AVe do not know why James and John were called by Jesus ' Boanerges.' There must have been something special in the courage and bearing or in the character of James which signalled him out to Herod Agrippa as a victim that would ' please the Jews' (Ac I2-'-). It is probable that, ueing the elder of the two brothers, he was the more prominent petitioner for the coveted dignity of nearness to the King of Sorrows when ajiproach- ing the goal of His self-sacrifice. A significant record occurs in Mk 9**"- and Lk d***-, where John himself exclaims, 'Master, we saw one casling out demons in thy name, and we forbade him, because hefollowcth not (thee) with us.' The question seems to invite the rebuke he received, 'forbid him not, etc. . . .' This was an event which revealed a jealous love for the Master, and it is paralleled by the spirit which flames forth in the treatment 01 those enemies of the cross with whom the author of the second and third Epistles contended. Hut the most striking; instance of this spirit is recorded in Lk '.>"• ", where John as well as James burneil with indiiination against certain Samaritans who refused to receive Jesus. ' Master, said they, irillest thou that we rail fire from heaven to consume them, even as Eluts did?' Here again the two brothers are rebuked. The ni«>stle of love is traditionally .iccredited with a siiiiil.ir outburst of inilignant wriith in liis treatment of Cerinthus. The current media-val re|)re.sentntion of the author of the l''<milh Gospel was that of one characterized by ett'cntinnte soilness. Tliia popular conception is not justified by the letter of the Gospel, but is due to tradition and legend. In no part of NT do we find such thrilling utterance of the wrath of (Jod against sin as in .In. (See 3"-" 3" S-*). It is in Jn 0'" that Judas is calleil ' a devil' ; cf also '** 8^ '■"-**■ 9". Even in the upper chamber,
706
JOnN, GOSPKL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
we hear terrible tones of the Jiiil;,'e of all tlie enrth, and tlie traitor is calleil 'the son of [lur- dition ' (15^ IG'"' 17'-), while the EvauKelisl himself (joJi-O) denounces the sin of the pcoiile in language which echoes Lk 9**. There was much more for John to leain, and the occasional outbreaks of stormy wrath are of the very nature of a Unite human love cherished with intensity of emotion for that wonderful Person whoso grandeur of being, as well OS whose human loveliness, was breaking upon his mind. There are no other special refer- ences to John in the .Synoptic narrative, and, as a revelation of the personal character of tlie author, those mentioned are exi>laine<l rather than contra- ilicted by the tone of the l''ourth Gosiiel.
B. Tlie Acts of tin .(4/Jo.s^/e.s hides Jolin in the com- pany of the Twelve, and behind the more prominent figure of Peter. Still, the promises {jiven liy the ascending Lord (oh. 1), and tlie preaching of reter (chs. 2. 3. and 4), reveal the tone and matter of the closing discourse of our Lord, of which John's mind was the repertory. Compare Jn 5-* 7*' 17' 16' with the substance of Peter's great sermon at Pentecost, and the defence made by Peter and John Ac ij. 4) with the vindication in the Fourth Gospel of the Messiahship of Jesus. (See esp. Jn 20^'). As in the Fourth Gospel, John is a silent presence in the early Church (see Ac 8), but the mission of the two apostles to Samaria pre- pares us for the mighty words which 'John' was at length to reveal to the world.
C. St. Paul's Epistle to the Galntlnns makes a reference to James, Cephas, and Joliii as 'pillars' of the Mother Church, to whom St. Paul was will- ing to refer his Gentile ministry, based on Christ's own teaching concerning the jdace of ceremonial in the kingdom of God. This is the only reference in the writings of St. I'aul to the personality of John, and so far there is not the smallest reason for questioning, on St. Paul's authority, the widely attested conviction that the beloved disciple was the author of the Fourth Gospel.
D. The First Epistle of John. The Mur. Canon makes distinct reference to 1 Jn as an appendix to the Gospel. It specifies two Epistles by the same evangelist later on. Eusebius (HE iii. 39) tells ns that Papias ' used passages from the first Epistle ' ; and we have an unmistakable citation of 1 Jn 4' in Polycarp's Epistle to Phil. eh. viii. The extreme sipiificance of this quotation led the author of Supernatural Relicjion, vol. ii., to contend that 'John' quoted from Polycarp, rather than vice versd. Tertullian frequently refers to, or quotes from, the Epistle. Clemens Alex., Origen, and Cyprian cite it as St. John's writing. Many who opjiosed the authenticity of the Gospel, like Bretschneider in his Probnbilia, with Paulus and others, do not attempt to sejiarate the author- ship of the Gospel and Epistle ; but Hilgenfeldand Davidson have advanced many reasons for believ- ing that they belong to different writers and periods. Davidson {Introd. to NT) assigns some ten distinct points of difference, which hardly need more than slatement for their refutation. Holtz- mann (Einleituna, p. 463) admits identity of author- ship. Uauptand Lias have shown how the original foim of the teaching is referred by the apostle to the words of Jesus Uimself, while in the Epistle we see the method adopted by the evangelist to apply it to the condition of the Church at the close of the century. Doubtless there are differences in style, weight, compass, between the utterances of the Lord and the application of these ideas to later days, but all the fundamental conceptions of the divine character and righteousness, of ' the word of life,' of the contrariety between ' the flesh ' and 'the spirit,' between 'light' and 'darkness,' the emphasis upon the divine love, upon the Holy