The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 62

rublicly Rnd Yigoron,..ly I\SSRiled ~ome erring :md apostate Churches, and that in which be privately Rn<l lo,ingly advised a young friend with rcferenco to his religious and minist-crial difficulties. So it may be easily conceded that the state or minll in which tho beloved disciple pondered the sublimo memories of the life or the Lord Jesus in tho dl\ys or his flesh diflered absolutely from that in which the same apostle, wrapped in the cloud of ~ 81\cred imagination, and inspired of God, l!aze,l on the ine1fahle mysteries or t-he unseon world, and stroYo to put into symbolic language that which passed all understanding ~n? all speech. The prophet 1md the historbn have two distinct groups of cbaracter- 1st1cs which do not clnsh; but the same man mny, and often does, bear the woi<1ht and re.~ponsibilities of both, Memory differs from fancy, but the same thinker may blend them both with their appropriate phraseology, and may exerciso them 11.lternntely. In the Go~pcl is given to us the profoundly reflective record and arrangement of the human and earthly manife;;tation of the eternal Wc1rd, his conflict with the world, his glorification in death, ani\ his triumph over it in the Divine power that was his intrinsic and everlasting possession. In the Apocalypse he rc,·eals the dominion and triumph of the same ·word of God when delivered from temporal conditions, nn.l through the picturesque symbolism common to the seers of invisible things. Dr. Davidson docs not think that this will account for the disregard of the rules of Greek syntax, and tho use of b::r!Jaric dialect, and urges th11.t Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets were not so lifted out of their ordinary habits of expression and thought in their visions as to con- stitute two Hebrew styles. But, as we shall sec, the Apocalypse reveals abundant proof of the ricbnesg e'l"en of a classic vocabulary, and that we h,we not the same oppor- tunity of contrasting two prophetic styles, notwithstanding what has been done by a certain school of critici:;m to di,integrate the prophecies of Isaiah and Zechariah. So, then, whicl.iever view may be taken of the date of the Apocalypse, the contrasts of style a.re not so great as to destroy the identity of authorship, The hypothesis of an inter'l"al of many years between them may make the problem easier of solution. The hypothesis of the twofold state of mind may also account for a nearer juxtaposition in time. The entire phenomena of prophetic vision and ecstasy will account for the adoption of the dialect more familiar in earlier years, when phrases were minted in the vocabulary of Palestine, and enriched by the abundant prophetic and apocryphal literature which circulated among the people. Let us proc~ed, then, (a) to adduce the evidence/or the Johannine autlwrship of the .Apocalypse, in entire independence of the question either of the date of its publica- tion, or the supposed incompatibility of this document with that of the Fourth Gospel ; (b) to indicate the points of agreement, and divergence of style, teaching, and method of the two works. (a) The internal evidence. 'l'his is allowed on runny sides, and by strong opponents of the authenticity of the Gospel, to be satisfactory and impressive, although it assllIUcs a somewhat apologetic character. (i.) The writer calls himself by ihe name of John <:1wt!vJ111s or 'lwcii/4s, equivalent to 1r,ii.-i;, either "Jehovah is merciful," or "the grace of Jehovah." The name is trauslit.erated by the LXX., 'Irovc£, 2 Kin_ge xxv. 23, a name which appears in the New Testament, in some manuscripts, for the 'Iwt!vv'ls of other manuscripts). This in itself might be a stumblin<1-block from the reticence with reference to his own name which the author of the F;urth Gospel preserves throughout the Gospel and Epistles. He calli hlmself a "servant," a "bond-slave," of Jesus Chlist. 'l.'his is perfectly compatible with his modest assumptions and Eelf-obliteration. St. Paul (Rom. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 10; Phil. i 1 ; Titus i 1) thus designates himself, though, when occasion arises, he can and does lay great emphasis upon his apastolic commission. In addressing the Churches in Asia, "John" speaks of himself (Rev. i. 9) as" your brother" anJ "your companion (a-v-y,c,,.,,""'bs Iv 'l",i 6>..I,jm)," the latter term being adopted by St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. 23 ; Phil i. 7), while the former repeatedly occurs in Paul's Epistles, and the idea. pervades the Gospels. He calls himself "a prophet," a.nd classes himself among" the prophets" (Rev. xx.ii. 9; sec also x. 7) of the New 'l'estamcnt-a. term which is repeatedly used in close association with apostles; the two circles of connotRbion overlapping one another ;-all apostles may not have been prophets, nor all prophets apostles, but some apostles were prophets. The obj<.'ction is taken by some to the fact  'l'IIE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN. lxi.1