SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
SermonIndex.net : Christian Books : CHAPTER VI THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN

The Books Of The New Testament by Leighton Pullan

CHAPTER VI THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN

[Sidenote: The Author.]

We learn from the Gospels that St. John was the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman, and was a follower of the Baptist before he joined our Lord. The Synoptists show that he was one of the most prominent and intimate of our Lord's followers. With St. Peter and St. James he was permitted to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter, and to be present at the Transfiguration, and with them was nearest to Christ at the agony in Gethsemane. With St. Peter he was sent to prepare the last Passover. Like his brother St. James, he shared in the fervour of his mother, Salome, who begged for them a special place of dignity in the kingdom of Christ. They both wished to call down fire on a Samaritan village, and St. John asked Jesus what was to be done with the man whom they found casting out devils in His name. Their fiery temperament caused our Lord to give them the surname of Boanerges (|sons of thunder|). In the fourth Gospel the name of John the son of Zebedee is never mentioned, but there are several references to an apostle whose name is not recorded, but can be intended for no other than St. John. At the crucifixion this apostle was bidden by our Lord to regard Mary as henceforth his mother, and the writer claims to have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion. In the last chapter very similar words are used to assert that the writer is he whom Jesus loved.

In Acts St. John appears with St. Peter as healing the lame {81} man at the Beautiful Gate of the temple, and with St. Peter he goes to Samaria to bestow the Holy Ghost on those whom Philip had baptized. He was revered as one of the pillars of the Church when St. Paul visited Jerusalem in A.D.49 (Gal. ii.9). It is remarkable that the Synoptic Gospels, the fourth Gospel, Acts, and Galatians, all show St. John in close connection with St. Peter. St. John's name occurs in the Revelation, which has been attributed to him since the beginning of the 2nd century.

Numerous fragments of tradition concerning St. John are preserved by early Christian writers. Tertullian, about A.D.200, says that St. John came to Rome, and was miraculously preserved from death when an attempt was made to kill him in a cauldron of boiling oil. Tertullian and Eusebius both say that he was banished to an island, and Eusebius tells us that the island was Patmos, and that the banishment took place in the time of Domitian. On the accession of Nerva, St. John removed from Patmos to Ephesus, where he survived until the time of Trajan, who became emperor in A.D.98. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, writing about A.D.190, speaks of St. John's tomb in that city, and says that he wore the petalon, the high priest's mitre used in the Jewish Church. We are told by other writers how he reclaimed a robber, how he played with a tame partridge, how when too old to preach he was carried into church and would repeat again and again, |Little children, love one another.| On one occasion a spark of his youthful fire was seen. It was when the old man indignantly refused to stay under the roof of the same public baths as Cerinthus, the heretic who denied that Mary was a virgin when she bore our Lord, and asserted that the Divinity of Jesus was only a power which came upon Him and went from Him.

The residence of St. John at Ephesus is attested by the Revelation. Even if that book were a forgery, no forger at the close of the 1st century would have ventured to place the hero of his book in a neighbourhood where he had not lived. {82} Many threads of evidence lead us back to the statement made by Polycrates about the apostle's tomb. It was not until long after that date that the Christians began to carry the relics of saints from place to place, and churches rivalled one another in producing shrines for the severed members of one body. There is therefore no reason whatever to doubt that the tomb at Ephesus marked the resting-place of the apostle. It was known two hundred years later in the time of Jerome, and visited in 431 by the members of the great Church Council which met at Ephesus. The Emperor Justinian built a sumptuous church on the site, and near a modern Turkish mosque may still be seen the remnants of the church of St. John.

Until the end of the 18th century the authorship of this Gospel was not seriously challenged. The only party which ever denied that it was written by the Apostle St. John was an ignorant and insignificant body of people mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius. They were known as the Alogi, or |unbelievers in the Word.| Their views in no wise undermine the tradition of the Catholic Church. For the Alogi asserted that this Gospel was written by Cerinthus, who lived at Ephesus where St. John lived, and was himself a contemporary of St. John. We have sufficient knowledge of the teaching of Cerinthus to be perfectly certain that he could not have written a Gospel which so completely contradicts his own theories. Therefore the opinion of the Alogi is absolutely worthless where it negatives the tradition of the Church, and on the other hand it agrees with that tradition in asserting that the book was written in the apostolic age.

During the last hundred years the men who deny that Jesus Christ was truly |God of God, Light of Light,| have strained every nerve to prove that the fourth Gospel was not written by St. John. It is, of course, almost impossible that they should admit that the writer was an apostle and an honest man and continue to deny that the Christ whom he depicts claimed to be the Lord and Maker of all things. During the controversy {83} which has been waged during the last three generations with regard to St. John's Gospel, it has been evident throughout that the Gospel has been rejected for this very reason. The book has driven a wedge into the whole band of New Testament students. The critics who deny that Jesus was God, but are willing to grant that He was the most holy and the most divine of men, have been forced to side with those who are openly Atheists or Agnostics. The clue to their theories was unguardedly exposed by Weizsaecker, who said, with regard to St. John's Gospel, |It is impossible to imagine any power of faith and philosophy so great as thus to obliterate the recollection of the real life, and to substitute for it this marvellous picture of a Divine Being.| This remark shows us that the critic approached the Gospel with a prejudice against the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity, and rejected the Gospel mainly because it would not agree with his own prejudice. But the determination to fight to the uttermost against the converging lines of Christian evidence has now driven such critics into a corner. Many have already abandoned the position that the book is a semi-Gnostic forgery written in the middle of the 2nd century, and they are now endeavouring to maintain that it was written about A.D.100 by a certain John the Presbyter, whom they assert to have been afterwards confounded with the Apostle John.

Of John the Presbyter very little indeed is known. Papias, about A.D.130, says that he was, like Aristion, |a disciple| of the Lord, and that he had himself made oral inquiries as to his teaching. He seems to have been an elder contemporary of Papias. Dionysius of Alexandria, about A.D.250, mentions that there were two monuments in Ephesus bearing the name of John, and we may reasonably suppose that one of these was in memory of the presbyter mentioned by Papias. But a little reflection will soon convince us that nothing has been gained by the conjecture that this John wrote the Gospel. If John {84} the Presbyter was personally acquainted with our Lord, as some writers understand Papias to mean, then the sceptics are forced to admit that one who personally knew Jesus, describes Jesus as a more than human Being -- as, in fact, the Divine Creator. This is the precise fact which keeps these writers from admitting that an apostle wrote the Gospel. If, on the other hand, they suppose, as some do, that John the Presbyter was very much younger than the apostles, the sceptics are confronted with the following difficulties: --

(a) There is the important external evidence which shows how widely the Gospel was regarded in the early Church as the work of St. John.

(b) There is the minute knowledge displayed of the topography, customs, and opinions of Jerusalem and the Holy Land as they existed in the time of Christ.

(c) There is the impossibility of supposing that Irenaeus, who was probably not born a year later than A.D.130, would not have known that the Gospel was written by John the Presbyter.

(d) There is the fact that the evidence for St. John having lived in Ephesus is better than the evidence for a renowned presbyter of the same name having lived in Ephesus. This has been wisely pointed out by Juelicher, even though he himself denies that the apostle wrote St. John's Gospel. And the justice of this argument proves that it is sheer paradox to maintain, as some now maintain, that the only John who lived in Ephesus was the Presbyter.

It is constantly urged by the opponents of the authenticity of this Gospel that, as it was published at Ephesus at a late period, it cannot be the work of the apostle, because he never went to Ephesus, and |died early as a martyr.| This is a most unscrupulous use of an inexact quotation made by some later Greek writers from a lost book of Papias. It can be {85} traced to Philip of Side (5th century), and it is to the effect that |John the Divine and James his brother were killed by the Jews.| Papias does not say that they died together, and his statement is compatible with the belief that St. John survived his brother very many years. We know from Gal. ii.9 that he was alive some time after his brother's death, which was about A.D.44. And George Hamartolus, one of the Greek writers who quote the above passage in Papias, expressly says that the Emperor Nerva (A.D.96) recalled John from Patmos, and |dismissed him to live in Ephesus.|

[Sidenote: The External Evidence.]

The external evidence for the authenticity of this Gospel is in some respects stronger than that which is to be found in the case of the other Gospels. Thus the Christian may recognize with gratitude that his Divine Master has especially added the witness of the Church to the work of His beloved disciple. All through the 2nd century we have the links of a chain of evidence, and after A.D.200 the canon of the Gospels is known to have been so fixed that no defender of the faith is called upon to show what that canon was. The earliest traces of the phraseology of St. John are to be discovered in the Didache, which was probably written in Eastern Palestine or Syria about A.D.100. The prayers which are provided in this book for use at the Eucharist are plainly of a Johannine type, and are probably derived from oral teaching given by the apostle himself before he lived at Ephesus. In any case, the Didache seems sufficient to disprove the sceptical assertion that theological language of a Johannine character was unknown in the Christian Church about A.D.100. The letters attributed to St. Ignatius, the martyr bishop of Antioch, are now universally admitted to be genuine by competent scholars. They may most reasonably be dated about A.D.110, and they are deeply imbued with thought of a Johannine type. It has been lately suggested that this tendency of thought does not prove an actual acquaintance with the Gospel of St. John. But when we find Christ {86} called |the Word,| and the devil called |the prince of this world,| and read such a phrase as |the bread of God which is the flesh of Christ,| it is almost impossible to deny that the letters of Ignatius contain actual reminiscences of St. John's language. Nor is there the least reason why Ignatius should not have been acquainted with this Gospel. His younger contemporary St. Polycarp, whose letter to the Philippians was also written about A.D.110, quotes from the First Epistle of St. John. And Papias, who probably wrote about A.D.130, and collected his materials many years earlier, also quoted that Epistle, as we learn from Eusebius. Now, the connection between the Gospel and the Epistle is, as has been cleverly remarked, like the connection between a star and its satellite. They are obviously the work of the same author. If Polycarp, who had himself seen St. John, knew that the Epistle was genuine, he must have known that the Gospel was genuine.

The evidence which can definitely be dated between A.D.120 and A.D.170 is of extreme interest. It proves conclusively that a belief in the authenticity of this Gospel was so firmly engrained in the Christian mind that men holding the most opposite opinions appealed to its authority. It is true that the |irrational| Alogi rejected it, and that Marcion repudiated it, not because it was not by an apostle, but because St. Paul was the only apostle whom he admired. But it was used by the Catholics, the Gnostics, and the Montanists. St. Justin Martyr was acquainted with it, and before he wrote, Basilides, the great Gnostic of Alexandria, borrowed from it some materials for his doctrine. The equally celebrated Gnostic Valentinus used it, and his followers also revered it. About A.D.170 Heracleon, an eminent Valentinian, wrote a commentary upon this Gospel, of which commentary some fragments still remain. The Montanists arose in Phrygia about A.D.157. Montanus, their founder, endeavoured to revive the power of prophecy, and his followers maintained that |the Paraclete said more things in Montanus than Christ {87} uttered in the Gospel.| It can easily be proved that their teaching was an attempt to realize some of the promises of our Lord contained in St. John's Gospel. And the fact that the Montanists were strongly opposed to the Gnostics makes it all the more remarkable that both sects regarded this Gospel as so important. Somewhat before A.D.170 St. John's Gospel was inserted by the great Syrian apologist, Tatian, in his Diatessaron, or harmony of the Gospels, and the apocryphal Acts of John composed near the same date contain unmistakable allusions to this Gospel.

The evidence of Irenaeus is the culminating proof of the genuineness of the Gospel according to St. John. He became Bishop of Lyons in A.D.177, and remembered Polycarp, who suffered martyrdom at Smyrna in A.D.156, at the age of eighty-six. Irenaeus, in writing to his friend Florinus, says, |I can describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed, and his goings-out and his comings-in, and his manner of life, and his personal appearance, and the discourses which he held before the people, and how he would describe his intercourse with John and the rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would relate their words. And whatsoever things he had heard from them about the Lord and about His miracles, Polycarp, as having received them from eye-witnesses of the life of the Word, would relate, altogether in accordance with the Scriptures.|

Now, it is perfectly certain that Irenaeus, like his contemporaries Heracleon and Tatian, accepted the fourth Gospel as the work of the Apostle John. And can we believe that he would have thus accepted it, if it had not been acknowledged by his teacher Polycarp, who knew St. John, and was nearly thirty years old at the time of St. John's death?

{88}

[Sidenote: The Internal Evidence.]

The Gospel itself contains manifest tokens that it was written by a Jew of Palestine, by one who held no Gnostic heresy, and by a contemporary of our Lord.

I. The author was a Jew and not a Gentile.

He makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament, and some of these quotations imply an acquaintance with the Hebrew. This is especially the case in the verse from the 41st Psalm (xiii.18), and in that (xix.37) from Zech. xii.10, |They shall look on Him whom they pierced.| The Septuagint of Zech. xii.10, translating from a different form of the Hebrew, has, instead of the words |whom they pierced,| |because they mocked.| It is, therefore, plain that John xiii.18 is not derived from the Septuagint. The Gospel is also Hebraic in style. The sentences are broken up in a manner which is at variance with Greek idiom. Whereas in St. Luke's two writings the style becomes more Greek or more Hebraic in proportion to his writing independently or employing the writings of Jewish Christians, the style of this Gospel is the same throughout. We may particularly notice the Hebraic use of the word |and| to signify both |and| and |but| (e.g. in v.39, 40, where |and ye will not come| means |but ye will not come|). We may also notice the correct use of certain Hebrew proper names: e.g. Judas is called |the son of Iscariot,| showing that the writer did not regard the word Iscariot as the fixed name of Judas only, but knew that it might be applied to any man of Kerioth. In fact, the Greek of St. John is exactly like the English of a Scottish Highlander who has only spoken Gaelic in his earlier days, and, when he has acquired English, shows his origin by the continued use of a few Gaelic idioms and his knowledge of Highland proper names.

He shows a minute acquaintance with Jewish social and ceremonial customs. We may notice iii.25; iv.9, 27; vii.2, 23, 37; x.22; xi.44; xix.7, 31; and especially the waterpots (ii.6), the purification previous to the Passover (xi.55), the fear {89} of our Lord's accusers to defile themselves by entering the praetorium (xviii.28), and the Jewish method of embalming (xix.40). Jewish opinions are faithfully reflected, e.g. as to the importance attached to the religious schools (vii.15); the disparagement of the Jews of the |dispersion| (vii.35); the scorn felt by many Jews for the provincials of Galilee (i.46; vii.41, 52), and the idea of the soul's pre-existence (ix.2).

II. The author was a Jew of Palestine.

He shows a minute acquaintance with the geography of the Holy Land. At the present day elaborate guide-books and histories make it possible for a very clever writer to disguise the fact that he has not visited the land in which he lays the scene of his story. But even at the present day such procedure is dangerous, and likely to be detected. In ancient times it was almost impossible. Yet no one has ever detected an error in the geography of this Gospel. The writer mentions Cana of Galilee (ii.1, 11), a place not noticed by any earlier writer, and Bethany beyond Jordan (i.28); he knows the exact distance from Jerusalem to the better-known Bethany (xi.18); the |deep| well of Jacob at Sychar (iv.11); the city of Ephraim near the wilderness (xi.54); Aenon near to Salim, where John baptized (iii.23). This word Aenon is an Aramaic word signifying |springs,| and even Renan ridicules the notion of such a name having been invented by Greek-speaking sectaries at Ephesus. The place was too obscure to be known to ordinary travellers, and, on the other hand, such a name cannot have been invented by a Gentile.

The topography of Jerusalem is described with equal nicety. We may notice viii.20; ix.7; x.23; xviii.1, 15; xix.17, 41; and particularly the pool near the sheep-gate, having five porches (v.2), and the place which is called the Pavement, |but in the Hebrew Gabbatha| (xix.13). Even a person who had heard of Solomon's porch and of Golgotha might well have been ignorant of the sheep-gate and the Pavement, unless he had been in Jerusalem.

Lastly, the writer shows an acquaintance not only with the {90} Jewish feasts, but also with facts connected with them which imply special knowledge on his part. He could not have gathered from the Old Testament the fact that the later Jews were in the habit of keeping a feast in honour of the dedication of the temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (x.22), nor would he have learned how to introduce an allusion to the rite of pouring forth water from the pool at Siloam at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii.37).

The only important argument which can be urged against the author having been a Jew is that founded on the use of the phrase |the Jews,| which is said to imply that the writer was not a Jew. Now, in some passages (as vii.1), |the Jews| may mean the inhabitants of Judaea, as distinct from those of Galilee, and such passages are therefore indecisive. But in other passages the phrase |the Jews| does not admit this interpretation, and is used with a decided suggestion of dislike. But when we remember the bitter hostility which the Jews soon manifested towards the Christians, and remember that in Asia Minor this hostility was active, the phrase presents no real difficulty. St. Paul was proud to reckon himself a Jew, but long before the Jews had shown their full antagonism to Christianity, St. Paul spoke of |the Jews| (1 Thess. ii.14-16) with the same condemnation as the writer of the fourth Gospel.

The only important arguments in favour of the author having absorbed Gnostic views are drawn: (1) From the alleged Dualism of the Gospel. In theology the word Dualism signifies the doctrine that the world is not only the battle-ground of two opposing forces, one good and the other evil, but also that the material world is itself essentially evil. Such was the doctrine of the great Gnostic sects of the 2nd century. But this Gospel, in spite of the strong contrast which it draws between God and the world, light and darkness, is not Dualist. It teaches that there is one God, that the world was made by the Word who is God, that this Word was made flesh and came to save the world. In thus teaching that the material world was made by the good God, and that God took a material human body, this Gospel opposes the fundamental tenet of Gnostic Dualism. (2) From the alleged condemnation of the Jewish prophets by Christ in x.8. Other passages make it perfectly plain that this is not a condemnation of the Jewish prophets, but of any religious pretenders who claimed divine authority. In this Gospel an appeal is made to Moses (v.46), to Abraham (viii.56), to Isaiah {91} (xii.41), and, what is most remarkable of all, our Lord says, |Salvation is of the Jews,| i.e. the knowledge and the origin of religious truth came from the Jews. The Jewish Scriptures are ratified (v.39; x.35). It is impossible to find a shred of the anti-Jewish theories which the Gnostics taught. And though it is true that some Gnostics were fond of using such words as |life| and |light| in their religious phraseology, it is much more probable that they were influenced by the fourth Gospel than that this Gospel was tinged with Gnosticism.

We conclude, therefore, that the author was a Jew of Palestine, and that he was not a Gentile or in any sense a Gnostic.

III. The author was a contemporary and an eye-witness of the events described.

His knowledge of Jerusalem and of the temple, which we have already noticed, strongly suggests that he knew the city before its destruction in A.D.70. So far as can be tested, his treatment of the Messianic ideas of the people is exactly accurate, and of a kind which it would have been difficult for a later writer to exhibit. This Gospel represents the people as pervaded by a nationalist notion of the Messiah as of a king who would deliver them from foreign powers (vi.15, xi.48; xix.12), a notion which was dispelled in A.D.70, and apparently did not revive until the rising of Bar Kocheba in A.D.135, a date which is now almost universally recognized as too late for this Gospel to have been written. We also find the two contradictory ideas as to the place of the Messiah's origin then current (vii.27, 42), and the writer distinguishes |the prophet| (i.21, 25; vi.14; vii.40), who was expected to precede Christ, from Christ Himself. At a very early date the Christians identified |the prophet| with Christ, and it is in the highest degree improbable that any but a contemporary of our Lord would have been aware of this change of belief.

It is claimed that the author is an eye-witness in i.14; xix.35; and xxi.24. We may add 1 John i.1, for the author of the Epistle was obviously the author of the Gospel. Numerous details, especially the frequent notes of time, suggest the hand {92} of an eye-witness. And the delicate descriptions of the inner life of the disciples and of Christ Himself point to the same conclusion. The description of the Last Supper and the words spoken at it suggest with overwhelming force that the writer knew the peculiar manner of seating employed at this ceremony. Another Jew would have known where the celebrant sat, but he would scarcely have been able to make the actions of our Lord and Judas, St. John and St. Peter, fit their places at the table with such perfection.

The Gospel claims that the disciple who |wrote these things| is the disciple |whom Jesus loved,| and who reclined |in Jesus' bosom| at the Supper. It was not Peter, for Peter did not recline |in Jesus' bosom.| The presumption therefore is that it was either James or John, these two being with Peter the closest friends of Jesus. It could hardly have been James, who was martyred in A.D.44, as the whole weight of tradition and external evidence is against this. It must, then, have been John, or a forger who wished to pass for that apostle. And to suppose that an unknown forger, born two generations, or even one generation, later than the apostles, could invent such sublime doctrine, and insert it in so realistic a story, and completely deceive the whole Christian world, including the district where St. John lived and died, is to show a credulity which is without parallel in the history of civilization.

Now that we have reviewed the internal evidence for the authenticity, we are able to return with renewed vigour to deal with the popular rationalistic hypothesis that the author was a Christian who had learned some genuine stories about Jesus current in the Church at Ephesus, and then wove them into a narrative of his own composing. We have observed that the marks of an eye-witness and contemporary of Jesus are {93} scattered over the whole surface of the Gospel. If the Gospel is not by St. John, only one other explanation is possible. It must be composed of three distinct elements: (a) some genuine traditions, (b) numerous fictions, (c) a conscious manipulation of the narrative contained in the Synoptists. But the internal evidence is absolutely opposed to any such theory. We can trace no manipulation of the Synoptic narrative. The writer seems to be aware of St. Mark's Gospel, and possibly the other two, but he evidently did not write with them actually before him. He plainly had a wholly independent plan and an independent source of information. And if we turn to the passages which tell us facts not recorded by the Synoptists, it is quite impossible to separate the supposed fictions from the supposed genuine traditions. Both style and matter proceed from one and the same individuality. One passage alone can be separated from the rest without interrupting the flow of the story, and that passage is absent in the best manuscripts. It is the story of the woman taken in adultery (vii.53-viii.11). It seems to have been originally placed after Luke xxi.36, and was inserted into St. John's Gospel after it was completed. We cannot apply the same process to any other passage in the Gospel. It is an organic whole, as much as any play of Shakespeare or poem of Tennyson. And over the whole book we find the same morsels of history and geography. They are of a kind which tradition never hands down unimpaired, and which no Ephesian disciple of an apostle would be likely to commit to memory. In spite of all attempts to divide the Gospel into parts derived straight from an apostle and parts invented by later minds, the Gospel remains like the seamless coat which once clothed the form of the Son of man.

[Sidenote: Date.]

It is important to observe that even the most hostile criticism has tended to recede in its attempt to find a probable date for this Gospel. Baur fixed it about A.D.160-170, Pfleiderer at 140, Hilgenfeld 130-140; Juelicher and Harnack will not date it later than 110, {94} and the latter grants that it may be as early as 80. The year 80 is as early a date as the most orthodox Christian need desire, and we can reasonably believe that it was written by the apostle at Ephesus between A.D.80 and A.D.90. We learn from Irenaeus that St. John survived until A.D.98.

[Sidenote: Literary Style.]

Several points in the literary style of the apostle have been noticed in dealing with the internal evidence which they afford to the authenticity of his Gospel. But it is necessary to add something more, for there is no writer to whom we can more fitly apply the profound saying that |the style is the man.| The language of St. John is the result of a long and impassioned contemplation. Whether he writes down his own words, or records the words and deeds of our Lord, his language shows the result of careful reflection.

The teaching of Jesus exhibits a development different from that in the Synoptists. We find in chs. ii., iii., and iv. that our Lord definitely taught that He was the Son of God and Messiah quite early in His ministry, while in the earlier part of Mark our Lord's teaching about His Messiahship is far less definite. And the method of teaching is also different. In the Synoptists we find picturesque parables and pointed proverbs, while in John we find long discourses and arguments. In the Synoptists the teaching is generally practical, in John it is much more openly theological. This difference between the Synoptists and St. John can be partly accounted for by the fact that St. John's Gospel contains much more of the instruction given by our Lord to His intimate friends, and that this instruction was naturally more profound than that which was given to the multitude. But there is another reason for the difference. If we attend to such passages as xiv.15-21, 25-26; xv.26-27, we see that our Lord teaches that there are two manifestations of His Person, one during the time between His birth and His death, and the other after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is not a substitute {95} for an absent Christ; His coming brings with it an inward presence of Christ within the Christian soul (xiv.18). By the aid of the Spirit, St. John condenses and interprets the language of our Lord in a manner which can be understood by the simplest of simple souls who live the inner life. In St. John we find a writer who is writing when Jesus spoke no longer in parables and proverbs, but |plainly| (xvi.25, 29). He records the teaching of Jesus, as it had shaped itself in his own mind, but not so much by his own mind as by perpetual communion with the ascended Christ.

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

We have noted on p.31 the fact that St. John's Gospel shows that he was acquainted with facts in the Synoptic Gospels which he does not himself narrate. Yet the broad difference between the character of the Synoptic writers and that of St. John is that the Synoptists are historical, he is mystical. We do not mean that St. John does not trouble about historical accuracy. His history is often more minute than that of the Synoptists. But his purpose is to bring his readers into deeper life through union with the God who is in Christ and is Christ. The true mystic ever desires to maintain the knowledge of this inward union in life with God. It is a knowledge which is made possible by obedience, made perfect by love, and causes not new ecstasies, but a new character. St. John adjusts all his material to this one purpose. |These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in His name| (xx.31).

The Introduction or Prologue (i.1-18) teaches that Jesus Christ is that personal manifestation of God to whom the Jews had given the name of the Word. The Palestinian Jews were accustomed to describe God acting upon the world by the name Memra, or |Word| of the Lord. The Alexandrian Jews also were in the habit of giving the title Logos, which means both |Word| and |Reason,| to an idea of God which perfectly expressed all that God is. The Greek Stoics had {96} used the name in a similar sense, and thus St. John, having realized that Jesus is truly God made manifest, called Him by a name which every educated Jew and Greek would understand. Unlike Philo, the great Alexandrian Jew who tried to combine Greek philosophy with Jewish religion, St. John teaches that this divine Word is a Person, and took human flesh and revealed Himself as the Messiah. The whole Gospel shows how this revelation met with increasing faith on the part of some, and increasing unbelief and hatred on the part of others. The crises of this unbelief are represented chiefly in connection with our Lord's visits to Jerusalem, when He made His claims before the religious leaders of Judaism. His revelation is attended by various forms of witness. There is that of the apostle himself (i.14); that of the other apostles who also witnessed His |glory,| as displayed by His miracles (ii.11). There is that of John the Baptist (i.34); and when we remember that there had existed at Ephesus an incomplete Christianity which had only known the baptism given by John the Baptist (Acts xix.3), we see how fit it was that the apostle should record the Baptist's testimony to Christ's superiority. There is the witness of His works, and that which the Father Himself bore (v.34-36). We should notice that the miracles are called |signs,| and are carefully selected so as to give evidence to the reader concerning particular aspects of our Lord's glory. Even the Passion is described as containing an element of glory (xii.28, 32), it contains a secret divine triumph (cf. Col. ii.15), and is a stage towards the glory of the Ascension. The |darkness| contends with the {97} divine |light,| but cannot |suppress| it. After the |world| has done its worst, the final victory of faith is seen in the confession of St. Thomas, |My Lord and my God| (xx.28).

We find other points of doctrine corresponding with the mystical teaching that |eternal life| does not begin after the last judgment, but may be enjoyed here and now by knowing |God and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent| (xvii.3). Thus the judgment is shown to be executed in one sense by the mere division which takes place among men when they come in contact with Christ, according as they are good or bad (v.30; viii.16; ix.39). The principle of this moral testing is made plain in iii.19. Those who stand the test, and believe in Christ, undergo a resurrection here (xi.26). On the other hand, there is also a future judgment (v.22, 29) and a future consummation (v.28, 29; vi.39 f., xiv.3).

Similar beautiful paradoxes are found in the teaching that the |work| which God requires of us is to believe in His Son (vi.28, 29); and that to fulfil God's will is the mark not of servants but of friends (xv.14). And those who hope that they are numbered among the friends of Jesus will find in this Gospel all the deepest experiences of the soul -- the new birth, the finding of the living water and the true light, and that abiding in Christ which is made complete by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.

To realize the meaning of Jesus it is necessary to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Synoptists tell us comparatively little of His work, though they show us the Spirit descending on Christ at His baptism, driving Him into the wilderness to be tempted, speaking in His disciples, pervading His work (Luke iv.18), and possessed of a personality into which the Christian is baptized (Matt. xxviii.19), and against which blasphemy is unpardonable (Luke xii.10). In John we find a much fuller doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The fact that He is not a mere impersonal influence of God is very clearly shown. And it is impossible to accept the modern rationalistic {98} hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is only a phrase for describing the idea which the apostles had about the invisible presence of Christ. He is called |another Advocate| (xiv.16). Christ was an Advocate or Helper; the Spirit will be another. Again, it is the work of the Spirit to refresh the memory and strengthen the apprehension of the disciples concerning Christ (xiv.26); and our Lord definitely says, |If I go, I will send Him unto you| (xvi.7). With regard to the unbelieving world, the Spirit will prove the sinfulness of opposition to Christ, will convince the world of His righteousness as testified by the Father's approval manifested in the Ascension, and will procure the verdict of history that by the crucifixion the evil spirit who inspires worldliness was condemned (xvi.8-11). The Spirit's work is the same in kind as the work of Christ, but the two Persons are distinct. That Christ continues His advent and His work in the world through the Spirit implies neither that the Spirit is an impersonal influence nor that He is personally identical with Christ.

This Gospel gives us invaluable help in determining the chronology of our Lord's ministry. His ministry is connected with six Jewish feasts (ii.13; v.1; vi.4; vii.2; x.22; xii.1). All are named except that in v.1, which is probably Pentecost, A.D.27. The forty-six years in ii.20 are correct. Herod began to rebuild the temple in 20-19 B.C. Therefore the Passover in ii.13 cannot be before A.D.27.

ANALYSIS

Introduction: i.1 -- i.18. -- The Word ever with God and Himself God, manifested in creation, in conscience, in the incarnation.

A.

Winter A.D.26 till after Passover 27.

The preparation and beginning of the ministry: i.19-iv.54. -- The testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus {99} and his baptism of Jesus, his disciples come to Jesus, the gathering of other disciples, the promise of seeing heaven opened (i.). Jesus and Mary at the marriage at Cana, the disciples believe. Jesus at Capernaum. At the Passover Jesus goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple (ii). At Jerusalem Jesus teaches Nicodemus of the new birth, He labours in Judaea while John is at Aenon (iii.). The woman of Samaria converted; Jesus returns and is welcomed in Galilee, is again at Cana, cures the Capernaum nobleman's son (iv.).

B.

Pentecost A.D.27 till before Passover 28.

The increased self-revelation of Jesus at Jerusalem: v. -- Jesus cures the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, is accused of sabbath-breaking. He co-ordinates His work and His honour with the work and honour of the Father, claims to give life now and execute judgment, claims the testimony of John, of His own miracles, of the Scriptures.

C.

Passover A.D.28 till before Tabernacles 28.

Full self-revelation of Jesus in Galilee: vi. -- Christ sustains physical life by feeding the 5000, the people wish to make Him King. He again shows power over nature by walking on the sea. He reveals Himself as the Bread sustaining all spiritual life, commands the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. The effect of this teaching is increased enmity, the desertion by nominal disciples, and intensified faith as shown by Peter's confession.

D.

Tabernacles, September A.D.28 till early 29.

Further self-revelation at Jerusalem: conflict: journey to Peraea; vii.1-xi.57. -- Jesus at the feast, {100} is accused of having a devil, defends His former action on the sabbath, attempt to seize Him, His invitation to all who thirst, the people divided, the officers refuse to arrest Him (vii.). [Interpolated story of the woman taken in adultery, vii.53-viii.11.]

Jesus reveals Himself as the Light of the world, the Jews no longer Abraham's children, the Jews reject His claim to pre-existence, and attempt to stone Him (viii.). Jesus gives sight to the blind man at Siloam, discussion about healing on the sabbath (ix.). Jesus the good Shepherd, at the feast of the Dedication in December the Jews try to stone Him and He goes east of Jordan (x.).

Jesus as Conqueror of death goes to Bethany, raises Lazarus and proclaims Himself as the Resurrection and the Life. On the advice of Caiaphas, the Council propose to put Jesus to death. After raising Lazarus Jesus retires to Ephraim, a city on the edge of the wilderness to the north-east of Jerusalem (xi.).

E.

Passover A.D.29.

Last public ministry at Jerusalem: xii. -- Mary anoints Jesus for burial, the entry into Jerusalem, the Greeks who desire to see Jesus, a voice from heaven promises to glorify Him. Rejecting or receiving Christ.

Full self-revelation of Jesus to His apostles: xiii.-xvii. -- At the Passover He washes the disciples' feet. Judas pointed out and departs. The question of Peter (xiii.37), of Thomas (xiv.5), of Philip (xiv.8), of Judas (xiv.22). The work of the Advocate who is to come (xiv.26). Abiding in Christ, the new commandment to love one another, the hatred of the world, future testimony of the Spirit of truth (xv.). The Spirit will convict the world, guide the disciples. Sorrow only for a little while, final assurances, warm expression of faith on the part of the apostles, Christ's warning (xvi.).

Christ's intercession (xvii.).

{101}

The death of Jesus, the apparent triumph of unbelief: xviii.-xix. -- Betrayal in the garden, trial before Annas and Caiaphas, Peter's denial, trial before Pilate, Jesus or Barabbas (xviii.).

The scourging, Pilate's futile endeavour to release Jesus, his political fears, the crucifixion, |behold thy mother,| the spear-thrust, the writer's personal testimony, the burial by Joseph of Arimathaea (xix.).

The resurrection, the victory over unbelief: xx. -- Mary Magdalene, Peter and the writer at the sepulchre, the writer records his own conviction. Jesus manifests Himself to the Magdalene, to the ten disciples, most of whom had deserted Him, and to Thomas who doubted. Thomas is convinced of the Divinity of Jesus, the writer states that this Gospel was written |that ye might believe.|

Epilogue: xxi. -- The manifestation of Jesus by the sea of Galilee, the solemn charge to Peter. The editors of the Gospel assert that the author was the beloved disciple.

(John xxi.24 was probably written by the Ephesian presbyters who knew St. John. The rest of the chapter is evidently by the apostle himself, although, it may have been added at a time later than the rest of the Gospel, which seems to come to an end with the impressive words in xx.31. The most contradictory hypotheses have been broached by writers who have denied the authenticity of ch. xxi. Some have held that it was added in order to exalt St. John, the apostle of Asia Minor, over St. Peter, the patron of Rome. Others have held that it was added to exalt St. Peter. Those who deny the authenticity of the whole Gospel are compelled to regard ch. xxi.24 as deliberate false witness.)

St. John's Oral Teaching. -- It seems that before St. John wrote his Gospel, he had adapted it to oral teaching. This is shown by the arrangement of facts in combinations of 3, possibly suggested by the 3 manifestations of the Word recorded in the Introduction. There are 3 Passovers recorded, 3 feasts besides the Passovers, 3 journeys to Judaea, 3 discourses on the last day of Tabernacles before the address to believing Jews (viii.31), 3 sayings from the Cross. If we regard ch. xxi. as added later by St. John, we find in the rest of the Gospel 3 miracles in Judaea, 3 in Galilee, and 3 appearances of the risen Lord.

Apostolic Age of the Church, vol. ii. p.211. (English translation.)

Dr. James Moffat, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament, p.601.

Eusebius, H. E. v.20. It is worth noting that Dr. Moffat, op. cit. p.609, admits that |if Irenaeus is correct, his testimony to John the Apostle is of first-rate importance.| So he adds, |he must be held to have mistaken what Polykarp said, and to have confused John the Presbyter with John the Apostle.|

See Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. ii. p.494.

The difficulties which arise from the difference between the history of our Lord's ministry as given by St. John, and by the Synoptists, have been discussed on p.27, ff.

He changes the good into better (ii.9); saves the dying (iv.50); gives power (v.8); gives food (vi.11); gives sight (ix.7); is Lord over death (xi.44); blesses the work done in faith (xxi.11). It should be noticed that St. John never mentions that our Lord cured any one possessed with a devil, which according to the Synoptists was a common kind of miracle. But St. John does not therefore contradict the other evangelists. He recognizes that there are visible works of the devil (viii.41; cf.1 John iii.8), and mentions |the prince of this world| as causing the trials of our Lord.

{102}

<<  Contents  >>





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy