have in tliis Gospel a faithful and true record of things that Jesus said and did, and that this, the last of the four narratives of Christ's history, is just as trustworthy, credible, and depend- able as the books written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
25. — [And there are also many other things, etc.] In this verse John seems to wind up his book, by breaking forth into a fer- vent declaration about the wonderful things which his Lord and Master had done. It is as though he said, " Though I fin- ish my Gospel here, I have not told all the marvellous things that Jesus did while He was upon earth. There are many other things which he did, and many other words which He spoke, which are not recorded in my Gospel, nor yet in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Indeed, if they were written down every one, I suppose the world would not receive them, and could not comprehend their value."
The words which we render, " The books that should be written," would be more literally translated, " The books writ- ten."
Brentius calls attention to the very large number of miracles which, according to St. Matthew, were wrought by our Lord, of which we have no special record in any of the Gospels. (See Matt. iv. 23, 24 ; xi. 5.) He justly argues that if these were all put down and described, it would greatly swell the Gospel narrative. What we have recorded is only a sample of what Jesus did.
Henry observes, that books might easily have been multi- plied about Christ. " Everything that Christ said or did was worth our notice, and capable of being improved. He never spoke an idle word, and never did an idle thing ; nay. He never spoke or did anything mean, little, or trifling, which is more than can be said of the wisest of men." — But he wisely adds, " If we do not believe and improve what is written already, neither should we if there had been much more."
The expression which St. John uses in this verse about " the world not receiving the boolvs," is not without diificulty. It cannot of course mean that the material bulk of the books would be so large that the universe could not receive them. This would be absurd, as the " things " spoken of are only the things which Jesus did and said during the three years of His ministry. But what does the expression mean ?
{a) Some, as Heiusius and Whitby, think that it means " the world, or unconverted portion of mankind, could not jeceive, take in, or comprehend more, if more was written. There is enough recorded for the conviction of sinners, and for the guidance of all who honestly want to be saved." — It is a grave objection to this view, that the text does not say " the world " simply, but " the world itself." Yet in fairness it must be al- lowed that in this sense the expression is rather like that in
JOHN, CHAP. XXI. 47i
Amos : " The land is not able to bear all His words." (Amos vii. 10.)
(b) Some think that the phrase must be taken as a strong hyperbolical description of the quantity and value of Christ's works and words, during the period of His ministry, and that we must not press an excessively literal interpretation of the phrase. They argue that the figure called " hyperbole " is not at all uncommon in the Scripture, and that language is often used, when the idea to be conveyed is that of very great size, value, quantity, or number, which evidently cannot be inter- preted literally. On the whole, I incline to think that this is the right view of the expression, and that it harmonizes well with the fervent, warm-hearted, loving character of the Apos- tle who lay on Jesus' breast, and was commissioned to write the fourth Gospel. He ends with a heart full of Christ, and running over with love to Him, and zeal for His glory, and so he winds up just like himself.
The objection, sometimes made, that hyperbolical language is not consistent with inspiration, does not appear to me at all valid. No intelligent and careful reader of the Bible can fail to see that the inspired writers often use hyperbolical phrases, — phrases, I mean, that cannot possibly bear a literal interpreta- tion, and must be regarded as a condescending accommodation to the weakness of man. For example ; " Cities walled up to heaven." (Deut. i. 28.) " A land that flowed with milk and honey," (Josh. v. 6.) " Camels as the sand of the sea for mul- titude." (Judges vii. 12.) All these are phrases which cannot be interpreted literally, and which any sensible person knows to be figurative and hyperbolical. Our Lord Himself speaks of " Capernaum being exalted unto heaven ; " and says, " If any man come after Me, and hate not his father and mother he cannot be my disciple." (Matt. xi. 23 ; Luke xiv. 26.) In both cases His language evidently cannot be construed liter- ally.
Calvin observes, " If the Evangelist, casting his eyes on the mightiness of the majesty of Christ, exclaims in astonishment, that even the whole world could not contain a full narrative of it, ought we to wonder ? Nor is he at all to be blamed, if he employs a frequent and ordinary figure of speech for com- mending the excellence of Christ's works. For he knew how God accommodates Himself to the ordinary way of speaking, on account of our ignorance."
This view is adopted by Augustine, Cyril, Bucer, Musculus, Gualter, Gerhard, Flacius, Ferus, Toletus, Maldonatus, Corne- lius a Lapide, Jansenius, Pearson, Henry, Pearce, Scott, Titt- man, Bloomfield, Barnes, Alford, Wordsworth, and Burgon.
Lampe protests strongly against the idea of any hyperbole being used, as barely reverent. But I cannot see any force in his argument.