ' that the decisive testimony to the authenticity of St John's writings really begins. Recent investigations, independent of all theological interests, have fixed the martyrdom of Polycarp in 155 — 6 A.D. (See Lightfoot, 'Con- temporary Review,' 1875, P- 83^0 At the time of his death he had been a Christian for eighty-six years ('Mart. Polyc.' c. ix.). He must then have been alive during the greater part of St John's residence in Asia, and there is no reason for questioning the truth of the state- ments that he " associated with the Apostles in Asia (e.g. John, Andrew, Philip; comp. Lightfoot's ' Colossians,' pp. 45 f.), and was entrusted with the oversight of the Church in Smyrna by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Lord " (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 36 ; comp. Iren. ' c. Haer.' in. 3. 4). Thus, like St John himself, he lived to unite two ages. When already old he used to speak to his scholars of "his intercourse with John and the rest of those who had seen the Lord " (Iren. ' Ep. ad Flor.' § 2) ; and Irenseus, in his later years, vividly recalled the teaching which he had heard from him as a boy 1 For a complete discussion of the historical position of these two Fathers in regard to early Christian teaching and literature, see the articles of Dr Lightfoot in the 'Contemporary Review' for May, August and October, 1875. (Iren. /. c. ; comp. 'c. Haer.' in. 3. 4). There is no room in this brief succession for the introduction of new writings under the name of St John. Irenaeus cannot with any reason be supposed to have assigned to the fourth Gospel the place which he gives to it unless he had received it with the sanction of Polycarp. The person of Polycarp, the living sign of the unity of the faith of the first and second centuries, is in itself a sure proof of the apostolicity of the Gospel. Is it conceivable that in his lifetime such a revolution was accomplished that his disciple Irenaeus was not only deceived as to the authorship of the book, but was absolutely unaware that the con- tinuity of the tradition in which he boasted had been completely broken? One short letter of Polycarp, with which Irenaeus was acquainted (Iren. /. c.), has been preserved. In this there is a strik- ing coincidence with the language of i John: "Everyone," he writes, "who doth not confess that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh, is antichrist " (' ad Phil.' vn.; comp. i John iv. 2, 3). The sentence is not a mere quotation, but a reproduction of St John's thought in compressed language which is all bor- rowed from him (TTOS, os av, 6p.oXoyeiv 'I. X. ev vapid fXrjXvOevai, avTtxpurros). The words of St John have, so to speak, been shaped into a popular formula. And if it be said that the reference to the Epistle shews nothing as to the Gospel, the reply is that the authorship of the two cannot reasonably be sepa- rated. A testimony to one is necessarily by inference a testimony to the other. The testimony of PAPIAS to the Gospel of St John, is, like that of Polycarp, secondary and inferential. Papias, ac- cording to Eusebius, " used testimonies from the former epistle of John" (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 39). The mention of this fact, as the epistle was universally re- ceived, is remarkable; but the Catholic Epistles formed an exceptional group of writings, and it is perhaps on this account that Eusebius goes beyond his prescribed rule in noticing the use which was made even of those among them which were "acknowledged." At any rate the use of the Epistle by Papias points to his acquaintance with the Gospel. Several minute details in the fragment of the THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXXI preface to his " Exposition of Oracles of the Lord" tend in the same direction. And there is a remarkable tradition found in a preface to a Latin MS. of the Gospel which assigns to Papias an ac- count of the composition of the Gospel similar to that given in the Muratorian fragment (see 'Canon of N. T.' p. 76, n.). But it is said that if Papias had used the Gospel Eusebius would not have neglected to notice the fact. The state- ment rests on a complete misunderstand- ing of what Eusebius professed to do. He did not undertake to collect refer- ences to "the acknowledged books," among which he placed the four Gospels, so that however often Papias might have quoted St John's Gospel, Eusebius would not according to his plan have noticed the fact, unless something of special interest had been added to the reference (comp. 'Hist, of N. T. Canon,' pp. 229 f. ; Lightfoot, ' Contemporary Review,' 1875, pp. 169 ff.). The object of Papias was, as has been shewn elsewhere, to illustrate the evan- gelic records by such information as he could gain from the earliest disciples; and it is by no means unlikely that the "history of the woman taken in adul- tery," which has found a place in the Gospel of St John, was recorded by him in illustration of John viii. 15 (see note ad loc.). In close connexion with Papias stand " the elders " quoted by Irenaeus, among whose words is one clear reference to St John (Iren. v. 36. 2) : " for this reason [they taught] the Lord said, there are many mansions in my Father's home (cv TOtS TOU TTttT/aOS /AOU /AOVdS flVOLl TTOAAdS. John xiv. 2. Comp. Luke ii. 49). The quotation is anonymous, but it is taken from a writing and not from tradition ; and the context makes it at least highly probable that the passage was quoted from Papias' ' Exposition.' Whatever may be thought of the pass- ing references of Polycarp and Papias to the writings of St John, the main value of their testimony lies in the fact that they represent what can justly be called a school of St John. Papias like Poly- carp may himself have heard the Apostle (Iren. v. 33. 4). At least he studied with Polycarp (Iren. /. c.). And he had still another point of connexion with the apostolic body. He conversed at Hierapolis with two daughters of the Apostle Philip (Euseb. ' H. E.' HI. 39 ; Lightfoot, ' Colossians,' 45 ff.). Nor were these two men alone. There were many about them, like the elders quoted by Irenaeus, who shared in the same life. The succession was afterwards continued at Sardis through Melito, at Ephesus through Polycrates (comp. Euseb. 'H. E.' v. 22), at Hierapolis through Claudius Apollinaris, at Lyons through Pothinus and Irenaeus (compare also the ' Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons,' c. 4, 177 A.D.); and the concordant testi- mony of the latest witnesses in these different Churches is a sure proof that they preserved the belief which had been held from the first by the school to which they belonged (comp. Lightfoot, 'Contemporary Review,' August, 1876). The testimony to the Gospel of St John is, as might have been expected on the assumption of its authenticity, most clear among the writers who stood in the closest connexion with his teach- ing. But it is not confined to them. JUSTIN MARTYR certainly appears to have been acquainted with the book. His evidence is somewhat obscure. All his references to the Gospels are anonymous; but at the same time his description of " the Memoirs " as written "by the Apostles and those who followed them" ('Dial.' 103), exactly answers to our present collection of four. And though the coincidences of language between Justin and St John are not such as to establish beyond question Justin's dependence on the Evangelist, this at least is the most natural explana- tion of the similarity (' Hist, of N. T. Canon,' p. 166, n.). And more than this, his acquaintance with the Valen- tinians ('Dial.' 35; comp. Iren. in. n. 7, " qui a Valentino sunt eo [Evangelic] quod est secundum lohannem plenis- sime utentes...") shews that the fourth Gospel could not have been unknown to him. Justin's teaching on the Word is per- haps a still more important indication of the influence of St John. This teaching presupposes the teaching of St John, and in many details goes beyond it. Thoughts which are characteristically Alexandrine, as distinguished from He- XXX11 INTRODUCTION TO braic, find a place in Justin; and he shews not only how little power there was in the second century to fashion such a doctrine as that of the fourth Gospel, but also how little Christian speculation was able to keep within the limits laid down by the Apostles. The SHEPHERD OF HERMAS offers an instructive example of the precarious- ness of the argument from silence. The book contains no definite quotations from the Old or New Testament. The allu- sions which have been found in it to the characteristic teaching of St John are I believe real, but they are not un- questionable. Yet it is certain from an independent testimony, that the Gospel was accepted as one of the four Gospels almost at the same date when the book was written, and probably in the same place. The Muratorian Fragment notices that the Shepherd was written "very lately (c. 170 A.D.) in our times, in the city of Rome," and at the same time speaks of the Gospel according to St John as "the fourth" Gospel in such a way as to mark its general recognition ('Hist, of N. T. Canon,' pp. 2 1 1 ff. ; see below, n. § 2). To the same date also must be refer- red the two great translations of the East and West, the Syriac and Latin, in which the four Gospels stand without rivals. Outside the Church the testimony to the general use of St John's Gospel is both early and decisive. In the quota- tions from early heretical writers the re- ferences to it are comparatively frequent. In many cases its teaching formed the starting-point of their partial and erro- neous conclusions. The first Commen- tary on the Gospel was written by He- racleon (c. 175 A.D.); and his copy of the book had already been defaced by false readings. At an earlier date the Gospel was used by the author of the Clementine Homilies, by Valentinus and his school, by the Ophites, and by Ba- silides ('Hist, of N. T. Canon,' 282 ff., Sanday, 'The Gospels in the Second Century,' pp. 292 ff.). The testimony of Basilides is of singu- lar interest. 'The Refutation of Heresies,' attributed to Hippolytus, which was first published in 1851, contains numerous quotations from his writings and from the writings of his school. In one passage at least where there can be no reason- able doubt that the author of the ' Refu- tation' is quoting Basilides himself (c. 130 A.D.), a phrase from the Gospel of St John is used as the authoritative basis for a mystical explanation ('Ref. Haer.,' VII. 22). In reviewing these traces of the use of the Gospel in the first three-quarters of a century after it was written, we readily admit that they are less dis- tinct and numerous than those might have expected who are unacquainted with the character of the literary re- mains of the period. But it will be observed that all the evidence points in one direction. There is not, with one questionable exception, any positive in- dication that doubt was anywhere thrown upon the authenticity of the book. It is possible to explain away in detail this piece of evidence and that, but the ac- ceptance of the book as the work of the Apostle adequately explains all the phe- nomena without any violence; and hither- to all the new evidence which has come to light has supported this universal be- lief of the Christian Society, while it has seriously modified the rival theories which have been set up against it. II. THE COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Author. The facts bearing upon the life of St John which are recorded in the New Testament are soon told. He was the son, apparently the younger son, of Zebedee and Salome (Mark xv. 40, xvi. i, compared with Matt, xxvii. 56). Salome, as it appears from John xix. 25 (see note), was the sister of "the Mother of the Lord," so that St John was the cousin of the Lord "according to the flesh." He was probably younger than the Lord and than the other apostles. It is therefore easily intelligible that his near connexion by birth, combined with the natural enthusiasm of youth, offered the outward occasion for the peculiar closeness in which he stood to Christ. Of his father Zebedee, a fisherman probably of Bethsaida or the neighbour- hood (John i. 41 ff.), nothing is known except that he was sufficiently prosperous to have hired servants (Mark i. 20). At a later time Salome appears as one of the women who followed the Lord and THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXXlll " ministered to Him of their substance " (Mark xv. 40 f., compared with Luke viii. 3). And it is clear from John xix. 27 that the apostle had some means. Like the other apostles, with the single exception of Judas Iscariot, St John was a Galilaean. The fact has a moral value. When the rest of the Jewish nation was drawn partly to political intrigues, partly to speculations of the schools, the people of Galilee retained much of the simple faith and stern heroism of earlier times. It was made a reproach to them that they were unskilled in the traditions, and kept to the letter of the Law (comp. vii. 52, note). The rising of Judas "in the days of the taxing" (Acts v. 37) may have been a hopeless outburst of fanati- cism, but at least it shewed that there were many in Galilee who were ready to die for the confession that they had "no lord or master but God." The same spirit appears in the multitude who would have " taken Jesus by force " at the lake of Tiberias and made Him king (vi. 14 f.). They were ready to do and to suffer some- thing for their eager if mistaken Mes- sianic hope. It was amidst the memories of such conflicts, and in an atmosphere of passionate longing, that St John grew up. And in some measure he shared the aspirations of his countrymen if he avoided their errors. When the Baptist proclaimed the advent of Christ, St John was at once ranged among his disciples. And more than this : though " simple and unlettered" (Acts iv. 13), he appears to have grasped with exceptional power the spiritual import of the Baptist's mes- sage, who directed him immediately to Christ as " the Lamb of God." St John obeyed the sign, and followed without delay the Master who was mysteriously pointed out to him. Thus from the first the idea of sovereignty was mingled with that of redemption, the issue of victory with the way of suffering, in the concep- tion of the work of the Messiah whom he welcomed. The ardour of the Galilaean temper remained in the apostle. St John with his brother St James received from the Lord (Mark iii. 17) the remarkable sur- name, Boanerges, "sons of thunder." Thunder in the Hebrew idiom is "the voice of God;" and the sons of Zebedee appear to have given swift, startling, ve- hement utterance to the divine truth which they felt within them. Theirs was not characteristically the decisive action, but the sudden moving word which wit- nessed to the inner fire. It may have been some stern voice which marked St James as the first martyr among the apostles. Certainly the sayings of St John which are recorded by St Luke correspond with the prophetic energy which the title indicates (Luke ix. 49 || Mark ix. 38; comp. Num. xi. 28; Luke ix. 54). His zeal was undisciplined, but it was loyal and true. He knew that to be with Christ was life, to reject Christ was death ; and he did not shrink from ex- pressing the thought in the spirit of the old dispensation. He learnt from the Lord, as time went on, a more faithful patience, but he did not unlearn the burning devotion which consumed him. To the last, words of awful warning, like the thunderings about the throne, reveal the presence of that secret fire. Every page of the Apocalypse is inspired with the cry of the souls beneath the altar, "How long" (Rev. vi. 10); and nowhere is error as to the Person of Christ de- nounced more sternly than in his Epistles (2 John 10 ; i John iv. i ff.). The well-known incident which oc- curred on the last journey to Jerusalem reveals the weakness and the strength of St John's character. His mother, inter- preting the desire of her sons, begged of Christ that they might sit, the one on His right hand and the other on His left, in His Kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 ff., comp. Mark x. 35 ff.). So far they mis- understood the nature of that especial closeness to their Lord which they sought. But the reply shewed that they were ready to welcome what would be only a pre- rogative of suffering. To be near Christ, even if it was "to be near the fire" and "near the sword," was a priceless bless- ing. And we can feel that the prayer was already granted when Salome and St John waited by the Cross (John xix. 25 ff.). This last scene reveals St John nearest of all the apostles to Christ, as "the dis- ciple whom Jesus loved" (ch. xiii. 23, note). Together with his brother St James and St Peter, he was one of the three admitted to a closer relationship with Christ than the other apostles (Luke viii. XXXIV INTRODUCTION TO 51, ix. 28; Mark xiv. 33); and of the three his connexion was the closest. He followed Christ to judgment and to death (John xviii. 15, xix. 26), and received from Him the charge of His Mother as her own son (xix. 27, note). After the Ascension St John remained at Jerusalem with the other apostles. He was with St Peter at the working of his first miracle ; and afterwards he went with him to Samaria (Acts i. 13, iii. i ff., viii. 14). At the time of St Paul's first visit to Jerusalem he seems to have been absent from the city (Gal. i. 18); but on a later occasion St Paul describes him as one of those accounted to be " the pillars of the Church" (Gal. ii. 9). At what time and under what circumstances he left Jerusalem is wholly unknown. At the opening of the Apocalypse (i. 9) he speaks of himself as "in the island called Pat- mos, for the word and the testimony of Jesus." Beyond this there is no further notice of him in the New Testament1. When we pass beyond the limits of Scripture, St John is still presented to us under the same character, as the Son of Thunder, the prophetic interpreter of the Old Covenant. Now it is related that he refused to remain under the same roof with Cerinthus (or according to another account "Ebion"), who de- nied the reality of the Incarnation: "Let us fly," he said, "lest the bath fall on us, since Cerinthus is within, the enemy of the truth" (Iren. in. 3. 4; comp. Epiph. 'Haer.' xxx. 24). Now he is described as a " priest wearing the plate (or diadem)" prescribed by the law (Ex. xxxix. 30 f.) for the high-priest (Polycrates ap. Euseb. 'H. E.'in. 31, v. 24; comp. ch. xviii. 15, note). Now he is shewn, in one of the most beautiful of early histories, seeking out the lost and enforcing the obligation of ministerial duty (Euseb. 'H.E.' in. 23, on the authority of Clement of Alex- andria). Once again we read that "when he tarried at Ephesus to extreme old age, and could only with difficulty be carried to the church in the arms of his disci- ples, and was unable to give utterance to many words, he used to say no 1 This is not the place to discuss the author- ship of the Apocalypse. Its doctrinal relation to the Gospel of St John, which will be discussed afterwards, appears to be decisive in support of the early date of the banishment. more at their several meetings than this, 'Little children, love one another.' At length," Jerome continues, "the disci- ples and fathers who were there, wearied with hearing always the same words, said, 'Master, why dost thou always say this ?' 'It is the Lord's command,' was his worthy reply, ' and if this alone be done, it is enough.'" (Hieron. 'Comm. in Ep. ad Gal.' vi. 10)'. These traditions are in all probability substantially true, but it is impossible to set them in a clear historical framework. Nothing is better attested in early Church history than the residence and work of St John at Ephesus. But the dates of its commencement and of its close are alike unknown. It began after the final departure of St Paul, and it lasted till about the close of the first century (Iren. n. 22. 5, fj-fXP1- ™v T/oeuavou xpo'vwv, A.D. 98 — 117). This may be affirmed with confidence ; but the account of his sufferings at Rome (Tert. 'de Praescr. Hser.' 36 ..."in oleum demersus nihil passus est;" comp. Hieron. 'ad Matt.' xx. 23), and of the details of his death at Ephesus, are quite untrustworthy. One legend, which is handed down in various forms, is too remarkable to be wholly omitted. It was widely believed that St John was not dead, but sleeping in his grave ; and that he would so remain till Christ came. Meanwhile, it was said, "he shewed that he was alive by the movement of the dust above, which was stirred by the breath of the saint." "I think it needless," Augustine adds, " to contest the opinion. Those who know the place must see whether the soil is so affected as it is said ; since I have heard the story from men not unworthy of cre- dence" ("revera non e levibus homini- bus id audivimus." Aug. 'In Joh. Tract.' cxxiv. 2). These words of Augustine are part of his commentary on the mysterious saying of the Lord which, as is seen from the Gospel (xxi. 21 ff.), was perceived to mark in some way the future work of the apostle : "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ?" St John 1 These traditions are collected in a very agree- able form in Dean Stanley's ' Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age.' The later legends are given by Mrs Jameson, in her ' Sacred and Le-, gendary Art," i. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXXV did most truly "tarry till the Lord came." It is impossible for us to realise fully what was involved in the destruction of the Holy City for those who had been trained in Judaism. It was nothing else than the close of a divine drama, an end of the world. The old sanctuary, " the joy of the whole earth," was abandoned. Henceforth the Christian Church was the sole appointed seat of the presence of God. When Jerusalem fell Christ came, and with His coming came also the work of St John. During the period of con- flict and fear and shaking of nations which preceded that last catastrophe, St John had waited patiently; and we may believe that he had fulfilled his filial office to the Mother of the Lord in his own home in Galilee to the last, gaining by that a fuller knowledge of the reve- lation of the Son of God, and bringing into a completer harmony the works which he had seen, and the words which he had heard. In these scattered traits we can gain a consistent if imperfect conception of St John. The central characteristic of his nature is intensity, intensity of thought, word, insight, life. He regards every- thing on its divine side. For him the eternal is already : all is complete from the beginning, though wrought out step by step upon the stage of human action. All is absolute in itself, though marred by the weakness of believers. He sees the past and the future gathered up in the manifestation of the Son of God. This was the one fact in which the hope of the world lay. Of this he had him- self been assured by evidence of sense and thought This he was constrained to proclaim : " We have seen and do testify." He had no laboured process to go through: he saw. He had no constructive proof to developer he bore witness. His source of knowledge was direct, and his mode of bringing convic- tion was to affirm. 2. The Occasion and Date. An early and consistent tradition re- presents the Gospel of St John as written at the request of those who were intimate with the Apostle, and had, as we must suppose, already heard from his lips that teaching which they desired to see re- corded for the perpetual guidance of the Church. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA has preserved the tradition in its simplest form. He states on the authority "of the elders of an earlier generation" (rra- paSoCTis T<av dveKaOfv irpfa-fivTepiDv) that "St John, last [of the Evangelists], when he saw that the outward (bodily) facts had been set forth in the [existing] Gos- pels, impelled by his friends, [and] di- vinely moved by the Spirit, made a spi- ritual Gospel" (Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. 'H. E.' vi. 14.) This general statement is given with additional details in the MURATORIAN FRAGMENT on the Canon. "The fourth Gospel [was written by] John, one of the disciples (i.e. Apostles). When his fellow-disciples and bishops urgently pressed (cohortantibus) him, he said, 'Fast with me [from] to-day, for three days, and let us tell one another any revelation which may be made to us, either for or against [the plan of writing] (quid cuique fuerit revelatum al- terutrum)'. On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apos- tles, that John should relate all in his own name, and that all should review [his writing]" (see 'Hist, of N. T. Canon,' p. 527). There can be no doubt that JEROME had before him either this fragment, or, as appears more pro- bable, the original narrative on which it was based, when he says that "ecclesi- astical history records that John, when he was constrained by his brothers to write, replied that he would do so, if a fast were appointed and all joined in prayer to God ; and that after this [fast] was ended, filled to the full with reve- lation (revelatione saturatus), he indited the heaven-sent preface : In the beginning was the Word. . ." ('Comm. in Matt.' Prol.) Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for the testimony of Clement, adds in an- other place, as a current opinion, that St John wrote after the other Evange- lists, to the truth of whose narrative he bore witness, in order to supply an ac- count of the early period of the Lord's ministry which they omitted ; and at the same time he implies, what is otherwise most likely, that the Apostle committed to writing what he had long delivered in unwritten preaching (Euseb. ' H. E.' in. *4). Other writers attempt to define more exactly the circumstances under which XXXVI INTRODUCTION TO St John was induced to compose his Gospel. Thus in the Scholia on the Apocalypse attributed to VICTORINUS of Pettau (tc. 304), it is said that "he wrote the Gospel after the Apocalypse. For, when Valentinus and Cerinthus and Ebion and the others of the school of Satan were spread throughout the world, all the bishops from the neighbouring provinces came together to him, and constrained him to commit his own tes- timony to writing" (Migne, 'Patrol.' v. p. 333). This statement appears to be an amplification of the Asiatic tradition preserved by Irengeus, which has been already noticed; and is only so far in- teresting as it shews the current belief that the fourth Gospel was written as an answer to the questionings of a com- paratively advanced age of the Church. So much indeed seems to be historically certain ; for, though it is impossible to insist upon the specific details with which the truth was gradually embellished, there can be no reason to question the general accuracy of a tradition which was widely spread in the last quarter of the second century. The evidence of Clement of Alexandria is independent of that of the Muratorian Canon, while both appear to point back to some common authority, which cannot have been far removed from the time of the Apostle. The fourth Gospel, we may thus conclude from the earliest direct evidence, was written after the other three, in Asia, at the request of the Christian churches there, as a summary of the oral teaching of St John upon the life of Christ, to meet a want which had grown up in the Church at the close of the Apostolic age (comp. Epiph. 'Haer.'xu. 12). The contents of the Gospel go far to support this view of its relatively late date. It assumes a knowledge of the substance of the Synoptic narratives. It deals with later aspects of Christian life and opinion than these. It corresponds with the circumstances of a new world. (a) The first of these statements will come under examination at a later time, and will not be contested in its general shape. The two others can be justified by a few references to the Gospel, which will repay careful study. (b) No one can read the fourth Gos- pel carefully without feeling that the writer occupies a position remote from the events which he describes. How- ever clear it is that he was an eye-wit- ness of the Life of the Lord, it is no less clear that he looks back upon it from a distance1. One plain proof of this is found in the manner in which he records words which point to the spread of the Gospel beyond the limits of Judaism. This characteristic view is distinctly brought out in the interpretation which he gives of the judgment of Caiaphas : Now this he said not of himself, but being high-priest in that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation (rov tGvovs, see note), and not for the nation only, but in order that he might gather together in one tJie children of God that were scattered abroad (xi. 5 1 f.). It is beyond question that when the Evangelist wrote these words, he was reading the fulfilment of the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas in the condition of the Christian Church about him. The same actual experience of the spread of the Gospel explains the promi- nent position which St John assigns to those sayings of Christ in which He de- clared the universality of His mission : other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also must I lead... and they shall become one flock, one shepherd (x. 16). /, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself "(xii. 32). The Son has authority over all flesh (xvii. 2). All that which the Father giveth me, He said, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out (vi. 37). The knowledge of God and of Jesus Christ is eternal life (xvii. 3); and this knowledge, the knowledge of the truth, conveys the freedom, of winch the freedom of the children of Abraham was only a type (viii. 3 1 ff.). The final form of worship is the worship of "the Father," in which all local and temporal worships, typified by Gerizim and Jerusalem, should pass away (iv. 21 ff.). This teaching receives its final seal in the answer to Pilate : Thou sayest that I 1 This is the impression which is conveyed by the notes which he adds from time to time in interpretation of words or facts : vii. 39, xii. 33, xviii. 9, 32, xix. 36, xxi. 19. These notes offer a remarkable contrast to those in which attention is called in the first Gospel to the present and immediate fulfilment of prophecy, Matt. i. 21, xxi. 4, &c. (ytyovev THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXXVll am a king. To this end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice (xviii. 37). The relation of the be- liever to Christ is thus shewn to rest on a foundation which is of all most ab- solute. Christ, while He fulfilled "the Law," which was the heritage of the Jews, revealed and satisfied the Truth, which is the heritage of humanity. There are indeed traces of the an- nouncement of this universalism of the Gospel in the Synoptic narratives, and especially in that of St Luke. It is taught there that Christ came as the salvation prepared before the face of all the peoples, a light for revelation to Gen- tiles, a?id a glory to God's people Israel (ii. 31, 32). Repentance unto remission of sins was to be preached in His name unto all the nations beginning from Jeru- salem (xxiv. 47). It may be possible also to see in the fate of the Prodigal Son an image of the restoration of the heathen to their Father's home. But in these cases the truth is not traced back to its deepest foundations ; nor does it occupy the same relative position as in St John. The experience of an organized Christian society lies between the two records. This is plainly intimated by the lan- guage of the Evangelist himself. He speaks in his own person of the great crisis of the choice of Israel as over. He came to His own home and His own people received Him not (i. n); and so in some sense, the choice of the world was also decided, the light hath come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light (iii. 19). The mes- sage of the Gospel had already been proclaimed in such a way to Jew and Gentile that a judgment could be pro- nounced upon the general character of its acceptance. This typical example serves to shew how St John brings into their true place in the completed Christian edifice the facts of Christ's teaching which were slowly realised in the course of the apostolic age. And while he does so, he recalls the words in which Christ dwelt upon that gradual apprehension of the meaning of His Life and work, which characterized in fact the growth New Test. — VOL. II. of the Catholic Church. Throughout the last discourses of the Lord, the great charge to the apostolate, we seem to hear the warning addressed to St Peter at the outset : What I do thou knowest not now, but thoit shalt come to knorv (yvwa-rj) afterwards (xiii. 7). It is im- plied in the recital that the words of patient waiting had found their accom- plishment by the mission of the new Advocate. / have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear tJiem now. Howbeit when He is come, even the Spirit of truth, He shall guide you into all the truth (xvi. 12 ; comp. xv. 26). Even if Christ had already made known all things (xv. 15), there was need of the long teaching of time, that His dis- ciples might master the lessons which they had implicitly received. The record of these appeals to a future growth of knowledge can admit of only one interpretation. In dwelling on such aspects of Christ's teaching, it is clear that the Evangelist is measuring the in- terval between the first imperfect views of the Apostles as to the kingdom of God, and that just ideal, which he had been allowed to shape, under the teaching of the Paraclete, through disappointments and disasters. Now at length, on the threshold of a new world, he can feel the divine force of much that was before hard and mysterious. He had waited till his Lord came ; and he was enabled to recognise His Presence, as once before by the lake of Galilee, in the unexpected victories of faith. (c) In the last quarter of the first cen- tury, the world relatively to the Christian Church was a new world ; and St John presents in his view of the work and Person of Christ the answers which he had found to be given in Him to the problems which were offered by the changed order. The overthrow of Jerusalem, carrying with it the destruction of the ancient service and the ancient people of God, the establishment of the Gentile congre- gations on the basis of St Paul's inter- pretation of the Gospel, the rise of a Christian philosophy (yvouo-is) from the contact of the historic creed with Eastern and Western speculation, could not but lead one who had lived with Christ to go back once more to those days of a divine discipleship, that he might find in d XXXV111 INTRODUCTION TO them, according to the promise, the an- ticipated replies to the questionings of a later age. This St John has done; and it is impossible not to feel how in each of these cardinal directions he points his readers to words and facts which are still unexhausted in their ap- plications. (a) We have already touched upon the treatment of the Jewish people in the fourth Gospel. They appear as the heirs of divine blessings who have Esau-like despised their birthright. The preroga- tives of the people and their misuse of them are alike noted. But in this re- spect there is one most striking differ- ence between the fourth Gospel and the other three. The Synoptic Gospels are full of warnings of judgment. Pictures of speedy desolation are crowded into the record of the last days of the Lord's mi- nistry (Matt, xxiv., Mark xiii., Luke xxi.). His coming to judgment is a central topic. In St John all is changed. There are no prophecies of the siege of the Holy City; there is no reiterated promise of a Return; the judgment had been wrought. Christ had come. There was no longer any need to dwell upon the outward aspects of teaching which had in this respect found its accomplishment. The task of the Evangelist was to unfold the essential causes of the catastrophe, which were significant for all time, and to shew that even through apparent ruin and failure the will of God found fulfilment. In- exorable facts had revealed the rejection of the Jews. It remained to shew that this rejection was not only foreseen, but was also morally inevitable, and that it involved no fatal loss. This is the work of St John. He traces step by step the progress of unbelief in the representa- tives of the people, and at the same time the correlative gathering of the children of God by Christ to Himself. There was a divine law of inward affinity to good or evil in the obedience and disobedience of those who heard. / am the good shep- herd; and I know mine own, and mine own know me, even as the Father knoweth me and I know the father (x. 14, 15). Ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep. My slieep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me (x. 26, 27). This is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil (iii. 19). The fourth Gospel reveals in these and similar passages the innermost cause of the rejection of the Jewish people. The fact underlies the record, and the Evangelist lays open the spiritual neces- sity of it. He reveals also the constitu- tion of the Spiritual Church. The true people of God survived the ruin of the Jews : the ordinances of a new society replaced in a nobler shape the typical and transitory worship of Israel. When this Gospel was written, the Christian congregations, as we see from St Paul's Epistles, were already organized, but the question could not but arise, how far their organization was fitted to realise the ideal of the kingdom which Christ preached. The Evangelist meets the in- quiry. He shews from the Lord's words what are the laws of His service, and how they are fulfilled by the institutions in which they were embodied. The ab- solute worship was to be in spirit and truth (iv. 23), as distinguished from letter and shadow ; and the discourses with Nicodemus and at Capernaum set forth by anticipation how the sacraments satisfy this condition for each individual. On the other hand, the general ministerial commission, which is contained only in the fourth Gospel (xx.), gives the founda- tion of the whole. In that lies the un- failing assurance of the permanence of the new society. (/3) So far the fourth Gospel met diffi- culties which had not been and could not be realised till after the fall of Jeru- salem. In like manner it met difficulties which had not been and could not be felt till the preaching of St Paul had moulded the Christian Society in ac- cordance with the law of freedom. Then first the great problems as to the nature of the object of personal faith, as to the revelation of the Deity, as to the univer- sality of the Gospel, were apprehended in their true vastness ; and the Evange- list shews that these thoughts of a later age were not unregarded by Christ Him- self. The experience of the life of the Church — which is nothing less than the historic teaching of the Holy Spirit — made clear in due time what was neces- sarily veiled at first. Sayings became luminous which were riddles before their THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. XXXIX solution was given. Christ, in relation to humanity, was not characteristically the Prophet or the King, but the Saviour of the world, the Son of Man, the Son of God. In this connexion the fact of the Incarnation obtained its full significance. By the Incarnation alone the words which were partially interpreted through the crowning miracle of the Lord's ministry were brought home to all men ; I am the Resurrection and the Life (xi. 25). Thus by the record of the more mysterious teaching of the Lord, in con- nexion with typical works, St John has given a historical basis for the preaching of St Paul. His narrative is at once the most spiritual and the most concrete. He shews how Faith can find a personal object. The words He that hath seen me hath seen the Father (xiv. 9) mark an epoch in the development of religious thought. By them the idea of God re- ceives an abiding embodiment, and the Father is thereby brought for ever within the reach of intelligent devotion. The revelation itself is complete (xvii. 6, 26), and yet the interpretation of the reve- lation is set forth as the work of the Holy Spirit through all ages (xiv. 26). God in Christ is placed in a living union with all creation (v. 17; comp. i. 3, note). The world, humanity and God are presented in the words and in the Person of Christ under new aspects of fellowship and unity. It will be evident how this teaching is connected with that of St Paul. Two special points only may be noticed : the doctrine of the sovereignty of the divine will, and the doctrine of the union of the believer with Christ. The founda- tions of these two cardinal doctrines, which rise supreme in the Pauline Epistles, lie deep in the fourth Gospel. The first, the doctrine of Providence, Predestination, however it be called, not only finds reiterated affirmation in the discourses of the Lord contained in the fourth Gospel, but it is also implied as the rule of the progress of the Lord's life. His "hour" determines the occur- rence of events from man's point of view ; and the Evangelist refers to it in connexion with each crisis of the Gospel history, and especially with the Passion in which all crises were consummated (ii. 4, vii. 30, viii. 20, xii. 23, 27, *iii. i, xvi. 4, xvii. i ; comp. vii. 6 — 8, o Katpos). So also the will or " the gift " of the Father is the spring of the believer's power (iii. 27, vi. 37, 44, 65, xvii. 12); and Christ fulfils and applies that will to each one who comes to Him (xv. 16, 5, v. 21). Faith again assumes a new aspect in the narrative of St John. It is not merely the media tive energy in material deliver- ances, and the measure (so to speak) of material power; it is an energy of the whole nature, an active transference of f the whole being into another life. Faith in a Person — in One revealed under a new " name " — is the ground of sonship (i. 12), of life (xi. 25), of power (xiv. 12), of illumination (xii. 36, 46). The key- words of two complementary views of truth are finally combined : this is the work of God, that ye believe — believe with a continuous ever-present faith (Trio-revere not Trtoreucn^re) — on Him whom He sent (vi. 29; comp. viii. 30, note). (y) Once again ; when the fourth Gospel was written Christianity occupied a new intellectual position. In addition to social and doctrinal developments, there were also those still vaster ques- tions which underlie all organization and all special dogma, as to the function and stability of knowledge, as to the inter- pretation and significance of life, as to the connexion of the seen and unseen. The new faith had made these questions more urgent than before, and the teach- ing of the Lord furnished such answers to them as man can apprehend. Know- ledge was placed in its final position by the declaration / am the Truth ... The Truth shall make you free (xiv. 6, viii. 31 flf.). Everything real is thus made tributary to religious service. Again, the eternal is revealed as present, and life is laid open in all its possible nobi- lity. The separation which men are inclined to make arbitrarily between " here " and " there " in spiritual things is done away. This is life eternal... (xvii. 3) ; He that heareth my word hath life eternal... (v. 24). Once more, the essential unity and the actual divisions of the world are alike recognised. All things were made (eyeVero) through Him [in the Word] (i. 3) ; . . . and the Light shineth in the darkness (i. 5) ; and the Word became (eyeVero) flesJi. Thus in Christ there is xl INTRODUCTION TO offered the historic reconciliation of the finite and the infinite, by which the op- positions of thought and experience are made capable of being reduced to har- mony. These internal indications of date completely accord with the historical tradition, and lead to the conclusion that the composition of the Gospel must be placed late in the generation which followed the destruction of Jerusalem. The shock of that momentous revolution was over, and Christians had been enabled to interpret it. There is no evidence to determine the date exactly. St John, according to the Asiatic tradi- tion recorded by Irenseus (11. 22. 5 ; in. 3. 4) lived "till the times of Trajan" (A. D. 98 — 117), and the writing of the Gospel must be placed at the close of his life. It is probable therefore that it may be referred to the last decennium of the first century, and even to the close of it. Tradition is uniform in fixing St John's residence at Ephesus (Iren. in. 3. 4; Polycr. ap. Euseb. ' H. E.' in. 31 ; Clem. Alex. ' Quis div. salv.' c. 42 ; Orig. ap. Euseb. ' H. E.' in. i, &c.), and naming that city as the place where he wrote his Gospel (Iren. in. i. i, &c.) ; and no valid objection has been brought against the belief which was preserved on the spot by a continuous succession of Church teachers'. 3. The Object. From what has been already said it will be clear that the circumstances under which the fourth Gospel was written served to define its object. This is clearly expressed by St John himself : Many other signs did Jesus in the presence of His disciples which have not been written in this book ; but these have been written that ye may believe (Trio-revere, cf. vi. 29) that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye may have life in His name (xx. 30 f.). The record is there- 1 The denial of the Asiatic- residence of St John does not call for serious discussion. To suppose that the belief grew out of Irenseus' confusion of "John the presbyter " with "John the apostle," involves the further assumption that Polycarp himself led him into the error (Iren. 'Ep. ad Flor.'). Comp. Steitz, 'Stud. u. Krit.' 1868; Hilgenfeld, ' Einl.' 394 ff. fore a selection from abundant materials at the command of the writer, made by him with a specific purpose, first to create a particular conviction in his readers, and then in virtue of that con- viction to bring life to them. The con- viction itself which the Evangelist aims at producing is twofold, as corresponding with the twofold relation of Christianity to the chosen people and to mankind. He makes it his purpose to shew that Jesus, who is declared by that human name to be truly and historically man, is at once the Christ, in whom all types and prophecies were fulfilled1, and also the Son of God, who is, in virtue of that divine being, equally near to all the children of God — His Father and their Father (xx. 17) — scattered throughout the world (xi. 52 ; comp. i. 49). The whole narrative must therefore be interpreted with a continuous reference to these two ruling truths, made clear by the expe- rience of the first stage in the life of the Church ; and also to the consequence which flows from them, that life is to be found in vital union with Him who is made known in this character (ev r<2 oVo- (JLCLTL avrov). Each element in the funda- mental conviction is set forth as of equal moment. The one (Jesus is the Christ] bears witness to the special preparation which God had made ; the other (Jesus is the Son of God) bears witness to the inherent universality of Christ's mission. The one establishes the organic union of Christianity with Judaism; the other 1 It is not without instruction to notice that writers of very different schools have uncon- sciously omitted the words "the Christ" in quoting this verse, and thereby obscured the full design of the Apostle. Among others I may quote as representatives : Reuss, ' Hist, de la Theologie Chretienne ' ed. 2, n. 426, "Ceci, dit-il dans ses dernieres lignes, ceci est ecrit, afin que vous croyiez que Jesus est le Fils de Dieu, et afin que vous ayez la vie par cette croyance." Weisz, ' Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Theol.' Ausg. 2, s. 636, "Der Glaube, welcher die Bedingung des Heilsaneignung bildet...ist die zuversichtliche Ueberzeugung davon, dasz Jesus der Sohn Gottes ist." Lias, ' The Doctrinal System of St John,' p. i. [The purpose for which the Gospel was written] ' ' is stated in express language by the author : ' These things have been written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through His name* (John xx. 31)." THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xli liberates Christianity from Jewish limita- tions . It will at once appear that this preg- nant description of the object of the Gospel coincides completely with the view which has been given as to the date and occasion of its composition. To establish that Jesus is the Christ is to prove that Christianity is the true spiritual heir of Judaism, through which a divine society and a divine service have been established for all time. To establish that Jesus is the Son of God is to place the doctrine of $t Paul upon a firm basis, inasmuch as the Saviour is revealed in His essential relation of Creator to all the world. To establish that life is to be had in His name, is to raise all being, all thought, into a new region, where rests the hope (at least) of the recon- ciliation of the conflicts and contradic- tions of our present order. So far then the fourth Gospel is dis- tinguished from the other three in that it is shaped with a conscious design to illustrate and establish an assumed con- clusion. If we compare the avowed purpose of St John with that of St Luke (i. i — 4), it may be said with partial truth that the inspiring impulse was in the one case doctrinal, and in the other case historical. But care must be taken not to exaggerate or misinterpret this contrast. Christian doctrine is history, and this is above all things the lesson of the fourth Gospel. The Synoptic narratives are implicit dogmas, no less truly than St John's dogmas are concrete facts. The real difference is that the earliest Gospel contained the funda- mental facts and words which experience afterwards interpreted, while the latest Gospel reviews the facts in the light of their interpretation. But in both cases the exactness of historical truth is para- mount. The discovery of the law of phenomena does not make the record of the phenomena less correct than before in the hands of him who has ascertained it. On the contrary, such knowledge keeps the observer from many possibilities of error, while it enables him to regard facts in new relations, and to present them in such a way that 1 This definition of the object of the Gospel must be compared with the parallel definition of the object of the First Epistle, i John i. i — 4. they may suggest to others the general truth which he has gained. The historic interest of St John in the substance of his narrative is, in other words, purified and made more intense by the dogmatic significance with which he feels that each incident is charged. If the scope of the fourth Gospel is thus distinctly apprehended in all its fulness according to the Evangelist's own description, it becomes unnecessary to discuss at any length the different special purposes which have been as- signed as the motive of his work. The narrative is not in express design pole- mical, or supplementary, or didactic, or harmonizing ; and yet it is all this, because it is the mature expression of apostolic experience perfected by the teaching of the Holy Spirit in the writer's own life and in the life of the Church. L The Gospel is not specifically po- lemical (Iren. 'Adv. Haer.'m. n, Hieron. ' Comm. in Matt.' Prol. ; comp. 'De Virr. 111.' 9). It is quite true that many passages in the Gospel of St John are conclusive against particular points of Ebionitic and Docetic error (comp. i John ii. 22, iv. 2), and against false claims of the disciples of the Baptist (comp. Acts xix. 3 f.) ; but it does not follow that it was the particular object of St John to refute these false opinions. The full exhibition of the Truth was necessarily their refutation ; and in this respect their existence may have called attention to points which had been over- looked or misunderstood before. But the first Epistle shews with what direct- ness the Apostle would have dealt with adversaries if controversy had been the purpose immediately present to his mind. ii. The same remark applies to the "supplemental" theory (Eusebius, *H. E.' 111.24; comp. Hieron. 'De Virr. 111.' 9). As a matter of fact the fourth Gospel does supplement the other three, which it pre- supposes. It supplements them in the general chronology of the Lord's life, as well as in detailed incidents. But this, is because the Gospel is the vital analysis of faith and unbelief. It traces in order the gradual development of the popular views of Christ among those to whom He came. As a natural consequence it records the successive crises in the INTRODUCTION TO divine revelation which happened in Jerusalem, the centre of the religious activity of the Jewish theocracy. The scope of the Gospel is from the nature of the case supplementary to that of the other three ; and this being so, the his- tory is also supplementary. iii. But though the scope of the fourth Gospel is supplementary to that of the other three, it cannot rightly be said that the aim of the Evangelist was essentially didactic (comp. Clem. Alex. ap. Euseb. ' H. E.' vi. 14) in such a sense that he has furnished an interpretation of the Gospel rather than a historical record. The substance of the narrative is dis- tinctly affirmed to be facts (these signs are written) ; and the end contemplated is practical (that ye may have life), and speculative only so far as right opinion leads to right action. iv. Once again : The conciliatory — irenical — effect of the Gospel cannot be questioned, but this effect is due to the teaching on Christ's Person which it discloses, and not to any conscious aim of the writer. Just as it rises above con- troversy while it condemns error, it pre- serves the characteristic truths which heresy isolated and misused. The fourth Gospel is the most complete answer to the manifold forms of Gnosticism, and yet it was the writing most used by Gnostics. It contains no formal narra- tive of the institution of sacraments, and yet it presents most fully the idea of sacraments. It sets forth with the strongest emphasis the failure of the ancient people, and yet it points out most clearly the significance of the dis- pensation which was committed to them. It brings together the many oppositions — antitheses — of life and thought, and leaves them in the light of the one supreme fact which reconciles all, the Word became Flesh; and we feel from first to last that this light is shining over the record of sorrow and triumph, of defeat and hope. 4. The Plan. The view which has been given of the object of the Gospel enables us to form a general conception of what we must call its plan. This is, to express it as briefly as possible, the parallel develop- ment of faith and unbelief through the historical Presence of Christ. The Evan- gelist is guided in the selection, and in the arrangement, and in the treatment of his materials by his desire to fulfil this purpose. He takes a few out of the vast mass of facts at his disposal (xxi. 25, xx. 30), which are in his judgment suited to produce a particular effect. Every part of his narrative is referred to one final truth made clear by experience, that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." He makes no promise to compose a life of Christ, or to give a general view of His teaching, or to preserve a lively pic- ture of the general effect which He pro- duced on average observers, or to com- pose a chapter on the general history of his own times, or to add his personal recollections to memoirs of the Lord already current ; nor have we any right to judge his narrative by the standard which would be applicable to any one of such writings. He works out his own design, and it is our first business to consider how he works it out. When this is done we shall be in a position to consider fairly the historical charac- teristics of the Gospel. The development and details of St John's plan are considered at length else- where. Here it will be sufficient to indicate in a tabular form the outlines of the history. THE PROLOGUE, i. i — 18. The Word in His absolute, eternal Being; and in relation to Creation. THE NARRATIVE, i. 19 — xxi. 23. The Self-revelation of Christ to the world and to the Disciples. I. — THE SELF-REVELATION OF CHRIST TO THE WORLD (i. 19 — xii. 50). i. The Proclamation (i. 19 — iv. 54). THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xliii i. The testimony to Christ (i. 19 — ii. n) oft. the Baptist, i. 19 — 34, disciples, i. 35—51, signs (water turned to wine), ii. i — n. ii. The work of Christ (ii. 13 — iv. 54) in Jud<za (Nicodemus), ii. 13 — iii. 36, Samaria (the woman of Samaria), iv. i — 42, Galilee (the nobleman's son healed), iv. 43 — 54. Unbelief as yet passive. 2. The Conflict (v. i — xii. 50). i. The Prelude (v., vi.), (a) In Jerusalem (the impotent man healed on the Sabbath), v. The Son and the father. (b) In Galilee (the five thousand fed), vi. Christ and men. ii. The great Controversy (vii. — xii.). (a) The Revelation of faith and unbelief, vii. — x. The Feast of Tabernacles, vii., viii. The Feast of Dedication (the blind man healed on the Sabbath), ix., x. (V) The decisive Judgment, xi., xii. The final sign and its issues (the raising of Lazarus), xi. The close of Christ's public ministry, xii. II. — THE SELF-REVELATION OF CHRIST TO THE DISCIPLES (xiii. — xxi.). 1. The last ministry of love (xiii. — xvii.). i. The last acts of love (xiii. i — 30). ii. The last discourses (xiii. 31 — xvi. 33), In the chamber, xiii. 31 — xiv., On the way, xv., xvi. iii. The prayer of consecration, xvii. 2. The Victory through death (xviii. — xx.). i. The Betrayal (xviii. i — n). ii. The double Trial (xviii. 12 — xix. 16). iii. The end (xix. 17 — 42). iv. The new life (xx.). 3. The Epilogue, xxi. i. The Lord and the body of disciples (the miraculous draught of fishes), xxi. i — 14. ii. The Lord and individual disciples (xxi. 15 — 23). Concluding notes, xxi. 24, 25'. 1 The data for fixing the chronology are very meagre. The following appears to be the best arrangement of the main events. Early spring : the calling of the first disciples, i. 19 — ii. ii. First Passover (April), ii. 13 — iii. 21; iii. 22 — iv. 54. The Feast of the New Year (September), v. See Additional Note. Second Passover (April), vi. The Feast of Tabernacles (October), vii., viii. The Feast of Dedication (December), ix., x. ; xi., xii. Third Passover (April), xiii. — xx. xliv INTRODUCTION TO Such in a rough outline appears to be the distribution of the parts of the Gospel. It will be felt at once how fragmentary the record is, and yet how complete. The incidents all contribute to the orderly development of the truths which it is the object of the Evangelist to commend to his readers. In deve- loping the plan thus broadly denned he dwells on three pairs of ideas, wit- ness and truth, glory and light, judg- ment and life. There is the manifold attestation of the divine mission: there is the progressive manifestation of the inherent majesty of the Son: there is the continuous and necessary effect which this manifestation produces on those to whom it is made; and the narrative may be fairly described as the simultaneous unfolding of these three themes, into which the great theme of faith and un- belief is divided. A rapid survey of their treatment will bring out many in- structive features in the composition. (a) The Truth and the Witness. It is characteristic of Christianity that it claims to be " the Truth." Christ spoke of Himself as "the Truth" (xiv. 6). God is revealed in Christ as "the only true (aA.r?0ivos) God" (xvii. 3). The message of the Gospel is "the Truth." This title of the Gospel is not found in the Synop- tists, the Acts or the Apocalypse ; but it occurs in the Catholic Epistles (James v. 19; i Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 2), and in the Epistles of St Paul (2 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Cor. xiii. 8; Eph. i. 13, &c.). It is specially characteristic of the Gospel and Epistles of St John. According to the teaching of St John, the fundamental fact of Christianity in- cludes all that "is" in each sphere. Christ the Incarnate Word is the per- fect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God (i. 18). He is the per- fect pattern of life, expressing in act and word the absolute law of love (xiii. 34). He unites the finite and the infinite (i. 14, xvi. 28). And the whole history of the Christian Society is the progressive embodiment of this revelation. In the presence of Pilate, the repre- sentative of earthly power, Christ re- vealed the object of His coming, as a permanent fact, to be that He might "bear witness to the truth" (yeycW^/xai, a, not rj\&ov, Iva /xaprvpiycra) TTJ ia, xviii. 37). This "Truth," it is im- plied, was already, in some sense, among men even if it was unrecognised. There were some who "were of the Truth,"draw- ing, as it were, their power of life from it (comp. i John ii. 21, iii. 19). Over these Christ claimed the supremacy of a King. Among the chosen people this testi- mony of conscience was supplemented by the voice of the representative of the prophets. The Baptist bore, and still bears, witness to the Truth (v. 33, But Christ came not only to maintain a Truth which was present among men, but to make known a new fulness of Truth. The "Truth came (eyeWo "was realised as the right issue of things") through Him " (i. 17 ; comp. v. 14 TrA?//^? ...aA^etas). His teaching was "the Truth" (viii. 40; comp. xvii. 17, d Ao'yos 0 0-09). He is Himself the Truth (xiv. 6). And this work is carried out step by step by the Spirit (xvi. 13 ff.) who is sent in Christ's name by the Father (xiv. 26), as He also is sent by Christ Himself (xvi. 7). Under this aspect the Spirit, like Christ, is the Truth which He makes known (i John v. 6). And again, the whole sum of the know- ledge of Christ and of the Spirit is " the Truth" (i John ii. 21; 2 John i), which can be recognised by man (John viii. 32, yi/oxr€o-0e rffv aA^flciav), and become the object of fixed knowledge (i John ii. 21, oiSar« rrjv aA.); though on the Other hand men can withstand and reject its claims (viii. 44 f. ; comp. Rom. i. 18). So far the Truth is regarded as a whole without us (objectively), working and witnessing (3 John 8, 12). But at the same time the Spirit, as the Spirit of Truth, or rather of " the Truth," brings the Truth into direct communication with man's spirit (xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13; 1 John iv. 6, opposed to TO TTV. T!J<S 7rAav77<;); and "the Truth" becomes an inward power in the believer (i Johni. 8, ii. 4; 2 John 2). Truth therefore reaches to action. We do or do not the Truth (iii. 2 1 ; i John i. 6)1. It follows that the reception of the Truth 1 This aspect of the Truth is brought out specially by St Paul, who contrasts "unright- eousness" with "truth": Rom. i. 18, ii. 8; i Cor. xiii. 6; i Thess. ii. 12. Comp. Eph. iv. 24, v. 9. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xlv brings freedom (viii. 32), because the Truth corresponds with the law of our being. By the Truth we are sanctified (xvii. 17). No one therefore can fail to see how inconsistent it is with the apostolic conception of Christianity to represent the Faith as antagonistic to any form of Truth. It is interpreted by every frag- ment of Truth. All experience is a com- mentary on it. And we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every influence of light. The message which St John has to convey in his Gospel is "the Truth," and this is commended to men by various forms of witness (^aprvpia). There is nothing in the Synoptic Gospels to pre- pare for the remarkable development which he gives of this idea. It evidently belongs to a time when men had begun to reason about the faith, and to analyse the grounds on which it rested. The end of the witness is the confirmation of the truth (xviii. 37); and the Evan- gelist, looking back upon his own expe- rience, is able to distinguish the several forms which the witness assumed and still essentially retains. The witness to Christ which he records is therefore manifold, and extends over the whole range of possible attestation of divine things. In due succession there is, (i) the witness of the Father; (2) the witness of Christ Himself; (3) the witness of works; (4) the witness of Scrip- ture; (5) the witness of the Forerunner; (6) the witness of disciples; and that which illuminates and quickens all, (7) the witness of the Spirit. (i) The witness of the Father is that to which Christ appeals as the proper witness of Himself: / (ey°>) receive not my witness from a man... the Father which sent me, He (eVeu/os) hath borne witness concerning me (v. 34, 37). If I (ryw) bear witness concerning myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the wit- ness which He beareth concerning me is true (v. 31 f; contrast viii. 14). I am he that beareth witness concerning myself, and the Father that sent me beareth wit- ness concerning me (viii. 1 8). This witness then is distinguished from the witness of a prophet (e.g. John the Baptist), and from the witness of Christ standing (if we can so conceive) in the isolation of His Personality. It lies in the absolute coincidence between the will and words and works of Christ and the will of the Father, realised by Christ in His divine- human Person (/ know, v. 32). Such witness carries conviction to men so far as they have themselves been brought into unity with God. Man can feel what is truly divine while he reaches after it and fails to attain to it. The sense of his own aspirations and of his own shortcomings enables him to ap- preciate the perfection of Christ. Thus the witness of the Father is (what we speak of as) the " character " of Christ The witness is continuous, present and abiding (fj-aprvpel, p.t[iapTvpr)Ke), and it reposes upon the general conception of God as Father (the Father not my Father), standing in this paternal relation to all men. As soon as the thought of "the Fatherhood of God" is gained, it is felt that "the Son" expresses it absolutely. The witness of this perfect coincidence therefore finds its cogency in the re- sponse which it calls out from the soul of man. Man recognises the voice as naturally and supremely authoritative (i John v. 9). (2) The witness of the Father finds a special expression in the witness of the Son concerning Himself. This wit- ness is valid because it reposes on a conscious fellowship with God (comp. x. 30), in which no element of selfish- ness can find any place, and on a direct and absolute knowledge of divine things (iii. ii, 32 f.), and of a divine mission seen in its totality (viii. 14; comp. v. 55). In this sense Christ said, Even if I bear witness concerning myself my witness is true, becatise I know whence I came and whither I go (viii. 14). Such witness necessarily derives power from what can be seen of the witness of the Father in Christ's character. And more than this, Christ's claim to universal sove- reignty lay in the fact that He came into the world in order to bear witness to the truth (xviii. 37). Every one therefore, He adds, that is of the truth heareth my voice (id.). Thus it is seen that the final power of the witness of Christ to Himself is derived from man's affinity to truth which is found perfectly in Him. His sheep, according to the fa- xlvi INTRODUCTION TO miliar image, know His voice (x. 4 f.). And He has a special message for each: He calleth. (<£uveZ) His own sheep by name (x. 3). The end of this is that he that believeth on Him hath the witness in him- self (i John v. 10). (3) This divine witness, the internal witness which is addressed to man's moral constitution, takes a special and limited form in the witness of works. Thus Christ said, The witness which I have is greater than that of John ; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do bear witness concerning me that the Father hath sent me (v. 36, note). Within a narrow range and in a concrete and sensible manner, His works revealed His perfect communion with the Father (v. 17 ff.). Men could see in them, if not otherwise, tokens of His real nature and authority. The works which I do in my Father's name, claiming a special connexion with Him, making Him known as my Father, these bear witness concerning me (x: 25; comp. xiv. u, xv. 24). And this kind of witness which was given in one form by Christ Himself during His historical pre- sence is still continued. His disciples are enabled to perform greater works than those to which He appealed (xiv. 12 ff.). The Christian Society has still the living witness of "signs." For in the record of the "works" of Christ St John draws no line between those which we call natural and super- natural. The separate "works" are frag- ments of the one "work" (iv. 34, xvii. 4). Whether they are predominantly works of power or of love, wrought on the body or on the spirit, they have the same office and end (comp. v. 20 f., 36, ix. 3 f., xiv. 10). They are "shewn:" they require that is a sympathetic in- terpretation (x. 32 ; comp. v. 20). The earliest emotion which they produce may be simply "wonder" (v. 20), but wonder is the first step to knowledge. This fol- lows both in its decisive apprehension and in its progressive extension (x. 38, LVO. yvwrc Kal yivoJcnojTe). Works therefore according to St John are signs (vi. 26); and their witness, from their want of directness and from their outwardness of form, is secondary to that of "words "(xiv. n, xv. 22 ff.). The internal witness, according to our mode of speaking, is placed above the external. The former is an appeal to the spiritual consciousness, the latter to the intellect. (4) So far we have seen that the wit- ness to Christ is found in Himself, in what He is, and in what He did and does through His disciples. But He stood also in a definite relation to the past Witness was borne to Him both by the records of the ancient dispensa- tion and by the last of the prophets. Ye search the Scriptures, Christ said to the Jews, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life — that they are in themselves the end, and not the prepa- ration for the end — and they are they which witness concerning me ; and ye will not come to me that ye may have life (v. 39, 40). Without Christ the Old Testament is an unsolved riddle. By the writings of Moses and the prophets (v. 46, i. 45) He was seen to be the goal and fulfilment of immemorial hopes which became a testimony to Him in whom they were satisfied. The Old Testament was to the first age and is to all ages, if regarded in its broad and indisputable outlines, a witness to Christ. (5) The witness of the Old Testament found a final expression in the latest of the prophets. John the Baptist occu- pied a position which was wholly pe- culiar. He came for witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, that all men might believe through him (i. 7). His own light was borrowed and kindled (v. 35, i. 8); yet it was such as to attract and arrest (v. 35), and served to prepare men for that which should follow. In this sense Christ appealed to it. Ye have sent to John, and he hath borne witness to the truth. But I receive not my witness from a man, but these things I say that ye may be saved (v. 33 f.)- The witness was, so to speak, an accommo- dation to the moral condition of those for whom it was given. It was the at- testation of a personal conviction based upon a specific proof. The Baptist realised his own character and office (i. 19 ff); and he recognised Christ by the sign which had been made known to him (i. 32 ff.). He realised the sternest form of Judaism, and at the same time perceived the universality of that in THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xlvii which Judaism should be crowned. In a signal example he offered the witness of the leader of men who sways the thoughts of the multitude. (6) The witness of the Baptist was to one decisive event. By this was revealed to him the relation of Christ to the old covenant of which he was himself the last representative. His was the indi- vidual witness of an exceptional man. To this was added the witness, so to speak, of common life. The witness of the disciples was in various degrees a witness to what they had experienced in their intercourse with Christ, a witness to facts. Ye also, Christ said to the eleven, bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning (xv. 27). He that hath seen hath borne witness (xix. 35). This is the disciple that witnesseth con- cerning these things and wrote these things (xxi. 24; comp. i John i. 2, iv. 14). (7) But in all these cases there was need of an interpreter. Neither the mis- sion nor the Person of Christ could be understood at once. It was necessary that He should be withdrawn in order that the disciples might be able to re- ceive the full revelation of His Nature. This was their consolation in the pros- pect of persecution and hatred. WJicn the Paraclete is come wJwm I will send from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proccedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness concerning me (xv. 26). In this witness lies the continual unfolding of the infinite significance of the Incar- nation. The Spirit takes of that which is Christ's, and declares it (xvi. 14). It is the Spirit, as St John himself says elsewhere, that bearcth witness, because the Spirit is the truth (i John v. 6). If now we look back over these seven types of witness to which St John ap- peals in the Gospel, it will be seen that they cover the whole range of the pos- sible proof of religious truth, internal and external. The witness of the Father and of Christ Himself is internal, and rests on the correspondence of the Gos- pel with that absolute idea of the divine which is in man. The witness of works and of Scripture is external and historical, and draws its force from the signs which the Gospel gives of fulfilling a divine pur- pose. The witness of the prophet and of the disciples is personal and experi- ential, and lies in the open declaration of what men have found the Gospel to be. Lastly, the witness of the Spirit is for the believer the crown of assurance and the pledge of the progress of the Truth. (b) Light and Glory. The second pair of words, Light and Glory, which characterize St John's narrative corre- spond to a certain extent with the Wit- ness and the Truth. The Witness be- comes effective through Light. The Truth is revealed in Glory. The description of God as Light (i John i. 5) expresses in its final form that idea of self-communication which is realised in many ways. The works of God are a revelation of Him (i. 4 f., note) ; and among these man's own con- stitution, though this is not specially brought out by St John (comp. Matt, vi. 23; Luke xi. 35). The Word as Light visited men (ix. 5, OTO.V) before the Incarnation (i. 9 f.; comp. v. 38; Rom. ii. 15 f.), at the Incarnation (viii. 12, xii. 46, iii. 19 — 21 ; comp. xi. 9 f.), and He still comes (xiv. 21); even as the Spirit who still interprets His "name" (xiv. 26, xvi. 13; comp. i John ii. 20 ff., 27). St John draws no distinction in essence between these three different forms of revelation, in nature, in conscience, in history: all alike are natural or super- natural, parts of the same harmonious plan. But man has not independently light in himself. The understanding of the outward revelation depends upon the abiding of the divine word within (v. 37 f.). Love is the condition of illumination (xiv. 22 ff.). And the end of Christ's coming was that those who believe in Him may move in a new region of life (xii. 46), and themselves become sons of light (xii. 35 f.), and so, as the last issue of faith, have the light of life (viii. 12). Under the action of the Light the Truth is seen in Christ as Glory. Christ, "the Light of the world," is seen by the believer to be the manifested glory of God. (i) Step by step the Gospel of St John lays open the progress of this manifesta- tion. The summary of its whole course is given by the Apostle at the outset: The Word became flesh and tabernacled xlviii INTRODUCTION TO among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only son from a father (i. 14), absolutely representing, that is, Him from whom He came. The beginning of Christ's signs was a manifestation of His glory (ii. 1 1), and that it might be so, it was shewn only when the hour was come (ii. 4). For the glory of the Son was not of His own seeking (viii. 50), but was wholly the expression of His Father's will through Him (viii. 54). And conversely the Son by His perfect conformity to the Father's will glorified the Father upon earth in the fulfilment of His appointed work (xvii. 4), wherein He was also glorified Himself (xvii. 10). (2) The glory of Christ was therefore in a true sense the glory of God. This sickness, the Lord said in regard to Lazarus, is not unto death, as its real issue, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it (xi. 4). And so the restoration of Lazarus to life was a vision of the glory of God (xi. 40), as producing faith in Him whom He sent (xi. 42). The glori- fication of "the name" of the Father was the historic work of the Son (xii. 28). When the crisis was past, Jesus saith, Now was the Son of man glorified (e'So- |ao-#r/), and God was glorified in Him (xiii. 31). At the end the correlation is not between the Son and the Father, but between the Son of man and God. In Him, little by little, under the con- ditions of human existence, the absolute idea of manhood was fulfilled. (3) It follows that the thought of Christ's glory is extended beyond the Incarnation. The glory which was con- summated through the Incarnation he had with the Father before the world was (xvii. 5); and when the prophet was allowed to look upon the Lord, sit- ting upon a throne, high and lifted up (Is. vi. i ff.), what he saw was the glory of Christ (xii. 41). (4) And on the other hand, as the glory of the Son is extended backward, so also the glory Q{ Jesus, the Son of man, consummated on the divine side even in God (xiii. 32) at the Ascension (vii. 39, xii. 1 6), to which the way was opened by the Passion (xii. 23, xiii. 31), is to be realised by men little by little in the course of ages. The petitions of be- lievers are granted that the Father may be glorified in the Son (xiv. 13): their fruitfulness, already regarded as attained, is a source of this glory (xv. 8). And one chief office of the Spirit is to glorify Christ by making Him more fully known (xvi. 14). (c) Judgment and Life. The glory of Christ and of God in Christ, which is thus presented as the substance of reve- lation, belongs to a spiritual sphere. It can therefore only be perceived by those who have true spiritual vision. As an inevitable consequence, the revelation of the divine glory carries with it a judg- ment, a separation. The fundamental notion of this Judg- ment lies in the authoritative and final declaration of the state of man as he is in relation to God and standing apart from God. It follows as a necessary consequence that Judgment in this sense is contrasted with "salvation," "life." He that believeth [on the Son] is not judged (iii. 18). He hath passed out of death into life (v. 24 ; comp. v. 29). For Christ has life (i. 4, v. 26), and His words are life (vi. 53 ; comp. vi. 68, xii. 50). He came to offer life to men (x. 28, xvii. 2), that they too may have it (iii. 15 f, v. 40, vi. 40, x. 10). He is indeed Himself "the Life" (xi. 25, xiv. 6) and the support of life (vi. 33, 35, 48, 51; comp. iv. 14). To know the Father and Him is eternal life (xvii. 3); and he that "believeth in Him," he that is united with Him by faith, hath the life as a present possession (iii. 36, v. 24, vi. 47, 54; comp. viii. 12), which other- wise he cannot have (vi. 53). The re- lation of the believer to Christ is made parallel with the relation of the Son to the Father (vi. 57). Because I live, Christ said to the eleven, ye shall live also (xiv. 19). Thus the believer, in virtue of the vital connexion which he has realised with God in His Son, is no longer considered apart from Him. Judgment therefore in his case is impossible. This conception of judgment explains the apparent contradiction in the views which are given of the part of Christ in regard to it. On the one side judgment is realised as self-fulfilled in the actual circumstances of life. This is the judg- ment, that the light is come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil (iii. 1 9); THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. xlix and by this contrast the unbeliever is convicted from within : he hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, Christ said, shall judge him at the last day (xii. 48). Hence it is said: God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved through Him (iii. 17). / came not to judge the world, but to save the world (xii. 47). And yet on the other side judgment belongs to Christ, and satisfies the ut- most ideal of judgment because it re- poses upon adequate knowledge. Thus we read : the Father hath given all judg- ment unto the Son (v. 22; comp. v. 27); and for judgment (npifj-a) came I into this world., .(ix. 39; comp. viii. 26). I judge no man; yea, and if I (cyw) judge, my judgment is true (aXyOwri, viii. 15 f.). As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just (v. 30). Striking as the contrast between these passages appears to be, it is only neces- sary to consider what the judgment is in order to feel their harmony. Spiritual judgment is a consequence involved in the rejection of the revelation which Christ made. His will was to unite men to Himself, so that they might have life and not be judged. So far then as they rejected Him and stood away from Him, His Presence shewed them as they truly were. He judged them ; and judgment was equivalent to condemnation. Thus the exhibition of the contrast of the true and the false became one of the means for developing belief and unbelief according to the cha- racter of Christ's hearers (viii. 26). What- ever might be the result, His message must be delivered. In one sense therefore judgment, like the gift of life, is immediate. It lies in the existence of an actual relation (iii. 1 8) which carries with it its final consequences. In another sense it is still future, so far as it will be realised in a spiritual order of being in the last day (xii. 48). There is a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgment (v. 29;, in which the issues of both begun here will be completely fulfilled. Meanwhile the process is going on upon earth. The manifestation of perfect holiness presen- ted to the world in perfect self-sacrifice (v. 30) has set up a standard which cannot be put out of sight. Under this aspect Christ's coming was a sentence of judgment (Kpi/xa, ix. 39). The judgment of the sovereign power of the world in the Passion (xii. 31) has left men no excuse (see xvi. n, note). In that they can see the mind of God, and according as they surrender themselves to it or resist it, they find life or judgment. So far the judgment is self- fulfilled. It cannot but be carried out. The word of Christ sooner or later must justify itself (xii. 48). There is no need that He should seek to assert and vindicate its supremacy. There is one that seeketh and judgeth (viii. 50), the eternal power of righteousness symbolized in the Law (v. 45), and expressed in the Gospel (xii. 48 ff.). But though this is so, the idea of divine action is never lost in the Bible in an abstraction, however emphatic. And while the eternal necessity of judg- ment is thus set forth, the historical execution of judgment, both present and final, is recognised as a work of the Son; and though it was not the purpose of His mission, yet it was committed to Him in virtue of His mission. The Father doth not judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son (v. 22). Even as the Father gave Him to have life in Himself, and so to be a spring of life to all who are united with Him, so also He gave Him authority to execute judgment because He is a Son of man — not the Son of man — (v. 27), because He is truly man, and not only the representa- tive of humanity. His judgment there- fore (comp. Hebr. iv. 14 ff.) is essen- tially united with His complete sympathy with man's nature, and extends to the fulness of human life. It finds place always and everywhere. These contrasts bring out into full relief the conflict between faith and un- belief, which, as has been said, is the main subject of St John's Gospel. In the Synoptic Gospels faith occupies a different position. It is in these almost exclusively relative to a particular object (Matt. viii. 10, ix. 2, 22, 29, &c. ; Mark ix. 23, &c.). Only once does the full expression for faith in the Person of Christ occur (irLo-Tfvfiv €«, Matt, xviii. 6, || Mark ix. 42). In St John, on the other hand, this is the characteristic form under which faith is presented. The simple 1 INTRODUCTION TO noun is not found in his Gospel. Faith is the attitude of the whole believing man. Such faith in Christ is the con- dition of eternal life (i. 12, vi. 40). To produce it was the object of the Evan- gelist (xx. 31). And the history marks in typical crises the progress of its de- velopment The first sign is followed by an access of faith in the disciples (ii. n). The first entrance into Jerusalem was followed by faith disturbed by preconceived ideas (ii. 23, iii. 12 ff.). The preaching in Samaria called out a complete confession of faith (iv. 39 ff.), which stands in con- trast with the faith resting on signs which followed in Galilee (iv. 48 ff. ). From this point active unbelief ap- pears side by side with faith. By claim- ing authority over the Sabbath, and "making Himself equal with God" (v. 17 f.), the Lord offered a test of devo- tion to those who followed Him: He fulfilled that to which Moses pointed (v. 39, 45 ff.). The decisive trial in Galilee caused a fresh division between those who had hitherto been disciples. It was now revealed that life was to be gained by the personal appropriation of the virtue of Christ's Life and Death (vi. 53 ff.). Some turned aside, and St Peter confessed the Apostolic faith even in the mysterious prospect of the Passion (vi. 66 ff.). At the Feast of Tabernacles the antagonism of the. hier- archy was more decided (vii. 32, 47 ff.), and the Lord traced it to its source in an analysis of the spirit of those who believed Him with a view to the execu- tion of their own designs (viii. 31, note). At the same time He revealed His pre- existence (viii. 31 ff., 58). The separa- tion between the old Church and the new, which was implicitly included in these discourses, was openly shewn in the scenes which followed. Christ offered Himself openly as the object of faith as "the Son of man" (ix. 35 ff.), and de- clared the universality of His work (x. 1 6). The raising of Lazarus, which carried with it the condemnation of the Lord, shewed Him to be the conqueror of death and through death (xi. 25 f., 50, xii. 23 ff.). So the public revelation was completed, and with it faith and unbelief were brought to their last issue (xii. 37 ff.). The last discourses and the last prayer point to the future victories of faith; and the narrative closes with the beatitude of the Risen Christ: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (xx. 29), which crowned the loftiest confes- sion of faith triumphant over doubt : My Lord and my God (xx. 28). Even from this rapid summary it will be seen that the self-revelation of Christ became stage by stage the occasion of fuller personal trust and more open per- sonal antagonism. In Him thoughts from many hearts were revealed (Luke ii. 35). And St John lays open the course of the original conflict which is the pattern of all conflicts to the end of time. 5. The Style. The characteristic repetition and de- velopment of the three pairs of ideas, Witness and Truth, Glory and Light, Judgment and Life, in the structure of St John's Gospel, serve to indicate the peculiarities of the style of the book. There is both in the vocabulary and in the form of the sentences a surprising simplicity, which becomes majestic by its solemn directness. (a) It is not necessary to dwell upon the vocabulary. Any one who will trace out the use of the six words already dis- cussed will feel how the apparent mono- tony contains a marvellous depth and fulness. An examination of other words, as sign (o-^/xetov), and works (epya), and name (iv TW ovo/xart, eis TO ovo/xa), the Father (o irar^p), and my Father (o TTCITT/P [J-ov), the world (/cocrjao?, not d alwv ouros and the like), to love, to know (etSevat and yivowTKeiv), will lead to the same conclusion (compare Additional Notes on i. 10, iv. 21). The appa- rent sameness of phraseology produces throughout an impressive emphasis. (b) This emphatic monotony is still more observable in the form and in the combination of the sentences. The con- structions are habitually reduced to the simplest elements. To speak of St John's Gospel as "written in very pure Greek" is altogether misleading. It is free from solecisms, because it avoids all idiomatic expressions. The grammar is that which is common to almost all language. Di- rectness, circumstantiality, repetition, and personality, are the characteristic marks of the separate sentences. And THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. li the sentences and thoughts are grouped together in a corresponding manner. They are co-ordinated and not subor- dinated. The sequence of the reasoning is not wrought out, but left for sympa- thetic interpretation. The narrative is uniformly direct. Even the words and opinions of others are given directly and not obliquely. Any one of the detailed incidents in St John's narrative will illustrate this characteristic of his style. Thus we read in the opening scene : This is the witness of John when the Jews sent... to ask him, Who art thou? and he confessed...! a m not the Christ. And they asked him, What then ? Art thou Elijah ? And he saith, I am not...(\. 19 ff.). And again, Certain of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, dolh the Christ come out of Galilee ? (vii. 40 f. ; comp. ii. 3 ff., iv. 27 ff., v. 10 ff., vi. 14, viii. 22, ix. 2 ff., &C.)1. It is a part of the same method that illustrative details are added parentheti- cally or as distinct statements, and not wrought into the texture of the narrative (vi. 10, iv. 6, x. 22, xiii. 30, xviii. 40). The circumstantiality of St John's style is a necessary result of this direct- ness. Each element in the action is distinguished, as a general rule, and set out clearly. Thus while the other Evan- gelists write habitually according to the common Greek idiom [Jesus] answering said (a7roKpi0€is etTre), St John never uses this form, but writes instead [Jesus] an- swered and said (dirtKpiOr) KCU etTrcv). He places the two parts of the act in equal prominence; and though it might appear at first sight that the phrases are exactly equivalent, yet the co-ordination of de- tails brings a certain defmiteness to the 1 This directness of construction is so universal in the Gospel that the only example (so far as I have observed) of an oblique sentence is in iv. 51, where the true reading appears to be met him, saying that his son liveth, in place of met him and told him, saying, Thy son liveth ; for, on the other hand, the common oblique reading in xiii. 24 is incorrect; and the vivid phrase, and saith to him, Say, who is it ? must be substituted for that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake. This is in fact a characteristic of the New Testament style generally ; see Winer, § LX. 9 ; but in St John it is most marked. picture which fixes the thought of the reader. The same tendency is shewn in St John's analysis of other actions, Jesus cried aloud and said (xii. 44). Jesus cried aloud in the temple, teaching and saying (vii. 28). John beareth witness of Him and hath cried, say ing... (\. 15). They questioned him, and said (i. 25). In these and similar cases it will be found that the separation of the whole into its parts adds to the impressiveness, and to the meaning of the description. One remarkable illustration of this particularity is found in the combination of the positive and negative expression of the same truth. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made (i. 3). He confessed, and denied not (i. 20). Jesus did not trust Himself unto thetn, for that He knew all men, and because He needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man (ii. 24 f.). God... gave His only Son that whosoever believeth on Him may not perish, but have eternal life (iii. 16). Comp. x. 5, xviii. 20; i John i. 6, ii. 4, 27. The circumstantiality of St John's style leads to frequent repetition of the sub- ject or of the significant word in a sen- tence (i. i, Word; i. 7, witness; i. 10, world; iv. 22, worship; v. 3 if., witness; vi. 27, meat; xi. 33, weeping}. Such repetitions are singularly marked in the record of dialogues, in which the persons are constantly brought into pro- minence. Sentence after sentence be- gins with words, "Jesus said," "the Jews said," and the like, so that the characters in the great conflict are kept clearly pre- sent to the mind of the reader in sharp contrast (ii. 18 ff., iv. 7 ff., viii. 48 ff., x. 23 ff). This usage leads to what has been called above the personality of St John's narrative. This is shewn by the special frequency with which he introduces a demonstrative pronoun to call back the subject, when a clause has intervened between the subject and the verb. This he does in two ways. Sometimes he employs the pronoun of present refer- ence: Pie that abideth in me and I in him, this man (OVTOS) beareth much fruit (xv. 5; comp. vii. 18, &c.); and some- times, which is the more characteristic usage, the pronoun of remote, isolated reference: He that entereth not by the INTRODUCTION TO door... that man (exeiVos) is a thief and a robber (x. i; comp. i. 18, 33, v. 1 1, 37, 38, xii. 48, xiv. 21, 26, xv. 26). Another feature of the same kind is the frequency of St John's use of the personal pronouns, and especially of the pronoun of the first person. In this re- spect much of the teaching of the Lord's discourses depends upon the careful re- cognition of the emphatic reference to His undivided Personality. Yea, and if I (tyu>) judge — I, who am truly God, and truly man — my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me (viii. 16). In this case, as in most cases, the pronoun calls attention to the nature of the Lord: elsewhere it marks the isolation (so to speak) of His personality; so that we read two sen- tences which, being in appearance di- rectly contradictory, are harmonized by giving due emphasis to the exact force of the pronoun (v. 31, viii. 14 note). (c) The method of combining sen- tences in St John corresponds com- pletely to the method of their separate construction. The simplicity, directness, circumstantiality, repetition, which mark the constituent sentences, mark also whole sections of his work. Words, sen- tences, paragraphs follow one another in what must appear to an unreflecting reader needless iteration, though in fact it is by this means that the central thought is placed in varied lights, so that its fulness can at last be grasped. The multiplication of simple elements in this instance, as elsewhere, produces in the end an effect of commanding gran- deur, and so the student learns to pause in order that he may carefully consider the parts which separately contribute to it. (See, for example, ch. xvii.) The most obvious illustration of this feature lies in St John's constant habit of framing his record of events and discourses without connecting par- ticles. When the feeling is most in- tense clause follows clause by simple addition. No conjunction binds the parts together. The details are given severally, and the reader is left to seize them in their unity (iv. 7, 10 ff., xi. 34, 35, xiv. 1 5 if., xv. 1—20). At the same time St John does in fact insist more than the other Evan- gelists upon the connexion of facts, even if he commonly leaves them in simple juxtaposition. His most characteristic particle in narrative (it is rare in the dis- courses) is therefore (ovv), and this serves in very many cases to call attention to a sequence which is real, if not obvious. There arose therefore a question on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying (iii. 25). When therefore He heard that he was sick, He abode for the time two days in the place where He was (xi. 6). Comp. iii. 29, iv. 46, vii. 28. In like manner the unusual frequency of the phrase in order that (<W), which marks a direct object, is a sign of the habitual tendency of St John to regard things in their moral and providential relations. Even where the usage departs most widely from the classical standard, it is possible to see how the irregular construction springs out of a character- istic mode of thought (e.g. iv. 34, v. 36, vi. 29, viii. 56, xii. 23, xiii. 34, xvii. 3); and frequently the particle suggests a profound interpretation of the divine counsel (v. 20, x. 17, xii. 38, xv. 8, xvi. 2). The simple coordination of clauses is frequently assisted by the repetition of a marked word or phrase, such as occurs in separate sentences. In this way a connexion is established between two statements, while the idea is carried for- ward in a new direction. Sometimes the subject is repeated : / am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep (x. n). Some- times a word is taken up from a former clause and repeated with significant em- phasis: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends. . .No longer do I call you servants... but I have called you friends... (w. 13 ff.). Sometimes a clause is repeated which gives (so to speak) the theme of the passage: / am the door of the sheep... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... (x. 7 ff.). / am the good Shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep...! am the good Shepherd... and I lay down my life for my sheep (x. n, 14). / am the true vine...! am the vine: ye are the branches (xv. i, 5). Sometimes a clause is repeated which gives a closing cadence: The world hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... They are not of the THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. liii world, even as I am not of the world. . . Sanctify tliem in the truth... that they themselves may be sanctified in truth (xvii. i4ff.). Three times in the sixth chapter the clause recurs : / will (may) raise him up at the last day (39, 40, 44). And even in the simple narrative of St Peter's denial the scene is impressed upon the reader by the solemn repeti- tion of the words: Peter was standing and warming himself (xviii. 18, 25)'. (d) This repetition in some cases leads to a perfect poetic parallelism: (xiv. 26, 27). And in fact the spirit of parallelism, the instinctive perception of symmetry in thought and expression, which is the essential and informing spirit of Hebrew poetry, runs through the whole record, both in its general structure and in the structure of its parts. From first to last the Truth is presented, so to speak, in ever-widening circles. Each incident, each discourse, presupposes what has gone before, and adds something to the result. 6. Historical Exactness. Our inquiry up to this point has estab- lished beyond doubt that the structure of the fourth Gospel corresponds with the fulfilment of a profound purpose. It is composed both generally and in detail with singular symmetry. There is a growing purpose wrought out from stage to stage in the great divisions of the record ; and there are subtle and minute traits in each separate narrative which reveal to careful examination the presence of an informing idea throughout it. The correspondences of part with part may indeed be due as much to the one fundamental conception of the whole work as to special and conscious adapta- tion of details; but none the less we must feel that the historical elements are means to an end ; that the narrative ex- presses distinctly (as it professes to do) the writer's interpretation of the events with which he deals. We must feel that it is not an exhaustive exposition (so far as the Evangelist's knowledge went) of the incidents of the Lord's life ; that it 1 So also words are repeated through con- siderable sections of the Gospel: love, to love (xiii. — xvii.); life (v., vi.); light (viii. — xii.). New Test.— VOL. II. does not preserve some features of His work which were unquestionably promi- nent ; that we could not put together from it a complete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil (Acts x. 38). We allow, or rather we press, the fact that the fourth Gospel, so far as it is regarded as a biography, or as a biographical sketch, is confined to certain limited aspects of the Person and Life and Work with which it deals. But while we make the fullest acknowledg- ment of these tmths, we affirm also that the literal accuracy of the contents of the Gospel is not in any way prejudiced by the existence of this particular purpose. The historical illustrations of the writer's theme — if we even so regard the inci- dents which he relates — are no less his- torical because they are illustrations : the Evangelist's conception of the real sig- nificance of Christ's Presence is not to be set aside because it is his conception : the special traits which are given are in no degree open to suspicion, because they are special traits emphasized with a definite object. Neither the apostolical authorship nor the historical trustworthi- ness of the narrative is affected by the admission that the writer fulfils his work, according to his own words, with an express purpose in view. The first point is not before us now ; but there is one argument directly bear- ing upon it, which underlies very much of the popular criticism of the Gospel though it is not very often put into a distinct shape, which may be most con- veniently noticed here. It is sometimes plainly said, and more often silently as- sumed, that an Apostle could not have spoken of One with whom he had lived familiarly, as the writer of the fourth Gospel speaks of the Lord. In reply to this argument one sentence only is ne- cessary. In order to have any force the argument takes for granted all that is finally at issue, and implies that it is not true that " the Word became flesh." If, on the other hand, this revelation is true, as we believe, then the fourth Gospel helps us to understand how the over- whelming mystery was gradually made known: how the divine Nature of Christ was revealed little by little to those with whom He had conversed as man. Un- liv INTRODUCTION TO less our faith be false, we may say that we cannot conceive any way in which it could have been historically realised ex- cept that which is traced out in the ex- perience reflected in the writings of St John. The Incarnation is confessedly a great mystery, in every sense of the word, but no fresh difficulty is occasioned by the fact that in due time it was laid open to those among whom the Son of God had moved. Moreover, it may be added, the diffi- culty of admitting that an Apostle came to recognise the true divinity of One with whom he had lived as man with man is not done away by denying the apos- tolic authorship of the Gospel. The most conspicuous critics who refuse to assign the Gospel to St John agree in assigning the Apocalypse to him ; and it is no easier for us to understand how (not to quote xxii. 13) an Apostle could speak of the Master whom he had followed to the Cross as being the Holy and the True, who has the key of David, " who openeth, and no man shutteth ; and shutteth, and no man openeth " (iii. 7), as joined with " Him that sitteth on the throne," in being " worthy to receive blessing, and honour, and glory, and might, for ever and ever" (v. 13), than to understand how he could look back upon His life as the life of the Incarnate Word. The Christology of the Gospel and the Christ- ology of the Apocalypse are alike, we may venture to say, historically inexplica- ble unless we take as the key to their interpretation the assertion of the fact, " the Word became flesh," apprehended under the action of the Spirit, in the consciousness of those who had known Christ " from the Baptism of John to the Resurrection." These considerations however carry us away from our immediate subject; for we are not concerned at present with the apostolic authorship of the Gospel. We have to inquire how far its trustworthiness is affected by the existence of a specific didactic design in the writing. But before discussing this question one other topic must be referred to, only to be set aside, which will be examined in detail after- wards. The arguments against the trust- worthiness of the Gospel drawn from the fact that its contents do not for the most part coincide with the contents of the Synoptic Gospels may be dismissed, or, at least, held in suspense. For this end it will be enough to insist on the obvious fact that a general difference in the con- tents of two narratives relating to a com- plex history, which are both avowedly incomplete, cannot be used to prejudice the accuracy of either. And the most cursory consideration of the fragmentari- ness of the records of Christ's life will make it evident that the mere addition of the facts related by St John to those preserved in the other Gospels cannot create any difficulty. They do not differ in kind from incidents related by the Synoptists; and we have no external means for determining the principles by which the choice of incidents embodied in the Synoptic narratives was deter- mined. There is certainly no reason for supposing that these narratives would have included the incidents peculiar to St John, if they had been familiarly known at the time when the records were drawn up. The Synoptists indicate summarily cycles of events which they do not relate ; and St John refers defi- nitely to "many other signs" with which he was personally acquainted. Thus we are brought back to the pro- per subject of our inquiry. Does the author of the fourth Gospel forfeit his claim to observe accuracy of fact because the facts are selected with a view to a definite purpose ? He professes to write, as we have seen, in the hope of creating in others the faith which he holds him- self (xix. 35, xx. 31). Now that faith is in reality a special interpretation of all history drawn from a special interpreta- tion of One Life. We may therefore modify our question and ask, Does the Evangelist forfeit his claim to be a truthful historian, because he turns his eye steadily to the signs of the central laws of being ? The answer to the ques- tion must be sought finally in the con- ditions of the historian's work. These conditions include in every case choice, compression, combination of materials. And he fulfils his work rightly who chooses, compresses, combines his ma- terials according to a certain vital pro- portion. In other words, the historian, like the poet, cannot but interpret the facts which he records. The truth of history is simply the truth of the inter- THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. pretation of an infinitude of details con- templated together. The simplest state- ment of a result presents a broad gene- ralization of particulars. The generaliza- tion may be true or false ; it may be ruled by an outward or by an inward principle ; but in any case it only repre- sents a total impression of the particulars seen in one way. It does not represent either all the particulars or all the im- pressions which they are capable of pro- ducing. What is called pure "objective" history is a mere phantom. No one could specify, and no one would be will- ing to specify, all the separate details which man's most imperfect observation can distinguish as elements in any one "fact;" and the least reflection shews that there are other elements not less numerous or less important than those open to our observation, which cannot be observed by us, and which yet go towards the fulness of the " fact." The subjectivity of history is consequently a mere question of degree. A writer who looks at the outside of things, and repro- duces the impression which this would convey to average men, is as far from the whole truth as the writer who brings his whole power to bear upon an indi- vidual realisation of it. Thus every record of a " fact " is necessarily limited to the record of representative details concerning it. The truthfulness of the historian as a narrator lies therefore in his power of selecting these details so as to convey to others the true idea of the fact which he has himself formed. In this respect the literal accuracy of any number of details is no guarantee for the accuracy of the impression conveyed by the sum of them regarded as a whole ; and it is no paradox to say that a " true " detail which disturbs the proportion of the picture becomes in the connexion false. What has been said of separate "facts" is obviously true of the sequence of facts. It is impossible not to feel that a true conception of the character of a life or (if such a phrase may be used) of the spirit of a social movement would illu- minate the connexion and meaning of the external details in which they are manifested, and that many details re- garded externally would be liable to the gravest misapprehension if the concep- tion were either false or wanting. And further, it is no less clear that the neces- sity for this inteipretative power becomes more urgent as the subject becomes more complex. There is undoubtedly at present a strong feeling in favour of realistic, ex- ternal, history ; but it may reasonably be questioned whether this fashion of opinion will be permanent, and it is obviously beset by many perils. Realistic history often treats only of the dress and not of the living frame, and it can never go beyond the outward circumstances of an organization which is inspired by one vital power. The photographer is wholly unable to supply the function of the artist; and realism must be subordinated to the interpretation of the life, if history is to take its true place as a science. This is the thought which underlies the Hebrew type of historic record. In the Old Testament the prophet is the his- torian. The facts which he records are significant, if fragmentary, expressions of an inner divine law wrought out among men. His interest is centred in the life which is manifested in action, but not exhausted by it. His aim is to reveal this life to others through the phenomena which the life alone makes truly intelli- gible to him. We are not now concerned to inquire whether the prophetic interpretation of the life of men and nations and human- ity be true or false. All that needs to be insisted upon is that the historian must have some view of the life whereby the events which he chronicles are held together. This view will influence him both in the choice of incidents and in the choice of details. And he will be the best historian who grasps the con- ception of the life most firmly, and who shews the absolute and eternal in the ordinary current of events. For him each event will be a sign. Now whatever debates may arise on other points it cannot be doubted that the writer of the fourth Gospel has a distinct conception of a spiritual law of the life of humanity which found its final realisation in the Incarnation. This con- ception is therefore his clue in the choice and arrangement of facts. He takes just so many events and so much of each as will illustrate the central truth e 2 INTRODUCTION TO which he finds in a particular view of the Person of Christ. If his view of Christ be right, it cannot be seriously questioned that the traits on which he chiefly dwells are intrinsically natural ; and no other view appears to be able to explain the phenomena of the belief attested by the earliest Christian litera- ture, the letters of St Paul and the Apocalypse, and by the existence of the Christian Church. Thus the Gospel of St John adds that express teaching on the relation of Christ to God — of the Son to the Father — which underlies the claims to exclusive and final authority made by Him in the Synoptists. And the definiteness of the Evangelist's aim does not diminish but rather increases his interest in the exact conditions and circumstances under which Christ acted and spoke ; for our historic interest must always vary directly with our sense of the importance of the history. Some of these points will come before us again in greater detail, but so much at least is clear, that the " subjectivity " of the fourth Evangelist affords in itself no presumption against his historical accuracy. Every historian is necessarily subjective. And it must be shewn that the Evangelist's view of the Person of Christ, which is established independently of his Gospel, is false, before any argu- ment against his trustworthiness can be drawn from a representation of Christ's works and words which corresponds with that view. It is then no disparagement of the strict historical character of the fourth Gospel that the writer has fulfilled the design which he set before himself, of recording such " signs " out of the whole number of Christ's works as he con- sidered likely to produce a specific effect. But even if it is admitted that historical exactness is generally reconcileable in theory with the execution of a particular design in the selection and exhibition and combination of facts, and further that this particular design may be the interpretation of the innermost meaning of the life, while it includes only a small fraction of the outward events, yet it will be urged that this method of explanation does not apply to all the phenomena of St John's Gospel : that the discourses of the Lord, in especial as given there, cannot be regarded otherwise than as free compositions of the Evangelist ; that their contents are monotonous and without progress from first to last ; that they are of the same character under diffe- rent circumstances ; that they have no in- dividuality of style ; that, on the contrary, they are almost undistinguishable in form and substance from the first epistle in which the writer speaks in his own person, and from the speeches which he places in the mouth of other characters, as the Baptist. These objections, it will be seen, are quite independent of any sup- posed incompatibility of the accounts of St John and of the Synoptists, and re- quire a separate examination. They arise out of the study of the book itself, and must be considered first. The apparent contrasts between the records of the teaching of the Lord given in the first three Gospels and in the fourth will be noticed afterwards. i. What has been already said as to the conditions which determine the selec- tion of representative details and of re- presentative incidents in a narrative of events applies with necessary limitations to the historical record of teaching. It is obvious that if a record of a debate of several hours length is to be compressed into a few sentences, the value of the record will depend not upon the literal reproduction of the exact words used here and there or in a brief episode of the discussion, but upon the power of the historian to enter into the spirit of the debate and to sketch its outline in right proportion. The thoughts of the speakers are more important than the style of the speakers. And it is quite conceivable that the meaning and effect of a long discourse, when reduced to a brief abstract, may be conveyed most truly by the use of a different style, and even, to a certain extent, of different language from that actually employed. Again : the style of a speaker enters in very various degrees into his teaching, according to his subject and his circum- stances. At one time it is of the essence : at another time, it is wholly subordinate to the general drift of the exposition. The keen, pregnant saying, the vivid illustration must be preserved exactly, or their character is lost. The subtle argument may be best touched suggest- THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ivii ively, so that the sympathetic reader can supply the links which cannot be given in full. A many-sided speaker will thus furnish materials for very different studies. But it would be wholly wrong to con- clude that the sketch which preserves most literally those fragments of his words, which are capable of being so preserved, is more true than the sketch which gives a view of the ultimate prin- ciples of his doctrine. The former may give the manner and even the outward characteristics: the latter may reveal the soul. Now to apply these principles to the discourses contained in the fourth Gos- pel, it is undeniable that the discourses of the Lord which are peculiar to St John's Gospel are, for the most part, very brief summaries of elaborate dis- cussions and expositions in relation to central topics of faith. It is wholly out of the question that they can be literally complete reports of what was said. From the necessities of the case the Evangelist has condensed his narrative. He has not given, and he could not have given, consistently with the nature of this work, all the words which were actually spoken ; and this being so, it follows that he can- not have given the exact words or only the words which were spoken. Compres- sion involves adaptation of phraseology. And when once we realise the inevitable conditions of condensation, we find our- selves constrained to trust (in this case as in others) to the insight and power of him who selects, arranges, emphasizes words which are in his judgment best suited to convey the proportionate im- pression of discourses which he appre- hends in their totality. One or two illustrations will shew how a conversation is compressed in St John's narrative. A simple example is found in xii. 34. The question of the Jews turns upon the title " Son of man," which has not been recorded in the context. But it is easy to see how the previous refer- ences to the sufferings of Christ in connexion with the universality of His mission gave a natural opportunity for the use of it. The Evangelist however has noticed only the fundamental facts. The reader himself supplies what is wanting for the explanation of the abrupt use of names. The idea of "elevation" is the key to the thought, and that word St John has preserved in his record of what had gone before (v. 32) : the title " Son of man " was already familiar, and he passes over the particular phrase in which it occurred. In viii. 34 ff. there is a more complicated and still more instructive example of the compression of an argument. The re- corded words do no more than give the extreme forms : the course which the spoken words must have followed can only be determined by careful thought, though it can be determined certainly. Men are sinners, and if sinners then slaves of sin. What, therefore, is the essential conception of slavery? It is an arbitrary, an unnatural, relation : the opposite of sonship, which expresses a permanent, an absolute connexion an- swering to the very constitution of things. The communication of sonship to the slave is consequently the establishment of his freedom. And in spiritual things He alone can communicate the gift to whom the dispensation of it has been committed. If, therefore, " the Son " — the one absolute Son — give freedom, they who receive it are free indeed. The imagery of a whole parable lies implicitly in the brief sentence. In other cases " answers " of the Lord evidently point to detailed expressions of feeling or opinion with which the Evan- gelist was familiar, and which yet he has not detailed: e.g. xii. 23, 35. At the close of his account of the public minis- try of Christ he gives, without any con- nexion of place or time, a general sum- mary of the Lord's judgment on His hearers (xii. 44 — 50). The passage is apparently a compendious record and not a literal transcription of a single speech. And so elsewhere it is probable that where no historical connexion is given, words spoken at different times, but all converging on the illumination of one truth, may be brought together : e.g. x. (Xo'yos, v. 19). The force of these considerations is increased if, as seems to be surely established, most of the discourses re- corded by St John were spoken in Ara- maic. Whatever may have been the case in some other parts of Palestine, a large and miscellaneous crowd gathered Iviii INTRODUCTION TO at Jerusalem was able to understand what was spoken to them " in the Hebrew tongue" (Acts xxi. 40), and the favour of the multitude was conciliated by the use of it. The divine voice which St Paul heard was articulate to him in He- brew words (Acts xxvi. 14). St Peter evidently spoke in an Aramaic dialect in the court of the high-priest, and the bystanders not only understood him .but noticed his provincialism (Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70). Aramaic, it is said, in the Acts (i. 19), was the proper language of " the dwellers in Jerusalem " (rfj Sia/\.eKT<i> avrwv). And again, the title with which Mary addressed the risen Lord was " Hebrew " ('Pa/3/3ouvei, John xx. 1 6). The phrase which the Lord quoted from the Psalms upon the cross was "Hebrew" (Mark xv. 34). These indications, though they are not absolutely conclusive, are yet convergent, and lea.d to the conclusion that at the Holy City and in intercourse with the inner circle of the disciples Christ used the ver- nacular Aramaic dialect. As claiming to be the fulnller of the Law, He could hardly have done otherwise without of- fering violence to the religious instincts of the nation. If then He spoke in Ara- maic on those occasions with which St John chiefly deals, the record of the Evangelist contains not only a com- pressed summary of what was said, but that also a summary in a translation '. It may be remarked yet further that the providential office of St John was to preserve the most universal aspect of Christ's teaching. His experience fitted him to recall and to present in due pro- portions thoughts which were not under- stood at first. In this way it is probable that his unique style was slowly fash- ioned as he pondered the Lord's words through long years, and delivered them to his disciples at Ephesus. And there is nothing arbitrary in the supposition that the Evangelist's style may have been deeply influenced by the mode in which Christ set forth the mysteries of His own 1 It may be sufficient to add, without entering further into the subject, that the testimony of Josephus 'Antt.' XX. u i is explicit as to the feeling with which Jews regarded Greek as a foreign language, and to the fact that the Jews of Jerusalem habitually spoke Aramaic ('c.Apion.' I. 9, n6vos afrrbt ffvvlijv). Person. Style changes with subject, ac- cording to the capacity of the speaker; and St John's affinity with his Lord, which enabled him to reproduce the higher teaching, may reasonably be sup- posed to have enabled him also to pre- serve, as far as could be done, the characteristic form in which it was con- veyed. However this may have been, such a view of St John's record of the Lord's discourses as has been given derogates in no respect from their complete au- thority and truthfulness. A complete re- production of the words spoken would have been as impossible as a complete reproduction of the details of a compli- cated scene. Even if it had been possible it would not have conveyed to us the right impression. An inspired record of words, like an inspired record of the outward circumstances of a life, must be an inter- pretation. The power of the prophet to enter into the divine thoughts is the measure of the veracity of his account. Thus the question finally is not whether St John has used his own style and lan- guage in summarising the Lord's teach- ing, but whether he was capable of so entering into it as to choose the best possible method of reproducing its sub- stance. It may or may not be the case that the particular words, in this sentence or that, are his own. We are only con- cerned to know whether, under the cir- cumstances, these were the words fitted to gather into a brief space and to con- vey to us the meaning of the Lord. We may admit then that St John has recorded the Lord's discourses with " freedom." But freedom is exactly the reverse of arbitrariness, and the phrase in this con- nexion can only mean that the Evangelist, standing in absolute sympathy with the thoughts, has brought them within the compass of his record in the form which was truest to the idea1. These considerations seem to be amply sufficient to meet the objections which are urged against the general form 1 In this connexion the notes which are given by the Evangelist in ii. 21, vii. 39, xii. 33. are of the greatest importance. If he had not kept strictly to the essence of what Christ said, he might easily have brought out in the saying itself the sense which he discovered in it at a later time. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. lix of the discourses in St John. A more particular examination will shew now far the more special objections which are based upon their alleged monotony are valid. 2. St John, as we have seen, writes with the purpose of revealing to his readers the Person of the Lord, and shews Him to be " the Christ," and " the Son of God." As a natural consequence he chooses for his record those discourses which bear most directly upon his theme, and dwells on that side of those discourses which is most akin to it. It will be seen later that the Synoptists have preserved clear traces of this teaching, but it was not their object to follow it out or to dwell upon it predominantly. With St John it was otherwise. He wished to lead others to recognise Christ as what he had him- self found Him to be. There is there- fore in the teaching which he preserves an inevitable monotony up to a certain point. The fundamental truths of the Gospel as an object of faith are essen- tially simple. They do not, like questions of practice and morals, admit of varied illustration from life. Christ is Himself the sum of all, and St John brings to- gether just those words in which on exceptional occasions (as it appears) He revealed Himself to adversaries and doubters and friends. For there is an indication that the discourses recorded by St John are not (so to speak) average examples of the Lord's popular teaching, but words called out by peculiar circum- stances. Nothing in the fourth Gospel corresponds with the circumstances under which the Sermon on the Mount, or the great group of parables were spoken. On the other hand, the private discus- sions with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria find no parallels in the other Gospels, and yet they evidently answer to conditions which must have arisen. The other discourses, with the exception of those in ch. vi., which offer some pe- culiar features, were all held at Jeru- salem, the centre of the true and false theocratic life. And more than this: they were distinctively festival discourses, ad- dressed to men whose religious feelings and opinions were moved by the circum- stances of their meeting. On such oc- casions we may naturally look for special revelations. The festivals commemorated the crises of Jewish history; and a closer examination of the discourses shews that they had an intimate connexion with the ideas which the festivals represented. As long as the Jewish system remained, this teaching would be for the most part unnoticed or unintelligible. When the old was swept away, then it was pos- sible, as the result of new conditions of religious growth, to apprehend the full significance of what had been said. Yet further : while there is so far a "monotony" in the discourses of St John that the Lord, after the beginning of His public ministry, turns the thoughts of His hearers in each case to Himself, as the one centre of hope, yet the form in which this is done presents a large variety of details corresponding with the external circumstances under which the several discourses were held, and there is also a distinct progress in the revela- tion. The first point will be touched upon in the next section : the second becomes evident at once, if account be taken of the order of the successive ut- terances of the Lord, and of the limits of possible change in the variable element which they contain. It is undoubtedly true that as we read St John's Gospel in the light of the Pro- logue we transfer the full teaching which that contains into all the later parts of the narrative, and that they derive their complete meaning from it. But if the dis- courses are examined strictly by them- selves, it will be seen that they offer in succession fresh aspects of the Lord's Person and work: that the appearances of repetition are superficial: that each discourse, or rather each group of dis- courses, deals completely with a special topic. Thus in ch. v. the Son and the Jews are contrasted in their relation to God, and from this is traced the origin of unbelief. In ch. vi. the Son is shewn to be the Giver and the Support of life. In cc. vii., viii. He is the Teacher and the Deliverer : in cc. ix., x., the Founder of the new Society. The discourses of the eve of the Passion have, as will be seen afterwards, a character of their own. 3. There is, then, a clear advance and historical development in the self- revelation of Christ as presented by St John. There is also an intimate cor- respondence between the several dis- INTRODUCTION TO courses and their external conditions. For the most part the discourses grew (so to speak) out of the circumstances by which they were occasioned. The festival discourses, for example, are co- loured by the peculiar thoughts of the season. The idea of the Passover is conspicuous in ch. vi., that of the Feast of Tabernacles in cc. vii., viii., that of the Dedication in ch. x. The traits of connexion are often subtle and unem- phasized, but they are unmistakable. There is a psychological harmony be- tween the words and the hearers for the time being. Nothing less than a com- plete and careful analysis of the Gospel can bring home the force of this argu- ment, but two illustrations will indicate the kind of details on which it rests. The scene by the well at Sychar illus- trates one type of teaching (iv. 4 — 42) : the discourse after the healing at Beth- esda another (v. 19 — 47). There can be no question as to the individuality of. the discourse with the woman of Samaria. The scene, the style, the form of opinion are all charac- teristic. The well, the mountain (v. 20), the fertile corn-fields (v, 35), form a picture which every traveller recognises. The style of the conversation is equally life-like. The woman, with ready intelli- gence, enters into the enigmatic form of the Lord's sentences. She gives question for question, and, like Nicodemus, uses His imagery to suggest her own difficul- ties. At the same time, her confession keeps within the limits of her traditional faith. For her the Christ is a prophet. And it is easy to see how the fuller tes- timony of her countrymen unparalleled in the Gospels was based upon later teaching (v. 42), which their position en- abled them to receive as the Jews could not have done. The discourse in ch. v. is characteristic in other ways. It is the recorded begin- ning of Christ's prophetic teaching. He unfolds the nature of His work and of His Person in answer to the first accu- sations of the Jews before some authori- tative body (see v. 19, note). It is not a popular discourse, but the outline of a systematic defence. It springs naturally out of the preceding act, and it appears to refer to the circumstances of the Feast It is not so much an argument as a personal revelation. At the same time it offers an analysis of the religious crisis of the time. It discloses the rela- tion in which Jesus stood to the Baptist (33 — 35)> to Moses (46), to revelation generally (37 f.), to Judaism (39 f.). It deals, in other words, with just those topics which belong to the beginnings of the great controversy at Jerusalem l. One other illustration may be given to shew the inner harmony which underlies the progress of the self-revelation of the Lord as recorded by St John. Without reckoning the exceptional personal reve- lations to the woman of Samaria (iv. 26), and to the man born blind (ix. 37), the Lord reveals Himself seven times with the formula "I am," five times in His public ministry, and twice in the last discourses. It must be enough here to enumerate the titles. Their general connexion will be obvious. (1) vi. 35 ff. I am the Bread of life. viii. 12. / am the Light of the world. x. 7. I am the Door of the sheep. x. 1 1. / am the good Shepherd. xi. 25. / am the Resurrection and the Life. (2) xiv. 6. / am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. xv. i ff. I am the true Vine. 4. But it is said that the language attributed to the Baptist and that of the Evangelist himself are undistinguishable from that of the discourses of the Lord. What has been said already shews to what extent this must be true. St John 1 It may be added also that the occasion and. contents of the discourse are in complete agree- ment with the Synoptic narrative. In these no less than in St John the open hostility of the Jews starts from the alleged violation of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 2; Mark ii. 27 f.); and they offer the following correspondences of thought with St John's record : v. 14, Matt. xii. 45 (Luke xvii. 19). w. 19 f., Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22. •v. 20, Matt. iii. 17. •v. 22, Matt, xxviii. 18. v. 23, Luke x. 16 (Matt. x. 40). w. 22, 27, Matt. xvi. 27. •v. 29, Matt. xxv. 32, 46. v. 30, Matt. xxvi. 39. •v. 39, Luke xxiv. 27 (Matt. xxvi. 54). v. 43, Matt. xxiv. 5. v. 44, Matt. xiii. 14 ff., xviii. i ff. v. 46, Luke xvi. 31. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixi deals with one aspect of the truth, and uses the same general forms of speech to present the different elements which con- tribute to its fulness. But beneath this superficial resemblance there are still preserved the characteristic trails of the teaching of each speaker. There is, as has been pointed out, a clear progress in the Lord's revelation of Himself The words of the Baptist, coming at the com- mencement of Christ's work, keep strictly within the limits suggested by the Old Testament. What he says spontaneously of Christ is summed up in the two figures of the "Lamb" and "the Bride- groom," which together give a compre- hensive view of the suffering and joy, the redemptive and the completive work of Messiah under the prophetic imagery. Both figures appear again in the Apoca- lypse ; but it is very significant that they do not occur in the Lord's teaching in the fourth Gospel or in St John's epis- tles. His specific testimony, again, this is the Son of God (i. 34), is no more than the assertion in his own person of that which the Synoptists relate as a divine message accompanying the Bap- tism (Matt. iii. 17, and parallels). And it is worthy of notice, that that which he was before prepared to recognise in Christ (i. 3.3) was the fulness of a pro- phetic office which the other Evangelists record him to have proclaimed as ready to be accomplished (Matt. iii. n)'. Even in style too, it may be added, the language assigned to the Baptist has its peculiarities. The short answers, lam not; No; I am not the Christ (i. 20 f. ), are unlike anything else in St John, no less than the answer in the words of pro- phecy (i. 23). Comp. iii. 29, note. The correspondences of expression between the language attributed to the Lord in the Gospel and the Epistles of St John are more extensive and more important. They are given in the following table : John iii. n. We speak that we do know, and testify that ive have seen. v. 32 ff. There is another that beareth witness of me ; and I know that the. wit- ness which he witnesseth of me is true ... / receive not witness from man . . . v. 24. He that hear -eth my word ... is passed from death unto life. v. 38. ...ye have not his word abiding in you. vi. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinkcth my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Comp. xiv. 17. viii. 29. I do always those things that please him. viii. 44. He (the devil] was a mur- derer from the beginning. viii. 46. Which of you convinceth me of sin ? viii. 47. He that is of God heareih God's words : ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. x. 15. / lay down my life for the sheep. i John i. i — 3. That which was from the beginning . . . which we have seen with our eyes . . . for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness (testify} . . . that which we have seen and heard de- dare we unto you. v. 9 ff. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater : for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son... iii. 14. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. ii. 14. ... the word of God abideth in you. iv. 15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Comp. v. 16 ; iii. 24. iii. 22. ...because we... do those things that are pleasing in his sight. iii. 8. ... the devil sinncth from the beginning. Comp. iii. 12, 15. iii. 5. ...in him is no sin. iv. 6. We are of God: he that know- eth God hear eth us ; he that is not of God heareth not us. iii. 1 6. ...he laid down his life for us. 1 The passage, iii. 31 — 36, is to be attributed to the Evangelist and not to the Baptist. See note. Ixii INTRODUCTION TO John xii. 35. He that walketh in dark- ness knoweth not whither he goeth. xiii. 34. A new commandment I give unto yoit, That ye love one another ; as I liave loved you, that ye also love one another. xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love. xv. 1 8. If the world hate you . . . xvi. 24. Ask and )\e shall receive that your joy may be fulfilled. xvi. 33. I have overcome the world. i John ii. ii. ...he that hateth his bro- ther . . . walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth . . . iii. 23. This is his commandment, That we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. iv. n. Bdoved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. Comp. ii. 7 ff., iii. ii, 16. iv. 1 6. God is love, and he that dwell- eth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. iii. 13. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. i. 4. These things write we unto you, that yaur joy may be fulfilled. Comp. 2 John 12. v. 4 f. This is the victory that over- cometh (^ vt/oycrao-a) the world, even our faith. Compare also the following passages : iv. 22 f. v. 20. vi. 69 (7r€7riOT. K. eyvwK.). iv. 1 6. viii. 35. ii. 17. In addition to these phrases there are single terms, niore or less characteristic, which are common to the Lord's dis- courses and the Epistle : " true " (aXw- 0u/o's), " murderer," " to ask " (epurrav), "to receive witness," "the Son;" and the frequent use of .the final particle (?va) is found in both (xv. 12, xvii. 3; compared with iii. 23). An examination of the parallels can leave little .doubt that the passages in the Gospel are the originals on which the others are moulded. The phrases in the Gospel have a definite historic con- nexion : they belong to circumstances which explain them. The phrases in the Epistle are in part generalisations, and in part interpretations of the earlier lan- guage in view of Christ's completed work and of the experience of the Christian Church. This is true of the whole doc- trinal relation of the two books, as will be seen later on. The Epistle presup- poses the Gospel, and if St John had already through many years communi- cated his account of the Lord's teaching orally to his circle of disciples, it is easy to see how the allusions would be intel- ligible to the readers of the Epistle if it preceded the publication of the Gospel. If the Epistle was written after the Gos- pel was published, the use of the Lord's words in what is practically a com- mentary upon them can cause no diffi- culty. The Prologue to the Gospel offers the real parallel to this Epistle. In this there is the same application of the teaching of the Gospel from the point of view of the advanced Christian society. The exposition of the truth assumes the facts and words which follow in the nar- rative, while it deals with them freely and in the Apostle's own phraseology. This will appear from the following table: v. i. In the beginning was the Word. ...the Word was with God (rjv Contrast xvii. 5. ... the Word was God. i. i. That which was from the begin- ning . . . concerning the word of life . . . i. 2. ... the eternal life, which was with the Father (rjv V. 20. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixiii v. g. The true light... was coming into the world. v. 5. The light shineth in the dark- ness. Comp. xii. 35. v. 12. As many as received him, to them gave he right to become children of God... — ...to them that beliei>e on his name. v. 13. Which were born ...of God (eyevv. £K). v. 14. The Word became flesh. — . . . we beheld his glory. v. 1 8. No man hath seen (f wpa/ct v) God at any time. Comp. yi. 46. ii. 8. The darkness is fast, and the true light now shineth. iii. i. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath given unto us, that we should be called children of God, and such we are (xal coy/.a'). v. 1 3. ... you that believe on the name cf the Son of God. v. i. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (yeyew. IK). iv. 2. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. i. i. That which we beheld. iy. 12. No man hath beheld ( God at any time. Comp. v. 20. These parallels, which are found in eighteen verses only, offer, as it will be felt, a close affinity to the Epistle not in language only, but in formulated thought. And further, the Prologue and the Epistle stand in the same relation of dependence to the discourses. In this respect it is interesting to compare what is said in the Prologue on " the Life," and " the Light," and "the Truth," with the pas- sages in the Lord's words from which the Evangelist draws his teaching. (1) The Life. Comp. v. 2(7, xi. 25, xiv. 6. (2) The Light. Comp. viii. 12, ix. 5, xii. 46. (3) The Truth. Comp. viii. 32, xiv. 6. It will be remembered that the car- dinal phrases " the Word," " born (be- gotten) of God," are not found in the discourses of the Lord !. Elsewhere in the Gospel there are in the narrative natural echoes, so to speak, of words of the Lord (ii. 4 compared with vii. 30, his hour was not yet come) ; and correspondences which belong to the repetition of corresponding circum- stances (iv. 1 2 || viii. 53; iii. 2||ix. 33), or to the stress laid upon some central truth (vii. 28 || ix. 29 f. || xix. 9). Still the conclusion remains unshaken that the discourses of the Lord have a marked 1 The remarks made upon the Prologue gene- rally, including the brief comment on the Bap- tist's testimony (i. 16 — 18), apply also to the two comments of the Evangelist upon the conver- sation with "the teacher of Israel" (iii. 16 — 21), and on the Baptist's last testimony (iii. 31 — 36). See notes. character of their own, that they are the source of St John's own teaching, that they perfectly fit in with the conditions under which they are said to have been deliy.ered. 7. The Last Discourses. But it may be said that the last dis- courses, in which there may have been some compression yet not such as to alter their general form, offer peculiar difficulties : that they are disconnected, indefinite, and full of repetitions: that it is most improbable that thoughts so loosely bound together could have been accurately preserved in the memory for half a century : that we must there- fore suppose that the Evangelist here at least has allowed his own reflections to be mingled freely with his distant recol- lections of what the Lord said. It may be at once admitted that these discourses offer a unique problem. They belong to an occasion to which there could be no parallel, and it may be ex- pected that at such a crisis the Lord would speak much which " the disciples understood not at the time," over which still some of them would untiringly re- flect. Our modes of thought again follow a logical sequence; Hebrew modes of thought follow a moral sequence. With us, who trust to the instruction of books, the power of memory is almost un- trained : a Jewish disciple was disci- plined to retain the spoken words of his master. Thus we have to inquire primarily Ixiv INTRODUCTION TO whether the teaching really suits the occasion? whether there is a discernible coherence and progress in the discourses? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, it will be easy to understand how a sympathetic hearer, trained as a Jew would be trained, should bear them about with him till his experience of the life of the Church illuminated their meaning, when the promised Paraclete "taught him all things and brought all things to his remembrance which Christ had spoken." If the discourses are taken as a whole it will be found that their main cdntentS offer several peculiarities. Three topics are specially conspicuous : the mission of the Paraclete, the departure and the coming of Christ, the Church and the world. And generally a marked stress is laid throughout upon the moral aspects of the Faith. It is scarcely necessary to point out the fitness of such topics for instruction at such a time. If the Lord was what the Apostles announced Him to be it is scarcely conceivable that He should not have prepared them by teaching of this kind before His departure, in order that they might be fitted to stand against the antagonism of the Jewish Church, and to mould the spiritual revolution which they would have to face. The book of the Acts— "the Gospel of the Holy Spirit " — is in part a commentary upon these last words. At the same time it is most important to observe that the ideas are not made definite by exact limitations. The teach- ing gains its full meaning from the later history, but the facts of the later history have not modified it. The promises and warnings remain in their typical forms. At first they could not have been intelli- gible in their full bearing. The fall of Jerusalem at length placed them in their proper light, and then they were re- corded. The moral impress of the last dis- courses is clear throughout. They are a sermon in the chamber to the Apostles, completing the Sermon on the Mount to the multitudes. In this section only Christ speaks of His " commandments " (eiroXai, evToAi;, xiv. 15, 21, xv. 10, xiii. 34, xv. 12 ; comp. xv. 14, 17), and by the use of the word claims for them a divine authority. The commandments are summed up in one, " to love one another." The love of Christian for Christian is at once the pattern and the foundation of the true relation of man to man. And as the doctrine of love springs out of Christ's self-sacrifice (xv. 13, xiii. 34)j so is it peculiar to these discourses iri the Gospel. The time had come when it could be grasped under the influence of the events which were to follow. The successive forms under which the principle of love is inculcated illustrate the kind of progress which is found throughout the chapters (e.g. xiii. 34, xv. 12). The three following passages will indicate what is meant : xv. 15. If ye love me, ye will ) my commandments. xiv. 21. He that hath my command- ments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him, xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love ; even as I hare kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. At a first reading it might be easy to miss the advance from obedience resting on love to progressive knowledge, and then to a divine certainty of life. When the relation of the three connected texts is seen, it is difficult not to feel that what appears to be repetition is a vital move- ment. A similar progress is noticeable in the four chief passages which describe the work of the Paraclete : xiv. 1 6, 17. / will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever ; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive. . . xiv. 26. The Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said unto you. xv. 26. When the Paraclete is come whom I will send unto you from the Father THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixv even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me. xvi. 7 if. If I go not away, the Paraclete will not come to you ; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And he, when he is come, will convict the world. . . ...when he is come, even the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth... Step by step the relation of the Para- clete to Christ is made clear : (i) / will ask, another Paraclete; (2) the Father will send in my name; (3) I will send; (4) if I go I will send him. And again His work is defined more and more exactly: (i) be with you for ever; (2) teach all things... that I said unto you; (3) bear witness of me; (4) convict the world, guide into all the truth. Such subtle correspondences are equally far from design and accident : they belong to the fulness of life. The teaching on the relation of the Church to the world, which is peculiar to this section, moves forward no less plainly. In xiv. 17, 22 ff., it is shewn that the world is destitute of that sym- pathy with the divine Spirit which is the necessary condition of the reception of revelation. Afterwards the hatred of the world is foretold as natural (xv. 18 ff.); and then this hatred is followed out to its consequences (xvi. i ff.). Yet, on the other hand, it is promised that the Spirit shall convict the world ; and at last Christ declares that He Himself has already conquered the world (xvi. 33). The same general law of progress ap- plies to the notices of Christ's departure and return in cc. xiv., xvi. In the first passage the central thought is "I come;" attention is concentrated on what Christ will do (xiv. 3, 1 8, 23). In the second the thought is rather of the relation of the disciples to Him (xvi. 16, 22). These examples indicate at least the existence of a real coherence and de- velopment of thought in the discourses. It is unquestionably difficult to follow out the development of thought in detail. In the notes an endeavour has been made to do this. Here it must be suffi- cient to give a brief outline of the general course which the addresses take. These form two groups, the discourses in the chamber (xiii. 31 — xiv.) and on the way (xv., xvi.). The predominant thoughts in the first are those of separation from Christ as He had been hitherto known, and of sorrow in separation : in the second, of realised union with Christ in some new fashion, and of victory after conflict. I. THE DISCOURSES IN THE CHAMBER (xiii. 31 — xiv.). i. Separation, its necessity and issue (xiii. 31—38). (a) Victory, departure, the new Society (3J— 35)- (/3) The discipline of separation (St Peter) (36-38). 2. Christ and the Father (xiv. i — 1 1 ). (a) The goal and purpose of departure (i—4). (ft) The way to the divine (St Tho- mas) (5—7). (y) The knowledge of the Father (St Philip) (8— n). 3. Christ and the disciples (xiv. 1 2 — 2 1 ). (a) The disciples continue Christ's work (12 — 14). (/3) He still works for them (15 — 17). (y) He comes to them Himself (18— 21). 4. The law and the progress of revelation (22—31). (a) The conditions of revelation (St Jude) (22 — 24). (ft) The mode of revelation (25 — 27). (y) Christ's work perfected by His return (28 — 31). The teaching springs from the facts of the actual position, and then deals with successive difficulties which it occasions. II. THE DISCOURSES ON THE WAY (xv., xvi.). i. The living union (xv. i — 10). (a) The fact of union (i, 2). (/3) The conditions of union (3 — 6). (y) The blessings of union (7 — 10). Ixvi INTRODUCTION TO 2. The issues of union : the disciple and Christ (n— 1 6). (a) Christ's joy comes from sacrifice (I2> I3)- (ft) The disciple's connexion with Christ is by love (14, 15). (y) It is stable as resting on His choice (v. 1 6). 3. The issues of union : the disciples and the world (17 — 27). (a) Love of Christ calls out hatred of the world (17 — 21). (ft) With this inexcusable hatred the disciples must contend (22 — 27). 4. The world and the Paraclete (xvi. i — n). (a) The last issues of hatred (i — 4). (ft) The necessity of separation (4 — 7). (y) The conviction of the world (8 — Ii). 5. The Paraclete and the disciples (12—15). (a) He completes Christ's work ( 1 2, 13), (ft) and glorifies Christ (14, 15). 6. Sorrow turned to joy (16 — 24). (a) A new relation (16, 17). (ft) Sorrow the condition of joy (19 — 22). (y) Joy fulfilled (23, 24). 7 . Victory at last (2 5— 3 3 ). (a) A summary (25 — 28). (ft) A confession of faith (29, 30). (y) Warning and assurance (31 — 33). The form of the discourse is changed. The Lord reveals uninterruptedly the new truths, till the close, when the dis- ciples again speak no longer separately, but, as it were, with a general voice. The awe of the midnight walk has fallen upon them. It is not of course affirmed that this view of the development of the discourses is exhaustive or final ; but at least it is sufficient to shew that they are bound together naturally, and that the depend- ence of the parts is such as could be easily apprehended and retained by those who listened. There is novelty under apparent sameness: there is variety under apparent repetition : there is a spiritual connexion underneath the apparently fragmentary sentences. This is all that it is necessary to shew. As far as we can venture to judge the words befit the occasion : they form a whole harmonious in its separate parts : they are not coloured by later experiences : they might easily have been preserved by the disciple who was in closest sympathy with the Lord. III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. i. Relation to the Old Testament. St John recognises in his narrative the divine preparation for the advent of Christ which was made among the na- tions. Such a discipline is involved in the view which he gives of the general action of the Word before His Incarna- tion (i. 5), and particularly in his affirma- tion of His universal working (i. 9). Nor was this discipline wholly without imme- diate effect. At the time of the advent Christ had other sheep, which were not of the Jewish fold (x. 16). There were children of God scattered abroad (xi. 52): some who had yielded themselves to the guidance of the divine light which had been given to them, and who were eager to welcome its fuller manifestation (iii. 20 ff.) : citizens of a kingdom of truth waiting for their king (xviii. 37). But while these broader aspects of the divine counsel find a place in the fourth Gospel, St John brings out with especial force that the discipline of Israel was the true preparation for the Messiah, though Judaism had been perverted into a system antagonistic to Christianity, and Christ had been rejected by His own people. If he affirms more distinctly than the other apostolic writers, from the circumstances of his position, that the Jews had proved to be ignorant of the contents and scope of the revelation which had been committed to them (v. 37 ff.), and of the nature of the LORD whom they professed to worship with jealous reverence (xvi. 3, vii. 28, viii. 19, 54 f., xv. 21); if he affirms that their proud confidence in the literal interpre- tation of the facts of their providential history was mistaken and delusive (v. 37 ; contrast Gen. xxxii. 30; Exocl. xx. i8ff., xxiv. 10 ; Deut. iv. 12, 36, v. 4, 22: — vi. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixvii 32, cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 24) ; he affirms no less distinctly that the old Scriptures did point to Christ, and that the history was instinct with a divine purpose. This appears by (a) his general recognition of the peculiar privileges of the Jews ; (b] his interpretation of types ; (c) his application of prophecies; and particu- larly by his treatment of the Messianic expectations of the people. (a) The words of the Prologue, He came to His own home (TO. iSta), and His own people (ot 18101) received Him not (i. n, note), place beyond question the position which the Evangelist assigned to his countrymen in the divine order. They were in a peculiar sense the sub- jects of the Christ. In this sense Christ claimed their allegiance, and sovereign authority in the centre of their religious life. His greeting to Nathanael was: Behold an Israelite indeed (i. 47): His command in the temple at His first visit : Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise (ii. 16). In answer to the questionings of the Samaritan woman, who placed the tradition of her fathers side by side with that of the Jews, He asserted the exceptional knowledge and the unique office of His people : we worship that which we know (iv.. 22), and salvation — the promised salvation (-./ o-toTT/pia) — is from (<V) the Jews (iv. 22), two phrases which mark at once the progressive unfolding of the divine truth (Heb. i. i), and the office of the old dis- pensation to furnish the medium out of which the new should spring. In the beginning of His conflict with official Judaism, Christ assigns to the Scriptures their proper function towards Himself (v. 39, 46 f). From this point "the Jews " take up a position of antagonism, and their privileges perish in their hands (comp. pp. Ixxxv., Ixxxvi.). (b} It is a significant fact that three and three only of the old saints, Abra- ham, Moses, and Isaiah, are mentioned by the Lord or by the Evangelist in con- nexion with Messiah. These three cover and represent the three successive periods of the training of the people : so subtle and so complete are the harmonies which underlie the surface of the text. Christ claimed for Himself testimonies from the patriarchal, the theocratic, and the monarchical stages of the life of Israel. viii. 56. Your father Abraham re- joiced to see — in the effort to see (fva tSr;) — my day : and he saw it, and was glad. The point of the reference lies in the view which it gives of the first typical example of faith as reaching forward to a distant fulfilment. It was not stationary, but progressive. In that onward strain lies the secret of the Old Testament. The second reference to the patri- archal history in the Gospel of St John is the complement of this effort after the remote. Abraham looked onwards to that which was not yet revealed : Jacob rested in his present covenant with God. This aspect of faith also is recognised by the Lord. i. 51. Verily, verily,! say unto you, ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. The desire of Abraham was fulfilled in the universal sovereignty of Christ : the vision of Jacob was fulfilled in the abiding presence of Christ. A greater than Abraham brought freedom for all through the Truth : a greater than Jacob opened a well whose waters sprang up within the believer unto eternal life. The references to Moses are not less pregnant It is shewn that just as Christ was the object to whom the patriarch looked in the future and in the present, so He was the object in regard of whom all the discipline of the law was shaped. Jesus said to the leaders of the Jews: Had ye believed (Did ye believe) Moses, ye would have believed (would believe) me, for he wrote of me (v. 46). This thought is brought out by refer- ences both to details of the Law and also to the circumstances which accompa- nied the promulgation of the Law. Twice the Lord defended Himself from the charge of violating the Sabbath. On each occasion He laid open a prin- ciple which was involved in this institu- tion. v. 17. My Father worketh even until now, and I work. The cessation from common earthly work was not an end, but a condition for something higher : it was not a rest from work, but for work (see note ad loc.). vii. 22. For this cause — by which I have been moved in my healing — hath Moses given you circumcision (not that it Ixviii INTRODUCTION TO is of Moses , but of the fathers), and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man, The Sabbath, therefore, was subordi- nate to the restoration of the fulness of the divine covenant. It was made to give way to acts by which men were "made whole." The one reference to the idea of the Passover is equally significant. These things, the Evangelist writes in his record of the crucifixion, were done that the Scrip- ture should be fulfill&d, A bone of him shall not be broken (xix. 36, note). The words come like an after-thought. They are left without definite application, and yet in that single phrase, by which the Lord is identified as the true Paschal Lamb, the meaning of the old sacrifices is made clear. " The Lamb of God " is revealed as the one offering to whom all offerings pointed. The two interpretations of facts in the history of the Exodus which St John has given are even more remarkable than these lights thrown upon the Mosaic dis- cipline and the Mosaic ritual. Thp first is the interpretation of the brazen ser- pent : the second the interpretation of the manna. Jesus said to Nicodemus : As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted rip (iii. 14). The Jews said : Our fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness ; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say untp you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven ; but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven ...I am the bread of life . . . (vi. 31 ff.). Thus the most significant deliver- ance from the effects of sin. and the most striking gift of divine Providence recorded in the Pentateuch, are both placed in direct connexion with Christ. In each case that which was temporal is treated as a figure of that which is eter- nal. Great depths of thought are opened. The life-long wanderings of the Jews are shewn to be an image of all life '. (c) St John's dealing with the later teaching of the prophets, the interpreters of the kingdom, is of the same character. He does not deal so much with external details as with the inner life of prophecy. 1 Compare also the notes on vii. 37, viii. 12, and above, p. vii. He presents Christ as being at once the Temple (ii. 19), and the King (xi{. 13). He makes it clear that the new dispensa- tion towards which the prophets worked was one essentially of spiritual blessing. The sense of complete devotion to God, of the union of man with God in Christ, of the gift of the Spirit through Him, were the thoughts in which he found the stamp of their inspiration. Thus it is that he has preserved the words in which the Lord gives us the prophetic descrip- tion of the Messianic times : They shall all be taught of God (vi. 45) ; and those again in which He gathers up the whole doctrine of Scripture on this head : If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (vii. 37 f., note) ; and those in which He shewed that the conception of the union of God and man was not foreign to the Old Testament, when it was said even of un- just judges, Ye are gods, because the Word of God, in which was a divine energy, came to them (x. 34 f., note). On the other hand St John has re- corded how the Lord recognised the hostile unbelief of the Jews in the spirit of their fathers, who hated the Lord's Anointed without a cause (xv. 25), and pointed out how the treachery of Judas had its counterpart in that of Ahitophel, of whom it was written, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me (xiii. 18). There is the same mysterious depth, the same recognition of a spiritual under- current in common life, in the references which the Evangelist himself makes to the later books of Scripture. Once at the begin- ning of the Gospel he tells how the dis- ciples were enabled to see fulfilled in the Lord the words of the suffering prophet, The zeal of thine house shall consume me (ii. 17) ; and at the close of the account of the public ministry he points out how the unbelief of the Jews, the most tragic of all mysteries, had been foreshadowed of old. These things, he writes, said Isaiah, because — because, not when (on not ore, see note) — he saw Christ's glory, and spake of Him in the most terrible description of the unbelief and blindness of Israel (xii. 37 ff.1). 1 The following table of the prophecies quoted THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixix It seems to be impossible to study such passages without feeling that the writer of the fourth Gospel is penetrated throughout — more penetrated perhaps than any other writer of the New Testa- ment— with the spirit of the Old. The interpretations which he gives and re- cords, naturally and without explanation or enforcement, witness to a method of dealing with the old Scriptures which is of wide application. He brings them all into connexion with Christ He guides his readers to their abiding mean- ing, which cannot be broken; he warns the student against trusting to the letter, while he assures him that no fragment of the teaching of the Word of God is without its use. And in doing this he shews also how the scope of revelation grows with the growth of men. Without the basis of the Old Testament, without the fullest acceptance of the unchanging divinity of the Old Testament, the Gospel of St John is an insoluble riddle. 2. The unfolding of the Messianic idea. The history of the Gospel of St John is, as has been seen, the history of the development of faith and unbelief, of faith and unbelief in Christ's Person. It is therefore under another aspect the his- tory of the gradual unfolding of the true Messianic idea in conflict with popular expectations. On the one side are the hopes and the preoccupations of the in the Gospel will suggest further illustra- tions : Prophecies, (1) Design marked (tva ir\ijp. Comp. xviii. 9). (a) By the Evangelist. xii. 38. [xii. 40, Sri flirev 'H<7.] xix. 24. - 36. [xix. 37, frtpa yp. X^et.] 03) By Christ. xiii. 1 8. xv. 25. [xvii. 12.] (2) Coincidence marked (xaffus Iffri ytyp.) (a) By the Evangelist. ii. 17. xii. 14 f. (/3) By Christ, vi. 45. (Comp. vii. 38.) x. 34. Compare also above, pp. xiii. f. New Test.— VOL. II. Jews : on the other side are the progres- sive revelations of the Lord. And there is nothing which more convincingly marks the narrative as a transcript from life than the clearness with which this strug- gle is displayed. A summary outline of the Gospel from this point of view will probably place the facts in a distinct light. The opening scene reveals the con- trasted elements of expectation as they had been called into activity by the preaching of the Baptist (i. 19 fT.). The Baptist's words and testimonies (i. 29, 33> 36) were fitted to check the popular zeal, and at the same time to quicken the faith of those who were ready to re- ceive and to follow that greater One who should come after according to the divine promise (i. 29 f., 36). So it came to pass that some of his disciples found in Jesus, to whom he mysteriously pointed, the fulfilment of the old promises and of their present aspirations (i. 35 — 42). Others at once attached themselves to the new Teacher (Rabbi, i. 38) ; and He was acknowledged as Messiah (i. 41) ; the Son of God, and King of Israel (i. 49). The "sign " which followed confirmed the personal faith of these first followers (ii. n); but so far there was nothing to shew how the titles which had been at least silently accepted were to be real- ised. The cleansing of the temple was in this respect decisive. Messiah offered Himself in His Father's house to His own people, and they failed to under- stand, or rather they misunderstood, the signs which He gave them. As a conse- quence, He did not commit himself unto them, because He knew all men; and... what was in man (ii. 23 ff.). The origin of this misunderstanding is shewn in the imperfect confession of Nicodemus (iii. 2 ff.), and in the complaint of the disci- ples of the Baptist (iii. 26). On the other hand, the testimony of Christ and the testimony of the Baptist set the real issue before men, as the Evangelist shews in his comments on the words. The Messiah of those whom the Evangelist characterizes as "the Jews" had no place in the work of Jesus ; and His work as Messiah had no place in their hearts. Such was the situation at Jerusalem. It was otherwise in Samaria. There Jesus Ixx INTRODUCTION TO could openly announce Himself to be the Christ, inasmuch as the claim was rightly though imperfectly understood (iv. 25 f.); and the confession of the Samaritans who had sought His fuller teaching shewed how far they were from resting in any exclusive or temporal hopes (iv. 42, the Saviour of the world> according to the true reading). The next visit to Jerusalem (ch. v.) gave occasion for a fundamental exposi- tion of the nature and work of the Lord, and of the manifold witness to Him, side by side with an analysis of the causes of Jewish unbelief. The later history is the practical working out of the principles embodied in this dis- course. The first decisive division between the followers of Christ was in Galilee. There .superficial faith was more prevalent and more eager. The " multitude " wished to precipitate the issue according to their own ideas (vi. 14 f.). In answer to this attempt Christ turned the minds of those who came to Him by most startling imagery from things outward, and fore- shadowed His own violent death as the condition of that personal union of the believer with Himself, to bring about which was the end of His work. So He drove many from Him (vi. 60), while He called out a completer confession of faith from the twelve (vi. 69). Words which had been used before (ch. i.), have now a wholly different meaning. To believe in Christ now was to accept with utter faith the necessity of complete self-sur- render to Him who had finally rejected the homage of force. The issue at Jerusalem was brought about more slowly. The interval be- tween ch. v. and ch. vii. was evidently filled with many questionings (vii. 3 f., 1 1 f. ) ; and when Jesus appeared atjerusa- lem He created divisions among the mul- titude (vii. 30 f., 43). Some thought that He must be the Christ from His works (vii. 31), and from His teaching (vii. 26, 37 ff., 46 ff). They even questioned whether possibly their leaders had reached the same conclusion (vii. 26, tyvwo-av). But they did not see that He satisfied the prophetic tests which they applied to Messiah (vii. 27, 42, 52). In the midst of this uncertainty the rulers openly declared themselves (vii. 32, 48); and under their influence the mass of the people fell away when Christ set aside their peculiar claims and pur- poses (viii. 33, 58 f.). He still however continued to lay open more truths as to Himself, and revealed Himself to the outcast of the synagogue as " the Son of man " (ix. 35, note). Divisions spread further (ix. 16, x. 19); and at last the request was plainly put : If thou art the Christ, tell ^ls plainly (x. 24). Again, the result of the answer was a more bitter hostility (x. 39), and wider faith (x. 42). The end came with the raising of Lazarus. This was preceded by the confession of Martha (xi. 27), and fol- lowed by the counsel of Caiaphas (xi. 47 ff.). There was no longer any reason why Christ should shrink from receiving the homage of His followers. He ac- cepted openly the title of King when He entered the Holy City to die there (xii. 13 ff.) ; and the public ministry closed with the questioning of the people as to " the Son of man," who seemed to have usurped the place of Him who should reign for ever (xii. 34). Such a history of the embodiment of an idea, an office, carries with it its own verification. The conflict and complexity of opinion, the growth of character, the decisive touches of personal and social traits, which it reflects, stamp it not only as a transcript from life, but also as an interpretation of life by one who had felt what he records. The whole history moves along with a continuous progress. Scene follows scene without repetition and without anticipation. The revelation of doctrine is intimately connected with a natural sequence of events, and is not given in an abstract form. Thoughts are revealed, met, defined from point to point. We not only see individualised characters, but we see the characters change under intelligible influences as the narrative goes forward. And this is all done in the narrowest limits and in a writing of transparent simplicity. Art can shew no parallel. No one, it may be confidently affirmed, who had not lived through the vicissitudes of feeling, which are indicated often in the lightest manner, could have realised by imagina- tion transient and complicated modes of thought which had no existence in the second century. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxi It did not fall within the scope of the Synoptists to trace out the unfolding of the Messianic idea in the same way ; but the teaching upon the subject which they record is perfectly harmonious with that of St John. The Synoptists and St John agree in describing (a) the universal expectation at the time of the Advent (Matt. iii. 5, and parallels ; John i. 41, 19, 20, iii. 26, iv. 25); (/?) the signs by which the Christ should be heralded (Matt. xvi. i ; John vi. 30 f.); the preparation by Elijah (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10 ; John i. 21), and (none the less) the suddenness of His appearance (Matt. xxiv. 26 f. ; John vii. 27) ; (y) the readiness of some to welcome Him even as He came (Luke ii. 25 ff., Symeon; 36, Anna; John i. 45, Philip ; 49, Nathanael). They agree likewise in recording that the Lord pointed to His death under figures from an early time (Matt ix. 15, and parallels ; John iii. 14) ; and that open hostility to Him began in conse- quence of His claims to deal authorita- tively with the traditional law of the Sab- bath (Matt. xii. 13 ff. ; John v. 16); and of His assumption of divine attributes (Mark ii. 6; John v. 18). There is, however, one difference in this far-reaching agreement. All the Evangelists alike recognise the pro- phetic, royal, and redemptive aspects of Christ's work; but St John passes over the special reference to the Daviclic type, summed up in each of the two Synoptists by the title " Son of David " (yet see vii. 42; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16)'. The explanation is obvious. The national aspect of Messiah's work passed away when "the Jews" rejected Him. It had no longer in itself any permanent signi- ficance. The Kingdom of Truth (xviii. 37) was the eternal antitype of Israel. The Gospel was a message for the world. The fall of Jerusalem proclaimed the fact ; and that catastrophe which inter- preted the earlier experience of the Apostle made the recurrence of like experience impossible. Thus the fall of Jerusalem determined the work of St John with regard to the conception of the Lord's office. The 1 The title occurs twice only in the Epistles, but in important passages: Rom. i. 3; i Tim. ii. 8. apprehension of the absolute office of Messiah corresponds with the apprehen- sion of Christianity as essentially universal. These truths St John established from Christ's own teaching ; and so by his record the title of "the Son of God" gained its full interpretation (xx. 31; i John iv. 15, v. 13, 20). St John shews in a word how Christ and the Gospel of Christ satisfied the hopes and destinies of Israel, though both were fatally at variance with the domi- nant Judaism. And in doing this he fulfilled a part which answered to his characteristic position. The Judaism in which the Lord lived and the early Apo- stles worked, and the Judaism which was consolidated after the fall of Jeru- salem, represented two distinct principles, though the latter was, in some sense, the natural issue of the former. The one was the last stage in the providential prepa- ration for Christianity : the other was the most formidable rival to Christianity. 3. The Characters. The gradual self-revelation of Christ which is recorded in St John's Gospel carries with it of necessity the revelation of the characters of the men among whom He moved. This Gospel is there- fore far richer in distinct personal types of unbelief and faith than the others. Attention has been called already (pp. viii. ff.) to the characteristic traits by which the classes of people who appear in the history are distinguished — " the multitude," " the Jews," " the Pharisees," "the high-priests." In them the broad outlines of the nature of unbelief are drawn. In the events of the Passion three chief actors offer in individual types the blindness, and the weakness, and the selfishness, which are the springs of hostility to Christ. Blindness — the blindness which will not see — is con- summated in the high-priest: weakness in the irresolute governor: selfishness in the traitor apostle. The Jew, the heathen, the disciple become apostate, form a representative group of enemies of the Lord. These men form a fertile study. All that St John records of Caiaphas is con- tained in a single sentence ; and yet in that one short speech the whole soul of /a Ixxii INTRODUCTION TO the man is laid open. The Council in timid irresolution expressed their fear lest " the Romans might come and take away both their place and nation if Christ were let alone." They had petrified their dispensation into a place and a nation, and they were alarmed when their idol was endangered. But Caiaphas saw his occasion in their terror. For him Jesus was a victim by whom they could appease the suspicion of their conquerors: Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (xi. 49 f.). The victim was innocent, but the life of one could not be weighed against the safety of a society. Nay rather it was, as his words imply, a happy chance that they could seem to vindicate their loyalty while they gratified their hatred. To this the divine hierarchy had come at last. Abraham offered his sou to God in obedience to the Father whom he trusted : Caiaphas gave the Christ to Caesar in obedience to the policy which had substituted the seen for the unseen. Caiaphas had lost the power of seeing the Truth : Pilate had lost the power of holding it. There is a sharp contrast between the clear, resolute purpose of the priest, and the doubtful, wavering answers of the governor. The judge shews his contempt for the accusers, but the accusers are stronger than he. It is in vain that he tries one expedient after another to satisfy the unjust passion of his suitors. He examines the charge of evil-doing and pronounces it groundless ; but he lacks courage to pronounce an unpopular acquittal. He seeks to move compassion by exhibiting Jesus scourged and mocked and yet guiltless ; and the chief priests defeat him by the cry, Cru- cify, Crucify (xix. 6). He hears His claim to be a " King not of this world " and " the Son of God," and is " the more afraid ;" but his hesitation is removed by an argument of which he feels the present power : If thou let this man go, thou art not Ccesar's friend (xix. 12). The fear of disgrace prevailed over the conviction of justice, over the impression of awe, over the pride of the Roman. The Jews completed their apostacy when they cried : We have no king but Cczsar (xix. 15); and Pilate, unconvinced, baffled, overborne, delivered to them their true King to be crucified, firm only in this, that he would not change the title which he had written in scorn, and yet as an unconscious prophet. Caiaphas misinterpreted the divine covenant which he represented : Pilate was faithless to the spirit of the authority with which he was lawfully invested : Judas perverted the very teaching of Christ Himself. If once we regard Judas as one who looked to Christ for selfish ends, even his thoughts become intelli- gible. He was bound to his Master not for what He was, but for what he thought that he would obtain through Him. Others, like the sons of Zebedee, spoke out of the fulness of their hearts, and their mistaken ambition was purified ; but Judas would not expose his fancies to reproof : St Peter was called Satan — an adversary — but Judas was a devil, a perverter of that which is holy and true. He set up self as his standard, and by an easy delusion he came to forget that there could be any other. Even at the last he seems to have fancied that he could force the manifestation of Christ's power by placing Him in the hands of His enemies (vi. 70, xviii. 6, notes). He obeys the command to "do quickly what he did," as if he were ministering to his Master's service. He stands by in the garden when the soldiers went back and fell to the ground, waiting, as it were, for the revelation of Messiah in His Majesty. Then came the end. He knew the sovereignty of Christ, and he saw Him go to death. St John says nothing of what followed ; but there can be no situation more overwhelmingly tragic than that in which he shews the traitor for the last time standing (cumyKei) with those who came to take Jesus. The types of faith in the fourth Gospel are no less distinct and representative. It is indeed to St John that we owe almost all that we know of the individual character of the disciples. St Peter, it is true, stands out with the same bold features in all the Evangelists. St Matthew and St Mark have preserved one striking anecdote of the sons of Zebedee. St Luke gives some traits of those who were near the Lord in His Infancy, of Zacchseus, of Martha and Mary. But we learn only from St John to trace THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxiii the workings of faith in Nathanael, and Nicodemus, and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, and "the disciple whom Jesus loved ;" in the woman of Samaria, and in Mary Magdalene. As in the case of Caiaphas, Pilate and Judas, a few words and acts lay open the souls of all these in the light of Christ's presence. Of St John it is not necessary to speak again. His whole nature, his mode of thought, his style of speech, pass by a continuous reflection into the nature, the thought, the style, of the Master for whom he waited. In the others there is a personality more marked because more limited. To regard them only from one point of view, in Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria we can trace the beginnings of faith struggling through the prejudice of learning and the preju- dice of ignorance. In St Philip and St Thomas we can see the growth of faith overcoming the hindrances of hesi- tation and despondency. In St Peter and St Mary Magdalene we can see the activity of faith chastened and elevated. The contrast between Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria, the two to whom Christ, according to the narrative of St John, first unfolds the mysteries of His kingdom, cannot fail to be noticed. A rabbi stands side by side with a woman who was not even qualified in popular opinion to be a scholar : a Jew with a Samaritan : a dignified member of the Council with a fickle, impulsive, villager. The circumstances of the discourses are not less different. The one is held in Jerusalem, the other almost under the shadow of the schismatical temple in Gerizim : the one in the house by night, the other in the daylight by the well- side. Christ is sought in the one case ; in the other He asks first that so He may give afterwards. The discourses themselves open out distinct views of the kingdom. To Nicodemus Christ speaks of a new birth, of spiritual in- fluence witnessed by spiritual life, of the elevation of the Son of man in whom earth and heaven were united : to the Samaritan He speaks of the water of life which should satisfy a thirst assumed to be real, of a worship in spirit and truth, of Himself as the Christ who should teach all things. But with all this difference there was one thing common to the Jewish ruler and to the Samaritan woman. In both there was the true germ of faith. It was quickened in theonebythe miracles which Jesus did (iii. 2); in the other by His presence. But both were drawn to Him and rested in Him. Both expressed their difficulties, half seizing, half missing His figurative language. Both found that which they needed to bring them into a living union with God. The pretensions of superior knowledge and discernment were cast down. The suspicions of rude jealousy were dispelled. The revelation of a suffering Redeemer scattered the proud fancies of the master of Israel : the revelation of a heavenly Father raised the conscience-stricken woman to new hope. Even after the Crucifixion Nicodemus, "who came by night at first," openly testified his love for Christ; and the Samaritan at once, forgetful of all else, hastened to bring her countrymen to Him whom she had found. Here we see the beginning of faith : in St Philip and in St Thomas we see something of the growth of faith. It is an old tradition (Clem. Alex. 'Strom.' in. 4, § 25) that St Philip was the disciple who asked the Lord that he might first go and bury his father, and received the stern reply, "Follow thou me, and let the dead bury their dead." Whether this be true or not, it falls in with what St John tells us of him. He appears to hang back, to calculate, to rest on others. " Jesus," we read, " find- eth Philip " (i. 43). He had not himself come to Jesus, though the words imply that he was ready to welcome, or even waiting for, the call which was first spoken to him. So again, when the Lord saw the multitude in the wilderness, it was to Philip He addressed the question, to "prove him," "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat ? " (vi. 5 ff.). And even then he could only estimate the extent of the want. He had no sug- gestion as to how it must be met. But if his was a slow and cautious and hesi- tating faith, it was diffusive. He had no sooner been strengthened by the words of Christ than he in turn found Nathanael. "We have found," he saith, "Him of whom Moses in the Law and the pro- phets wrote" (i. 45). He appealed, as we must believe, to the witness of their Ixxiv INTRODUCTION TO common search in the Scriptures in times gone by, and his only answer to his friend's doubt — the truest answer to doubt at all times — was simply " Come and see." Yet his own eyes were holden too in part. Even at the last he could say, " Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us " (xiv. 8). But he said this in such a spirit that he received the answer which for him and for us gives faith an object on which it can rest for ever: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9 f.). Philip believed without confidence. Thomas believed without hope. The whole character of Thomas is written in the first sentence which we hear him speak : " Let us also go, that we may die with him" (xi. 16). He could love Christ even to the last, though he saw nothing but suffering in following Him. He knew not whither He went; how could he know the way? (xiv. 5). But even so, he could keep close to Him : one step was enough, though that was towards the dark. No voice of others could move him to believe that which of all he wished most. The ten might tell him that the Lord was risen, but he could not lightly accept a joy beyond all that for which he had looked. " Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe" (xx. 24 ff.). But when the very test which he had laid down was offered, the thought of proof was lost in the presence of Christ. He saw at once what had not yet been seen. The most complete devotion found the most fervent expression in those last words of faith, "My Lord, and my God " (xx. 27 f.). In this way disciples were led on little by little to know the Master in whom they trusted. Often they failed through want of enthusiasm or want of insight. Some there were also who failed by excess of zeal. Mary Magdalene, when the blindness of sorrow was removed, would have clung to the Lord whom she had again found, lest again He should be taken from her. She would have kept Him as she had known Him. She would have set aside the lesson that it was good that He should go away. Then came those words which at once satisfied and exalted her affection, " Go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God" (xx. 15 ff.). She, the tender, loving woman, is made the messenger of this new Gospel: she is first charged to declare the truth in which her own passionate desire was trans- figured : she who would have chained down heaven to earth is commissioned to proclaim that earth is raised to heaven. Something of the same kind may be noticed in the history of St Peter. Un- like Philip he is confident, because he knows the strength of his love : unlike Thomas he is hopeful, because he knows whom he loves. But his confidence sug- gests the mode of his action : his hope fashions the form of its fulfilment. Peter saith unto Jesus, " Thou shall never wash my feet," and then with a swift reaction, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head " (xiii. 6 ff.). If he hears of a necessary separation, he asks, " Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake" (xiii. 36 ff.). He draws his sword in the garden (xviii. 10 f.). : he presses into the courtyard of the high-priest (xviii. 1 6 ff.). He dares all and doubts nothing. But when the trial came he was vanquished by a woman. He had chosen his own part, and the bitterness of utter defeat placed him for ever at the feet of the Saviour whom he had denied. He knew, though it was with grief, the meaning of the last triple charge : he knew, though it was through falls, the meaning of the answer to his last question : If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? Follow thou me (xxi. 22). There is one other character common to all four Evangelists which cannot be altogether passed by. St John's notices of the Baptist have little externally in common with the Synoptic narratives, but they reveal a character which answers to the stern figure of the preacher of repentance. His last testimony to Christ (iii. 27 — 30) completely corresponds with the position of one who is looking for- ward to a future dimly seen. The herald must fulfil his herald's work to the end. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxv His glory is to accept the necessity of decline (iii. 30). It is needless to add any comments to this rapid enumeration of the charac- ters who people the brief narrative of St John. The vividness, the vigour, the life, of their portraitures cannot be mistaken or gainsaid. The different persons shew themselves. They come forward and then pass out of sight as living men, and not like characters in a legendary history. They have an office not only separately but in combination. They witness, in other words, not only to the exactness but also to the spiritual completeness of the record. This fulness of characteristic life in the fourth Gospel is practically decisive as to its apostolic authorship. Those who are familiar with the Christian litera- ture of the second century will know how inconceivable it is that any Christian teacher could have imagined or pre- sented as the author of the fourth Gospel has done the generation in which the Lord moved. The hopes, the passions, the rivalries, the opinions, by which His contemporaries were swayed had passed away, or become embodied in new shapes. A great dramatist could scarcely have called them back in such narrow limits as the record allows. Direct know- ledge illuminated by experience and insight, which are the human conditions of the historian's inspiration, offers the only adequate explanation of the dra- matic power of the Gospel. 4. Symbolism. It will be evident from the illustrations which have been already given that there is a subtle and yet unmistakable har- mony within the different parts of St John's Gospel ; that each narrative which it contains is to be considered not only in itself, but also in relation to the others with which it is connected : that fact is interpreted by thought and thought by fact : that the historical unity of the book is completed by a moral and spirit- ual unity. Under one aspect the lessons of the Old Testament are illuminated by Christ's presence. Under another aspect the characters which move about the Lord offer typical representations of faith and unbelief in their trials and issues. And in all this there is not the least violence done to the outward history, but there is simply a practical recogni- tion of the necessary fulness which there was in the Life, in the Words, and in the Works of the Son of man. St John himself is careful to explain that all which he saw when he wrote his Gospel was not clear to the disciples at once. The words of the Lord to St Peter had a wider application than to any one detail : What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt come to know (yvwo-y) here- after (xiii. 7). The Resurrection was the first great help to this advance in know- ledge (ii. 22, xii. 1 6); and the meaning of the Resurrection itself was extended when Christ raised a new Temple in place of the old after the fall of Jerusa- lem, and His Church was finally estab- lished (ii. 19, note). There can then be no cause for sur- prise if St John, looking back over the whole range of his experience, selects just those parts of Christ's ministry for his record which fit together with the most complete mutual correspondences. Such a selection would not be so much the result of a conscious design as of a spiritual intuition. His Gospel was in the truest sense of the word a "pro- phecy," a revelation of the eternal under the forms of time. In this respect the miracles of the Lord which he has related form an instructive illustration of his method. Taken together they are a revelation of Christ, of "His glory." A very brief examination of them will be sufficient to establish by this one example that prin- ciple of a spiritual meaning in the plan and details of the Gospel which I have called the symbolism of St John. The two characteristic names which miracles bear in St John's Gospel mark distinctly the place which he assigns to them in relation to the general course of the divine government. They are signs (ii. ii, note) and they are works (v. 20, note). They are " signs " so far as they lead men to look beneath the surface for some deeper revelations of the method and will of God, to watch for the action- of that spiritual ministry — "the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man " — which belongs to the new dis- pensation. They are " works " so far as Ixxvi they take their place among the ordinary phenomena of life (v. 17), differing from them not because they involve any more real manifestation of divine energy but simply because they are suited to arrest attention. They are "signs" in short, for they make men feel the mysteries which underlie the visible order. They are "works," for they make them feel that this spiritual value is the attribute of all life. St John has recorded in detail seven miracles of Christ's ministry and one of the risen Christ. Their general con- nexion with the structure of his Gospel (see p. xlii.) will appear from the follow- ing table : 1 . The water turned to wine, ii. i — 1 1 . The nobleman's son healed, iv. 46 — 54- 2 . The paralytic at Bethesda, v. i — 15. The feeding of the five thousand, vi. 1—15. The walking on the sea, vi. 16 — 21. The restoration of the man born blind, ix. i — 12. The raising of Lazarus, xi. 17 — 44. 3. The miraculous draught of fishes, xxi. i — 12. Of these the first two give the funda- mental character of the Gospel, its nature and its condition : the next five are signs of the manifold working of Christ, as the restoration, the support, the guidance, the light and the life of men : the last is the figure of all Christian labour to the end of time. The first two miracles, which the Evangelist significantly connects together as wrought at Cana, seem at first sight to have nothing in common. They are given without any comment except the record of their effects (ii. n, iv. 53). But these two brief notes give the clue to the interpretation of the signs. They shew from the beginning that Christian- ity is the ennobling of all life, and that its blessings are appropriated only by faith. The change of the water into wine has always been rightly felt to be a true symbol of Christ's whole work. The point of the second miracle at Cana lies in the discipline of faith. The request to Christ (iv. 47) was itself a confession of faith, yet that faith was not accepted as it was. It was necessary at once to raise faith to the unseen. Whatever outward signs may be granted they do but point to something beyond. At the commencement of His ministry Christ declared in act what He repeated after- wards at its close : Blessed are they that see not, and yet believe. The four chief miracles which are con- nected with Christ's conflict form the basis on each occasion of discourses in which their lessons are enforced. Here there can be no doubt of the symbolism : it is declared unmistakably that the works are " signs," charged with a divine pur- pose. In the case of the paralytic suffer- ing is definitely connected with sin (v. 14). Christ removes the malady spon- taneously and on a Sabbath. Such action is revealed to be after the pattern of God's action : My Father worketh even until now, and I work (v. 17). God seeks without ceasing to repair by tenderness and chastisement the ravages which sin has made in His creation, and to lead it onward to its consummation. In the feeding of the five thousand the teaching is carried a step further. Man needs not restoration only but support. He has wants as well as defects : he has to struggle against material difficulties. Christ reveals Himself as sufficient to supply every craving of man, and as sovereign over the forces of nature : / am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall never hunger ; and he that be- lieveth on me shall never thirst... (vi. 35). What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was before ? It is the spirit that quickeneth (vi. 62 f.). So the works are invested with a permanent prophetic power. Man needs support and he needs en- lightenment also; for we must go forward, and in one sense we are " blind from our birth." This is the next lesson of the miracles which St John records. Before the blind regained his sight at Siloam Christ said : When (OTO.V) I am in the world, I am the light of the world (ix. 5). Sight was given to the obedient disciple. The Pharisees refused to read the sign which conflicted with their pre- judices. And He then added : For judg- ment I came into this world, that they which see not may see; and that they which see may be made blind (ix. 39). THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxvii But even if failings be remedied, if wants be satisfied, if light be given, there yet remains one more terrible enemy : death, physical death, comes at last. Here also Christ gave a sign of His power. In the very agony of apparent loss He said : He that believeth in me, even though he die, shall live ; and whoso- ever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (xi. 25 f.). And so far as any single fact offered to the senses can confirm the truth, the raising of Lazarus shewed that there is a Life sovereign over physical life, a Life victorious over death. The sequence of these " signs," these living parables of Christ's action, these embodiments of truth in deed, can hardly be mistaken. Nor is the meaning of the one miracle of the risen Lord less obvious. The narrative is the figure of the history of the Church. The long night passes in what seems to be vain effort. Christ stands in the dawn upon the shore, and at first His disciples know Him not. Even so in due time He is revealed in blessing ; and men are charged afresh to use the new gifts which He has enabled them to gather. It would be easy to follow out these correspondences and connexions of the different parts of St John's Gospel in other directions and in fuller detail ; but enough has been said to direct attention to the subject. If the principle be ac- knowledged the application will follow. IV. RELATION OF THE GOSPEL TO THE OTHER APOSTOLIC WRITINGS. i. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptists. It is impossible for any one to turn directly from the first three Gospels to the Fourth without feeling that he has been brought in the later record to a new aspect of the Person and Work of Christ, to a new phase of Christian thought, to a new era in the history of the Christian Church. In this there is a halo of divine glory always about the • Saviour even in scenes of outward humiliation: the truths of the Gospel are presented in their relations to the broadest speculations of men : the society of believers, of "the brethren" (xx. 17, xxi. 23), stands out with a clear supremacy above the world. As we compare the pictures more carefully, and in this view they are two and not four, we find that the general difference between the Gospels which is thus obvious reaches throughout their whole com- position. The Synoptists and St John differ in the general impression which they convey as to the duration, the scene, the form, the substance of the Lord's teaching. They differ also in regard to the circumstances under which they were composed. The latter differ- ence furnishes the final explanation of the former. And here it may be well to make one remark on the total effect which these differences produce upon the student of the New Testament. At first they are not realised in their true weight and value. The conception of the Lord which is brought to the study of any Gospel includes elements which are derived from all. Contrasts are already reconciled. So it was with the early Church. No teacher found the Fourth Gospel at variance with the other three, though they recognised its com- plementary character. Then follows in many cases an exaggerated estimate of the importance of the differences which are apprehended upon a careful com- parison of the books. Fresh results impress us more in proportion as they are unexpected, and at variance with our preconceived opinions. Still later perhaps that comprehensive conception of the subject of the Gospel is re- gained by labour and thought, from which, as a tradition, the study began; and it is felt that a true and intelligible unity underlies external differences, which are now viewed in their proper position with regard to the records and to the subject. Before considering the differences or the correspondences of the Synoptists and St John, it is necessary to apprehend distinctly the fragmentary character of the documents which we have to com- pare. The narrative of St John, and the narratives of the Synoptists, are alike partial, and alike recognise a large area of facts with which they do not deal. i. Limited range of St Johris Gospel. The Gospel of St John forms, as we have seen, a complete whole in relation to "its purpose;" but as an external history Ixxviii INTRODUCTION TO it is obviously most incomplete. It is a Gospel and not a Biography, an ac- count of facts and words which have a permanent and decisive bearing upon the salvation of the world, and not a representation of a life simply from a human point of sight. The othei Gos- pels, as based upon the popular teaching of the Apostles, include more details of directly human interest, but these also are Gospels and not Biographies. All the Gospels are alike in this : they con- tain in different shapes what was neces- sary to convey the message of redemp- tion to the first age and to all ages in the unchangeable record of facts. Their completeness is moral and spiritual and not historical. The striking Jewish legend as to the Manna was fulfilled in Christ. He was to each true believer, from the absolute completeness of His Person, that which each desired ; and the Evangelists have preserved for the society typical records of apostolic expe- rience. The fragmentariness of St John's record is shewn conclusively by his notice of periods of teaching of unde- fined length of which he relates no more than their occurrence : iii. 22. Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judcea ; and there he tarried (Su'rpi/3ei/) with them and baptized . . . (iv. i — 3) making and baptizing more disciples than John. Comp. iv. 54. vii. i. After these things Jesus walked (TreptcTraTct) in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judcea, because the Jews sought to kill him. x. 40 — 42. And he went away again beyond Jordan, into the place inhere John was at first baptizing ; and there he abode (the reading is uncertain, e/mvev or Ifwev) . . . and many believed on him there. xi. 54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near to the wilder- ness, into a city called Ephraim ; and there he abode (l/xetvev) with the disciples. The last passage seems to describe a period of retirement, but the others imply action and continuous labour in Judaea, Galilee and Peraea, of which St John has preserved no details. He pass- ed these over (such is the obvious expla- nation) because they did not contribute materials necessary for the fulfilment of his special purpose. And so again the two days teaching in Samaria, at which he was present, is represented only by the confession which it called out (iv. 42). The same conclusion follows from the frequent general notices of " signs " and "works" which find no special recital: ii. 23. Many believed on his name beholding his signs which he did (liroiu). Comp. iv. 45, The Galilceans received him, having seen all the things that he did (ocra e7ro«7<rei') in Jerusalem at the feast; and iii. 2, No man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him. vi. 2. And a great multitude followed him, because they beheld the signs which he did (en-out) on them that were sick. vii. 3. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest. vii. 31. But of the miiltilude many believed on him ; and they said, When the Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man hath done (eVotifcrei/) f x. 32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me ? xi. 47. The chief priests . . . said, What do we ? for this man doeth many signs. xii. 37. Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him. xx. 30. Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book . . . xxi. 25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not con- tain the books that should be written. A consideration of what the Lord's Life was, as it has been made known to us, shews that this last summary state- ment is only a natural expression of the sense of that which we must feel to be its infinite fulness. And the other pas- sages open glimpses of a variety and . energy of action of which St John's narrative itself gives no completer view. Of " all that the Lord did " at Jerusalem, which moved the faith alike of "the teacher of Israel," and of "the Galilaeans," THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxix he has noticed only the cleansing of the temple. Of the healings of the sick in Galilee, he has recorded only one. He tells us nothingof "the disciples in Judaea" (vii. 3), who might desire to see works such as Christ wrought in other places. Of the "many good works" shewn at Jerusalem (x. 32), two only are given at length. A fair appreciation of these facts will leave no doubt that St John omitted far more events than he related out of those which he knew. The Gospel of the Church, which it was his office to write, might be expected to take shape in special festival discourses at the centre of the Old Faith. He deals with aspects of Christ's Life and teach- ing which were not clear at first, but became clear afterwards. And in doing this he leaves ample room for other accounts widely differing in character from his own. One other point deserves notice in this connexion. The abrupt breaks in St John's narrative shew that he was guided by something different from a purely historic aim in his work. The simple phrase after these things (iii. 22, v. i, vi. i) is used to mark a decided interval in time and place ; and if the interpreta- tion of x. 22 which has been adopted be correct, the transition in ix. i is not less sharp1. 2. Limited range of the Synoptists. The Synoptic Gospels, no less than St John, imply much more than they record. The commencement of the Galilasan ministry in their narratives not only leaves room for, but points to, earlier work. Matt. iv. 12. Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew rja-fv) into Galilee. Mark i. 14. Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God. The words have no force unless it be supposed that the Evangelists referred to an earlier ministry in Judasa which is deliberately passed over (comp. John ii., iii.). Nor is there anything in Luke iv. 14 f. opposed to this view. The summary which is there given may in- 1 It may be added that St John nowhere notices scribes (viii. 3 is an interpolation), tax- gatherers ("publicans"), lepers, or demoniacs. elude any period of time, and specifies a wide area of place (comp. v. 23). Again, the Sermon on the Mount in- volves some previous teaching in Judaea in which the character of the Scribes and Pharisees had been revealed. It is most unlikely that their " righteousness " would have been denounced (Matt v. 20) unless the Lord had met them in the seat of their power and proved them. Still more instructive is the great epi- sode in St Luke (Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 14, see note), which shews how much material there was at hand of which no use was made in the oral Gospel of the Apostles. At the same time it is of interest to observe that this peculiar section has in one incident (x. 38 ff.) a point of connexion with St John, and the notices of the Samaritans which it contains (x. 33, xvii. 16, [ix. 52]) offer in some respects a parallel to the fourth chapter of his Gospel. 3. The differences of the Synoptists and St John. Taking account of these cha- racteristics of the Gospels we can form a juster estimate of their differences. The Synoptists and St John differ at first sight (as has been already said) as to the time, the scene, the form, and the sub- stance of the Lord's teaching. If we had the Synoptic Gospels alone it might be supposed that the Lord's ministry was completed in a single year: that it was confined to Galilee till the visit to Jerusalem at the Passover by which it was terminated : that it was directed in the main to the simple peasantry, and found expression in parables, and proverbs, and clear, short discourses, which reach the heart of a multitude : that it was a lofty and yet practical exposition of the Law, by One who spake as man to men. But if we look at St John all is changed. In that we see that the public ministry of Christ opened as well as closed with a Paschal journey: that between these journeys there intervened another Pass- over and several visits to Jerusalem: that He frequently used modes of speech which were dark and mysterious, not from the imagery in which they were wrapped, but from the thoughts to which they were applied : that at the outset He claimed in the Holy City the highest prerogatives of Messiah, and at later Ixxx INTRODUCTION TO times constantly provoked the anger of His opponents by the assumption of what they felt to be divine authority. And beyond all these differences of arrangement and manner, the first three Gospels and the Fourth have very few facts in common. They meet only once (at the Feeding of the five thousand), before the last scenes of the Passion and Resurrection. And in this common section they are distinguished by signal differences. To mention only two of the most conspicuous : the Synoptists do not notice the raising of Lazarus, which marks a crisis in the narrative of St John; and on the other hand, St John does not mention the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, which is given in detail by each of the Synoptists (see notes on cc. xi., xiii.). A student of the Gospels can have no wish to underrate the significance of phenomena like these, which must pow- erfully affect his view of the full meaning both of the documents and of their subject. But he will interrogate them, and not at once assume that they have only to witness to discrepancies. From such questioning one result is gained at once. It is seen (to omit the question of time for the present) that differences of form and substance correspond to differences of persons and place. On the one side there is the discourse at Nazareth, the Sermon on the Mount, the groups of parables, words first spoken to the Galilsean multitudes with the authority of the Great Teacher, and then continued afterwards when they came up to the Feast full of strange expectations, which were stimulated by the Triumphal Entry. On the other side there are the personal communings with individual souls, with "the Master of Israel" and the woman of Samaria, unveilings of the thoughts of faithless cavillers, who had been trained in the subtleties of the Law, and rested on the glories of their worship: glimpses of a spiritual order opened at last to loving disciples, in which they were prepared to find, even through sorrow, the accomplishment of their early hopes. On the one side there is the Gospel of " the common people who heard gladly:" on the other side the Gospel of such as felt the deeper necessities and difficulties of faith. The lessons which appealed to broad sym- pathies are supplemented by those which deal with varieties of personal trial and growth. The cycle of missionary teach- ing is completed by the cycle of internal teaching: the first experience of the whole band of Apostles by the mature experience of their latest survivor. These general remarks are supported bynumerous minute details which indicate that the Synoptists do in fact recognise an early Judaean ministry and teaching similar to that of St John, and that St John recognises important work in Gali- lee and teaching similar to that of the Synoptists. (a) The scene of the Lord's teaching. The general description of the Lord's following as including multitudes "from Judcea and Jerusalem" (Matt. iv. 25 ; comp. Mark iii. 7 f.) cannot be pressed as proving that He had Himself worked there. Similar language is used in con- nexion with the Baptist (Matt. iii. 5). But the reading of St Luke iv. 44, he was preaching in the synagogues ofjudaa (for Galilee), which is supported by very strong MSS. authority (tfBCLQR Memph.\ taken in connexion with Luke v. 17, may fairly be urged in favour of such a view. Indeed the feeling of the people of Jerusalem on the Lord's last visit is scarcely intelligible unless they had grown familiar with Him on former visits. So again the well-known words of the lamentation over Jerusalem, How often would I have gathered thy children... and thou wouldest Jiot (Matt. xxiii. 37 ff.), scarcely admit any other sense than that Christ had personally on many occasions sought to attach the inhabitants to Himself, as now when the issue was practically decided. The visit to Martha and Mary (Luke x. 38 ff.) suggests previous acquaintance with them, and so probably previous residences in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (John xi. i ff.). The circumstances connected with the preparation for the last visit (Matt. xxi. 2 f., xxvi. 17 ff., and paral- lels), point to the same conclusion. Compare Acts x. 37, 39. On the other hand St John when he notices a brief sojourn of the Lord and His first dis- ciples at Capernaum (ii. 12), seems to imply a longer abode there at another time; and in a later passage he records THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxxi words which shew that Galilee was the ordinary scene of Christ's ministry (vii. 3). It might indeed have been plausibly argued from these words that when they were spoken He had not wrought any conspicuous works in Judaea. (/3) The manner of the Lord's teach- ing. It has been already shewn that the form of the Lord's teaching could not but depend upon the occasion on which it was delivered; and there is no scene in St John which answers to those under which the Sermon on the Mount, or the chief groups of parables were delivered ; and conversely there are no scenes in the Synoptists like those with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria. The dis- courses at Jerusalem recorded by the Synoptists were spoken after Christ had openly accepted the position of Messiah by His triumphal entry: those recorded by St John belong to earlier times, when He was gradually leading His hearers to grasp the truth of faith in Him. As the circumstances become more like in character there is a growing resemblance in style. In John x., xii., we have the implicit parables of the Sheepfold, the Good Shepherd, the Grain of Corn. In Matt. xi. 25 fF.; Luke x. 21 ff., there is a thanksgiving spoken in regard to the disciples' work which in character is not unlike the last discourses. (y) The duration of the Lord's teaching. The data for determining the length of the Lord's ministry are singularly few. The time of its commencement is approxi- mately fixed by the different elements given by St Luke (iii. i), as marking the Call of the Baptist. But there is nothing in the Gospels to connect its close with any particular year of Pilate's procuratorship. Pilate was recalled in A.D. 36, and Herod was banished in A.D. 39. They may therefore have met at Jerusalem in any year during Pilate's term of office. Caiaphas retained his office till the end of Pilate's procurator- ship. The date of the death of Annas is not known, but he lived to old age. So far there is a wide margin of uncer- tainty; and this can only be removed by the assumption that the Gospels sup- ply a complete chronology of the Min- istry, for the earliest tradition is both late and conflicting. Here however we are left to probability. The Synoptists appear to include the events of their narrative in a single year; but it is very difficult to bring the development of faith and unbelief to which they witness, the missions of the Twelve and of the Seventy, and the different circuits of the Lord, within so brief a space1. St John, on the other hand, notices three Pass- overs, but he gives no clear intimation that he notices every Passover which occurred in the course of the Lord's work. In such a case the fragmentari- ness of the records is a conclusive answer to the supposed discrepancy. 4. The coincidences of the Synoptists and St John. So far we have dwelt upon the differences between the Synoptists and St John. Their correspondences are less obvious and impressive, but they are scarcely less important. The common incidents with which they deal are the following : 1. The Baptism of John (St John adds the mention of the Levites, i. 19: the questions, i. 20 ff. : the place, Bethany, i. 28: the abiding of the Spirit on Christ, i. 32 f. : the after testimony to Christ, i. 26 ff.). 2. The feeding of the five thousand (St John notices the time, the Passover was near, vi. 4 : the persons, Philip and Andrew, vi. 5, 8 : the command to col- lect the fragments, v. 12: the issue of the miracle and the retirement of Jesus, v. 14 f.). 3. The Walking on the Sea (St John mentions the distance, vi. 19: the feel- ing of the disciples, v. 21 : the result, ib.). 4. The Anointing at Bethany. (St John mentions the time, xii. i, six days before the Passover: the persons, Mary, v. 3 (comp. Matt xxvi. 7; Mark xiv. 3), and Judas, w. 4, 6: the full details of the action, v. 3). 5. The Triumphal Entry (St John mentions the time, on the next day, xii. 1 2 : the reference to Lazarus, v. 1 8 : the judgment of the Pharisees, v. 19). 6. The Last Supper (St John records the feet-washing, xiii. 2 ff. : the question of St John, v. 23 : the ignorance of the Apostles, v. 28 : the discourses in the chamber and on the way*). 1 The reading and interpretation of Luke vi. i (SevrepoTrpuTt?) is too uncertain to be pressed. Yet see note on Mark ii. 23. 1 On the apparent difference between the Ixxxii INTRODUCTION TO 7: xviii. 8. 9- 10. The Betrayal. See notes on c. The Trial Ib. The Crucifixion. Ib. The Burial (St John notices the action of Nicodemus, xix. 39 : the garden, v. 41). ii. The Resurrection. See note on C. XX. Not to enter in detail upon an exami- nation of the parallels, it may be said that in each case St John adds details which appear to mark his actual experi- ence ; and also that the facts in all their completeness form a natural part of both narratives. They do not appear either in the Synoptists or in St John as if they were borrowed from an alien source. The passages in which St John im- plies an acquaintance with incidents recorded by the Synoptists are more numerous. i. 19 ff. The general effect of John's preaching (Matt. iii. 5, &c.). — 32 ff. The circumstances of the Lord's Baptism (Matt. iii. 16 f.). — 40. Simon Peter is well known. — 46. Nazareth the early home of Christ (Matt. ii. 23, &c.). ii. 12. Capernaum the later residence of Christ. The family of Christ. Comp. vi. 42, vii. 3, xix. 25 f. — 19. The false accusation; Matt. xxvi. 6 1. iii. 24. The date of John's imprison- ment (Matt. iv. 12; comp. John iv. 43). vi. 3. Retirement to "the mountain." — 62. The Ascension. — 67. "The twelve." Comp. w. 13, 70, xx. 24 (not in cc. i. — iv.). xi. i, 2. Mary and Martha are well known, xviii. 33. The title " the King of the Jews." Synoptists and St John as to the day of the Last Supper, see note on Matt. xxvi. This question is of importance in regard to the Synoptists and not in regard to St John. The narrative of St John is perfectly definite and consistent : it bears every mark of exact accuracy, and is in harmony with what seems to be the natural course of the events. xviii. 40. Barabbas suddenly introduced. xix. 25. The ministering women (Matt. xxvii. 55, &c.). There are also several coincidences in the use of imagery between St John and the Synoptists, and not a few sayings of which the substance is common to them. Common imagery. iii. 29. The Bride and the Bride- groom. Matt. ix. 15, and parallels. iv. 35 ff. The harvest. Matt. ix. 37 f. xiii. 4 ff. Serving. Matt. x. 24; Luke xii. 37, xxii. 27. xv. i ff. The vine. Matt. xxi. 33. — 2. The unfruitful tree. Matt. vii. 19. Common sayings. iv. 44. Comp. Matt. xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4 ; Luke iv. 24 (used in different connexions). vi. 42. Comp. //. cc. — 69. Comp. Matt. xvi. 16, and parallels (corresponding confessions). xii. 25. Comp. Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25 ; Luke xvii. 33 (used in dif- ferent connexions). xiii. 1 6. Comp. Luke vi. 40; Matt. x. 24 (used in different con- nexions). (xiii.) 20. Comp. Matt. x. 40, (xxv. 40); Luke x. 1 6 (used in differ- ent connexions). xvi. 2 f. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 10 f. In other parallels there are not a few verbal coincidences : i. 23. I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord. — 26 f. / baptize in water... He that cometh after me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to unloose. — 32. ... descending as a dove. . . — 43. Follow me. Matt. viii. 22, &c. iii. 5. to enter into tfie kingdom of God. v. 8. Arise, take up thy bed and walk. Mark ii. 9. vi. 20. // is I : be not afraid. viii. 5 2. taste of death. Mark ix. i. , THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxxiii xii. 5. to be sold for three hundred pence a fid given to the poor. Mark xiv. 5. — 13. Hosanna, blessed 'is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. xiii. 21. One of you shall betray me. — 38. The cock shall not crow till thou shalt deny me thrice. xix. 3. Hail, King of the Jews. xx. 19. He saith unto them, Peace be unto you. The connexion between St John and St Luke is of especial interest. From the relation of St Luke to St Paul it is natural to expect that the peculiarities of his Gospel would furnish indications of transition to the form of the Gospel which St John has preserved. Instances of this relation have been already given in the notices of Samaritans, and of Martha and Mary (p. Ixxix.). The fol- lowing coincidences in thought or Ian- Coincidences more or less striking are guitge may ue auueu ; found in the following passages. i. 19 ff. Luke iii. 15 f. i. 1 8. Matt. xi. 27. vi. 42. — iv. 22. — 33. — iii. ii. x. 27 ff. — xii. 32. «J*J iii. 1 8. Mark xvi. 16. xiii. i, xiv. 30. — ix. 51 (aVaX^'- iv. 44. — vi. 4. i/cea>s) : xxii. c ^. rf •• — 4 ff. — • xxn. 27. v. 22. Matt. vii. 22 f. vi. 7, 10. Mark vi. 37 — 39. 17. — xi. 28. — 35. Matt v. 6. — — 22. — xxii. 23. — -37. — xi. 28. 27- — — 3- — to. — xviii. 14. 37- — — 33- \J S f — 46. — xi. 27. xiv. 30. — iv. 13 (axpt — 70. Luke vi. 13. Katpov). vii. 45 f. Matt. vii. 28. ix. 1 6. — xii. 2. XVI. 7. — Xxiv. 49 (eyo> c£a7rooT«AA(o). *** S /* •• — XV111. 36 f. XV11. 20 f. x. 15. — xi. 27. If — 38. — xxiii. 4. xi. 25. — x. 39. xii. 8. — xxvi. ii. xx. 3, 6. — xxiv. 12 (the — 13. Mark xi. 9. — 44. Luke ix. 48. reading is doubtful). T f\ ff *» /^ ff xiii. i. Mark xiv. 41. 19 tt. 36 ft — 3. Matt. xi. 27. Such correspondences prove nothing — 16. — x. 24. as to the direct literary connexion of — 20. — x. 40. the two Gospels, nor do the few signifi- — 21. Mark xiv. 18 — 21. cant words which are common to St xiv. 18. Matt, xxviii. 20. Luke and St John (e.g. TO ttfyos of Jews, — 28. Mark xiii. 32. /xovoyen;?), but they do shew the cur- xv. 8. Matt. v. 1 6. . rency of a form of the apostolic Gospel — 14. — xii. 49 f. with characteristic features approxi- — 20. — x. 25. mating to characteristic features in St 21. X. 22. John. xvi. if. — x. i7ff. ; xiii. 21. 5. The relation of the Synoptists to xvii. 2. — xxviii. 18. St John in regard of the Lord's Person. xviii. ii. — xxvi. 42, 52. But it may be said that even if the — IS. considerations which have been urged 1 8, 22. Mark xiv. 64 f. establish the possibility of reconciling — 20. Matt. xxvi. 55. the apparent differences of the Synoptists — 39. Mark xv. 6. and St John as to the place, the manner xix. i — 3, 17. — — 16, 19, 22. and the duration of the Lord's Teaching : 6. Luke xxiii. 21. if they shew that there is theoretically [— 19. — — 38, an in- room for the events and the discourses terpolation in St of both narratives: if they supply in Luke.] both cases indications of a wider field xx. 14. Mark xvi. 9. and a more varied method than is 23. Matt. xvi. 19. habitually recorded in the two histories Ixxxiv INTRODUCTION TO respectively; yet the fundamental dif- ference between the first three Gospels and the Fourth as to the general view of the Lord's Person practically excludes such a reconciliation. This difficulty unquestionably under- lies the other difficulties and gives force to them. It is not possible to do more here than to point out the main argu- ments by which it can fairly be met. The Person of the Lord is as truly the centre of the teaching of the Synop- tists as of the teaching of St John. It is not His doctrine but Himself which is to redeem the woild (Matt. xx. 28). The narratives of the Nativity, though they did not form part of the apostolic oral Gospel, are completely harmonious with it. There is no contrast (for ex- ample) in passing from the history of the Nativity to that of the Baptism. The claims of the Lord which are recorded by the Synoptists, if followed to their legitimate consequences, involve the claims recorded by St John. Matt. vii. 22. — ix. 2 ff. x. i. — — 39. — xi. 27. — x. 41. in my name. Thy sins be forgiven thee. (Gives power to work signs.) he that loseth his life for my sake... All things are delivered unto me... The Son of man will send forth his angels. Comp. xvi. 27, xxv. — xviii. 20. Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I ...(as said of Sheki- nah). — xx. 28. his life a ransom for many. — xxi. 37 ff. They will reverence my son. — xxii. 45. If David call him Lord. — xxv. 31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory. Comp. xxvi. 64. — xxvi. 28. My blood of the cove- nant. — xxviii. 20. I am with you alway. Luke xxi. 15. / will give you a mouth and wisdom. — xxiv. 49. / send the promise of my Father upon you. A careful estimate of these passages will make it clear that the Synoptists recognise in the Lord the power of judgment, of redemption, and of fellow- ship, which are the main topics of the teaching in St John. In one respect only St John adds a new truth to the doctrine of the Lord's Person which has no direct anticipation in the Synoptists. These do not anywhere declare His pre- existence. (Yet compare Luke xi. 49 with Matt, xxiii. 34 and John x. 35.) The general conclusion however stands firm. The Synoptists offer not only his- torical but also spiritual points of con- nexion between the teaching which they record and the teaching in the Fourth Gospel ; and St John himself in the Apocalypse completes the passage from the one to the other. 2. The Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. The Apocalypse is doctrinally the uniting link between the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel. It offers the charac- teristic thoughts of the Fourth Gospel in that form of development which belongs to the earliest apostolic age. It belongs to different historical circum- stances, to a different phase of intel- lectual progress, to a different theological stage, from that of St John's Gospel; and yet it is not only harmonious with it in teaching, but in the order of thought it is the necessary germ out of which the Gospel proceeded by a process of life. i. Affinities of the Apocalypse with the Gospel. The points of connexion between the Apocalypse and the Gos- pel of St John are far more numerous than are suggested by a first general comparison of the two books. The main idea of both is the same. Both present a view of a supreme conflict between the powers of good and evil In the Gospel this is drawn mainly in moral conceptions; in the Apocalypse mainly in images and visions. In the Gospel the opposing forces are regarded under abstract and absolute forms, as light and darkness, love and hatred; in THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxxv the Apocalypse under concrete and definite forms, God, Christ, and the Church warring with the devil, the false prophet and the beast. But in both books alike Christ is the central figure. His victory is the end to which history and vision lead as their consummation (see xvi. 33, note). His Person and Work are the ground of triumph, and of triumph through apparent failure (Rev. i. 5, vi. 16, vii. 14, xii. n). It follows that in both books the appearance of Christ is shewn to issue in a judgment, a separation, of elements partially confused before. The "hatred" of evil gains a new intensity (Rev. ii. 6 ; 2 John 10). The Apocalypse gives, so to speak, in an ideal history the analysis of the course of unbelief which is laid open in John viii. On man's part the conflict with evil is necessarily a conflict in action. The Apocalypse and the Gospel therefore lay stress on obedience and works. To " keep the commandments " is now the fulfilment of Christian duties (John xiv. 23, note; i John ii. 3 f. ; v. 2 f. ; 2 John 6; Rev. xii. 17, xiv. 12 [xxii. 14, a false reading]). The universality of the Gospel is an immediate consequence of the proclama- tion of its moral character. And there is not the least trace in the Apocalypse of the doctrine of the permanent or general obligation of the Law or of circumcision. The particular injunctions which are enforced in ii. 14, 20 are combined in the Acts (xv. 28 f.,xxL 25) with the removal of such an obligation from the Gentiles. External ceremo- nies fall wholly into the background, as symbols only of that which is universal and spiritual (Rev. v. 8 ff., xiv. 6 f.; comp. i John ii. 2). At the same time the Apocalypse no less than the Gospel recognises the pre- paratory office of Judaism. In both it is assumed that " Salvation is of the Jews " (John iv. 22, 38). The Seer shews that the sovereignty which the prophets fore- told was established in Jesus, " the Christ" (xii. 5, 10, xi. 15); and the imagery of the old Scriptures is used from first to last to foreshadow the con- flict, the victory and the judgment of the divine King (e.g. Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37; Rev. i. 7). New Test.— VOL. II. In correspondence with the univer- sality of the' Gospel is the office of personal " witness " on which the firmest stress is laid in all the writings of St John. The experience of the believer finds expression in a testimony which is strong in the face of death. In the Apocalypse the characteristic form in which this " witness " appears is as " the testimony of Jesus" (i. 2, 9, xii. 17, xix. 10, xx. 4). The true humanity of the Saviour is that revelation on which faith reposes. This testimony to the Incarnation leads to a final correspondence between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel which is of the highest importance. Both present the abiding of God with man as the issue of Christ's work. If any man love me, he will keep my word, and my Fatlier will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him (John xiv. 23). Behold I stand at the door and knock: If any man hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me (Rev. iii. 20). Behold the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell (CTKT;VOJO-€I) with them (Rev. xxi. 3). 2. Contrasts of the Apocalypse with the Gospel. Side by side with these coinci- dences of thought, which reach to the ruling conceptions of the books, there are also important contrasts in their subject-matter and their modes of deal- ing with common topics. The most striking contrast lies in the treatment of the doctrine of Christ's Coming in the two books. This is the main subject of the Apocalypse, while it falls into the background in the Gospel and in the Epistles of St John. In the Apocalypse the thought is of an outward coming for the open judgment of men : in the Gospel of a judgment which is spiritual and self-executing. In the Apocalypse the scene of the consumma- tion is a renovated world : in the Gospel " the Father's house." In the former the victory and the transformation are from without, by might, and the " future " is painted under historic imagery: in the latter, the victory and the transfor- mation are from within, by a spiritual influence, and the " future " is present and eternal. I Ixxxvi INTRODUCTION TO It is part of this same contrast that the progress of the conflict between good and evil is presented very differ- ently in the Apocalypse and in the Gospel. In the Apocalypse it is por- trayed under several distinct forms as a conflict of Christ with false Judaism, with idolatry, with the Roman empire allied with false prophecy : in the Gospel it is conceived iu its essence as a con- tinuous conflict between light and dark- ness. On the one side are outward persecutors; on the other the spirit of falsehood: on the one side, the working of the revelation of Christ ; on the other the revelation of Christ itself. Or, to put the facts under another aspect, the Apocalypse gives a view of the action of God in regard to men, in a life full of sorrow, and partial defeats and cries for vengeance : the Gospel gives a view of the action of God with regard to Christ who establishes in the heart of the believer a Presence of com- pleted joy. In regard to Judaism this contrast assumes a special form. In the Apocalypse the 'triumph of Christianity is described under the imagery of Judaism. The Church is the embodied fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. The outlines are drawn of the universal, ideal, Israel (vii. 4), the ideal Jerusalem (iii. 12, xxi. 2, 10), and the ideal worship (xx. 6, xxii. 3 ; comp. viii. 3, v. 8), yet so that there is no longer any temple (xxi. 22). In the Gospel Christianity is pro- claimed as the absolute truth. Outward Judaism is shewn in its opposition to Christ's word, not as fulfilled by it, standing without, isolated and petrified ; and not taken up with it, quickened and glorified (compare Rev. ii. 9, iii. 9, with John viii. 39 ff.). The conception of God in the 'two books shews corresponding differences. The conception of God in the Apo- calypse follows the lines of the Old Testament He is " the Lord God, the Almighty" (i. 8, iv. 8, &c.), "which was and is" (xL 17, xvi. 5. Comp. i. 4, 8, iv. 8), who executes righteous judgment on the world (xi. 18, xiv. 10, xvi. 19, xix. 15). Nothing is said of His love in sending His Son; nor of the Para- clete. In the Gospel God is revealed characteristically by Christ as " the Father " and not only as " my Father " (see iv. 21, note); and specially in con- nexion with the work of redemption. In the one case it may be said that His action is revealed in relation to the sin- ful history of the world : and in the other His being in relation to the pur- pose of the world '. Besides these differences of substance there are also differences of language both in vocabulary and style. The difference in the scope of the books accounts in part for these. The irregu- larities of style in the Apocalypse appear to be due not so much to ignorance of the language as to a free treatment of it, by one who used it as a foreign dialect. Nor is it difficult to see that in any case intercourse with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apocalypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is however very difficult to suppose that the language of the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time in a Greek- speaking country into the language of the Apocalypse. Such very briefly are the coincidences and differences between the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel. Several con- clusions appear to follow from them. The differences answer to differences in situation ; and are not inconsistent with identity of authorship. Of the two books the Apocalypse is the earlier. It is less developed both in thought and style. The material imagery in which it is composed includes the idea of progress in interpretation. The symbols are living. On the other hand, to go back from the teaching of the Gospel to that of the Apocalypse, to clothe clear thought in figures, to reduce the full expression of truth to its rudi- mentary beginnings, seems to involve a moral miracle, which would introduce confusion into life. The Apocalypse is after the close of St Paul's work. It shews in its mode of dealing with Old Testament figures a close connexion with the Epistle to the Hebrews (2 Peter, Jude). And on the 1 The difference between the two books as to subordinate spiritual powers, angels and evil spirits, follows from the difference in their struc- ture. Comp. i. 51, note. THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxxvii other hand it is before the destruction of Jerusalem. The crisis of the Fall of Jerusalem explains the relation of the Apocalypse to the Gospel. In the Apocalypse that "coming" of Christ was expected, and painted in figures: in the Gospel the " coming " is interpreted. Under this aspect the Gospel is the spiritual interpretation of the Apocalypse. The materials of the Gospel were trea- sured up, pondered, illuminated as time went on. Meanwhile the active and manifold religious thought of Ephesus furnished the intellectual assistance which was needed to exhibit Christianity as the absolute and historical religion in con- trast with Judaism and Heathenism. The final desolation of the centre of the old Theocracy was the decisive sign of the form which the new Faith must take. Then first, according to the divine law of order, the Spirit would guide the Apostle into all the Truth. This is not the place to work out in detail the likeness and difference of the Apocalypse and the Fourth Gospel on special points of doctrine; but the Christology of the two books illustrates very remarkably the position which has been assigned to the Apocalypse as con- necting the Synoptists and St John. It is necessary then to indicate shortly the teaching of the Apocalypse on Christ's work and being. The work of Christ is presented sum- marily as the victory through death of One who was truly man. Christ was the representative of David (v. 5, xxii. 16), pierced (i. 7), crucified (xi. 8), and again quickened (i. 5; comp. Col. i. 18). So He " bought " the redeemed (v. 9, xiv. 3 f.); and His blood brings to them release (i. 5, Au<ravrt O.TTO r. a), cleansing (vii. 14), and victory (xii. n). And in this He fulfilled the divine will for men (i. i [ISwKcv], ii. 26, 5, 10, 16, iii. 10, 5, 21, v. 5, xxi. 23). The exaltation of Christ followed on the completion of His earthly work. The " Lamb slain " was raised to glory (v. 9, 12). The "seven spirits of God" are His (v. 6, iii. i ; comp. i. 4; John xv. 26). In the heavenly sanctuary He is revealed as the divine High Priest (i. 12 — 17; comp. ii. 9, x. 5 f.) " like a son of man " (L 13, xiv. 14); truly man, and yet more than man, "the living One" (i. 17; comp. John v. 26). He possesses di- vine knowledge (ii. 2, 9, 13, 19, &c., ii. 23 ; comp. Jer. xi. 20, &c.) ; and divine power (xi. 15, xii. 10, xvii. 14, xix. 16). He receives divine honour (v. 8fF., xx. 6) ; and is joined with God (iii. 2, v. 13, vi. 16 f., vii. 10, xiv. 4, xxi. 22, xxii. i, 3; comp. John v. 20, 23), so that with God He is spoken of as one (xi. 15, /Sao-tAevo-ei, XX. 6, per' avrov, xxii. 3, ot SouAoi avrov Xarpevo-ova-iv avrw) ; He shares also in part the divine titles (i. 7, iii. 7, xix. ii; comp. vi. 10, iii. 14; comp. Isai. Ixv. 16, but not xxii. 13). The full importance of these passages is brought out by the stern denunciations against every form of idolatry with which the book abounds (comp. i John v. 21). Christ therefore is wholly separated from creatures. And further, the passages shew that the imagery which is used in the Old Testament to describe the reve- lation of God is transferred by the writer to Christ (comp. John xii. 41, note). One other point remains to be no- ticed. In the Synoptists there is no direct statement of the pre-existence of Christ The truth is recognised in the Apocalypse, but relatively rather than absolutely. Christ is spoken of as the first and the last (i. 17, ii. 8); the begin- ning of the creation of God (iii. 14 ; comp. Prov. viii. 22 ; Col. i. 15) ; and the Word of God (xix. 13). In these phrases we find the earliest form of the " Logos doctrine," which is still kept within the lines of the Old Testament ideas. But the later unfolding of the truth is in- cluded in this earliest confession. If an Apostle was enabled to see in the Master whom he had followed the Being to whom all creation pays homage in the spiritual world, there is no difficulty in apprehending how he could rise, without doing violence to the laws of human thought, to the enunciation of the fact on which the Fourth Gospel is a com- mentary, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. In a word, the study of the Synoptists, of the Apocalypse and of the Gospel of St John in succession enables us to see under what human conditions the full majesty of Christ was perceived and de- clared, not all at once, but step by step, and by the help of the old prophetic teaching. Ixxxviii INTRODUCTION TO 3. The Gospel and the Epistles of St John. The relation of the Gospel of St John to his Epistles is that of a history to its accompanying comment or application. The first Epistle presupposes the Gospel either as a writing or as oral instruc- tion. But while there are numerous and striking resemblances both in form and thought between the Epistle and the Evangelist's record of the Lord's dis- courses and his own narrative, there are still characteristic differences between them. In the Epistle the doctrine of the Lord's true and perfect humanity (a-dp£) is predominant : in the Gospel that of His divine glory (Sofa). The burden of the Epistle is " the Christ is Jesus :" the writer presses his argument from the divine to the human, from the spiritual and ideal to the historical. The burden of the Gospel is "Jesus is the Christ:" the writer presses his argument from the human to the divine, from the historical to the spiritual and ideal. The former is the natural position of the preacher, and the latter of the historian. The difference between the Epistle and the Gospel in their eschatological teaching follows from this fundamental difference. In the Gospel the doctrine of the "coming" of the Lord (xxi. 22, xiv. 3), and of " the last day" (vl 40, 44), and of "the judgment" (v. 28 f.), are touched upon generally. In the Epistle "the manifestation" of Christ (ii. 28) and His " presence " stand out as clear facts in the history of the world. He comes, even as He came, "in flesh" (2 John 7); and "antichrists" precede His coming (i John ii. i8ff.). Again, in the Epistle the doctrine of pro- pitiation is more distinct and fully express- ed than in the Gospel (lAao-jno'?, i John ii. 2, iv. 10 ; comp. Heb. ii. 17 ; KaOapt&iv, i John i. 7, 9) ; and in connexion with this the duty of the confession of sins (i John i. 9), and the office of the Lord as Para- clete (Advocate) (i John ii. i ; comp. John xiv. 1 6, note). But it is most worthy of notice that no use is made in the Epistle of the language of the dis- courses in John iii. and vi. On the other hand, the conception of the " unc- tion" of Christians (i John ii. 20, 27; comp. Rev. i. 6) is a later interpretation of the gift of the Spirit which Christ pro- mised. Generally too it will be found on a comparison of the closest parallels, that the Apostle's own words are more formal in expression than the words of the Lord which he records. The Lord's words have been moulded by the disciple into aphorisms in the Epistle : their his- toric connexion has been broken. At the same time the language of the Epistle is in the main direct, abstract, and un- figurative. The Apostle's teaching, so to speak, is " plain " (ira/Dp^o-ia), while that of the Lord was " in proverbs " (iv Trapoi- /uais, John xvi. 25). One or two examples will illustrate the contrast which has been indicated : John viii. 12. / am the Light of the world : he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. i John i. 5, 7. This then is the mes- sage we have heard of Aim, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all ... If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellow- ship one with another ... John xv. 23. He that hateth me hateth my Father also. i John ii. 23. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father ; but he that acknowledged the Son hath the Fa- ther also. Compare also pp. Ixi. ff. Generally it will be felt that there is a decisive difference (so to speak) in the atmosphere of the two books. In the Epistle St John deals freely with the truths of the Gospel in direct conflict with the characteristic perils of his own time : in the Gospel he lives again in the presence of Christ and of the immediate enemies of Christ, while he brings out the universal significance of events and teaching not fully understood at the time. V. THE HISTORY OF THE GOSPEL. i. The Text. The materials for determining the text of the Gospel of St John are, as in the case of the other Gospels, and of the books of the New Testament gene- rally, ample and varied. It will be THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. Ixxxix sufficient to notice the most important authorities in which the Gospel of St John is preserved. I. GREEK MANUSCRIPTS. Cod. Sinaiticus The entire Gos- pel. Cod. Alexandrinus (A). Wants vi. 50 — viii. 52. Cod. Vaticanus (B). The entire Gos- pel. Cod. Ephraemi (C). Eight consider- able fragments, (i) i. i — 41. (2) iii. 33— v. 16. (3) vi. 38— vii. 3. (4) viii. 34 — ix. ii. (5) xi. 8 — 46. (6) xiii. 8 — xiv. 7. (7) xvi. 21 — xviii. 36. (8) xx. 26 — end. Cod. Uez(z(D}. Wants i. 16 — iii. 26; and xviii. 13 — xx. 13 has been supplied by a later hand, perhaps from the original leaves. Cod. Paris. (L). Wants xxi. 15 — end. There are besides eight other uncial MSS. containing the Gospel complete or nearly complete; and thirteen which contain more or less considerable frag- ments. The cursive mss., which are almost of every degree of excellence, are more than 600. II. ANCIENT VERSIONS. (1) The Old (Curetonian) Syriac (Syr.vt.). Four fragments: (i) i. i — 42. (a) iii. 5— vii. 37. (3) vii. 37— viii. 53, omitting vii. 53 — viii. n. (4) xiv. n — 29. The Vulgate Syriac (Peshito, Syr. psh.}. The entire Gospel. The Hardean Syriac (Syr. hcl.}. The entire Gospel. (2) The Old Latin (Lat. vt.\ The entire Gospel in several distinct types. The Vulgate Latin (Vulg.). The entire Gospel. The Memphitic (Coptic, in the dialect of Lower Egypt). The entire Gospel. The Thebaic (Sahidic, in the dialect of Upper Egypt). Very considerable frag- ments have been published in the Appendix to Woide's ' Cod. Al. N. T.' of which a collation is given in Schwartze's edition of the Memphitic Gospels. III. FATHERS. In addition to isolated quotations there remain, from early times : the Commentaries of CYRIL of ALEXANDRIA (nearly complete); the Explanatory Homi- lies of AUGUSTINE and CHRYSOSTOM ; and large fragments of the Commenta- ries of ORIGEN and THEODORE of MOPSUESTIA. This is not the place to enter in detail upon the methods of textual criticism. It must suffice to say that the problem is in the first stage essentially historical. The primary object of the critic is to discover in the case of variations the most ancient reading. When this has been done it remains to take account of any arguments which may be urged against the authenticity of the earliest text. Unless these are of great weight the prerogative of age must prevail. But this first process cannot be accom- plished by simply taking the reading of the most ancient copies, or giving a fixed value, so to speak, to each copy according to its antiquity. The most ancient copy is ceteris paribus likely to give the most ancient text on the whole, and with a less degree of probability in each particular case. But the ancient authorities often disagree. Hence it is a necessary condition for the determina- tion of the most ancient text to study the chief authorities as wholes (i) se- parately, and (2) in their mutual rela- tions. In this way it can be ascertained beyond doubt what MSS. (for example) preserve a distinctly ante-Nicene text. When this is done the mass of evidence can be reduced to manageable dimen- sions. If it cannot be shewn that a reading has any ante-Nicene authority, it may in almost all cases be confidently set aside. No one of the existing MSS. of the New Testament is older than the fourth century; but the earliest, which have been already enumerated, represent very different types of text, and are, as far as can be ascertained, of very differ- ent origin. To speak of them all as " Alexandrine " is in every way mislead- ing. (i) A most careful examination of B leaves it in possession of the title to supreme excellence. Its readings have no specific colouring. It is not unlikely that it represents the text preserved in the original Greek Church of Rome. xc INTRODUCTION TO (2) The texts of tf and D, which have much in common, are of very high antiquity, dating from the end of the second century. Their common element is closely akin to an element in the Old Syriac and Old Latin versions, and shews much license in paraphrase and in the introduction of synonymous phrases and words. The characteristics of these MSS. are probably of Pales- tinian origin. (3) The characteristic readings of C and L indicate the work of a careful grammatical revision. They seem to be due to Alexandria. (4) In the Gospels A gives a revised (Antiochene) text which formed the basis of the later Byzantine texts. These texts were almost exclusively reproduced from the sixth century onwards. The characteristic readings of B, of fc$D, and of C, L, have all more or less support in the ante-Nicene age. The characteristic readings of A, on the other hand, cannot be traced back beyond the fourth century, though it has also a valuable ancient element in common with BCL rather than with KD. It follows therefore (speaking gene- rally) that a reading which is found in B and in a primary representative of one of the other groups has very high claims to be considered the original reading. On the other hand a reading which is found only in the representa- tives of one of the three last groups is likely to be a correction ; and the same may be said of a reading which is given only in representatives of the third and fourth groups. Very few readings in the Gospels will be found to stand the test of a comprehensive examination which are not supported by X or B or D. These conclusions necessarily depend upon an exhaustive induction of particu- lars. No process can be more precarious than the attempt to settle each case of variation as it arises. A reading, which taken alone may appear to be plausible or even true, is often seen to be an ingenious correction from a consideration of the characteristics of the authorities by which it is supported taken as a group. No authority has an unvarying value. No authority is ever homogene- ous. It is only by taking a wide view 01 the grouping of the authorities that a solid conclusion can be gained. And in this respect the evidence which is available for determining the text of the New Testament is so copious and varied that little final doubt can be left. Very little has been said in detail on various readings in the notes, except on a few passages of unusual interest. It will therefore be useful to give a brief summary of the authorities for a selec- tion of variations which have a critical interest. This may serve as basis for further study to those who wish to pursue the subject; and at the same time it will illustrate