(. The incommcvstirability betipnen the writer and his theme. We come into close contact with the writer in the following passages: — I* 2''"-° 23-a 3i8-;i. 23 possibly **"** 4''-'5i-« (}«• i»- iv. «. » 730. »»
g9. 20 97. aa 1041. 42 1 16. 13. S3-SS. 51. 52 1016. 33. S7-«3_ po.ssibly 1046-50 131-6. 11. JS-IW 1(317-1» I'JS Ig4. e. 14. 28. 32 igu'. •J4. ;a. 54-57
2(j3o. «i 214. :s-2» These passages are indejiendent of pure narrative, and are selected mainly because the writer essays to inform his readers of the secret sentiment of the disciples or of others, which docs not appear in the narrative itself, but still more because of the way in which he attempts to make more obvious the words of the Lord Himself, when the wisdom of his interpretation, though d(pubtless up to a point conveying a deep or an obvious meaning, is not equal to the accuracy of his report. Only a few of these can be indicated here. 2^ ' But he spake of the temple of his bnrly' was doubtless a natural inference of a believer in the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the death to which the Sadducean party would in the main condemn Him. The first notes of the death-peal were sounded in the temple. The departure of Jesus from Jerus. was proof of the kind of reception which the great Prophet received from ' his own ' as soon as ' darkness ' set itself to quench the new 'light.' This was one and the nearest interpretation. But with all the subsequent history of tlie spiritual temple of believing men, and of^the rapidity — the ' three days ' — in which the new body and temple rose into spiritual splendour and sulliciency, it is diliicult to believe that the evangelist sounded or grasped all the significance of the weighty words. The question whether 3" or """, and again •*"", are expansions of the remem- bered and cited words of Jesus and the Baptist in the explanatory terms of the evangelist, cannot be discussed here, vet would not have arisen if criticism had not recognized in both places the subtle difl'er- ence between the individuality of the evangelist and the style of each of his masters. The frequent reference to ' the hour ' of Jesus, as in 7*° 8*'- '" 1(P, suggests the knitted, anxious brow of the evangel- ist as he watched the approach of crisis, and the mysterious deliverance of the Lord from the malice, the arrest, the stones of His enemies. It is curious that many of the chief puzzles of exege-sis are to be found in the evangelist s own comment or narrative. By far the most difiicult theological crux is 7", which yields perhaps its treasure up to patient inquiry ; but the statement of the pa-ssage IS entirely due to 'John,' viz., that 'until Jesus was glorified ' the Holy Spirit was not, had not been (' given ' or ' manifested '). This assertion is apparently discordant with the teaching of Christ and his apostles, and of .lohn himself. It was a question of 'more' or ' less,' not a contrast be- tween nothing and something. The fulness or splendour of tlie new dispensation varies with the vital truth and revelation of God wherewith He energizes in the consciousness and even Iwlow the consciousness. The contriust between the quicken- ing of Intelligence under the OT, and the descent of the Holy Siiirit uiKin Jesus, is so great as to account for Jolm's words, and a fortiuri the con- trast between the ministr}- of the synagogue and the ascendeil Lord. The evangelist makes a great nnil unintentional revelation of himself in 13''°. His mind must have been working in flights of unparalleled ecstasy when he endeavoured to con- vey the imprussiou which the fuel-wasliinj{ hat*
120
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
JOHN, GOSPEL OF
made upon him. Dut the style of the passnjje, the iu<sumption of co-ordinate emotions in the bosom of Jesus, and the motives not verbally revealed, diller profoundly from the diction and method of thou(;ht of the Lord Himself. St. John was able to represent the tones of the 'eternal now' when recording the words of Jesus, hut when he tried to reflect the motives or inner spirit of Christ he could find no adequate language.
The purport of the Gospel and the plan and classification of its subject - matter have been variously presented by successive critics and com- mentators from Lampe of Utrecht (1724) to the present liour under the handling of Reuss, Godet, Lutliardt, Thoma, and Buj'scluag. Uecause the structure of tliis very wonderful book reveals a gathering intensity of meanini?. and the suc- cession of events a climacteric fon e, it does not follow that the broad outline of the chronology has been tampered with in either historical or tlifiilogical interests. Many of the lives of our greatest men naturally arrange themselves in epochs, preat opportunities, deep sayings of historic significance, crises, tragedies — as,e.ij., those of Socrates, Caesar, Buddha, Luther, William of Orange. Now, if we can acci'pt the funda- mental idea of God manifest in the flesh, we are .eati.-tied that the most unsympathetic narrator would unconsciously sift material, and gather climax, and glow with dramatic intensity in spite of himself. The Synoptic narrative, with its most solemn and far-reaching suggestions, has prepared the way for the Fourth Gospel, which everywhere presupposes the existence of the wider and more oojiious detail. It lays down firmly the chrono- logical points, between which it is not impossible to show that the vistas of miracle, parable, self- revelation open out. The non-obtruded but certain septenary arrangement, the gathering of the glory as the story moves from eternity to eternity, the