CHAPTER I: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND THE FOURTH.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND THE FOURTH. __________________________________________________________________

1. DURATION OF JESUS MINISTRY.

ONE of the first points on which one wishes to be clear, if one would obtain a general view of the stories of Jesus' life, is this--How long did Jesus' public ministry last? As regards this, Jn. gives us information which is quite clear. The expulsion of the dealers and money-changers from the fore-court of the Temple, which was only preceded by the presence of Jesus at the marriage feast at Cana in Galilee, took place when Jesus had gone up (ii. 13) to Jerusalem to keep the Passover feast, our Easter Festival. Shortly before a second Passover festival, in Galilee by the Lake of Gennesareth he fed the five thousand (vi. 4). At a third Passover feast (xi. 55; xii. 1; xiii.
1) Jesus met his death. Between these there is mention of three other feasts. Between the first and second Passover, a "feast of the Jews," which is not more closely identified (v. 1); between the second and third Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles in October (vii. 2), and the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple in December (x. 22). The references being so definite, it is quite unlikely that a Passover feast has been passed over. We may therefore calculate that the public ministry of Jesus lasted, according to Jn., somewhat over two years (not, as is commonly said, three years).

The Synoptics, on the other hand, do not allow us to fix its duration. They know of no festival except that of the Passover on which Jesus died. The natural thing to do of course would be to supplement them on this point from Jn. But they tell us just as little of any one of the journeys which Jesus is supposed to have made at so many of these festivals. So that if we wished to bring them into agreement with Jn., the effort to do so would give rise to a complaint all the more serious, that they are silent about such important matters. If we are bent on discovering, by means of a calculation which is quite uncertain, how long the public ministry of Jesus is supposed to have lasted, we shall hardly find that it lasted more than one year; in fact, a few months would perhaps suffice to cover all that the Gospels relate. __________________________________________________________________

2. SCENE OF JESUS' MINISTRY.

We have already had to touch upon another main point in which the other Gospels differ from Jn. It affects the scene of Jesus' ministry. According to the Synoptics, Jesus did not come to Jerusalem or to Judaea at all--the most southern of the three parts of the Jewish land lying between the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan, which flows from the north to the south into the Dead Sea--until a few days before his death. Previously he stayed uninterruptedly in Galilee, the northernmost of these three parts. The shores of the Lake of Gennesareth are here the chief scene of his ministry. On one occasion he journeyed outside of the land far to the north-west into the regions of Tyre and Sidon and back to the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (Mk. vii. 24, 31); afterwards he went once to the other side of the northern boundary of Galilee into the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi (Mk. viii. 27). His journey to Jerusalem led him eastward of Jordan through Peraea (Mk. x. 1); Samaria, which lay west of this, midway between Galilee and Judaea, which would have been his nearest way, was avoided because an old feud had made the Samaritans unfriendly in their attitude towards the Jews, especially when these were making pilgrimages to Jerusalem (Lk. ix. 52 f., Jn. iv. 9).

Nevertheless Lk., and he alone, does represent this journey as having been made through Samaria; in fact his account of it extends over nine whole chapters (ix. 51-xviii. 34). But he leads us to realise fully that he is not clear as to the facts of his story. Not very far from the end of it, for instance, he repeats (xvii. 11) that Jesus was on the way to Jerusalem, and adds that in the course of it he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, whereas Galilee must have been left behind, if his purpose was to reach Jerusalem by way of Samaria. In xiii. 31 Jesus is warned against the snares of Herod Antipas, whose jurisdiction he had already avoided by leaving Galilee for Samaria. Further, on this journey Jesus is supposed on several occasions to have met Pharisees (xv. 2; xvii. 20), and is even said to have been invited to sit at meat with two of them (xi. 37; xiv. 1). But it is certain that no Pharisee could stay in Samaria, where he would come into daily contact with a people which did not observe the strict injunctions of the Jewish Law, and so would, of course, be continually defiled in such a way that no amount of washings and other observances would have availed to make him clean. Lk.'s story of Jesus journey through Samaria has therefore no claim to trustworthiness; it must be left entirely on one side.

In Jn. then the most important thing is this, that Jesus real and abiding dwelling-place during his ministry is Judaea and especially Jerusalem. To Galilee he came only on rare occasions and only for a short time: in ii. 1-12 to Cana at the marriage-feast and to Capernaum, where however he remained "not many days"; in iv. 43-v. 1 to Cana again, as regards which visit only the cure of the son of the royal official from Capernaum is signalised as a (special) event; finally in vi. 1 Jesus crosses the Lake of Galilee without its being said how he came there from Judaea; he feeds the five thousand, on the following night walks across the Lake, on the ensuing day teaches the people; and soon after the Feast of Tabernacles is again near at hand (vii. 2), for which he goes to Jerusalem without returning to Galilee. In the case of the last journey but one to Galilee we learn also where, according to Jn., Jesus original home really was, "Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honour in his own country; when then he came to Galilee, the Galileans received him kindly" (iv. 44 f.). What is here meant by Jesus country? Judaea is intended, just as certainly as in the Synoptics his father's town Nazareth in Galilee is; for it was in Nazareth, as every one knows from Mk. (vi. 4), Mt., and Lk., that he uttered this saying (the Greek word patrís means both father's land and father's town). In i. 45 f.; vii. 41 f., 52, it is true, Jn., like the Synoptics, presupposes that Galilee, especially Nazareth, is Jesus native place, but in spite of this, iv. 44 f. implies the contrary. Moreover, vii. 42 suggests that Jn. may have believed that at least the birth of Jesus took place in Bethlehem, and so in Judaea.

As to the journeys northward from the Lake of Galilee, Jn. is entirely silent. Jesus comes to Peraea shortly before the last Passover according to Jn. also, but on this occasion not by the pilgrimage route from Galilee to Jerusalem, but from Jerusalem (x. 40), where he has stayed since the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 2, 10), and so without break since October. But, besides this, according to Jn,, on the second excursion also which he makes from here to Galilee (not as in Lk. on the last journey to Jerusalem in the opposite direction), he comes to Samaria (iv. 1-4), and follows up the success which he has here with the woman at Jacob's Well and all the inhabitants of her town, by holding out the greatest expectations of extensive missionary work on the part of his disciples (iv. 35-38), though according to Mt. x. 5 he expressly forbids these same disciples to carry on mission work among the Samaritans. In short, a greater difference with regard to the scene of his ministry can hardly be imagined. __________________________________________________________________

3. THE CLASSES OP PEOPLE AMONGST WHOM JESUS MOVED.

With whom then had Jesus to deal when he came forward to teach in public? In the Synoptics with the most different classes of people. Here we find crowds of people following him into the wilderness to listen to him for days together. The sick come and ask for healing, sometimes abashed like the woman with an issue of blood, who, with out being seen, hoped to be able to touch the hem of his garment (Mk. v. 25-34), sometimes, like blind Bartimaeus at Jericho, crying aloud (Mk. x. 46-48). A rich man desires to learn from the Master what he must do in order to attain everlasting life (Mk. x. 17); a scribe wishes to know which is the most important commandment in the Law of Moses (Mk. xii. 28); another would like to follow him, but does not reflect that Jesus has no place where he can lay his head (Mt. viii. 19 f.); others again desire to follow him, but would first bury their fathers (Mt. viii. 21 f.) or take solemn farewell of their friends (Lk. ix. 61 f.); yet another has a legacy dispute with his brother, and Jesus is to settle it (Lk. xii. 13 f.); the chief tax-gatherer Zacchaeus climbs up a mulberry-tree in order to see Jesus as he passes by (Lk. xix. 1-10). Another tax-gatherer, who may have been called Levi (so Mk. ii. 14 - Lk. v. 27) or Matthew (so Mt. ix. 9), at the beck of Jesus leaves his business to follow him, and at the meal which he prepares afterwards we find Jesus in the midst of the tax-gatherers and their whole company, which was regarded as sinful, but which he so much cultivated that it came to be said, he is "a glutton and a wine-bibber, an associate of publicans and sinners" (Mt. xi. 19). It was at Levi's meal that the Pharisees and scribes, with long fringes to their garments (Mt. xxiii.
5) in token of a singular piety, were present to find fault with Jesus, just as they opposed him everywhere else, raising objection in the name of the Law of Moses to his disciples plucking ears of corn on the Sabbath or to his doing work on the Sabbath by healing a sick man (Mk. ii. 23-iii. 6), or to his declaring that the sins of the paralytic man were forgiven (Mk. ii. 1-12). And he on his part is never tired of pronouncing against that hypocrisy and affectation of holiness of theirs through which they allow themselves to be surprised at prayer in the street, that they may keep their piety well in evidence, and at the same time consume the houses of widows and declare it to be a work well pleasing to God to give to the Temple something which is needed for the support of one's own poor parents (Mk. vii. 11-13; Mt. vi. 5 and chap. xxiii.). In return they try to set snares for him and by captious questions to entice from him an utterance on the strength of which proceedings may be taken against him. And the Sadducees, the aristocratic priestly party, which gave itself up to the joys of life, but held firmly to its position of authority and was relentless in matters of the law, also associated themselves with these efforts (Mk. xii. 18-27).

Where is all this varied picture in Jn.? Only a few of its features confront us there. In Jn. also the Pharisees vigilantly enforce the command that the Sabbath shall not be profaned by any work (ix. 14-16). But what Jesus finds fault with in them, apart from this, is not their factitious holiness, but only their unwillingness to believe in him. In Jn. not only do the Scribes not appear, but--and this is far more important--the publicans and sinners, the poor and oppressed, are missing also. As the particular persons with whom Jesus had to do, apart from his disciples and the sick persons whom he healed, mention can be made only of his mother (at the marriage feast of Cana, ii. 1-11, and at the cross, xix. 25-27), Nicodemus (iii. 1-21; vii. 50-52; xix. 39-42), the woman of Samaria (iv. 7-30), and Martha and Mary (at the raising of their brother Lazarus, xi. 1-44, and at the anointing of Jesus, xii. 1-8).

For the rest, Jesus is confronted only by a single class of men, "the Jews." Over thirty times this expression recurs in the first eleven chapters. Of course in the Synoptics also they are all Jews with whom Jesus holds intercourse; but in them a distinction is actually made between Jews and Jews, which is not made here. Every thing remains indefinite. To the sick man who was healed at the Pool of Bethesda, "the Jews" say, "it is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed" (v. 10). After he has learned who healed him, he tells "the Jews," it was Jesus (v. 15). Was he not himself a Jew then? And was not Jesus also a Jew? The Gospel of Jn. is very liable to make us forget this. Jesus journeys to Jerusalem not for this and that feast, which since he was a child of his people was a festival for him also, but to "the feast of the Jews"; with the exception of the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple (x. 22) all the feasts mentioned in Jn. and referred to above (p. 9 f.) are described in this way. Jesus says to the Pharisees, and another time to "the Jews," "in your law it is written" (viii. 17; x. 34); for Jesus himself, then, this Law is not valid. We even read in vii. 11-13 that at Jerusalem "none spake openly about him for fear of the Jews." Here by the Jews cannot be meant the whole population, but only the authorities whose attitude was particularly hostile to Jesus. The strange expression indicates, however, that the same hostile feeling is imagined to prevail among the whole people. __________________________________________________________________

4. COURSE OF JESUS' MINISTRY.

In accordance with this, as far as the course of Jesus' ministry is concerned it might now be expected to have a very speedy and a violent termination. In particular, it was the expulsion of the dealers from the fore-court of the Temple that, according to the account of the Synoptics, sealed Jesus fate. And, as a matter of fact, no officials could allow their sacred rights to be interfered with in this way without letting all authority slip out of their hands. But in Jn. the expulsion takes place at the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, and it happens with out bringing upon him any serious consequences. This is all the more remarkable since in this Gospel no difficulties seem to be felt at all when Jesus is represented as about to be taken prisoner without any clear legal grounds for the action. The High-priests and Pharisees only need to give their agents command to effect the capture (vii. 32). It is not effected, it is true. But why not? Their agents allow themselves to be withheld from obeying their instructions by the power of Jesus' words, and the authorities quietly abandon their object (vii. 45-49). We are told repeatedly that "they" (or "the Jews") sought to take him or to kill him (v. 18; vii. 1; viii. 37, 40; x. 31), but the result is always: "none laid hand upon him" (vii. 30), "he escaped from their hands" (x. 39), or when they wished to stone him, "he hid himself and escaped from the Temple place" (viii. 59). And the reason given is that "his hour was not yet come" (vii. 30; viii. 20).

Now certainly it must not be overlooked that in the Synoptics also (Mk. iii. 6) the Pharisees with the party of Herod took counsel together how they might destroy Jesus after his first cure of a sick man on a Sabbath. On the whole, however, events run their course here in a much more intelligible way. Jesus comes forward in Galilee and finds favour--even an enthusiastic welcome--among the people for a whole period. The intervention of the Pharisees is powerless to check this. When Jesus leaves Jewish territory on the north, he does so expressly in order to escape the pressure now becoming too great (Mk. vii. 24). Only in the end does there come a time when he finds himself called upon to go up to Jerusalem, and there, by means of a solemn entry into the city, to force a decision of the question whether people would see in him the Saviour (Mk, xi. 1-11). The decision follows within few days, and is hastened chiefly by the expulsion of the dealers from the fore-court of the Temple.

In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, although the circumstances urgently require an immediate settlement of the question, it is deferred again and again; and, finally the decision is caused by an event of which the Synoptics know nothing at all--by the raising of Lazarus. The greatest of all miracles leads the High Council, the highest authority among the Jewish people, to meet together and definitely contemplate Jesus' removal (xii. 47-53, 57). Thus the two accounts do not agree even to what really provided the occasion for the overthrow Jesus. __________________________________________________________________

5. JESUS' WORKS OF WONDER.

As to the fact that Jesus worked miracles, it is true, they are all agreed. And it is only on the surface that the number, according to Jn.'s account, has to be thought of as somewhat limited. He, as a matter of fact, continually presupposes that it was large (ii. 23; iv. 45; vi. 2; vii. 31; xi. 47; xii. 37; xx. 30), and in xx. 31 expressly says that he has only included a selection of them in his book. And yet it is significant that among these that class of miracles is not found which not only, according to the Synoptics, was the most common, but also (according to the general agreement of modern historians and theologians of every school) least deserves to be doubted--we mean the cure of so-called possessed persons or demoniacs, that is to say, of the mentally sick, a cure which is effected by physicians fairly often even in our own times.

Next, it must certainly appear strange that the miracles reported in Jn. are often more marvellous in their character than those in the corresponding narratives of the Synoptics. Amongst the stories of cures in the Synoptics we do not hear of a man being healed by Jesus who had been ill for thirty-eight years; nor amongst the references to blind men, of sight being given to one who was born blind. The daughter of Jairus, according to Mk. v. 22-43, was raised very soon after her death; the young man at Nain, according to Lk. vii. 11-17, on the way to burial, which in the hot climate of Palestine took place on the very day of death, or, according to the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the Acts of the Apostles (v. 5 f., 10), immediately after death (cp. also Tobit viii. 10-16). To understand what a difference is implied when we are told that Lazarus was not resuscitated until the fourth day after his death, we must bear in mind the Jewish idea that the soul hovered about a dead body for three days after death and was ready to return to it. On the fourth day it finds the appearance of the dead person so completely altered that it forsakes it once and for all.

It would also be a great mistake to suppose that the description of the walking on the Lake of Galilee is more easy to accept in Jn.'s account (vi. 16-21) than in that of the Synoptics (Mk. vi. 45-52), because it is supposed to admit of a perfectly natural explanation. Thus stress is laid on the fact that the Greek words, Jesus walked "upon the sea," might also mean "by the sea," and it is assumed that the disciples with their boat, without noticing it, kept quite near the shore or had come near it again; Jesus passed close by the water's edge, and it was only the high waves that made it appear as if he walked upon the water. This conception is supposed to find further support in the concluding words (Jn. vi. 21), "they wished then to take him into the ship, and immediately the ship struck the land." On this view there is only one thing omitted, and that is the chief point we mean the four words which follow, "to which they steered." By this, as we are expressly told in vi. 11 is meant the opposite shore of the sea. The Evangelist, therefore, really emphasises the fact that Jesus walked across the whole sea and did not need to be taken into the boat, as in the Synoptics.

Yet another view is suggested by the changing of the water into wine at the marriage-feast at Cana (Jn. ii. 1-11). This miracle is one which Jesus performed not on a man but on an inanimate object, and hardly any one can say that it was prompted by heartfelt compassion for suffering humanity. The Evangelist also assigns to it a quite different meaning: "this was the first sign which Jesus did and whereby he announced his majesty." Not every work of wonder is in itself a "sign" of this kind. Any one of them of course may be such a "sign," if its purpose is to accredit the divine power of the worker; and many works of wonder must necessarily be regarded as "signs" in this sense, because no other purpose can be recognised in them.

Now the Synoptics also report certain works of wonder of this kind, for example the withering of the fig-tree after Jesus had cursed it (Mk. xi. 12-14, 20 f.), and we must certainly assume that other miracles of Jesus as well, works of wonder done from compassion, seemed to them to be "signs" quite as much as anything else. Nevertheless, the distinction still holds good that compassion as the ruling idea of the wonder-works of Jesus is in these as much in the foreground as it is in the background in Jn. The latter mentions not merely, as we have just noted, that the turning of the water into wine at Cana was the first miracle, but also says expressly that the healing of the son of the royal official of Capernaum was "the second sign which Jesus did in Galilee" (iv. 54); in fact he uses the word "sign" continually for Jesus' works of wonder, and in this Gospel Jesus emphasises the idea (v. 36; x. 25) that these "works," by which he means his works of wonder, are witnesses that he has been sent by God, and that though one refuses to believe his words, one must believe his "works" (x. 38; xiv. 11).

Now the view thus taken by Jn. is directly opposed to an utterance of Jesus preserved to us in the Synoptics. When the Pharisees wish to see a "sign" from him, he answers "there shall no sign be given unto this generation." So Mk. viii. 11-13. In Mt. (xii. 39; xvi. 4) and Lk. (xi.
29) he adds "except the sign of the prophet Jonah." It almost seems as if this addition were in full contradiction with Mk.'s account. But appearances are deceptive. That is to say, by the "sign of Jonah" is meant something which is really no sign at all--in fact the contrary of a sign. This unusual mode of expression is very effective. An illustration will make this clear at once. Suppose that a conqueror suddenly invades a country, that the inhabitants send ambassadors to him and ask for credentials to justify his raid, and that he answers, "no credentials shall be given to you but the credentials of my sword." And the idea in Jesus' words about the sign of Jonah is really similar, for he says in continuation, "the people of Nineveh shall rise up in judgment with this generation (with which I have to deal), and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold a greater than Jonah is here "in my person (Mt. xii. 41). Here we are actually told in what the sign of Jonah consists: it is his preaching. And what Jesus has to offer--though in a more perfect form--is of course also preaching. He desires merely to preach, not to do "signs." Nor is this a principle which he sets before himself one day and ignores the next. The generation of the Pharisees was not unworthy one day and worthy the next to see a "sign" from him. Here then we have evidence of priceless value to show that Jesus declined on principle to do, not all works of wonder, but all such as might be supposed to serve the purpose of accrediting his exalted rank. And he must really have uttered these words, for none of all his recorders who believed that Jesus really did works of wonder with this intention would have invented them.

In order to emphasise fully the importance of such passages, we describe them as foundation-pillars of a really scientific Life of Jesus. That is to say, every historian in whatever field he may work, in a story which shows that the author worshipped his hero, follows the principle of regarding as true anything that runs counter to this worship, because it cannot be due to invention. Since we possess several Gospels, we are in a position to note, in addition, how one or more of them will sometimes remodel, sometimes remove altogether, passages of this nature because they were too offensive to one who worshipped Jesus. In their original form, therefore, such passages show us most certainly how Jesus really lived and thought, that he did so in a way which we--though we fully recognise in him something divine--must describe as truly human. Secondly, if it were not for such passages we could not be sure that we may, to some extent at least, rely upon the Gospels in which they are found, that is to say upon the first three. If they were entirely wanting in them it would be difficult to reply to the claim that the Gospels nowhere present to us anything but the figure of a saint delineated on a background of gold, and that we cannot know how Jesus really lived and worked, nor perhaps whether he even lived at all. The foundation-pillars on which, in addition to that mentioned above, we may lean in our effort to gain a correct idea of the wonder works of Jesus, will be discussed on p. 41, and in Chap. III., §§ 18 and 19; the rest which are important for other sides of Jesus character, on pp. 24 f., 26 f., 27 f., 29 and 43.

Naturally all that we find to be trustworthy in the Synoptics is by no means limited to these nine "foundation-pillars." It is one of the chief duties of a historian to show that the success which a great character has had in history can be understood from his words and works. But in the case of Jesus the success has been so great that even an inquirer who is quite sober in his attitude towards him must search out and accept as true everything that was calculated to establish his greatness and to make the worship which was offered to him by his contemporaries intelligible, provided that it is not in conflict with the picture of Jesus presented by the foundation- pillars, and does not for other reasons arouse in us doubts which are well founded.

Coming back to Jesus' words about the "sign of Jonah," after what has already been said about it, it may be gathered how lacking in intelligence the man must have been who inserted, between the saying about the sign of Jonah and that about the people of Nineveh, the sentence "for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Moreover, this insertion is found only in Mt. xii. 40, not in Mt. xvi., nor in Lk. and Mk. What then is meant? The day will come when the Pharisees shall see the miracle of Jesus resurrection. And then we are told further in Mt. that "the people of Nineveh . . . repented at the preaching of Jonah." Did Jonah preach to them about his coming forth from the belly of the fish? And if he had done so, could it have made much impression upon them? A miracle one wishes to see with one's own eyes, not merely to hear about. But, besides this, we are told quite correctly, in agreement with the Old Testament book which deals with Jonah, what it was that he preached to the people of Nineveh: it was repentance. Thus the idea introduced, that Jesus told the Pharisees they would one day see the miracle of his resurrection, is not appropriate here.

Why do we spend so much time on this point which is not found at all in the Fourth Gospel? The reason is that in this too (ii. 18-22) Jesus is asked to show a "sign" (in proof that he has the right to drive the dealers from the fore-court of the Temple), and that he does not decline to do so as in the Synoptics, but points to his future resurrection, just as he does in the inappropriate insertion in Mt.; this event will prove his right to have driven the sellers--two years previously--from the Temple court.

As regards the miracle at Cana we have still to note the rôle played in it by Jesus mother. Although down to this time Jesus has never worked a miracle (Jn. ii. 11), his mother foresees that he will do one, and says to the servants, even after she has been rebuked by Jesus, "whatsoever he shall command you, that do." How entirely different is the presentation of Mary in Mk.! Here (iii. 21 ) Jesus' friends go out to seize him because they think him mentally distraught. Who these friends are we are very soon told in Mk. (iii. 31-35); his mother and his brethren come and send some one to summon him from the house; and only their intention to withdraw him from his active work and banish him to his parents house will explain his gruff answer, "Who is my mother and my brethren? Whosoever doeth the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother." We may take it for granted that when Mk. tells us of this intention, and of the idea that Jesus was mentally distraught, he was relying upon unimpeachable information. This is clear when we look into Mt. and Lk. They do not say a word about these two things--and why, unless it was because they dare not believe anything of the kind?--and give only Jesus' gruff answer, without of course reflecting what an unfavourable light is thrown upon Jesus, if it was not provoked by conduct on the part of his mother and his brethren which was quite intolerable. __________________________________________________________________

6. THE GENERAL PICTURE OF JESUS.

The conception which we have formed of Jesus as a worker of wonders will affect to an important extent the picture of him which is formed as a whole. Here again it will not be forgotten that the Synoptics agree with Jn. in sketching it with a grandeur which raises Jesus to a marked extent above the standard of what is human. Yet they report that he also, like others, was baptized by John. In the Fourth Gospel we look in vain for this information. Here we find only the later report of the Baptist, that lie saw the Holy Spirit coming down upon Jesus from heaven like a dove; and even this is supposed to have happened, not for the sake of Jesus, but only of the Baptist the purpose being that by this sign which God had already announced to him, he might be able to recognise in the person who stood before him the Son of God whom he did not already know (i. 32-34).

In Jn. also the fact recorded by the Synoptics (Mt. iv. 1-11), that Jesus was tempted by the devil, is entirely omitted. And to this Evangelist the report in Mk. (x. 17 f.) and Lk., that Jesus, when a rich man said to him, "Good master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" answered, "Why callest thou me good? None is good but God alone" would have been equally unacceptable. And yet without doubt this answer came from Jesus lips. How little any of those worshippers who noted down the records in the Gospels could have invented it is shown by Mt. In Mt. (xix. 16 f.) the rich man says, "Master, what good thing must I do in order to have eternal life?" And Jesus answers, "Why askest thou me concerning what is good? One is the good." How in this passage does Jesus come to add the last four words? Should he not, since he was questioned about the good, have continued, "one thing is the good"? And this would have been the only appropriate reply, not only in view of what precedes, but also on account of what follows, for Jesus says later, "but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Thus it is in the keeping of the commandments, Jesus thinks, that that good thing consists about which he was asked. How does Mt. get the words, "one is the good"? Simply by having before him, when he wrote, the language of Mk. Here we have a practical example of the way in which Mt. deliberately tried so to change this language at the beginning as to make it inoffensive, while at the end, in spite of his purpose, he left unchanged a few words of it which reveal to us what has happened and how it arose. But by removing in this way the words of Jesus to the effect that he did not deserve to be called good, Mt. has only anticipated the Fourth Gospel in which Jesus exclaims triumphantly (viii. 46), "Which of you convicteth me of sin? "

In the Synoptics (Mk. xiv. 32-39) we are told that in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed insistently that the cup of death might pass from him. In Jn. we seek for this information in vain. The words about the cup, familiar to us from the Synoptics, are used by Jesus in Jn. also, but in the contrary sense, "the cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (xviii. 11). We find in a much earlier passage (xii. 27) the only thing that can be compared with the deep emotion of Jesus in Gethsemane. Several days before his death Jesus says here, "Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say? "But no more unsuitable continuation could be imagined than the following words when they are mistranslated, "Father, deliver me from this hour." How can the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel think of asking the Father in heaven to deliver him from death? He actually gives up his life of his own accord (x. 17 f.). The sentence can therefore only be meant as a question: "What ought I to say? Ought I to say, Father, deliver me from this hour?'" This alone makes the following words also appropriate, "but for this cause came I unto this hour"; therefore I say, "Father, glorify thy name," by letting me go to my death. [2]

Mk. (xv. 34) and Mt. at any rate have the saying of Jesus from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In Jn., as well as in Lk., we fail to find it. And yet we may be quite certain that it was no more invented than the saying about the sign of Jonah. An indication of weakness in the Crucified Lord might be found in the saying in Jn. xix. 28, "I thirst," which, in turn, is not found in the Synoptics. But the author has been careful at the outset to exclude this interpretation. He says expressly that Jesus spoke the word in order that a prophecy of the Old Testament (Ps. xxii. 16) might be fulfilled; we are not therefore meant to suppose that Jesus was really thirsty.

Furthermore, we read frequently in the Synoptics that Jesus prayed to his heavenly Father, and that he sought solitude for this purpose (e.g., Mk. i. 35). How Jn. thinks of Jesus as praying is clear when he is represented as standing before the open sepulchre of Lazarus (xi. 41 f.) and saying, "Father, I thank thee that thou heardest me. And I know that thou hearest me always; but because of the multitude which standeth around I said it, that they may believe that thou didst send me." From this it appears that Jesus did not need to pray for his own sake, but only for that of the people; and this he even explains to God in a prayer. Here that power of his to do wonders, with which we started, is first revealed in its fullest light.

To this may now be added the continual examples of his omniscience. Nathanael, who has only just come to him, Jesus has already seen under the fig-tree before Philip called him to Jesus (i. 48). He did not trust himself to those who believed on him at the first Passover feast in Jerusalem, because he knew them all (ii. 24 f.). He was able to tell the woman of Samaria, that she had had five husbands, and that he whom she now had was not her husband, and she was obliged to admit on the strength of this that Jesus was a prophet (iv. 16-19). As regards Lazarus he received a message merely to the effect that he was sick. But Jesus knew that in the meantime he had died (xi. 3 f. 11-14; see p. 32). He knew "from the beginning" that Judas Iscariot would betray him (vi. 64; xiii. 18), In the Synoptics, on the other hand, we find him expressly declaring that (Mk. xiii. 32) "of that day," that is to say, the day on which he would come down from heaven, in order to set up the Kingdom of God upon earth, "or of that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father"--another of the sayings which, we may be sure, none of his worshippers has invented. Lk. omits it altogether; Mt. (according to what is probably the original text) omits at least the all-important words "neither the Son."

We may add further the continual examples of that inviolability of his, which we have already referred to (above, p. 17): they wished to seize him, but he suffered no harm. It will have become clear in the meantime that the expression which occurs here, "he hid himself" (viii. 59; also xii. 36), certainly cannot mean that Jesus concealed himself, but only--as his dignity would require--that he made himself invisible in a miraculous way, because "his hour had not yet come."

When, however, his hour came, he gave himself up of his own accord. Once more we read that the soldiers could do him no harm; at his words. "It is I" whom ye seek, they go back and fall to the ground (500, if not 1000, Roman soldiers). Judas, since it was dark, according to the Synoptics (Mk. xiv 44 f.) requires to point him out first by kissing his hand; in Jn. he does not need to do so, he stands idly by (xviii. 3-6). Jesus of his own accord, by dipping a morsel in the sop and giving it to Judas at the Last Supper, made the devil enter into him, and himself bade him hasten his evil deed (xiii. 26 f.) and of this again the Synoptics know nothing. __________________________________________________________________

[2] Marks of interrogation and other marks of inter-punctuation are not found in our ancient copies of the Bible. We must therefore supply them as best suits the sense. __________________________________________________________________

7. GENUINE HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS IN JESUS?

But, this being so, does the description of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel embody no genuinely human characteristics? It is significant that even those who still place this Gospel on a higher level than the other three would rather the picture of Jesus were not so like a God as it is in the description we have just given, following faithfully the real idea of the author But of all that they can point to, the only thing which is at all worthy of consideration is found in the words (xi. 35), "Jesus wept"--the occasion being when he came near to the grave of Lazarus. And the idea that we have here an instance of real human emotion on the part of Jesus seems, further, to be confirmed expressly by the following words: "The Jews therefore said, Behold how he loved him.'" But this of itself is necessarily startling. We shall very soon (p. 44 f.) have to explain that what the Jews say in reply to a declaration by Jesus is in the Fourth Gospel regularly based upon a misunderstanding. But, further, the author has taken care to make it clear to every one who is at pains to understand him that the words of the Jews are shown by the context of the passage itself to be a misunderstanding. Before this it has been said (xi. 33): "When Jesus therefore saw Mary weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit and was troubled." After the words of the Jews, "Behold, how he loved him," we are told further, "But some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of him that was blind, have caused that this man also should not die?'" Jesus, again groaning in his spirit, now goes to the grave. Why did he groan in this way? Now this second time we are clearly told, it was because the Jews who are here speaking did not think that his power to raise Lazarus was to be regarded as something which he possessed quite as a matter of course. But why should he have groaned the first time? Surely because of something of the same nature, that is to say, simply because Mary and the Jews wept instead of confidently expecting that the dead man would be raised by Jesus. And when we are told, in the interval, that he wept, it should not really be so difficult to see that his tears were not on account of the loss of his friend and the mourning of Lazarus' kinsfolk--he knew well enough that at the next moment both would be obliterated by the raising of Lazarus--but simply because they did not believe in his power to work miracles.

Or if this cannot really be seen here, can it not be recognised even at the beginning of the narrative? If we were to read it aloud simply as far as the words in xi. 5 f., "Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister, and Lazarus. When therefore he heard that he was sick," certainly every listener would expect us to proceed, "then he went to him immediately." Instead of this we actually find the words, "he abode at that time two days in the place where he was." Why? Unless we are willing to believe that he feared the snares of the Jews, against which his disciples warn him in xi. 8 two days later--he himself refusing to take warning--we can only say that this delay was to all appearances due to an indifference or inhumanity which is superior to all genuinely human feeling. But it would be quite unfair to make his conduct a subject of moral criticism. The author of the Gospel has taken care to show that we may not, as a matter of fact, expect to find any genuinely human feeling in the Jesus of his story. After two days have passed, Jesus says to his disciples openly (xi. 14 f.): "Lazarus is dead; and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe." In what? This we have been told already, in xi. 4, where Jesus receives news of the illness of Lazarus: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby."

The words at the beginning of this sentence mean, not that this sickness will not cause the death of Lazarus, but that it will not lead to his remaining dead, for, as the concluding words show, Jesus knew beforehand that he would raise Lazarus, and that the miracle would serve for his own glorification. And he could only effect this and exceed all other miracles if he allowed the fourth day to come before he arrived at the sepulchre, since only then could any return to life be considered out of the question (see p. 19). Here then we have the real reason why he delayed his journey for two days.

In this case we can prove something more. Since the journey to Bethany takes at most two days, and Jesus did not arrive there until the fourth day after Lazarus' death, Lazarus was already dead by the time the messengers reached Jesus, and the Fourth Gospel presupposes that Jesus already knew this, by means of course of that omni science with which it supposes him to be endowed. The sorrow of the sisters, their longing for a word of comfort, their anxious waiting for one who might have arrived long ago--all this is nothing to him; he is only concerned about the miracle and his own glorification. Here we can see whether the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel has any human characteristics. __________________________________________________________________

8. DEVELOPMENT OF JESUS IN THE COURSE OF HIS WORK.

In the character of Jesus as described by the Synoptics we are allowed to see further that he developed both in thought and action. It would of course be a very great mistake to suppose that they themselves were conscious of any such development or believed in it. But they at any rate make such statements as enable us, when we carefully examine them, to discover this truth. It is at a relatively late date that Jesus in these Gospels is recognised by his disciples to be the ardently hoped-for deliverer of his people, the God-sent inaugurator of the kingdom of God, the Saviour, to use a popular term, or, as the Jewish name "Messiah" and the Greek name "Christus" mean, the "Anointed" of God. They do not report it, that is to say until the public ministry of Jesus had continued for a fairly long time, not until after he had found occasion to withdraw for the second time beyond the northern boundary of Galilee (Mk. viii. 27-30). The confession which Peter now made in Caesarea Philippi, in the name of the other disciples as well, was, according to the Synoptics, one of the most important turning-points. According to Jn., Peter made the corresponding pronouncement (vi. 66-69), not on foreign territory, but at Capernaum (Jn. knowing nothing of the journey farther north); but--and this is the chief point--it is not represented as a new discovery and announcement and as made for the first time. In truth, it cannot be such, for in this Gospel John the Baptist already knows, when he sees Jesus approaching him for the first time, that he is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, and that he has existed before him (i. 29 f.) And Andrew, after he has been a day with Jesus, and even before Jesus' public appearance, is able to say to his brother Peter, "we have found the Messiah" (i. 38-41).

Next, in the Synoptics we find Jesus saying at one time that he has not come to destroy the Law of Moses, but only to fill it with its true import, and so to deepen it (Mt. v. 17) in a manner which is more precisely exemplified in Mt. v. 21 f. 27 f.; and at another time making such statements as, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. ii. 27), or "whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him, but only evil thoughts which proceed out of the heart" (Mk. vii. 18-23). Such declarations as these brush aside the whole Law, if we think of the literal meaning of its particular precepts. There is hardly any other way of reconciling the two classes of utterance but to suppose that Jesus expressed himself in the one way at an earlier period, and in the other at a later date.

Or when we read that Jesus went into foreign territory that he might remain unrecognised, and that at first he roughly repulsed the Phoenician woman who cried after him, beseeching him to heal her sick daughter, but after wards paid attention to her (Mk. vii. 24; Mt. xv. 21-28), certainly the natural explanation is that at first he seriously meant what he said to her: that it would be wrong to take the bread--that is to say, the power to heal, with which he was endowed--from the children (of the chosen people) and to give it to the dogs, that is to say, to the Gentiles, to whom she also belonged. It was only the affecting and very appropriate retort of the anxious mother, "even the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs," that could convert him, if this version is correct, and so prepare him to alter all his ideas about the extension of his lifework to the Gentiles.

Jn. does not give us the slightest clue to any such changes; Jesus in this Gospel suffers no alteration; he is the same from beginning to end. __________________________________________________________________

9. FORM OF JESUS DISCOURSES.

The same contrast is seen again in a particularly clear way in Jesus' discourses. Here indeed the difference, as compared with the Synoptics, is perhaps most clearly marked. It is apparent even in the form. In the first three Gospels we have short, pithy utterances: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God"; "ye have heard that it was said to those of old . . . but I say unto you . . ."; "they that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick"; "what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer loss of his own life" (Mt. v. 8, 21 f.; Mk. ii. 17; viii. 36). We might go on quoting utterances of this kind almost without end. Even where the discourses are longer, as in the Sermon on the Mount, or on the occasion when he sent forth the disciples, or in his address to the Pharisees (Mt. v.-vii., x., xxiii.), we can easily see that they are really compilations of such pithy utterances as these, each of which has a meaning and force of its own. In Jn. no more than a few of these utterances reappear. Everywhere else in this Gospel we find long spun-out discourses about certain thoughts, which, moreover, are repeated on the most varied occasions. In order to gain some idea of their style, read for instance Jn. iii. 11-21; v. 19-47; viii. 12-59; or vi. 26-58.

Jesus parables are special gems in his discourses. We never cease to be charmed by their vividness, the freshness of their colouring, and their appropriate application to the religious and moral problems of life, and we feel that they really must have been the best means of bringing eternal truths home to simple people in whom dwells half unconsciously so deep a desire for them. The Fourth Gospel does not contain a single parable. The only passage that approaches the parabolic form is that in which Jesus compares himself to a vine and his disciples to the branches (xv. 1-8); but this is only a figurative discourse, not a story in which some action is represented as going on before our eyes, such as that of the sower scattering seed or the shepherd going in search of his lost sheep. Elsewhere we have in Jn., besides this, only the instances in which Jesus calls himself the good shepherd and the door of the sheepfold (x. 11-16; x. 1-10). The first is as beautiful as the second is peculiar. Who can think of Jesus as the door? The thought is employed here for the purpose of distinguishing two classes of teacher: the shepherds who come to their sheep by entering the door, and robbers who climb in by another way. But how Jesus can here represent the door cannot be made clear, and much less when he is immediately afterwards compared (x. 11-16), not to the door, but to the good shepherd the good shepherd, by whom we have just been led to think (x. 2-5) some one else was intended. __________________________________________________________________

10. SUBJECT OF JESUS' DISCOURSES.

And with what do the discourses of Jesus deal? In the Synoptics almost exclusively with the question, What must one do to gain admittance into the Kingdom of God? And the answer to the question is well-nigh exhausted when it is summed up in the words, "Be pure in heart, love God and your neighbour, do God's will" (Mt. v. 8; xxii. 37-39; vii. 21). According to the circumstances, and the persons to whom it was given, it took on different occasions the most varied forms; but the point was always that what is required is moral conduct based on the fear of God. This is so, even where Jesus speaks of his own person and says that one must follow him, one must listen to him (for instance, in Mt. x. 37-40). He does not say this for his own sake, but on account of those whom he wishes, by speaking thus, to lead into the right path, which of course no one knew so well as he. Words which go beyond this and require people to recognise his exalted nature, such as, "every one who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven" (Mt. x. 32 f.) play a quite subordinate part. Jesus speaks about himself very seldom.

He does so all the more frequently in the Fourth Gospel. Here his person and its divine nature is almost the only subject of his discourses. Jesus' words to the sick man at Bethesda after his cure, "Sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee" (v. 14) are indeed spoken for the sufferer's sake; but the whole discourse which follows down to the end of the chapter serves to elaborate the thought, that Jesus has been sent by God and that God through his miracles, as well as through the prophecies found in the Old Testament, bears witness to Jesus as His son. It is true that we find again in this chapter something which is said on account of Jesus' hearers, "He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life" (v. 24); but this word of Jesus to which they are to listen, according to the immediately preceding verse amounts to this, that all ought to honour the Son as they honour the Father in heaven. The man born blind is healed, but no word is said to him that might be helpful for the nurture of his soul--his only gain is this, that he learns step by step who it was that healed him; and this again, to say the least, subserves the purpose of Jesus glorification of himself. At the very beginning of the cure (ix. 5), Jesus calls himself the Light of the World. This thought, to which he has already given expression in viii. 12, is amplified throughout chapter viii., and here the discourse frequently harks back to what we have mentioned from chapter v., the idea that God bears witness to Jesus as His son. In chapter vi. (26-58), it is true that it is in the interest of Jesus' hearers when we are told that they are to receive the true bread of life, but the important point on which the whole discourse turns is this, that Jesus himself is this bread of life.

And what are known as the Farewell-discourses of Jesus (chaps. xiii.-xvii.) are not at bottom different in character. They deal with the idea that, to help the followers of Jesus after his death, the Holy Spirit will come upon them, and guide them to the whole truth (xiv. 26; xvi. 13); but at least of equal importance is the other point, that it is not only God (so xiv, 16 f.), but also Jesus himself, who will send this Holy Spirit (xv. 26; xvi. 7), and even that he himself, regarded from another point of view, is this Holy Spirit (xiv. 18, identical with xiv. 17; also xiv. 28). Moreover, these chapters are full of sayings which expressly serve the purpose of Jesus own glorification: "he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9, exactly as in xii. 45); "all things whatsoever the Father hath are mine" (xvi. 15); "I came out from the Father, and am come into the world" (xvi. 28). It may be nothing more than external corroboration of this, but it is significant all the same, that in the discourses of Jesus in Jn. the word "my" occurs much more than twice as often as in Mt., and the word "I" more than six times as often.

There is only one narrative in the Fourth Gospel in which the utterances of Jesus do not serve the purpose of his own glorification, but are spoken entirely for the sake of the persons with whom he is dealing; this is the story of the woman who was taken in adultery and brought to Jesus (vii. 53-viii. 11). "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"; and after her accusers have slunk away one after another, "Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way, from henceforth sin no more." These utterances read, in fact, as if Mk., Mt., or Lk. lay open before us. But, apart from this, there is hardly a scholar who does not agree that this narrative was not found originally in the Gospel of Jn. It is missing in copies which were made as late as in the fourth century or still later, and many particular words are found in it for which elsewhere Jn. regularly uses quite different terms. __________________________________________________________________

11. DEMANDS MADE BY JESUS IN His DISCOURSES.

What demands does Jesus make of his hearers in those discourses which were really penned by the Fourth Evangelist? These can be expressed in a few words. "Believe in my person and its divine character." The man who was born blind, after he has been healed, gradually arrives at the conviction that he who has healed him must be a God fearing man, one who does God's will; he must be "from God," otherwise God would never have given him power to make a blind man see (ix. 31-33). But this alone is not sufficient. Jesus asks him afterwards: "Dost thou believe in the Son of Man?" And when he replies, "And who is he, Lord, that I may believe in him?" Jesus says, "He that speaketh with thee is he." And not until now is that point reached which was bound to be reached. The man exclaims, "Lord, I believe it," and offers worship to Jesus (ix. 38). On the other hand, the only reason for the enmity existing between Jesus and his many opponents is that they have no faith in him. They reproach him for ascribing to himself a rank which he does not possess, that is to say, for making himself equal to God by calling Him his Father in the sense that he came from Him as a man comes from his human father (v. 18); and he, on his side, reproaches them for having an evil will and refusing to recognise his divine origin (v. 40; viii. 45 f.).

In the Synoptics also Jesus requires faith. He says to Jairus on their way to his daughter, whose death has just been announced to him, "Fear not, only believe" (Mk. v. 36). But the faith referred to here and nearly everywhere else in these Gospels relates only to Jesus power of doing a saving act which will result in some one being restored to health. We have an example of this when it is said so often at the conclusion of a story of healing: "Thy faith hath saved thee" (Mk, v. 34, &c.). This is something essentially different from the belief in Jn., that Jesus has come down from heaven to earth. In the Synoptics we might translate the word more appropriately "trust" instead of "faith," whereas in the Fourth Gospel it is clear that this would be quite unsuitable. Moreover, according to the accounts in the Synoptics, Jesus hardly ever needs to ask for this trust in the way that he is continually obliged to in Jn.; it is offered to him spontaneously.

We have in fact unimpeachable evidence to show that when it was not cherished spontaneously, he never thought of asking people for it. When he came forward publicly in his native town, Nazareth, people scorned him because they knew whose son and brother he was, and he had to experience the truth that a prophet has no honour in his own country. Now we are further told in Mk. (vi. 5 f.): "And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk and healed them. And he marvelled because of their unbelief." He could not! Here again we have a report like that about the sign of Jonah (see p. 21 f.). We may be quite sure that it would not have found a place in our Gospels, if it had not been made by one who had himself observed the fact, and been handed on without alteration. How unacceptable it must have been to those later chroniclers who were all, Mk. not excepted, convinced of the power of Jesus to work miracles, is shown by Mt., in which it reads thus (xiii. 58): "And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."

In the Synoptics, in yet another sense Jesus asks for faith, even if the word "faith" does not occur. According to our way of expressing it, it is faith that he asks for when he says, for instance, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Mk. i. 17), or "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old . . . but I say to you . . ." (Mt. v. 21 f.). But again the faith here meant is not, as in Jn., faith in the fact of Jesus descent from heaven, but simply confidence in his knowledge of the right way that leads to salvation.

Quite different from the Synoptics then is the method of Jn. when he makes the person of Jesus and its divine origin the central feature in Jesus' discourses. The language agrees fairly well with theirs when the Fourth Gospel also represents Jesus as requiring people to hear his words and to keep them (viii. 31, 51; cp. Mt. vii. 24; xxiv. 35); but what he asks of people in these words of his is not, as in the Synoptics, moral conduct, but acceptance as true of his assurance that he has come from heaven. This acceptance is even described as "the work "required by God (vi. 29). It is not a question of the kingdom of God and the way to reach it, but of Jesus person and the acknowledgment of his exalted nature. On one point certainly all the Gospels agree--in saying that love is the highest commandment (Mk. xii. 30 f.; Jn. xiii. 34 f.). The difference, however, is this, that, according to Jn., if love is not accompanied by this faith in the heavenly origin of Jesus, it can be of no value and can never be the path by which entrance is made into the kingdom of God. That is made quite clear by the saying of Jesus in Jn. (iii. 18): "He that believeth on him (the son of God) is not judged; he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God."

In Jn. therefore Jesus knows of nothing more important than his own person; do people believe in its divine origin or not?--the answer to this question decides whether men are to be saved or lost for time and eternity. In the Synoptics he knows of something higher. He says in Mt. xii. 31 f.: "All sins and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be for given. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come." Thus he regards his own person as subordinate to the Holy Spirit, or in other words to the sacred cause which he represents. And he must really have said this; for no one would have invented it. Indeed Mk., who in this passage (iii. 28 f.) by no means preserves the original language, has obviously changed it with a definite purpose. He has retained the phrase "Son of man," but no longer uses it in such a way as to mean that the person of Jesus suffers the blasphemy; he applies it, in the plural, to the persons who utter it: "All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness." __________________________________________________________________

12. MISUNDERSTANDINGS AS REGARDS JESUS' DISCOURSES.

The large measure of uniformity in the discourses of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel means that these in themselves very soon reach their end. Nevertheless, some misunderstanding, on the part of his hearers, gives Jesus remarkably frequent occasion to prolong them. Sometimes indeed it is not surprising that his hearers do not understand him for example, when he tells them that he is the bread come down from heaven (vi. 41 f.), that he will give them his flesh to eat (vi. 52), that Abraham has already seen him (viii. 56 f.), etc.

In other passages, however, we are obliged to ask, on the contrary, whether the intelligence of his hearers could really have been so feeble. Nicodemus--to give a single instance--is said to have been a teacher in Israel (iii. 10), and yet he does not understand Jesus when he says, "whosoever is not born from above, cannot see the kingdom of God." He asks in astonishment, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" (iii. 3 f.).

But perhaps we have not been fair to him. We have rendered the words of Jesus according to their real sense: from above, that is to say from God, must he be born, by God must he be destined and endowed, who is to have admittance into the kingdom of God. But the words admit of another translation: "If any one is not born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This is evidently the meaning which Nicodemus attaches to the words when he puts his counter-question, and this, at least externally, is not so senseless. Such ambiguity in Jesus language is no accident; it occurs again on very many occasions. When, as we have just mentioned, Jesus promises to give bread or meat to his hearers, on first thoughts and until we have realised that there is a deeper meaning in the words, we cannot help thinking that he really means ordinary food. It is the same with the water, which, as he sits by a well, Jesus promises to give the woman of Samaria, and of which he says that, after tasting it, she will never thirst again (iv. 13-15); and other instances occur frequently (e.g., iv. 31-34; vii. 33-36; viii. 31-33; xi. 11-14; xii. 32-34). We see that it is a peculiarity of these discourses, that in them Jesus chooses an expression with more meanings than one, and thus intentionally provokes misunderstanding, in order that he may afterwards explain the matter more precisely.

But at the same time another purpose is served. How can Philip, who has spent two years with Jesus, desire him to show him the heavenly Father (xiv. 8 f .)? This seems inconceivable even if he did not understand the words spoken by Jesus immediately before: "If ye had known me, ye would have known my father also; from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him." But we ourselves are perhaps surprised at the further statement which Jesus makes in reply to Philip's request, "Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." We ourselves might still have thought perhaps that the recognition of the Father, as Philip may be supposed to have reached it from his acquaintance with Jesus, consisted in gaining a true idea of God's attributes, of His power, His wisdom, His goodness. Instead of this, however, Jesus thinks that we ought not to conceive of God here as a Being who has an existence independent of and separate from other beings, but ought to see Him presented to our objective vision in the person of Jesus himself. This in fact goes beyond all that we are accustomed to think we know about God. And so Philip's misunderstanding--as well as many others in Jn.--serves the further purpose of revealing in a particularly clear manner, on the one hand the lack of intelligence on the part of Jesus' hearers and even of his disciples, and on the other the infinite depth and unsuspected novelty of Jesus interpretations.

That the lack of intelligence in Jesus' hearers and even in his disciples was not slight, is indicated often enough by the Synoptics also. On the other hand, their books do not suggest that Jesus teaching contained such unfathomable secrets, nor are they aware that he was so continually misunderstood, or that he himself provoked these misunderstandings by using expressions with more meanings than one. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________