The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 56

on the one hand, that, in tho Gospel, our Lord docs speak of II hst day an:l of n dny of judgm<'nt, when he would personally ju(lgo tho world (see eh. v. 28, 21); vi, 39, 40, 44-, 54). And the writer of the Epistlc, while ho conllrrus this expectation, dcclnr"i that those who believe on the Son of God have "eternal lire," and that "thoso that have tho Son of God have life" (1 John v. 13). In ii. 28 he assures believers of their boldness and freedom from shnme at the approaching pa,·ow.in. Tlie Gospel simply records Christ's words as he uttered them, and the Epistle exhibits the ;effect upon two generations of Christians of the whole of Christ's teaching as given in the synoptic 11.nu Joh11.nnine Gospels. (b) Dr. Davidson says that the Gospel knows nothing of "anticbrist," because, accord- ing to its "genius,"" the prince of this world is cast out" by the death of Jesus, while " the Epistle i:peaks of many antichrists." This surely is in obvious harmony with the simple facts of the case for which the Gospel had prepared the way, The antagonism of darkness to the Logos (eh. i. 3), and the frequent forewarning against calamities; hatred, and mis~ndersta.nding from the world, 11.bound in the valedictory discourse (eh. XV. 18, etc.; XVI. 1-4). (c) The doctrine of the Paraclet;e, say opponents, is differently conceived in the two. " Indeed, the Spirit is never called ' the Paraclete ' in the Epistle. Christ himself is so termed (1 John ii. 1)." "In the Epistle (the Spirit) is less closely identified with Christ. He witnesses and is troth . . . but is not identified with Christ. Ho is the anointino- which believers receive from the Holy One," etc. But the reference to Ghrist as th~ Pa.raclete is in such subtle harmony with Christ's promise of "another Paraclete" who should abide with them for ever, that this is one of the remarkable signs of identity of authorship; while in eh. xv. 2G the Spirit's work is described as "a witnessing" concerning Christ. On the other hand, 1 John iii. 24, the m,.6µa. which he (Christ) has given to us is proof that he Ch1ist ,lesus abideth in us; aud the xplqµa. cl1rl> 'Toii irylou (1 John ii 20, 27) corresponds very closely with the teaching which the Church bad received from the words of Jesus with reference to the baptism with the Holy Spirit and his power of leading disciples into all truth. (a) It is said, "High as the epithets (attributed t-0 Christ in the Epistle) a.re, they imply a conception of his Person inferior to those used in the Gospel." 'l'hey are slightly uifforent, we admit; but let 1 John i. 1-3 be read, t ~" &,,.• &p/C1/s, etc;, where the Son js spoken of in close relation to the Father (see Haupt on this passage); also 1 John ii. 14, where the ,l A/ryos "Toii 0•oii lv llµ'iv µlvn correponds very closely with Christ's own promise, ,.,.,.,,,, with his disciples; 1 John ii. 23, "He that denieth the Son hath not the Father; n to say nothing of 1 John v. 7, 8. The eterna.l Word of life incarnate, the Son of God who had been manifested and-come in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil, the Son, the great exhibition of Divine and eternal love, fills the whole thought of the writer, and carries into practical form the sublime aphorisms of Christ himself, while it presupposes throughout the personal dignity of the Son of God. Let it be remembered that the Gospel (with the exception of the prologue) docs not with abso- lute certainty refer to the personal Logos, but has substituted for it "the Son;" and the .final word of Divine inspiration in this Epistle leaves it beyond a.II doubt that the summation of apostolic doctrine is this-" We are in him that is true, that is in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the veritable God, and eternal life." (e) .Another argument is derived from the strongly anti-docetic spirit of the Epistle (which is readily conceded), as contrasted with "the almost docetic character of the Gospel.'' Here, says Dr. Davidson, "the A&.,,os in some respects resembled an reon." 'l'his scarcely harmonizes with the previous objection. Dut not one of the Gospels laid ~uch emphasis on the essential humanity ~f Ch~t as. d~es the Fo1;1rth ~o~pel_; e,[J• his presence at the wedding-feast; his weariness wilh his Journey; his part1c1pat1on m food even after his resurrection; his anointing the eyes of the blind man with spittle; his ~eeping and groaning at the grave of Lazarus. His human heart and relation- ships are all insisted on. That Christ's bodily organization was unique belongs to each of the evangelic narratives, and not more to the Fourth Gospel than to St. Luke's. His essential Personality is in the Son of God himself. (f) Ba.ur and Davideon urge a different acceptation of the two references to "blood and water" in the Gospel and Epistle, saying that in eh. xix. 34 symbolic reference is made to the atoning effica.r,y of the death of Christ, while in 1 John v, 6 reference ie  'flIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. ,JOHN'.