The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 100

that wl1ich had beon said t-0 them of old time, followed by the nutithcsis between the highest forms of the Divine life and the heartless forms of the Pharisee, the publican nnd hypocrite, and the entire thunder-peal is brought to its final deliverance in the rhetorical climax. To our thinking, no one discourse in the Fourth Gospel is so prolonged and sustained in argument, so unbroken by dialogue, as Matt. v.-vii. Even the valedictory discourse flo~s on (eh. xiv.) in answer to numerous questions put by Philip, 'l'homss, Judas, and Simon; then is broken in two by change of scene nnd thC'll by address to the Father. It way be said that the sermon on the mount is rather tho work, of Matthew than of the Lord, a piecing together of great utterances. We dispute that position ; but if it be conceded for the sake of argument, this contrast between the synoptist and Johannine records fails. Our Lord's discourses are characterized by intense and vivid repetition of certaiu ideas under slightly different forms. Thus the illustmtions usod in the discourse at Nazareth (Luke iv. 25, 27) should be compared with Luke xi. 31, 32; xii. 24, 27, 51, 53, and with the gathering int.ensity of the three parables of eh. xv. We do not find the ome discourses in the Fourth Gospel, but we read the evidence of the same commanding mind and its fundamental method. 'l'ake eh. iii. 3 and 6 for the repeti- tum of the condition of admission into the kingdom of God. Notice the gathering intensity of meaning in the discourse in eh. vi. concerning participation (i.) "in my flesh," (ii.) "in my flesh and blood," (iii.)" eating me." 'l'he impression of a repeated and doubled thought occurs in eh. x. 7, 9 and 11, 14. Let the construction of tho sermon on the mount be compared with that of the controversial discourse in eh. v., and the same kind of intensifying progress is conspicuous. (e) The conduct of our Lord, as seen in the treatment of his relatives, reveals in striking accord the fourfold narrative, a.ud the identity of the John of the Fourth Gospel with that of tbe synoptists. In Luke ii. 49, "Wist ye not that I must be [' in the affairs (house) of my Father'] about my Father's business?" In Mark iii. 21 and 31-35 the lack of true perception of his claims on the part of his kindred is brought into contoot with his admission t.o closest intimacy of those that "do the will of my Father" ( of. Matt. xii. 50). The Fourth Gospel also makes it clear that the mother of Christ was no longer competent to rule the methods of his self-manifestation (eh. ii. 4); that his brethren did not believe on him (eh. vii. 6); that he entrusted the care of his mother to his spiritual relation and beloved disciple, rather than to the brother James (eh. xix. 26, 27). These personal traits are most remarkable if there be not a fundament11.l identity of subject. (/) There are further deep harmonies of illustrative thcugl,t. In Matt. xxi. 37 the Lord speaks of his Father sending his Son to the wicked husbandmen. In eh. viii. 35, 36 the servants are contrasted with " the Son that abideth for ever." "'fhe Father's house" is the great climax of the group of parables in Luke xv.; "the Father's house," with its "many mansions," is the home which (eh. xiv. I, 2) Christ is going to prepare for his clisciples. In the synoptists we are told that we must become as little children (Matt. xviii. 3); in John that we must be "born a.gain" (eh. iii. 3; of. also xiii. 33). The imagery of the dying and expanding seed, the subsequent growth, is frequently u:peated in Matt. xiii. ; but it is also found in eh. xii. 24. 'l'he " shepherd" in Luke's parable brings home the lost sheep; bnt in eh. x. 2-16 our Lord speaks of himself as" the good Shepherd." The barren fig tree is to be cut down, the fruitless plant rooted up, in Luke xiii. 8 and Matt. xv. 13; but in eh. xv. 2 Christ declares, "Every branch in me which beareth not fruit, is taken away, and every branch which bearetb fruit, he pruneth it, that it may bring forth morll fruit." Hostile critics have objected t.o the Fourth Gospel that it is a continuous utterance ou the part of Jesus concerning himself, and of his own unique relation to the Father and to the world, and of his own functions and claims; whereas in the earlier Gospels the Lord was content tc deal with the duties and prospects and characteristics of humanity or of the kingdom of God, and is comparatively silent concerning him.self. Is this so? Is the contrast so gre.a.t as is often &BBumed? We admit that very early in the Fourth Gospel Jesus ll,Ssures Nathanael that he should "henceforth find heaven opened, and see angels ascending and descending on the Son of man" (eh. i. 61); and in the language to Nicodemus he implies that he is the Son given by the Father, and is the Son who came down from heaven; but the great burden of that address ia that "regeneration"  THJ<j G013PF.L ACCORDING '£0 8T. .JOHN. cxl