THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN
[Sidenote: The Author.]
We learn from the Gospels that St. John was the son of Zebedee, a
Galilean fisherman, and was a follower of the Baptist before he joined
our Lord. The Synoptists show that he was one of the most prominent
and intimate of our Lord's followers. With St. Peter and St. James he
was permitted to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter, and to be
present at the Transfiguration, and with them was nearest to Christ at
the agony in Gethsemane. With St. Peter he was sent to prepare the
last Passover. Like his brother St. James, he shared in the fervour of
his mother, Salome, who begged for them a special place of dignity in
the kingdom of Christ. They both wished to call down fire on a
Samaritan village, and St. John asked Jesus what was to be done with
the man whom they found casting out devils in His name. Their fiery
temperament caused our Lord to give them the surname of Boanerges
("sons of thunder"). In the fourth Gospel the name of John the son of
Zebedee is never mentioned, but there are several references to an
apostle whose name is not recorded, but can be intended for no other
than St. John. At the crucifixion this apostle was bidden by our Lord
to regard Mary as henceforth his mother, and the writer claims to have
been an eye-witness of the crucifixion. In the last chapter very
similar words are used to assert that the writer is he whom Jesus loved.
In Acts St. John appears with St. Peter as healing the lame {81} man at
the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and with St. Peter he goes to Samaria
to bestow the Holy Ghost on those whom Philip had baptized. He was
revered as one of the pillars of the Church when St. Paul visited
Jerusalem in A.D. 49 (Gal. ii. 9). It is remarkable that the Synoptic
Gospels, the fourth Gospel, Acts, and Galatians, all show St. John in
close connection with St. Peter. St. John's name occurs in the
Revelation, which has been attributed to him since the beginning of the
2nd century.
Numerous fragments of tradition concerning St. John are preserved by
early Christian writers. Tertullian, about A.D. 200, says that St.
John came to Rome, and was miraculously preserved from death when an
attempt was made to kill him in a cauldron of boiling oil. Tertullian
and Eusebius both say that he was banished to an island, and Eusebius
tells us that the island was Patmos, and that the banishment took place
in the time of Domitian. On the accession of Nerva, St. John removed
from Patmos to Ephesus, where he survived until the time of Trajan, who
became emperor in A.D. 98. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, writing
about A.D. 190, speaks of St. John's tomb in that city, and says that
he wore the _petalon_, the high priest's mitre used in the Jewish
Church. We are told by other writers how he reclaimed a robber, how he
played with a tame partridge, how when too old to preach he was carried
into church and would repeat again and again, "Little children, love
one another." On one occasion a spark of his youthful fire was seen.
It was when the old man indignantly refused to stay under the roof of
the same public baths as Cerinthus, the heretic who denied that Mary
was a virgin when she bore our Lord, and asserted that the Divinity of
Jesus was only a power which came upon Him and went from Him.
The residence of St. John at Ephesus is attested by the Revelation.
Even if that book were a forgery, no forger at the close of the 1st
century would have ventured to place the hero of his book in a
neighbourhood where he had not lived. {82} Many threads of evidence
lead us back to the statement made by Polycrates about the apostle's
tomb. It was not until long after that date that the Christians began
to carry the relics of saints from place to place, and churches
rivalled one another in producing shrines for the severed members of
one body. There is therefore no reason whatever to doubt that the tomb
at Ephesus marked the resting-place of the apostle. It was known two
hundred years later in the time of Jerome, and visited in 431 by the
members of the great Church Council which met at Ephesus. The Emperor
Justinian built a sumptuous church on the site, and near a modern
Turkish mosque may still be seen the remnants of the church of St. John.
Until the end of the 18th century the authorship of this Gospel was not
seriously challenged. The only party which ever denied that it was
written by the Apostle St. John was an ignorant and insignificant body
of people mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. They were known as the
_Alogi_, or "unbelievers in the Word." Their views in no wise
undermine the tradition of the Catholic Church. For the Alogi asserted
that this Gospel was written by Cerinthus, who lived at Ephesus where
St. John lived, and was himself a contemporary of St. John. We have
sufficient knowledge of the teaching of Cerinthus to be perfectly
certain that he could not have written a Gospel which so completely
contradicts his own theories. Therefore the opinion of the Alogi is
absolutely worthless where it negatives the tradition of the Church,
and on the other hand it agrees with that tradition in asserting that
the book was written in the apostolic age.
During the last hundred years the men who deny that Jesus Christ was
truly "God of God, Light of Light," have strained every nerve to prove
that the fourth Gospel was not written by St. John. It is, of course,
almost impossible that they should admit that the writer was an apostle
and an honest man and continue to deny that the Christ whom he depicts
claimed to be the Lord and Maker of all things. During the controversy
{83} which has been waged during the last three generations with regard
to St. John's Gospel, it has been evident throughout that the Gospel
has been rejected for this very reason. The book has driven a wedge
into the whole band of New Testament students. The critics who deny
that Jesus was God, but are willing to grant that He was the most holy
and the most divine of men, have been forced to side with those who are
openly Atheists or Agnostics. The clue to their theories was
unguardedly exposed by Weizsäcker, who said, with regard to St. John's
Gospel, "It is impossible to imagine any power of faith and philosophy
so great as thus to obliterate the recollection of the real life, and
to substitute for it this marvellous picture of a Divine Being." [1]
This remark shows us that the critic approached the Gospel with a
prejudice against the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, and rejected the
Gospel mainly because it would not agree with his own prejudice. But
the determination to fight to the uttermost against the converging
lines of Christian evidence has now driven such critics into a corner.
Many have already abandoned the position that the book is a
semi-Gnostic forgery written in the middle of the 2nd century, and they
are now endeavouring to maintain that it was written about A.D. 100 by
a certain John the Presbyter, whom they assert to have been afterwards
confounded with the Apostle John.
Of John the Presbyter very little indeed is known. Papias, about A.D.
130, says that he was, like Aristion, "a disciple" of the Lord, and
that he had himself made oral inquiries as to his teaching. He seems
to have been an elder contemporary of Papias. Dionysius of Alexandria,
about A.D. 250, mentions that there were two monuments in Ephesus
bearing the name of John, and we may reasonably suppose that one of
these was in memory of the presbyter mentioned by Papias. But a little
reflection will soon convince us that nothing has been gained by the
conjecture that this John wrote the Gospel. If John {84} the Presbyter
was personally acquainted with our Lord, as some writers understand
Papias to mean, then the sceptics are forced to admit that one who
personally knew Jesus, describes Jesus as a more than human Being--as,
in fact, the Divine Creator. This is the precise fact which keeps
these writers from admitting that an apostle wrote the Gospel. If, on
the other hand, they suppose, as some do, that John the Presbyter was
very much younger than the apostles, the sceptics are confronted with
the following difficulties:--
(a) There is the important external evidence which shows how widely the
Gospel was regarded in the early Church as the work of St. John.
(b) There is the minute knowledge displayed of the topography, customs,
and opinions of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as they existed in the time
of Christ.
(c) There is the impossibility of supposing that Irenaeus, who was
probably not born a year later than A.D. 130, would not have known that
the Gospel was written by John the Presbyter.
(d) There is the fact that the evidence for St. John having lived in
Ephesus is better than the evidence for a renowned presbyter of the
same name having lived in Ephesus. This has been wisely pointed out by
Jülicher, even though he himself denies that the apostle wrote St.
John's Gospel. And the justice of this argument proves that it is
sheer paradox to maintain, as some now maintain, that the _only_ John
who lived in Ephesus was the Presbyter.
It is constantly urged by the opponents of the authenticity of this
Gospel that, as it was published at Ephesus at a late period, it cannot
be the work of the apostle, because he never went to Ephesus, and "died
early as a martyr." [2] This is a most unscrupulous use of an inexact
quotation made by some later Greek writers from a lost book of Papias.
It can be {85} traced to Philip of Side (5th century), and it is to the
effect that "John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the
Jews." Papias does not say that they died together, and his statement
is compatible with the belief that St. John survived his brother very
many years. We know from Gal. ii. 9 that he was alive some time after
his brother's death, which was about A.D. 44. And George Hamartolus,
one of the Greek writers who quote the above passage in Papias,
expressly says that the Emperor Nerva (A.D. 96) recalled John from
Patmos, and "dismissed him to live in Ephesus."
[Sidenote: The External Evidence.]
The external evidence for the authenticity of this Gospel is in some
respects stronger than that which is to be found in the case of the
other Gospels. Thus the Christian may recognize with gratitude that
his Divine Master has especially added the witness of the Church to the
work of His beloved disciple. All through the 2nd century we have the
links of a chain of evidence, and after A.D. 200 the canon of the
Gospels is known to have been so fixed that no defender of the faith is
called upon to show what that canon was. The earliest traces of the
phraseology of St. John are to be discovered in the _Didaché_, which
was probably written in Eastern Palestine or Syria about A.D. 100. The
prayers which are provided in this book for use at the Eucharist are
plainly of a Johannine type, and are probably derived from oral
teaching given by the apostle himself before he lived at Ephesus. In
any case, the _Didaché_ seems sufficient to disprove the sceptical
assertion that theological language of a Johannine character was
unknown in the Christian Church about A.D. 100. The letters attributed
to St. Ignatius, the martyr bishop of Antioch, are now universally
admitted to be genuine by competent scholars. They may most reasonably
be dated about A.D. 110, and they are deeply imbued with thought of a
Johannine type. It has been lately suggested that this tendency of
thought does not prove an actual acquaintance with the Gospel of St.
John. But when we find Christ {86} called "the Word," and the devil
called "the prince of this world," and read such a phrase as "the bread
of God which is the flesh of Christ," it is almost impossible to deny
that the letters of Ignatius contain actual reminiscences of St. John's
language. Nor is there the least reason why Ignatius should not have
been acquainted with this Gospel. His younger contemporary St.
Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians was also written about A.D.
110, quotes from the First Epistle of St. John. And Papias, who
probably wrote about A.D. 130, and collected his materials many years
earlier, also quoted that Epistle, as we learn from Eusebius. Now, the
connection between the Gospel and the Epistle is, as has been cleverly
remarked, like the connection between a star and its satellite. They
are obviously the work of the same author. If Polycarp, who had
himself seen St. John, knew that the Epistle was genuine, he must have
known that the Gospel was genuine.
The evidence which can definitely be dated between A.D. 120 and A.D.
170 is of extreme interest. It proves conclusively that a belief in
the authenticity of this Gospel was so firmly engrained in the
Christian mind that men holding the most opposite opinions appealed to
its authority. It is true that the "irrational" Alogi rejected it, and
that Marcion repudiated it, not because it was not by an apostle, but
because St. Paul was the only apostle whom he admired. But it was used
by the Catholics, the Gnostics, and the Montanists. St. Justin Martyr
was acquainted with it, and before he wrote, Basilides, the great
Gnostic of Alexandria, borrowed from it some materials for his
doctrine. The equally celebrated Gnostic Valentinus used it, and his
followers also revered it. About A.D. 170 Heracleon, an eminent
Valentinian, wrote a commentary upon this Gospel, of which commentary
some fragments still remain. The Montanists arose in Phrygia about
A.D. 157. Montanus, their founder, endeavoured to revive the power of
prophecy, and his followers maintained that "the Paraclete said more
things in Montanus than Christ {87} uttered in the Gospel." It can
easily be proved that their teaching was an attempt to realize some of
the promises of our Lord contained in St. John's Gospel. And the fact
that the Montanists were strongly opposed to the Gnostics makes it all
the more remarkable that both sects regarded this Gospel as so
important. Somewhat before A.D. 170 St. John's Gospel was inserted by
the great Syrian apologist, Tatian, in his _Diatessaron_, or harmony of
the Gospels, and the apocryphal Acts of John composed near the same
date contain unmistakable allusions to this Gospel.
The evidence of Irenaeus is the culminating proof of the genuineness of
the Gospel according to St. John. He became Bishop of Lyons in A.D.
177, and remembered Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom at Smyrna in A.D.
156, at the age of eighty-six. Irenaeus, in writing to his friend
Florinus, says, "I can describe the very place in which the blessed
Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings-out and his
comings-in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and
the discourses which he held before the people, and how he would
describe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord,
and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had
heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles, Polycarp, as
having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would
relate, altogether in accordance with the Scriptures." [3]
Now, it is perfectly certain that Irenaeus, like his contemporaries
Heracleon and Tatian, accepted the fourth Gospel as the work of the
Apostle John. And can we believe that he would have thus accepted it,
if it had not been acknowledged by his teacher Polycarp, who knew St.
John, and was nearly thirty years old at the time of St. John's death?
{88}
[Sidenote: The Internal Evidence.]
The Gospel itself contains manifest tokens that it was written by a Jew
of Palestine, by one who held no Gnostic heresy, and by a contemporary
of our Lord.
I. _The author was a Jew and not a Gentile._
He makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament, and some of these
quotations imply an acquaintance with the Hebrew. This is especially
the case in the verse from the 41st Psalm (xiii. 18), and in that (xix.
37) from Zech. xii. 10, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."
The Septuagint of Zech. xii. 10, translating from a different form of
the Hebrew, has, instead of the words "whom they pierced," "because
they mocked." It is, therefore, plain that John xiii. 18 is not
derived from the Septuagint. The Gospel is also Hebraic in style. The
sentences are broken up in a manner which is at variance with Greek
idiom. Whereas in St. Luke's two writings the style becomes more Greek
or more Hebraic in proportion to his writing independently or employing
the writings of Jewish Christians, the style of this Gospel is the same
throughout. We may particularly notice the Hebraic use of the word
"and" to signify both "and" and "but" (_e.g._ in v. 39, 40, where "and
ye will not come" means "but ye will not come"). We may also notice
the correct use of certain Hebrew proper names: _e.g._ Judas is called
"the son of Iscariot," showing that the writer did not regard the word
Iscariot as the fixed name of Judas only, but knew that it might be
applied to any man of Kerioth. In fact, the Greek of St. John is
exactly like the English of a Scottish Highlander who has only spoken
Gaelic in his earlier days, and, when he has acquired English, shows
his origin by the continued use of a few Gaelic idioms and his
knowledge of Highland proper names.
He shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish social and ceremonial
customs. We may notice iii. 25; iv. 9, 27; vii. 2, 23, 37; x. 22; xi.
44; xix. 7, 31; and especially the waterpots (ii. 6), the purification
previous to the Passover (xi. 55), the fear {89} of our Lord's accusers
to defile themselves by entering the praetorium (xviii. 28), and the
Jewish method of embalming (xix. 40). Jewish opinions are faithfully
reflected, _e.g._ as to the importance attached to the religious
schools (vii. 15); the disparagement of the Jews of the "dispersion"
(vii. 35); the scorn felt by many Jews for the provincials of Galilee
(i. 46; vii. 41, 52), and the idea of the soul's pre-existence (ix. 2).
II. _The author was a Jew of Palestine._
He shows a minute acquaintance with the geography of the Holy Land. At
the present day elaborate guide-books and histories make it possible
for a very clever writer to disguise the fact that he has not visited
the land in which he lays the scene of his story. But even at the
present day such procedure is dangerous, and likely to be detected. In
ancient times it was almost impossible. Yet no one has ever detected
an error in the geography of this Gospel. The writer mentions Cana of
Galilee (ii. 1, 11), a place not noticed by any earlier writer, and
Bethany beyond Jordan (i. 28); he knows the exact distance from
Jerusalem to the better-known Bethany (xi. 18); the "deep" well of
Jacob at Sychar (iv. 11); the city of Ephraim near the wilderness (xi.
54); Aenon near to Salim, where John baptized (iii. 23). This word
Aenon is an Aramaic word signifying "springs," and even Renan ridicules
the notion of such a name having been invented by Greek-speaking
sectaries at Ephesus. The place was too obscure to be known to
ordinary travellers, and, on the other hand, such a name cannot have
been invented by a Gentile.
The topography of Jerusalem is described with equal nicety. We may
notice viii. 20; ix. 7; x. 23; xviii. 1, 15; xix. 17, 41; and
particularly the pool near the sheep-gate, having five porches (v. 2),
and the place which is called the Pavement, "but in the Hebrew
Gabbatha" (xix. 13). Even a person who had heard of Solomon's porch
and of Golgotha might well have been ignorant of the sheep-gate and the
Pavement, unless he had been in Jerusalem.
Lastly, the writer shows an acquaintance not only with the {90} Jewish
feasts, but also with facts connected with them which imply special
knowledge on his part. He could not have gathered from the Old
Testament the fact that the later Jews were in the habit of keeping a
feast in honour of the dedication of the temple after its profanation
by Antiochus Epiphanes (x. 22), nor would he have learned how to
introduce an allusion to the rite of pouring forth water from the pool
at Siloam at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 37).
The only important argument which can be urged against the author
having been a Jew is that founded on the use of the phrase "the Jews,"
which is said to imply that the writer was not a Jew. Now, in some
passages (as vii. 1), "the Jews" may mean the inhabitants of Judaea, as
distinct from those of Galilee, and such passages are therefore
indecisive. But in other passages the phrase "the Jews" does not admit
this interpretation, and is used with a decided suggestion of dislike.
But when we remember the bitter hostility which the Jews soon
manifested towards the Christians, and remember that in Asia Minor this
hostility was active, the phrase presents no real difficulty. St. Paul
was proud to reckon himself a Jew, but long before the Jews had shown
their full antagonism to Christianity, St. Paul spoke of "the Jews" (1
Thess. ii. 14-16) with the same condemnation as the writer of the
fourth Gospel.
The only important arguments in favour of the author having absorbed
Gnostic views are drawn: (1) _From the alleged Dualism of the Gospel_.
In theology the word Dualism signifies the doctrine that the world is
not only the battle-ground of two opposing forces, one good and the
other evil, but also that the material world is itself essentially
evil. Such was the doctrine of the great Gnostic sects of the 2nd
century. But this Gospel, in spite of the strong contrast which it
draws between God and the world, light and darkness, is not Dualist.
It teaches that there is one God, that the world was made by the Word
who is God, that this Word was made flesh and came to save the world.
In thus teaching that the material world was made by the good God, and
that God took a material human body, this Gospel opposes the
fundamental tenet of Gnostic Dualism. (2) _From the alleged
condemnation of the Jewish prophets by Christ in x. 8_. Other passages
make it perfectly plain that this is not a condemnation of the Jewish
prophets, but of any religious pretenders who claimed divine authority.
In this Gospel an appeal is made to Moses (v. 46), to Abraham (viii.
56), to Isaiah {91} (xii. 41), and, what is most remarkable of all, our
Lord says, "Salvation is of the Jews," _i.e._ the knowledge and the
origin of religious truth came from the Jews. The Jewish Scriptures
are ratified (v. 39; x. 35). It is impossible to find a shred of the
anti-Jewish theories which the Gnostics taught. And though it is true
that some Gnostics were fond of using such words as "life" and "light"
in their religious phraseology, it is much more probable that they were
influenced by the fourth Gospel than that this Gospel was tinged with
Gnosticism.
We conclude, therefore, that the author was a Jew of Palestine, and
that he was not a Gentile or in any sense a Gnostic.
III. _The author was a contemporary and an eye-witness of the events
described._
His knowledge of Jerusalem and of the temple, which we have already
noticed, strongly suggests that he knew the city before its destruction
in A.D. 70. So far as can be tested, his treatment of the Messianic
ideas of the people is exactly accurate, and of a kind which it would
have been difficult for a later writer to exhibit. This Gospel
represents the people as pervaded by a nationalist notion of the
Messiah as of a king who would deliver them from foreign powers (vi.
15, xi. 48; xix. 12), a notion which was dispelled in A.D. 70, and
apparently did not revive until the rising of Bar Kocheba in A.D. 135,
a date which is now almost universally recognized as too late for this
Gospel to have been written. We also find the two contradictory ideas
as to the place of the Messiah's origin then current (vii. 27, 42), and
the writer distinguishes "the prophet" (i. 21, 25; vi. 14; vii. 40),
who was expected to precede Christ, from Christ Himself. At a very
early date the Christians identified "the prophet" with Christ, and it
is in the highest degree improbable that any but a contemporary of our
Lord would have been aware of this change of belief.
It is claimed that the author is an eye-witness in i. 14; xix. 35; and
xxi. 24. We may add 1 John i. 1, for the author of the Epistle was
obviously the author of the Gospel. Numerous details, especially the
frequent notes of time, suggest the hand {92} of an eye-witness. And
the delicate descriptions of the inner life of the disciples and of
Christ Himself point to the same conclusion. The description of the
Last Supper and the words spoken at it suggest with overwhelming force
that the writer knew the peculiar manner of seating employed at this
ceremony. Another Jew would have known where the celebrant sat, but he
would scarcely have been able to make the actions of our Lord and
Judas, St. John and St. Peter, fit their places at the table with such
perfection.[4]
The Gospel claims that the disciple who "wrote these things" is the
disciple "whom Jesus loved," and who reclined "in Jesus' bosom" at the
Supper. It was not Peter, for Peter did not recline "in Jesus' bosom."
The presumption therefore is that it was either James or John, these
two being with Peter the closest friends of Jesus. It could hardly
have been James, who was martyred in A.D. 44, as the whole weight of
tradition and external evidence is against this. It must, then, have
been John, or a forger who wished to pass for that apostle. And to
suppose that an unknown forger, born two generations, or even one
generation, later than the apostles, could invent such sublime
doctrine, and insert it in so realistic a story, and completely deceive
the whole Christian world, including the district where St. John lived
and died, is to show a credulity which is without parallel in the
history of civilization.[5]
Now that we have reviewed the internal evidence for the authenticity,
we are able to return with renewed vigour to deal with the popular
rationalistic hypothesis that the author was a Christian who had
learned some genuine stories about Jesus current in the Church at
Ephesus, and then wove them into a narrative of his own composing. We
have observed that the marks of an eye-witness and contemporary of
Jesus are {93} scattered over the whole surface of the Gospel. If the
Gospel is not by St. John, only one other explanation is possible. It
must be composed of three distinct elements: (a) some genuine
traditions, (b) numerous fictions, (c) a conscious manipulation of the
narrative contained in the Synoptists. But the internal evidence is
absolutely opposed to any such theory. We can trace no manipulation of
the Synoptic narrative. The writer seems to be aware of St. Mark's
Gospel, and possibly the other two, but he evidently did not write with
them actually before him. He plainly had a wholly independent plan and
an independent source of information. And if we turn to the passages
which tell us facts not recorded by the Synoptists, it is quite
impossible to separate the supposed fictions from the supposed genuine
traditions. Both style and matter proceed from one and the same
individuality. One passage alone can be separated from the rest
without interrupting the flow of the story, and that passage is absent
in the best manuscripts. It is the story of the woman taken in
adultery (vii. 53-viii. 11). It seems to have been originally placed
after Luke xxi. 36, and was inserted into St. John's Gospel after it
was completed. We cannot apply the same process to any other passage
in the Gospel. It is an organic whole, as much as any play of
Shakespeare or poem of Tennyson. And over the whole book we find the
same morsels of history and geography. They are of a kind which
tradition never hands down unimpaired, and which no Ephesian disciple
of an apostle would be likely to commit to memory. In spite of all
attempts to divide the Gospel into parts derived straight from an
apostle and parts invented by later minds, the Gospel remains like the
seamless coat which once clothed the form of the Son of man.
[Sidenote: Date.]
It is important to observe that even the most hostile criticism has
tended to recede in its attempt to find a probable date for this
Gospel. Baur fixed it about A.D. 160-170, Pfleiderer at 140,
Hilgenfeld 130-140; Jülicher and Harnack will not date it later than
110, {94} and the latter grants that it may be as early as 80. The
year 80 is as early a date as the most orthodox Christian need desire,
and we can reasonably believe that it was written by the apostle at
Ephesus between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90. We learn from Irenaeus that St.
John survived until A.D. 98.
[Sidenote: Literary Style.]
Several points in the literary style of the apostle have been noticed
in dealing with the internal evidence which they afford to the
authenticity of his Gospel. But it is necessary to add something more,
for there is no writer to whom we can more fitly apply the profound
saying that "the style is the man." The language of St. John is the
result of a long and impassioned contemplation. Whether he writes down
his own words, or records the words and deeds of our Lord, his language
shows the result of careful reflection.
The teaching of Jesus exhibits a development different from that in the
Synoptists. We find in chs. ii., iii., and iv. that our Lord
definitely taught that He was the Son of God and Messiah quite early in
His ministry, while in the earlier part of Mark our Lord's teaching
about His Messiahship is far less definite. And the method of teaching
is also different. In the Synoptists we find picturesque parables and
pointed proverbs, while in John we find long discourses and arguments.
In the Synoptists the teaching is generally practical, in John it is
much more openly theological. This difference between the Synoptists
and St. John can be partly accounted for by the fact that St. John's
Gospel contains much more of the instruction given by our Lord to His
intimate friends, and that this instruction was naturally more profound
than that which was given to the multitude. But there is another
reason for the difference. If we attend to such passages as xiv.
15-21, 25-26; xv. 26-27, we see that our Lord teaches that there are
two manifestations of His Person, one during the time between His birth
and His death, and the other after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit is not a substitute {95} for an absent Christ; His coming
brings with it an inward presence of Christ within the Christian soul
(xiv. 18). By the aid of the Spirit, St. John condenses and interprets
the language of our Lord in a manner which can be understood by the
simplest of simple souls who live the inner life. In St. John we find
a writer who is writing when Jesus spoke no longer in parables and
proverbs, but "plainly" (xvi. 25, 29). He records the teaching of
Jesus, as it had shaped itself _in_ his own mind, but not so much _by_
his own mind as by perpetual communion with the ascended Christ.
[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]
We have noted on p. 31 the fact that St. John's Gospel shows that he
was acquainted with facts in the Synoptic Gospels which he does not
himself narrate. Yet the broad difference between the character of the
Synoptic writers and that of St. John is that the Synoptists are
historical, he is mystical. We do not mean that St. John does not
trouble about historical accuracy. His history is often more minute
than that of the Synoptists. But his purpose is to bring his readers
into deeper life through union with the God who is in Christ and is
Christ. The true mystic ever desires to maintain the knowledge of this
inward union in life with God. It is a knowledge which is made
possible by obedience, made perfect by love, and causes not new
ecstasies, but a new character. St. John adjusts all his material to
this one purpose. "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His
name" (xx. 31).
The Introduction or Prologue (i. 1-18) teaches that Jesus Christ is
that personal manifestation of God to whom the Jews had given the name
of the Word. The Palestinian Jews were accustomed to describe God
acting upon the world by the name _Memra_, or "Word" of the Lord. The
Alexandrian Jews also were in the habit of giving the title _Logos_,
which means both "Word" and "Reason," to an idea of God which perfectly
expressed all that God is. The Greek Stoics had {96} used the name in
a similar sense, and thus St. John, having realized that Jesus is truly
God made manifest, called Him by a name which every educated Jew and
Greek would understand. Unlike Philo, the great Alexandrian Jew who
tried to combine Greek philosophy with Jewish religion, St. John
teaches that this divine Word is a Person, and took human flesh and
revealed Himself as the Messiah. The whole Gospel shows how this
revelation met with increasing faith on the part of some, and
increasing unbelief and hatred on the part of others. The crises of
this unbelief are represented chiefly in connection with our Lord's
visits to Jerusalem, when He made His claims before the religious
leaders of Judaism. His revelation is attended by various forms of
_witness_. There is that of the apostle himself (i. 14); that of the
other apostles who also witnessed His "glory," as displayed by His
miracles (ii. 11). There is that of John the Baptist (i. 34); and when
we remember that there had existed at Ephesus an incomplete
Christianity which had only known the baptism given by John the Baptist
(Acts xix. 3), we see how fit it was that the apostle should record the
Baptist's testimony to Christ's superiority. There is the witness of
His works, and that which the Father Himself bore (v. 34-36). We
should notice that the miracles are called "signs," and are carefully
selected so as to give evidence to the reader concerning particular
aspects of our Lord's glory.[6] Even the Passion is described as
containing an element of glory (xii. 28, 32), it contains a secret
divine triumph (cf. Col. ii. 15), and is a stage towards the glory of
the Ascension. The "darkness" contends with the {97} divine "light,"
but cannot "suppress" it. After the "world" has done its worst, the
final victory of faith is seen in the confession of St. Thomas, "My
Lord and my God" (xx. 28).
We find other points of doctrine corresponding with the mystical
teaching that "eternal life" does not begin after the last judgment,
but may be enjoyed here and now by knowing "God and Jesus Christ whom
He hath sent" (xvii. 3). Thus the judgment is shown to be executed in
one sense by the mere division which takes place among men when they
come in contact with Christ, according as they are good or bad (v. 30;
viii. 16; ix. 39). The principle of this moral testing is made plain
in iii. 19. Those who stand the test, and believe in Christ, undergo a
resurrection here (xi. 26). On the other hand, there is also a future
judgment (v. 22, 29) and a future consummation (v. 28, 29; vi. 39 f.,
xiv. 3).
Similar beautiful paradoxes are found in the teaching that the "work"
which God requires of us is to believe in His Son (vi. 28, 29); and
that to fulfil God's will is the mark not of servants but of friends
(xv. 14). And those who hope that they are numbered among the friends
of Jesus will find in this Gospel all the deepest experiences of the
soul--the new birth, the finding of the living water and the true
light, and that abiding in Christ which is made complete by the eating
of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.
To realize the meaning of Jesus it is necessary to follow the guidance
of the Holy Spirit. The Synoptists tell us comparatively little of His
work, though they show us the Spirit descending on Christ at His
baptism, driving Him into the wilderness to be tempted, speaking in His
disciples, pervading His work (Luke iv. 18), and possessed of a
personality into which the Christian is baptized (Matt. xxviii. 19),
and against which blasphemy is unpardonable (Luke xii. 10). In John we
find a much fuller doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The fact that He is
not a mere impersonal influence of God is very clearly shown. And it
is impossible to accept the modern rationalistic {98} hypothesis that
the Holy Spirit is only a phrase for describing the idea which the
apostles had about the invisible presence of Christ. He is called
"another Advocate" (xiv. 16). Christ was an Advocate or Helper; the
Spirit will be another. Again, it is the work of the Spirit to refresh
the memory and strengthen the apprehension of the disciples concerning
Christ (xiv. 26); and our Lord definitely says, "If I go, I will send
Him unto you" (xvi. 7). With regard to the unbelieving world, the
Spirit will prove the sinfulness of opposition to Christ, will convince
the world of His righteousness as testified by the Father's approval
manifested in the Ascension, and will procure the verdict of history
that by the crucifixion the evil spirit who inspires worldliness was
condemned (xvi. 8-11). The Spirit's work is the same in kind as the
work of Christ, but the two Persons are distinct. That Christ
continues His advent and His work in the world through the Spirit
implies neither that the Spirit is an impersonal influence nor that He
is personally identical with Christ.
This Gospel gives us invaluable help in determining the chronology of
our Lord's ministry. His ministry is connected with six Jewish feasts
(ii. 13; v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2; x. 22; xii. 1). All are named except
that in v. 1, which is probably Pentecost, A.D. 27. The forty-six
years in ii. 20 are correct. Herod began to rebuild the temple in
20-19 B.C. Therefore the Passover in ii. 13 cannot be before A.D. 27.
ANALYSIS
Introduction: i. 1--i. 18.--The Word ever with God and Himself God,
manifested in creation, in conscience, in the incarnation.
A.
Winter A.D. 26 till after Passover 27.
The preparation and beginning of the ministry: i. 19-iv. 54.--The
testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus {99} and his baptism of Jesus,
his disciples come to Jesus, the gathering of other disciples, the
promise of seeing heaven opened (i.). Jesus and Mary at the marriage
at Cana, the disciples believe. Jesus at Capernaum. At the Passover
Jesus goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple (ii). At Jerusalem
Jesus teaches Nicodemus of the new birth, He labours in Judaea while
John is at Aenon (iii.). The woman of Samaria converted; Jesus returns
and is welcomed in Galilee, is again at Cana, cures the Capernaum
nobleman's son (iv.).
B.
Pentecost A.D. 27 till before Passover 28.
The increased self-revelation of Jesus at Jerusalem: v.--Jesus cures
the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, is accused of sabbath-breaking.
He co-ordinates His work and His honour with the work and honour of the
Father, claims to give life now and execute judgment, claims the
testimony of John, of His own miracles, of the Scriptures.
C.
Passover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.
Full self-revelation of Jesus in Galilee: vi.--Christ sustains physical
life by feeding the 5000, the people wish to make Him King. He again
shows power over nature by walking on the sea. He reveals Himself as
the Bread sustaining all spiritual life, commands the eating of His
flesh and drinking of His blood. The effect of this teaching is
increased enmity, the desertion by nominal disciples, and intensified
faith as shown by Peter's confession.
D.
Tabernacles, September A.D. 28 till early 29.
Further self-revelation at Jerusalem: conflict: journey to Peraea; vii.
1-xi. 57.--Jesus at the feast, {100} is accused of having a devil,
defends His former action on the sabbath, attempt to seize Him, His
invitation to all who thirst, the people divided, the officers refuse
to arrest Him (vii.). [Interpolated story of the woman taken in
adultery, vii. 53-viii. 11.]
Jesus reveals Himself as the Light of the world, the Jews no longer
Abraham's children, the Jews reject His claim to pre-existence, and
attempt to stone Him (viii.). Jesus gives sight to the blind man at
Siloam, discussion about healing on the sabbath (ix.). Jesus the good
Shepherd, at the feast of the Dedication in December the Jews try to
stone Him and He goes east of Jordan (x.).
Jesus as Conqueror of death goes to Bethany, raises Lazarus and
proclaims Himself as the Resurrection and the Life. On the advice of
Caiaphas, the Council propose to put Jesus to death. After raising
Lazarus Jesus retires to Ephraim, a city on the edge of the wilderness
to the north-east of Jerusalem (xi.).
E.
Passover A.D. 29.
Last public ministry at Jerusalem: xii.--Mary anoints Jesus for burial,
the entry into Jerusalem, the Greeks who desire to see Jesus, a voice
from heaven promises to glorify Him. Rejecting or receiving Christ.
Full self-revelation of Jesus to His apostles: xiii.-xvii.--At the
Passover He washes the disciples' feet. Judas pointed out and departs.
The question of Peter (xiii. 37), of Thomas (xiv. 5), of Philip (xiv.
8), of Judas (xiv. 22). The work of the Advocate who is to come (xiv.
26). Abiding in Christ, the new commandment to love one another, the
hatred of the world, future testimony of the Spirit of truth (xv.).
The Spirit will convict the world, guide the disciples. Sorrow only
for a little while, final assurances, warm expression of faith on the
part of the apostles, Christ's warning (xvi.).
Christ's intercession (xvii.).
{101}
The death of Jesus, the apparent triumph of unbelief:
xviii.-xix.--Betrayal in the garden, trial before Annas and Caiaphas,
Peter's denial, trial before Pilate, Jesus or Barabbas (xviii.).
The scourging, Pilate's futile endeavour to release Jesus, his
political fears, the crucifixion, "behold thy mother," the
spear-thrust, the writer's personal testimony, the burial by Joseph of
Arimathaea (xix.).
The resurrection, the victory over unbelief: xx.--Mary Magdalene, Peter
and the writer at the sepulchre, the writer records his own conviction.
Jesus manifests Himself to the Magdalene, to the ten disciples, most of
whom had deserted Him, and to Thomas who doubted. Thomas is convinced
of the Divinity of Jesus, the writer states that this Gospel was
written "that ye might believe."
Epilogue: xxi.--The manifestation of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, the
solemn charge to Peter. The editors of the Gospel assert that the
author was the beloved disciple.
(John xxi. 24 was probably written by the Ephesian presbyters who knew
St. John. The rest of the chapter is evidently by the apostle himself,
although, it may have been added at a time later than the rest of the
Gospel, which seems to come to an end with the impressive words in xx.
31. The most contradictory hypotheses have been broached by writers
who have denied the authenticity of ch. xxi. Some have held that it
was added in order to exalt St. John, the apostle of Asia Minor, over
St. Peter, the patron of Rome. Others have held that it was added to
exalt St. Peter. Those who deny the authenticity of the whole Gospel
are compelled to regard ch. xxi. 24 as deliberate false witness.)
_St. John's Oral Teaching._--It seems that before St. John wrote his
Gospel, he had adapted it to oral teaching. This is shown by the
arrangement of facts in combinations of 3, possibly suggested by the 3
manifestations of the Word recorded in the Introduction. There are 3
Passovers recorded, 3 feasts besides the Passovers, 3 journeys to
Judaea, 3 discourses on the last day of Tabernacles before the address
to believing Jews (viii. 31), 3 sayings from the Cross. If we regard
ch. xxi. as added later by St. John, we find in the rest of the Gospel
3 miracles in Judaea, 3 in Galilee, and 3 appearances of the risen Lord.
[1] _Apostolic Age of the Church_, vol. ii. p. 211. (English
translation.)
[2] Dr. James Moffat, _Introduction to the Literature of the New
Testament_, p. 601.
[3] Eusebius, _H. E._ v. 20. It is worth noting that Dr. Moffat, _op.
cit._ p. 609, admits that "if Irenaeus is correct, his testimony to
John the Apostle is of first-rate importance." So he adds, "he must be
held to have mistaken what Polykarp said, and to have confused John the
Presbyter with John the Apostle."
[4] See Edersheim, _Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah_, vol. ii. p.
494.
[5] The difficulties which arise from the difference between the
history of our Lord's ministry as given by St. John, and by the
Synoptists, have been discussed on p. 27, ff.
[6] He changes the good into better (ii. 9); saves the dying (iv. 50);
gives power (v. 8); gives food (vi. 11); gives sight (ix. 7); is Lord
over death (xi. 44); blesses the work done in faith (xxi. 11). It
should be noticed that St. John never mentions that our Lord cured any
one possessed with a devil, which according to the Synoptists was a
common kind of miracle. But St. John does not therefore contradict the
other evangelists. He recognizes that there are visible works of the
devil (viii. 41; cf. 1 John iii. 8), and mentions "the prince of this
world" as causing the trials of our Lord.
{102}