The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 48

have been for more appropriate if he had been referring to a testimony once for all given by a third party. The closing words oC the Gospel further solemnly associate the loved disciple with the 11uthor of t~e Gospel, r~veal_ing t~e very early tradition and the uniform testimony of the manuscripts to the 1dent1ficat10n; and there can be no question that by "the disciple whom Jesus loved "-n phrase of high significance and of tender and impressive reminiscence, not of self-con:6.u.ent boasting (as Keim and Weiss say)-the writer intends to indicate himself. Before proceeding to show the internal evidence for this identification with the son of Zebedee, we see that the writer professes very intimate acquaintance with the feel- ings of the disciples themselves-be knows what they thought at the time, and how they modified their views afterwards (eh. ii.11, 21, 22; xii. 16). The author's intimate relations both with them and the disciples of John (eh. iii. 22); the inmost converse of Jesus with his fellow-disciples (eh. iv. 1, 2); what they said "one to another" (eh. iv. 33); the conversation between Jesus, Andrew, and Philip (eh. vi. 5-0); constitute a series of touches which reveal quiet observa~ion and deep and subtle intimacy witlt their feelings (eh. vi. 17, 22-24, 60-71). His knowledge of the Lord's own home appears in eh. vii. 3. Similarly, eh. xi. 3-16 gives a striking proof of bis intimacy with the disciples and his knowledge of their feelings, as contrasted with the silcuce which he observes about the illness and death of Lazarus, beyond what came in the form of e. message from the sisters (cf. eh. xii. 16 for another interesting proof). h must be admitted that he also knew what the Pharisees" said among themselves," and what" the people murmured concerning him;" but there are many sources of informa- tion open to him. Again, in eh. xii. 21-23, in the feet-washing scene (eh. xiii. 1-11), and in eh. xiv., xv., and xvi., he indicates acquaintance with the special questions tllM Peter, Philip, Judas, Thaddams, Thomas, and "some of his disciples," asked on that last memorable night. 'l'he author represents himself throughout as intimate with the disciples, and in the closing scene on the Lake of Tiberias, he has artlessly represented manner, tone, and emotion, and has blended the whole in to a Iiving pie tu re as one who knew. 4. He represents himself as one of the disciples whom JesU8 loved. This disciple shown by constructive evidence to be John the son of Zebedee. The author appears from the first to have clung very closely to our Lord. We can scarcely resist the impression that he was a silent auditor of the conversation with Nicodemus, which obviously took place in Jerusalem (cf. eh. xix. 27), probably in that nameless disciple's own house. Again, while other disciples went to Sychar to buy bread, one seems to have remained with the Lord, and heard the conversation with the woman of Samaria. The fifth chapter cvn- tains au account of a visit to Jerusalem, on which the writer, and it would seem few if any other disciples, accompanied him. We learn that the beloved disciple was known to the high priest, i.nd had a home in Jerusalem itself. This may have been in some way associated with the business of Zebedee as a :fisherman, and the market for his prou.uce in Jerusalem at the time of the public national festivals, which required certain vi.;;its to Jerusalem at these periods, and may explain the fact that John alono gives detaikc. accounts of the intcrcourso between our Lord and the Jews at Jerusalem. In eh. vi. we are once more thrown into the midst of one of the capital scenes and critical moments of the Galilrean ministry as related by tho synoptists; but this writer is minutely acquainted with the sentiments of tho apostles, the principal parts assigned to specific individuals, and even the inner mind of the Lord himself (eh. \'i. 5, G, 7-0). In ver. 17 there is an unconscious aud unmistakable touch of tho eye-witness: "Jesus was not yet come to them." The writer had been sent nway with tho cloven, but expected that his Lord would come to them. In eh. vi. 60, 66 he onco !lloro unintentionally reveals his presenco, intimacy, Rnd sympathy with tho twelve; Rnd while he does not become their chief spokesman, but nttributes this function to Peter, yet l;e sha.res thti sentiment of the group, "Thou a.rt the Christ, Son of tho living God . . . thou hast the words of eternal lifo." This is itself one of tho proofs that there is no animus against Peter, who is spokcu of as one of two disciples whom Jesus loved (Jcp/Jl.€1, eh. :xx. 2). 'l'his is singularly impressive when we find that Peter, throughout the synoptic narm- tive, stands in such close and l\ffectionate relationship with our Lord. At the Last Supper "the disciple (&v -ii'Yc£,r11 6 'l7Juovs) whom Jesus lol'ed" was "reclining (•v nji ,co,\,rq, .-oii 'l'luou) in the bosom of Jesus," l,e. on his right si le, at the head of the ,ricliuiurn,  !iv lNTRODUCTION TO