The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 88

the ch!ef, of the publicans-an. act which must have exasperated the prejudices of many of Clmst s follow~rs, and con~nbuted t? the bitterness of the Pharisaic ~arty; nor ought Luke to have om11 tcd the m1racle which Matthew recorrls (xii. 22, etc.) as the basis of the very solemn discourse the points of which are preserved in Luke xi. 17-23. (2) The omissions of the synoptists, when contrasted with each other, are a vrry notice- able and remarkable feature in their narrative. Matthew and Mark omitte<l the visit to Jerusalem when our Lord was twelve years of age. Luke and Mark omitted the journey into Egypt. Mark and Luke omitted the special injunctions to the twelve disciples, and the great parables of the coming to judgment. Matthew and Mark omitted the raising of the widow's son, and the parables of the prodigal son, of Dives and Lazarus, and numerous other teachings; nor can we satisfactorily account for omissions which, if they bad been supplemented from the other narratives, would not have detracted from the apparent motive on which the several narratives were compiled. Ergo the omissions by the synoptists of matters found only in John's Gospel, and the omission by John of matters found only in Matthew's or Luke's Gospel, ought to be no bar to our accepting the peculiarities of John's Gospel. These omissions of the synoptists may be traced in some degree to the ruling principle directing the composition of their narratives. Matthew's obvious purpose is to show the fulfilment by Jesus of the true Messianic conception. He is much con- cerned to prove that the Lord was the theocratic King : why should he then develop the course of hierarchic antagonism to the Christ from the beginning? The miracle on the blind man and on the dead Lazarus, though producing ulterior effects on the population of Jerusalem, favourable and adverse, were not fundamentally more remark- able than many other of Christ's miracles of power and mercy. To us, from the special detail by which they are environed, they acquire a more emphatic interest. The memories of the twelve (followed mainly by the marvellous tax-gatherer) were so sur- charged with a sense of the supernatural power of Jesus, that these events were grouped rather than isolated. John had from peculiar circumstances been more behind the scenes, and saw how certain special miracles had wrought unfavourably upon the governing religious authority, and he set himself to unrave.l the animosity of this same authority, to vindicate the fundamental ideas, that the Logos incarnate had come to his own, and that his own received him not. Luke, in his intention to set forth the perfect humanity of the Son of the Highest, clothes him with the highest and most famous characteristics from the first, Ho was not one of the twelve, and therefore was neither at Bethany nor" Ephraim," but the great and wonderful narrative of Nain, coming, as we may suppose, under his own observation or cognizance, revealed the intense humanity of Christ even more than the restoration of Lazarus, and, having told it in a way which had melted hearts, ho left the resurrection of Lazarus for others. Davidson (lib. cit., ii. 363, 364) says the miracle took place, according to the Fourth Gospel, "only a few days before the triumphal entry." The narratives of the synoptists exclude it; but this seems in forgetfulness of eh. xi. 54, which implies a retirement of Jesus before the final entry (see notes). A consideration of importance has often been used to justify the omission. Prudential motives may have preserved the inco?:nito when the synoptic narrative took shape, which would have ceased to operate long before John undertook his great task. 'l'be coincidences of the three synoptists with one another are undoubtedly more numerous than their coincidencrs with the Fourth Gospel. The former are so abundant that they need not be cited. If they were confined to the synoptists, and if the entire platform was 4icscrted by the Fow-th Gospel, the conclusion would militate against the historicity of fhe Gospel of John; but there are special and numerous points in which John's Gospel coincides with the synoptic nl\rrative. B. The coincidences of the synoptic and Fourth Gospels. The points of divergence have naturally created much inquiry, but the points of coincidence and identity between the synoptists and John are still more remarkable, and deserve special attention. We will consider them under three main divisions: (1) broad facts of the history; (2) the incidental allusions of John to matters of fact which WEI know of from the synoptists, bnt which he has himself nowhere affi_rmed or announced; (3) subtle peculiarities of manner of style and of vocabulary, which pro- claim the fundamental unity of the theme and subject-matter, We will then deal with specific objections, JOHN. h xniil lNTnODUCTION '1'0