The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 94

The question nrieee-Does the Fourth Gospel record, at this particular epoch or Christ's life, any corresponding conflict with such n view of human affairs as that which the Divine Lord contemplated and indigmmtly rejected in his third temptation? (a) The cleansing of the temple was an emphatic repuclintion of any sacro-sanct clailllil inherent in venerable sin. (fJ) An incirlent is recorded which more fully illustrates the same thought. A dignified ecclesiastic (eh. iii.) approached our Lord. He was hi'(b in social position, and of great repute. He was a teacher of Israel, a ruler of the Jews. He came with compliment and self-importance. "We know," said be, "that thou art a Teacher come from God: for no man can do the signs which thou doest, except God be with him" (eh. iii.], 2). We, the Sanhedrin, are prepared (he implied), on our own terms, and retaining all our high position as the rnlers and teachers of the people, to admit your right, to acknowledge your mission. The startling reply of Jesus is in subtle and close harmony with the reply made to the devil, as given in the synoptic Gospel; it was, "Except a man be born from above, be cannot see the kingdom of God." Utter, inmost, radical, moral revolution is indispensable to a place in the kingdom of God. No compromise with prescriptive or traditional wrong-doing is possible. A high position in the Sanhedrin, in the great family of Annas, in the Pharisaic order, or in Herod's or Pilate's court, is not of the feeblest importance. These things will not expiate or justify a single infraction of the eternal law of righteousness. The kingdom of Messiah is not a kingdom of the earth, bnt it consists exclusively of regenerated men. Nicodemus answered, "How can these things be?" The devil vanished before the tremendous thrust, " Thou sbalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (-y) When our Lord was seated by the well, some analogous problems were presented to him. The woman said, "Sir, I perceive that thon art a prophet"-" Decide for us between the sacred nationality of Samaria and Judrea, between the rival claims of the sanctuary of Gerizim and of Jerusalem. Determine the authority and glory of each." Christ rose at once above the controversy between these rivn.1 nationalities, and indeed above the clashing interests of all opposing states, in the sublime reply, "Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither iu this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father." Kingdoms of the world, sacred shrines, holy places, have no part in Messiah's kingdom. "They that worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth." "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." The simple coexistence of these two analogous streams of Divine self-revelation is suggestive. The Fourth Gospel does not "pulverize" the synoptic narrative on the one hand, nor on the other does that wonderful recital so stamp the life and mission of the Lord as to render the Johannine representation unhistorical. On the contrary, the story of Jesus at Cana and at Jacob's well, the cleansing of the templEI. and the thunderclap which broke over the night of Nicodemus, run in strange and undesigned harmony with the story of the temptation. The Fourth Gospel places in the exact chronological position occupied by the temptation of Jesus a series of closely interlaced events which reproduce the temptations themselves and repeat the victory. The Personality of the Johannine Christ is none other than that of the synoptists. (b) 'l'he omission of the Transfiguration. The Tramdiguration, as recorded in Matt xvii. and parallel passages, would have sustained the thesis of the Fourth Gospel, would have assisted the readers of it to recognize the supreme claims of him over whom heaven opened, with whom Moses and Elijah conversed, aud whose counte- nance shone with a brightness greater than the sun's at noonday. The voice from the excellent glory would have uttered the most powerful comment on the great theme, "Jesus is the Christ., the Son of God." The assumption is that one of the three who were with Christ on the holy mount wrote the Fourth Gospel. On what principle did he .omit the narrative? If the insight that the beloved disciple obtained into the heart of Jesus gave him a higher and larger conception of the glory of the Lord than this vision of his physical capacity and resources, we can be satisfied that he held his pe~ce concerning an event so widely diffused, and ono which, on the hypothesis of his authorship of the Apocalypse, he had far transcended. But the Gospel is saturated with the idea which found expression on the mount of Transfiguration. In eh. i. 14, ",ve saw his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father;" in eh. i. 17 the grace and truth of Christ is contrasted mth the Law- gi vtng of Moses; and tho great Name of the Lord, that of the only begotten Son, i3 civ IN'J'RODUCTION 'l'O