246
GOSPELS
GOSPELS
proceeds with the examination of the prisoner ; yy_»8-*> Pilate again parleys with the Jews. 19'"° Jesos is mocked and led out to thuni ; vv.""" they succeed by their clamour in securing His con- demnation. In Mt27""-'" = AIlc IS'"" the positions and the parts of the several actors are not nearly so distinctly indicated.
(3) Tlie peculiar doctrinal character of Jn. — It is necessary to inquire whether the representation given us in the Fourth Gospel of the teaching of Christ, or the belief of others, has been allccted by tlie special doctrinal point of view of the writer in a way to destroy its substantial truth.
We may first notice some signs that he was, to say the least, not wholly unconscious of the im- portance of preserving faithfully the language and thought of the time concerning which he was writ- ing. The most striking is the fact that the term ' the Logos,' which, as he uses it in the Prologue, gives the very keynote of the Gospel, is neverlhe- less nowhere put by him into the mouth either of Jesus or any other speaker. But, again, he distin- guishes more than once between the manner in which the disciples viewed acts and words of Christ at the time, and afterwards in looking back upon them ("2-- l^'", cf. also the Lord's words to Peter, V.i''). He does not read the full belief of a later time into the earliest days of discipleship. It should be noticed also that the evangelist need not be supposed to give 3'""-' and 'i"'" as parts of the words spoken respectively by Christ and by the Baptist. On the contrary, they seem rather to be comments by the evangelist himself, which are not intended by him to be viewed in any other liglit.
At the same time, the way in which the record xlmost insensibly passes into exposition in these cases, suggests that the two may sometimes be even more closely conjoined. It is natural, and often almost necessary, under the limits of space to whicli all are subject, for any writer or speaker, in givi il; the substance of what has been spoken by others, so to report them as to bring out that which he conceives to have been the signifi- cance of their words. There might, no doubt, be a special tendency to do this on the part of one who, like the writer of the Fourth Gospel, had the definite object of impressing truth in which he profoundly believed. That which he had even quite soundly inferred as the conclusion from all that he had experienced and learned, might thus have unduly influenced him in his account of what was said on some particular occasions. Two in- stances in which it seems specially likely that his own perception of the meaning of Christ's work may be all'ecting his record, are the words wliich he assigns to the Baptist (1^), and to the Samari- tans (4^-). It is difficult to suppose that even the former, much less the latter, could already at that time have attained to a belief in Jesus as the Saviour 'of the world.' We will go on to com- pare Jn 1** with the somewhat similar saving in the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 3" = Mk l' = Lk 3'«). In view of the stress laid in other passages in Jn on the pre-existence of Christ, it seems most prob- able that the evangelist himself would have held that this truth was conveyed in the words Srt Tpun-6i yuoii ijv. Yet this phrase is an enigmatical one ; it does not strictly express any idea but that of essential priority, which might be in point of rank as well as of time. So regarded, it does not differ widely from the phrase in the Synoptic Gospels, l(7x»p6Tfp6s /lov, which also is enigmatical. Each brings out a somewhat different view of Christ's superiority. It would have been easy for the fourth evangelist to have made the assertion by the Baptist of the doctrine of Christ's pre- existence more distinct. Thus, although he may have been in a measure influenced in the form
which he gives to the Baptist's words by the desir* to teach through them an important article oj faith, he luus in doing so evidently been kept andei control by his sense of historical truth.
We proceed to consider briefly the contents oi Christ's own teaching as it is recorded in Jn.
(a) His unique relation to the Father — the un- folding of all that was comprised in the words ' il/u Father.' In the matter common to Mt and Lk one passage is included (Mt 11'^"*'= Lk lu'-'- *') which is characterized by the thoughts and many of the expressions on this subject that we are accustomed to regard as most distinctly ' Johannine.' Mt '24^ = Mk 13^'- supplies another instance of the use of 6 kIus and i iraHip as absolute terms. The preserva- tion of this teaching, even though to such a limited extent, in the Synoptic Gospels, goes far to estab- lish the credibility of the fuller record in Jn. H Christ dwelt on tliis theme at all, there is every reason to tliink that He must have done so more often and largely than they indicate. That He did so is also renuered probable by a striking, even though indirect, jiiece of evidence in St. Paul's Epistles. St. Paul more than once uses the phrase 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Ko 15", 2 Co 1^ IP', Eph I', Col P). This remarkable ex- pression may most naturally have had its origin in the historical fact that Jesus was accustomed to dwell upon the tlieme that God was, in an altogether unique sense. His Father.