017. Chapter 15 - The Credibility of John
Chapter 15 - The Credibility of John The Real Choice The relation of the Gospel of John to the other three narratives has already been discussed briefly in the consideration of the Two-source Theory. The problem of credibility of the Fourth Gospel immediately involves the question as to whether it is the genuine work of the apostle John or the product of some later, unknown writer. This also has been discussed. It is the purpose of this chapter to consider the various lines of attack upon the subject matter contained in John’s Gospel as related to the other accounts. The bitterness of the assaults made upon the Gospel of John shows how critical the radicals feel that the issue is. John is so very plain and emphatic in affirming the deity of Jesus, that unless John is discredited, there is no chance of denying it and maintaining any semblance of following the New Testament. Therefore, the persistent effort has been made for many decades to show that John contradicts the Synoptics and that both can not be a true delineation of the life of Christ. These radical scholars declare a choice necessary and that they choose to follow Matthew, Mark, and Luke, rather than John. As a matter of fact, it will be seen that they really do not accept the testimony of these three when they collide with the current skeptical views about Jesus. The real choice which they make is not between John and the Synoptics, but between the New Testament and their radical theories with the deciding vote always granted to the latter, the facts to the contrary notwithstanding. The Radical Claims A very clear, succinct summary of the radical contentions is given by Professor Hill together with a fainthearted reply to some of them. He leaves the Johannine problem in general uncertainty, but his summary furnishes a convenient survey of the radical positions. The attacks follow three general lines, each of which is supported by several specifications. They maintain that John and the Synoptics both cannot be true and that John therefore is unhistorical because of: (1) Differences in the Details of Christ’s Ministry (a. Its Locality; b. Its Beginning; c. Its Length; d. Its Success; e. Its Characters; f. Seeming Contradictions); (2) Differences in. the Teachings of Christ (a. In Form; b. In Subject Matter); (3) Differences in the Self-revelation of Christ (a. Progress in the Revelation; b. The Means of the Revelation; c. The Fullness of the Revelation) (Hill, Introduction to the Life of Christ, pp. 118-144). The modernists marshal their evidence against the Gospel of John in the following manner: (a) Locality. Matthew, Mark, and Luke describe the ministry of Jesus as devoted almost completely to Galilee, with occasional excursions into outlying sections: Phoenicia, Caesarea Philippi, Decapolis, and Perea. They give no account of Jesus in Jerusalem until the final Passover when He was crucified. John represents repeated visits to Jerusalem and extended ministries there and in Judaea. (b) Beginning. The Synoptics represent Jesus as going from the temptation to Galilee and beginning His great ministry there; John describes a long ministry in Jerusalem and Judaea preceding the Galilean ministry. (c) Length. The Synoptics are held to present the ministry of Jesus as lasting only one year just one Passover feast and that at the conclusion of His Galilean ministry; John mentions numerous Passovers and other feasts and gives the reader to understand that the ministry of Jesus lasted several years (three and a half years is the general view). (d) Success. The Synoptics represent Jesus as stirring marvelous enthusiasm and meeting with immense success until He refused to be king and that then the disappointed people turned against Him and His death resulted; John represents bitter opposition from the leaders of the nation at the very start, and deadly plots against the life of Jesus in the first few months of His ministry. (e) Characters. The Synoptics and John are held to introduce at many phases of the ministry an entirely different set of characters — people like Nicodemus, Lazarus, and the Samaritan woman are not mentioned in the Synoptics. Thomas plays a very important part in John’s account and is scarcely mentioned in the Synoptics. (f) Seeming Contradictions. Various efforts are made to show that the Synoptics and John contradict one another as to time and details; the usual statement is that John went through and attempted to correct the Synoptics; especially on the time of the crucifixion: John representing the last supper as before the Feast of the Passover and the crucifixion at the time of the killing of the lamb; and picturing the trial of Jesus as in progress at the sixth hour, whereas Mark declares He was nailed to the cross at the third hour. The Length of Jesus’ Ministry This sounds like a very impressive series of in dictments against the credibility of John, but the moment the character of the narratives and their exact statements are examined, the difficulties disappear. Consider first the question of the length of Jesus’ ministry. It is a favorite contention of modernists that the ministry of Jesus lasted but one year. (Professor B. W. Bacon maintains that Jesus was fifty years old when He undertook this year of public ministry: he chooses to affirm the accuracy of the chance guess of the Pharisees which they purposely placed high: “Thou art not yet fifty years old” [John 8:57]; rather than accept the historical statement of Luke 3:23 : “Jesus...was about thirty years of age.” John makes it clear that the ministry of Jesus covered several years: he mentions three Passovers by name and most probably refers to a fourth in John 5:1 : (1) John 2:13; (2) John 5:1; (3) John 6:4; (4)John 13:1; he also mentions two other feasts by name that occurred during the last year of Jesus’ ministry: the Feast of Tabernacles in September (John 7:2); the Feast of Dedication in December (John 10:22). Thus John gives a very definite series of chronological references which make clear that the ministry of Jesus was probably more than three years and certainly more than two years. Now does this contradict the Synoptic accounts? Only in case one or all declared that they were giving a complete and chronological account, could a contradiction be affirmed. Since all give merely selected events out of a great multitude of sermons and miracles, added details by one witness strengthen the testimony of all, provided there is not an outright contradiction, for it shows independence of the testimony. This clears away the whole list of attacks cited above at one sweep, for it applies equally to them all. The Synoptics do not declare that the ministry of Jesus lasted but one year; the modern skeptics declare that. The Synoptics do riot declare that the Passover which they mention is the only one that occurred in Jesus’ ministry; on the contrary, Mark clearly indicates a second Passover when he declares that there was green grass in the desert place where the five thousand were fed (Mark 6:39). This fits perfectly with John’s narrative. Count up the days mentioned in the Synoptics and see how few days are specifically mentioned (only twenty-five days can be counted about which John records anything up to the last week) and it will be seen that this leaves room for all sorts of sermons and events which they do not record, for Jesus was constantly busy (John 20:30, John 20:31). Concerning every one of the specifications made against John’s narrative, it will be found that he is merely filling in gaps in the Synoptic narratives, omitting events which they have thrice recorded and relating things they have left unrecorded. Thus the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in both narratives is very different but harmonious. All four represent Jesus as returning from the Jordan to Galilee. The Synoptics pass over the preliminary phases of Jesus’ ministry and plunge immediately into the narration of His climactic Galilean ministry. John omits the baptism and temptation, describes the winning of some of John’s disciples, tells of the wedding feast at Cana, the brief stay at Capernaum, the Passover ministry in Jerusalem, and the months of work that followed in Judaea. If we did not possess this account in John’s Gospel, it would be hard to understand how it happened that Jesus walked along the Sea of Galilee, called four men to leave everything to follow Him, and was obeyed without question. John, instead of contradicting this, offers marvelously helpful information about the beginnings of this association when John the Baptist pointed Jesus out to some of his disciples, and about the months of fellowship that followed before the definite call by the sea.
Locality The question of the locality of Jesus’ ministry offers no real difficulty when the four narratives are studied closely. These writers were presenting the gospel of Jesus, not a biography of Jesus: hence they do not attempt to give systematic geographical and chronological data. Luke 10:38-42 clearly shows that Jesus was at Bethany in the outskirts of Jerusalem at a time in the midst of His ministry, long before the final Passover. Matthew 23:37 implies frequent visits of Jesus to Jerusalem and efforts to win the inhabitants: “O Jerusalem...how often would I have gathered thy children together...and ye would not.” So also Luke 13:34. This casual evidence offers the strongest confirmation of the fact that the Synoptics were not attempting a complete record of Christ’s ministry, and that Jesus had often been in Jerusalem as John records. Again John supplements rather than contradicts the Synoptics.
Success The contention that the Synoptics represent the ministry of Jesus as successful and without bitter opposition until the crowd turned against Him for refusing to be king is contrary to the facts. They show that fierce opposition arose from the Pharisees in the early phases of His ministry: controversies over healing on the Sabbath, claiming the power to forgive sins, associating with sinners, the disciples’ securing food on the Sabbath, and His refusal to keep the traditions of the Pharisees. Mark relates that at the close of the controversy over Jesus’ healing the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath: “The Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him” (Mark 3:6). This is in the very early days of His Galilean ministry before the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. Moreover, it is especially unfortunate for this radical theory that John, and not the Synoptics, is the one who tells that the reason the multitudes turned away from Jesus after the feeding of the five thousand was that He refused to be their king. All four narratives represent Jesus as stirring both tremendous enthusiasm and bitter opposition from the very start, and in varying degrees, at different stages of His ministry, and in various localities. Since the opposition centered in the national leaders who had headquarters in Jerusalem, and since John tells more of the Jerusalem ministries, it is natural he should give more details about the growing opposition.
New Characters The criticism that John introduces a new set of characters vanishes at a touch. Thomas appears more clearly, but this is perfectly natural when we have further details of Jesus’ ministry. Some new characters are introduced, but this is not surprising. Nicodemus, Lazarus, and the Samaritan woman are the only citations radicals can make, and there was no particular necessity that these should have been introduced into the Synoptics, and hence no evidence against the veracity of John. The argument from silence only has force when an author fails to mention someone or something which would have been essential to his narrative. Sanday calls exaggerated use of the argument from silence “making bricks without straw.”
Seeming Contradictions The attempts to argue that John contradicts the Synoptics as to the time of the crucifixion are based on interpretations of John 13:1 and John 18:28. In the first of these “Before the passover introduces a long sentence and most naturally means that Jesus, having loved His own that were in the world, before the Passover, loved them unto the end, that is, unto His death at the Passover. It does not thus affirm that the last supper took place before the Passover. The second passage certainly does not refer to the eating of the Passover lamb, but to one of the feasts following this initial ceremony, for the Passover was after sundown, and the Jews would not have been defiled by entering a Gentile home any later than the end of the day at sunset. The difference as to the hour of the crucifixion quite evidently results from the fact that John uses the Roman method of counting time (similar to our own); the Synoptics use the Jewish (sunrise to sunset) (John 19:14; Mark 15:25, Mark 15:33). A further discussion of this whole problem (as to the relation of the accounts of the death of Jesus) will be given in a later chapter: The Date of the Crucifixion.
Form of Teaching The second line of attack on John represents that his Gospel offers incompatible variations from the Synoptics as to the teaching of Jesus. John is held to represent Jesus as continually making long discourses, whereas the Synoptics picture Him merely as teaching by brief, pointed sayings and matter-of-fact instruction that was open to interruption and question at all times. The modernists like to affirm that Jesus was not a preacher but a teacher. They claim to base this estimate upon the Synoptics and to use it to discredit John. The facts in the case do not bear out their contention, for the longest sermon in the New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount, which is recorded in Matthew. The Sermon in Parables is another famous, extended sermon found in all three of the Synoptics and not in John. His sermon in denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees occupies an entire chapter of Matthew (23). The sermon on the destruction of Jerusalem and the second coming covers two chapters of Matthew (24, 25). John does not represent that all of Jesus’ public ministry was by long sermons; in fact, he gives more conversations with single individuals than any other Gospel writer. All four narratives represent Jesus as both teaching and preaching, engaging in patient, informal instruction of one, few, or many, and in tremendous impassioned public appeal to great multitudes. All report Jesus’ discourses as full of epigrams, vivid illustrations, and difficult sayings.
Key Words A second specification is that John has built his report of Jesus’ sermons around certain key words which belong to his own thinking and not to Jesus. The critics maintain that someone far removed from Jesus wrote this undependable Gospel, or that John wrote it in his extreme old age when he became confused as to what Jesus had said, and mixed it up with his own meditations about Jesus through the years. The key words usually named are: light, darkness, life, death, the world, witness, faith, to know, to believe, love, judgment. It is quite true that these key words throng the sermons and conversations of Jesus recorded in John. But it is also true that they are continually found in the reports of Jesus’ teaching and preaching in the Synoptics: “Ye are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:14); “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness” (Matthew 6:23); “cast him out into the outer darkness” (Matthew 22:13; Matthew 25:30); “What I tell you in the darkness, speak ye in the light” (Matthew 10:27). A study of each of the above key words will show them to be used by Jesus in each of the four Gospels. It seems like a strong argument when the critic points out that the prologue to John’s Gospel and his Epistles carry these same key words that he reports in the speeches of Jesus. But the moment that one reflects how the mind of John would have been completely filled with the ideas, comparisons and words he had heard Jesus use, the clearer it becomes that we should expect John, when he wrote an introduction to the Gospel or wrote his Epistles, to use these very ideas and words which Jesus had stamped forever on his mind and character. Moreover, when one turns to the Old Testament, the very same key words are repeatedly used. We hear Isaiah storming against false teachers who “put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20). We find him presenting the most beautiful pictures of the coming of the Messiah: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come” (Isaiah 60:1-3). Matthew quotes such a passage from Isaiah referring to Christ: “The people that sat in darkness saw a great light” (Matthew 4:16; Isaiah 9:1, Isaiah 9:2). Thus does the attack of the critics upon John’s truthfulness but bring out in all its God-inspired glory the unity of the whole Bible, for God from the beginning attempted to teach and emphasize certain fundamental conceptions and used certain beautiful comparisons, as He inspired His messengers to deliver His message both in the Old Testament and the New.
Style of John
It is of vital importance to notice that the radicals, in specifying the key words of John’s Gospel, do not mention the most remarkable of these: his startling and profound use of the title “Word” to mean Jesus. The reason they pass over this is self-evident: it is death to their theory. For John uses this extraordinary title in the most dramatic way, both in the prologue to his Gospel and in his first Epistle, but he never quotes Jesus as using this title. More powerful evidence could hardly be conceived in proof of the fact that John is giving an accurate report of Jesus’ sermons and did not merely put his own ideas and catch words into the mouth of Jesus. The modernists point out that it is frequently difficult to tell where the sermon of Jesus ends and the comments by John begin in several chapters. They usually cite the conversation with Nicodemus in chapter 3, but the point to be proved here is the point assumed: that the declarations of Jesus cease and comments by John begin at some point before verse John 3:21. Even if the style of John is closely identical with that of the sermons of Jesus reported in his Gospel, is it logical to affirm that the disciple is above his Lord? In the desperate attempt to reduce the person of the Son of God to mere human stature, the modernists would exalt John to incredible proportions. They would make him an inventive genius of such unparalleled splendor as to create the most exquisite statements of the most profoundly noble and spiritual teaching, and yet represent him as a writer so stupid or so immoral as to offer blandly his own creations as the words of Jesus, and urge their acceptance as such for the salvation of the souls of men! The inevitable logic of such folly is to worship the creature rather than the Creator; to transfer to the human the glories they would deny to the divine.
Subject Matter The modernists offer the following citations as to subject matter against the truthfulness of John’s report of Jesus’ sermons: that John introduces entirely new topics of discussion and lacks the fundamental topics found in the Synoptics; that he makes no mention of demoniacs, fails to mention the kingdom of God except in the conversation with Nicodemus; and that be substitutes the coming of the Comforter for the second coming of Christ. It is true that the Synoptics continually introduce accounts of the healings of demoniacs and that John records no such miracles, but since they had related so many instances, it was not necessary for John to add to their record in this particular. Moreover, since the reality of demon possession and the miraculous character of such cures is one of their major points of attack, it is exceedingly embarrassing to the critics that the manifold accounts of such in the ministry of Jesus comes, not from John whom they reject, but from the Synoptics whose veracity they are supposed to defend! It is not true, however, that John fails to mention this phenomenon, for three times demon possession enters into the controversy recorded in chapter 8: “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a demon?” (John 8:48; cf. John 8:49, John 8:52). It is true that the Synoptics continually represent Jesus as discussing the kingdom of God, but the insistent presentation of Jesus as the King is everywhere manifest or implied. John centralizes on reporting discussions which center in the King rather than the kingdom, but the proposition of the kingdom of God is plainly affirmed at climactic points and is everywhere implied. The conversation with Nicodemus occupies a key position in the early part of John’s Gospel, and it thoroughly discusses the kingdom of God. The trial before Pilate is the final climax and here Jesus clearly is reported as discussing His kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:33-38). The beautiful declarations of Jesus concerning the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, add immensely to our knowledge of the teaching of Jesus, but any effort to work up a contradiction upon this issue is purely artificial. The Synoptics quite clearly represent Jesus as predicting the coming of the Holy Spirit to direct and empower the apostles (Luke 24:44-49; Acts 1:4-8; Mark 13:10-12; Matthew 10:17-20). John just as clearly represents Jesus as predicting His own second coming (John 6:41;John 14:1-31; John 21:21-23). Although the critics claim that John’s Gospel is lacking in emphasis upon the second coming of Christ, it is the only one of the four which closes with emphatic reference to this event, and of all the promises of Jesus that He is to come again, that in John 14:1-31 is one of the most beautiful and satisfying. Again the four accounts supplement each other.
Universality A further contention as to subject matter is that the mission of Christ is limited to the Jews in the Synoptics, but is represented as universal and eternal in John’s Gospel. They cite such passages as “other sheep not of this fold” (John 10:16), “light of the world” (John 8:12), “draw all men” (John 12:32). A study of the narratives with this attack in mind shows that both the Synoptics and John represent the actual ministry of Jesus as almost exclusively limited to the Jews. John tells of a brief ministry among the Samaritans, but the Synoptics tell of a journey and miracle in Phoenicia. John reports the request of some Greeks to see Jesus, but the Synoptics show that Jesus healed the servant of the Roman centurion of Capernaum. Thus the emphasis of all accounts is on the exclusively Jewish character of Jesus’ ministry, with about equal, though different, exceptions. As to the teaching of Jesus concerning His ministry, the Great Commission gives the strongest emphasis to the universal and eternal character of Jesus’ ministry, and Matthew, Mark, and Luke all give a clear and powerful report of this commission. The universal character of the mission of Jesus is indicated throughout the Synoptics. Plummer says of the viewpoint of Luke’s Gospel: “The Saviour had come, and had come to save the whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the Christ winning salvation for the whole world; in Acts we see His apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the whole world” (Commentary on Luke, Introd., p. 36). The parable of the vineyard is a good illustration of the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics as to the universality of His mission (Matthew 21:41-43; Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). Equally clear are such declarations as “Whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel’s shall save it….For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds” (Matthew 16:25, Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:35, Mark 8:38; Luke 9:24, Luke 9:26); “Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Matthew 26:13; Mark 14:9). Thus, the universality and permanence of the gospel is continually and clearly indicated in the Synoptics as in John’s Gospel.
Profound Character of John’s Gospel The final specification of Professor Hill’s summary is: “The teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics are simple and generally practical; in John they are theological and most profound. For this reason, John, even in the early centuries, was called ‘the spiritual Gospel,’ and has been likened to the inner sanctuary of the temple. It presupposes an intuitive perception of the deepest religious truths when these are presented without explanation or comment” (Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 126). Certainly no one would deny that the Gospel of John is spiritual” and its reports of the teachings and sermons of Jesus generally most profound and concerned with the revelation of Jesus as God’s Son. However, the person who attempts a careful study of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and then declares that their reports of the teachings of Jesus are “simple and generally practical” (as contrasted with “theological and most profound”), reveals the shallowness of his own mental processes. The proposition that the Synoptics are devoted to practical morality apart from the deep doctrines of the divine person and program of Jesus, is a figment of the unbeliever’s imagination. It is true that the teaching of Jesus has an absolutely unique combination of simplicity and profundity so that the uneducated man finds practical meaning and the scholar finds unfathomed depths beneath the limpid surface. Read the Synoptics with this in mind. The first words quoted from the lips of Jesus (Luke 2:49) were spoken by the child of twelve in the temple. They were spoken and are recorded “without explanation or comment,” except that Mary and Joseph “understood not the saying” and that she “kept all these sayings in her heart.” They caught a glint of meaning, enough to rebut their criticism of His conduct; but they could not fully grasp the mysterious implications as to His person and mission. This might be used as a text for the study of the four narratives, and the teaching of Jesus in all four would be found continually to possess these same qualities. Illustrations abound everywhere, such as the replies of Jesus to the devil during the temptation, and any of the parables and sermons of Jesus in the Synoptics, and even the Sermon on the Mount, which the modernists like to describe as “simple and generally practical” (meaning to exclude deep doctrinal implications as to His person and salvation through Him). Characteristic examples from the Synoptics are found in the enigmatic replies of Jesus to certain men who proposed to follow Him: “And there came a scribe, and said unto him, Teacher, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go bury my father. But Jesus saith unto him, Follow me; and leave the dead to bury their own dead” (Matthew 8:19-22). “And another also said, I will follow thee, Lord; but suffer me first to bid farewell to them that are at my house. But Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:61, Luke 9:62). Now these sayings are introduced “without explanation or comment.” There is no indication that they were softened or interpreted by any further statements when first delivered. The men were left to fathom the meaning for themselves. The readers are left to meditate upon the probable character and motives of the men and the depth of meaning in the statements of Jesus. Some years ago a famous New York preacher delivered a series of sermons upon “The Hard Sayings of Jesus.” These three were among them, as well they might be, and they are all from the Synoptics. The thoughtful Bible student will discover throughout all four Gospel narratives a depth which baffles and defies complete comprehension, and yet which illumines, satisfies, and stirs to profound, lifelong meditation. The reports of all four evangelists are unanimous in showing the profound character of Jesus’ teaching; the account of John does give more profound doctrinal teaching, but this is entirely harmonious with the others and merely indicates the independent character of his Gospel.