The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 52

This con8idcmblo list of tcstimo·oics to the spirit of the writer, to the suppressed passion of stormy wrnth which burned within him, is more than enough to show that the ••John" of the eynoptists is not in the smallest degree incompatible with the charactPr of the author of this Fourth Gospel; while the obvious intimacy with our Lord thnt he shared with Peter and James docs not contradict tho torm ,vbich he rno<lcst.ly attributed to himself. The intensity of John's nature was, doubtles~, ono of the occasions and ministrants of the Divine love to him, nor is there in tho lofty con- ception he formed of our Lord nn inconsiderable explanntion of the occasional outbursts of his wrath. If he even then believed in the incarnation of the eternal life and light nno. love in his Master, if he was beginning to realize more deeply than the rest, the nwful grandeur of the Personality of Jesus, if ho found himself loving his Lord ,vith 11assionate dcvotion,-wo need not be surprised that he should resent every indication of treachery or disloynlty. At this eal"ly period he had not learned all the lessons of the comp:issionate tenderness and infinite sympathy of Jesus with sorrow and death, nor nil the superabundance and superfluity of love which he lavished on different classes, so that he might easily have fallen into the venial error which was not, as we hnve seen, incompatible with the spirit of the author of the Fourth Gospel. Nay, the Gospel, by making it appear that the Lord had shown signs of special patience nnd kindness towards the Samaritans (eh. iv.), really explains why, at another and later period, the author should have fancied he did well to be angry, anu should have desiderated the power of the Elijah-like ministry of his first teacher, and been ready to call down fire upon the S.'Lmaritan village. It should be borne in mind that this village refused to receive Christ at a moment when, in a condescension which to a Jew was simply superhuman, the Christ was willing to overlook their national estrangement, and to offer to them the blessings of his kingdom. Verily this trait of personal character bas been greatly exaggerated, if it be made a reason for rejecting a conclusion abundantly confirmed by other reasons, that the author of the Fourth Gospel was the son of Zebedee. There are no other solitary references to the Apostle John in the synoptic narrative, and by themselves they are rather explained than contradicted by the supposition of the anthenticity of the Fourth Gospel. (2) '17,e " Jolm" of the .Acts of the .Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians, com- pared with the author of the Fourth Gospel. Those who dispute the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel maintain that, in the Acts of the Apostles, John occupied a position in the Church of Jerusalem and among Jewish Christians which, while compatible with the authorship of the Apocalypse, contrasts forcibly with the spiritual conception of the kingdom of God which pervades the Fourth Gospel. Let us give this objection all possible force, and even emphasize everything that these documents contain. (a) We learn, then, from Acts i. 13 that John was tarrying at Jerusalem, and was a witness of the Ascension; that, with the mother and brethren of the Lord, who now fully believed in Christ's superhuman and sublime claims, and with the rest of the eleven, he continued in prayer and supplication, in generous mutual love, and in holy waiting for "the promise of the Father," which, said Jesus, "ye have heard of me"- waiting for "the power of the Holy Spirit," which should come upon them, and make them witnesses of Christ, not only in Jndrea and Samaria, but to the eud of the world. So far from this representation beiacr incompatible with the personality anu presumed knowlec1ge of the author of the Fo;rth Gospel, we think_ that the valedictory discourse of Christ, as preserved by John, is the very best explanation that can be offered of these stran"e words. The "promise of the Father," the "coming of the Holy Spirit," the "ret;rn of the Lord, n the greater works, and the world-witness to Christ, are the great themes of that discourse. Moreover, the very presence of the mother and brethren of Jesus in the chamber where the eleven met for worship is best explained by the state- ment of the Fourth Gospel, that John took the widowed and bereaved mother El, .-a tB,?. (b) John took part in the elect.ion of Matthias, as one of the eleven, and l_n th16 contravenes no representation which he subsequently unconsciously makes of his own personality. The disciples appealed to the risen and glorified Lord for decision in a matter of profound interest to thew all (cf. here eh. xiv. _12-~4). . . (c) The entire proceedings of the Day of Pentecost, 1Il wlnch John, w1t~out spe~1al mention of his name, took part, constitute one long f~lfilment of expectat_1~ns wb10h had been excited by the words of Jesus before he suflcred. '£he whole spmt of that  TIIE GOSL'EI, ACCORDING TO ST. JOITN'.