JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHX, GOSPEL OF
717
of Biiddha, or the precocities and monstrosities of tlie uon-canonical Gospels of the Infancy. Tlio ori^'inality of Jesus leaves no room to think that either John the Baptist or I'bilo, Hillel or Gamaliel, coutrihutcd anythinu to His mental resources or to His Messianic nMe. He knew His own mind, and followed it throughout, allowing the voice of the Father and the foreordained un- folding of human need and inquiry to determine the successive phiusesof revelation. While He was waiting for God, God was working in all things to the unveiling of His own true nature and the vin- dication of His love to the utteniiost. There appears to be ouite a parallel, if not a richer, development in the Fourth Gospel than in the other three. There is a wide space between the hinj;uage addressed to Nathanael (1*-) and that to I'hilip on the night of the passion : ' Have I been so long time with you,' etc. ; between the elementary in- structions given to Nicodcmus (3''") touching the fundamentiil aspect* of the new life, and the true nature of the kingdom of God, as consisting of regenerated men on the one hand, and on the other the sublime teaching of the ' good Shepherd,' the mutual indwelling of the Vine and its branches (ch. 15) ; the glorification of the Son of God, who would go unto the Father, prepare a place for them, ' come again to them ' in the power and presenie of the Comforter. Almost every school of criticism admits a momentous advance after the close of ch. 12. Those whom He had gathered out of the world, those who at length liau come to believe in the mission of the Lord, are set forth at length as face to face with each other, under the shallow of the cross, in the coronation of sacrifice, sutler- ing, sorrow, and death. A higher strain of in- struction pervades the Fourth Gospel than that current in theSynoptictradition — one more adapted to the .solitary inquirers, or to a knot of carjiing and critical prie-sts, or to the society of His own disciples at great crises of their .spiritual history, or to angry sticklers for their own customs whin
firepariug their final and deadly assault upon His ife, than to the ordinary and miscellaneous groups at the lake side or on the hill slo^ies of Galilee. However, the contrast does not interfere with the historicity of either account. The progressive aspects of each group of revelations is obviously the result of the diU'erent susceptibilities of His audience and their power to catch the meaning of His teaching. In the case of St. John's Gosjiel this is heightened by the circumstance that the reporter is throughout one intense, perfervid, yet contemplative spirit, who received from the in- finite fulness of the God-incarnate — knowing Him to be this — just the impression which he alone could receive, and in some degree record for after generations.
7. The Gnostic element in the Fourth Gospel, a.s distinct from the Synoptic narratives, has been sup- [Kised to carry tliis document from the close of the 1st to the middle of the '2nd cent., to the great dis- paragement of its biographical and autoptic value. Siigfried, as we have seen, endeavours to establish an inlluence from I'hilo of Ah xandria upon the cn'iri' literature of NT, u|)on Mt and Ja as well as on Hebrews and the Johaiinine writings. Thoma has maintained a similar thesis. He even fastens on Valentinus, as na\ir had done on Marcioii, to re- date the Pauline Kpistles, and so obtain, afortinri, a plungu down into the 2ud cent, for the Johannine books. This kind of criticism overshoots it.self. liotli the Ist ci'iit. B.C. and the 1st and 2nd cents. A.O. were seething with the ferment produced by the bleniling of Hi I. ami Oriental ideius, of Gr. and Ileb. philosophy and phrase. There is no need to come down to tiio middle of the 2nd cent, to under- stand the phraseology of Col or Hebrews, the
letters of Ignatius or Barnabas, or the Wisdjm oi Solomon. .Specific terms, such as 'Logos,' 'Life, and ' Light,' were ready at all times to take up a richer connotation than before. The special con- trast between the Synoptists and John, to the disparagement of the latter, h.is been pressed, as though Jn hud thus received the hall-mark of the end of 2nd cent. The question arises whether the creation of the whole world by tlie Logos or Son is affirmed or repudiated by the Fourth Go.spel. Does it recognize the dualistic view of the source of good more than do the Synop. Gospels ? Surely the latter give us more references to the malice, mi.schief, and kingdom of Satan, of darkness and demonism, than the Fourth Gospel, which never refers to demoniac energy. There is nothing more, on the other hand, than a vague side reference to the Creation in the .Synoptics (Mk 10°). Such lan- guage is by no means so clear and explicit with reference to Creation as irivra Si oiroO iylvcro (Jn 1'), nor can it be pretended that matter (^ tXr;) or an}' other element in the Kbaixos is excepted from the iriimi, which owe absolutely their genesis to the Lo^os. The non-interpenetrating character- istics of 'light' and 'darkness' is not asserted. The power of 'darkness' is not chaotic or anarchic, but represents simply the negation of 'light.' 'Parkness' is not impenetrable to 'light.' The clement of will or moral nature enters into the conditions of its permanence. The idea of 6 Trovrjpbi belongs rather to the S}-nop. than Johan. represent.ations ; see iMt 5" 6" 13'", Lk U-*. S. Davidson considered that Jesus (Jn 17') did not ' pray for the world,' because the Kiff/nos was hopelessly beyond the region of conversion or the power of prayer. This interpretation seems en- tirely inconsistent with i^ anf 4-'-' 6»»»' 8" 12^' 16«, and even with the context of the assertion, ' I pray not for the world,' in which the Lord prays (v.'-') for those who should believe on Him tiirough the word of His disciples, and looks forward to the great consummation of His own mission, ' that the world may believe that thou didst send me.' This is the final purpose of the Lord's interce.ssion for His disciples. We admit that pervading the Fourth Gospel there is a class of references to an elect kingffom of susceptible souls to be found throughout the world, ' the other sheep ' of lu'", cf. 3»'-" 18", which suggest the wideness of God's mercy, and also the inscrutable and boundl. ss depths of the divine decrees, the extent of the invisible and onmipotent graces afTecting human destiny and counteracting human perversity and corruption. This is not Gnosticism, but one of the great teachings of Divine Revelation in the God-man. A Docetic element is charged upon the Fourth Gospel, and the Gnostic Ebionitism of the '2nd cent, is referred to as its source, and the later supposed date is assigned on this ground to the whole cla.ss of representation ; but the Johan. writings, and especially the Gospel, are the most decidedly pronounced anti-Docctic documents in NT. They sneak of the true humanity of the Son of Man witli intentional empluusis. Thus the father, mother, brothers of Jesus are spoken of ; the weariness, thirst, tears, inward groanings, per- sonal atVections, dre.ss, food, spittle, touch, ilesh, blood, bones, wounded side, are severally men- tioned. He was ' made flesh,' i.e. full hunuinity ; His dead body was partially embalmed, His rai- ment was divided among the soldiers. After His resurrection He was prepared to take broiled fish and honey and breail. \Ve do not admit a treat- ment of the supposeil phantasmic appearances or disappearances of the Lord _ (7" 8* KP" IS") a.- Gnostic or Dwetic in the Fourth, when simihit events are recorded in the Synop. Gospels, e.g. Lk 4, OS well as the walking on the water and the