(5) The omission by the Fourth Gospel of events of capital imi)ortance in the Synoptic narrative.
(«) The miraculous birth and infancy, the youth, the family, the genealogy of Jesus, and the early ministry of John the Baptist, are passed ovir in silence. Yet there are significant hints of these things which carry the reader's mind over the omission, without the suspicion of ignorance or inditference.
(6) The baptism of Jesus by John, with its accompaniments, is not definitely recorded, and yet it is implied in the testimony of John, and in the thrilling etl'ect produced upon the mind of the Baptist by what he saw and heard. Similarly, no account is given of the imprisonment and death of the Baptist, yet both are hinted at.
(c) The omission of the temptation in the wilderness has been put down to doctrinal pre- possessions of 2nd cent., but closer study seems to show that the evangelist inserts between the great testimonies of the Baptist and his imprisonment^ i.e. in precisely the chronological position where Synoptic teaching places the temptation — a series of events covering the matter of each of them. The creative multiplication of wine, as an act of love to others rather than of self-assertion or the rectification of personal need, corresponds with the temptation to dispense with the Father's
Srovidential care of His beloved Son. The sudden escent upon the temple with reforming energy, in lieu of casting Himself from the pinnacle to attract the admiration of the sign-loving multitude, is charged with efl'ective analogies. Then, thirdly, we find an unostentatious refusal of Christ to palter with eril, or to accept the sanction of the Sanhedrin in order to accomplish the ends of even His own mission. ' Thou slialt worship the Lord thy God, and him alone shalt thou serse,' rings through Jn 2. 3 and 4 just where the Synoptists had clironologically placed the mighty struggle with the suggestions of the devil.
{d) The omissiG-n of the tran-,tjlf}urati\.n, an event which is fuUy described in the Synoptic narrative. This is surprising, because the hitter represents the sou of Zebedee as one of the three witnesses of the incident; but the explanation may be that the eyes of the beloved disciple received more convincing evidence than the bright cloud and the heavenly visitants and a super- natural voice, to establish the divine glory and Person of the Lord. ' We saw,' he said (l"), ' his glory, the glory of the only -begotten.' It is worthy of notice in this respect that Moses and Elijah were perceived by John to have prepared t'ne way of the Saviour and His sacrifice (I"-*). The whole Gospel is a continuous revelation of the
'dorj- of the Life, a vindication of the fact that Jesus is the light- and sight -Giver to blinded humanity. (c) A more perplexing omission is that of the institution of the Eucharist, esjjecially as the very meal at which it took place is mentioned with some other accompaniments, such as the feet- washing of the disciples. Somewhere in the folds and parentheses of the stupendous sentence (Uf'"') we imagine that the institution of the Eucharist, which was intended for the sustenance and the responses of a transcendental love, lies concealed. On no 8upiK)sition can we conceive the author to have been ignorant of the .sacramental rite. We know that it had spread from Jerus. to Troas (Ac 20'' ") and Corinth, and was so highly esteemed as to be abused by the unwary ( 1 Co 1 1-"'-). The best suiiposition is that the apostle has spread out over the discourse conUiined in chs. 13-17 the deepest and most essential features of the Eucharist. The teaching of transcendent love, and mutual in- dwelling and eternal life, is thus repeated by the divine Master in these chapters. More than this, John has reported the a-stonishing discourses at Capernaum (eh. 6), where the Lord described deep spiritual communion with Himself as 'eating his flesh and drinking his blood.' Christ laid em- phasis on the faith which accepted the Incarna- tion, the reality and nearness of the God-man, the actual and perfect humanity of the Son of God, the divine Bread which came down from heaven, under the unii^ue phrase 'eating his tlesh,' and a deep appreciation and assimilation of Hissacrilicial death as nothin" less than 'drinking his blood,' not only of ' the blood which is the life,' but the blood which was shed. So early in His ministry. He taught that what He also elsewhere m the S\nop. narrative described as a ransom in place of nmnt/, was ell'ected by the giving of His life. Thus He made it evident that life in Him w as closely bound up wtli the stupendous idea of the death of the Christ of God. ' lie tluit eatcth me shall live because o/ me.' Two theories have prevailed — one, that a transcendental j)hilosopher in the middle of the 2nd cent., ignoring or re- pudiating the sacrament of the body anil blood, chose this way of expressing his spiritual i/at ion of this widely prevalent usage. "1116 other hypo- thesis is, that the beloved disciple, having heard and recorded the Lord's own interpretation of eating His body and drinking His blood, was content. This seems to us far more reasonable. But why should he have omitted the symbol which was so well calculated to preserve the teaching of the great discourse at Capernaum, Qii-M^ We have just seen that he did not repel the historical concrete always in favour of the ideal representation. But he may reasonably have been wounded by the prevalence of heathen and superstitious adjuncts to the celebration of the Eucharist. He w.as not a bigoted spiritualist, as we ma3' judge by the significance of the seven great miracles recorded by him, by the interesting feet - washing which had never become a sacra- mental usa''e. (See art. ' Fuss-waschung ' by H. Merz in Herzog's HE ; Smith's Diet, of Christ. Ant. ' Baptism,' §§ 34 and 67).