(b) In the Fourth Gospel. — A characteristic feat- ure should be duly noted, the enhanced demand for belief in the Son of God ( ' statt der Sache iiberall nur die Per.son ' is the distinction drawn by Wernle [Quellen des Lebens Jesu, IS]). Passages bearing on the subject will, however, be discussed as they
76
UNBELIEF
UNCONSCIOUS FAITH
stand, and without raising questions dealt with elsewhere (see John [Gospel of]).
There is the conversation with Nicodemus. The unbelief referred to by Jesus ( Jn 3^^ Kal ov TncrTevere) is the failure to apprehend, which involves spiritual unreceptiveness. No credence has been given to things which lie within the range of human experi- ence ; how then shall there be perception of truths which have their sphere in a higher order ? A few verses further on there come the reflexions of the Evangelist, and here thought is directed to that from which such unbelief springs. Sharp is the contrast between the 6 fir] wLcxTevwv of v.'* and the 6 Tnareinov els avrdv of its opening words ; in the former case full adherence to the Son of God has been deliberately refused ; tliat refusal has meant a rejection of tlie highest manifestation of God, which is ultimately traceable to an evil disposition, evil works. Of similar import are the comments of the Evangelist in 12^'"'*'' ; tlie miracles wrought by Jesus had not indeed been denied, at the same time they had made but a transient impression, and liad sometimes been attributed to the powers of darkness ; of unreserved confidence in and full acceptance of Himself there had been none what- ever. That it should be otherwise was, after all, impossible where perceptive faculties had been dulled and moral sense blunted. The unbelief manifested was but the effect produced by the abuse of religious privileges and failure to profit by a progressive revelation. To look back to 5"^ is to find precisely the same thought expressed by Jesus Himself. The long-continued education in Divine things had been all in vain for those Jews who had studied ' Moses ' and yet remained blind to the progressive teaching of the OT. How then should they have ready acceptance for the One in whom another, and a higher, revelation had been given ?
The attitude of the rulers referred to in 12*'-^- ^^ demands consideration. It would seem that con- viction had come to them ; closer examination shows that it was a conviction of the intellect only ; that, because of unworthy fears, it went no further, it found no outward expression in the life. ' This complete intellectual faith (so to speak) is really the climax of unbelief (Westcott) ; and yet it may be capable of transformation, of passing into that larger faith which dominates the whole man. Possibly the case of Nicodemus may serve as illustration. It was an intellectual conviction that brought him to Jesus in the first instance (3^- ^) ; if he shrank then from publicity, he appears later on as one who has felt his way to an avowal of discipleship ; the t6 irpuirov of 19^^ is at least suggestive of repeated interviews and faith in pro- cess of development. Where there was the secrecy of the earliest visit there is at length the act of reverence done openly at the Cross.
It has become customary to speak of the ' doubt ' of Thomas. ' Unbelief ' would be the better word ; for the attitude ascribed to him is rather suggestive of emphatic if tentative denial than of perplexity and hesitation. And yet it is not incompatible with an allegiance deep and strong to which all the stories told of him (in Fourth Gospel only) bear ample testimony. He is pictured as ready to go with Jesus to death (IP") ; the thought of separation from his Master (14^) has sorely distressed him ; the crucifixion has dashed his liopes, but he will not sever himself from the company of the dis- ciples (20^") although for him the assurance is wanting Avhich has come to others (20'^''). For want of conclusive proof their glad tidings leave him unconvinced, and so there comes that round disclaimer (iav fj.r) iSu . . . ov jur) VLffTevao}) which reveals liis unbelief. And this attitude of his, how is it to be explained ? Is it really the case that he is to be regarded as the 'rationalist among the
Apostles ' ; that with him the reflective powers are stronger than the susceptive (see Robertson's sermon on The Doubt of Thomas, ii. 268) ; tliat he is one who will not be satisfied until all his grounds are estab- lislied ; that, ready to believe when he can, he is healthily averse from the belief of mere credulity ; that his soul desires 'not a refuge but a resting- place' (Toynbee), and tliat he knows no security as long as there is one possibility of delusion left ? Tlie explanation is an attractive one, but it is doubtful whether it can be sustained in the face of the narratives above alluded to. They are scarcely suggestive of the highly speculative turn of mind. What they do betray is a gloomy temperament, a tendency to pessimism. Thomas is so constituted that he will always take the darker view of things. He simply cannot shake oft' the 'desponds and slavish fears ' (Pilgrim's Progress) which ^eigh down his soul. Of himself he is incapable of glad- some belief ; and yet, when assurance comes, he can rise to the great confession (20^^). As the light breaks in upon him he can say his ' Farewell night, welcome day ' with a full heart.