The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 103

Evon taking the eynoptist authorities alone, we see that events and friendships parallol nnd equivnlent to _thoRe wHh re~erence to N)codemus are not lacking. We have already obsorved that, while the synoptists are not ignorant of the visits to Jerusalem, they do not lay themselves out for any description or recital of the conversations and miracles wbioh took place there. They naturally pass over Nicodemus, the principal reference t? whom occurs in a period of our Lord's ministry concerning which they are perfectly 1llent The woman of Samaria comee, as to place and time, into the same cate"ory with Nicodemus, and the lifelike portraiture given of her can scarcely be transcend~ by any narrative in the New Testament. 'l'bis kindness and sympathy with the Samaritans is, however, the probable basis of the interesting references to the Samaritans in Luke's Gospel and the Acts (Luke ix. 52-56; x. 33; xvii. 16 ; Acts i. 8 ; viii. 5, etc.). We do not disguise the difficulty involved in Matt. x. 5, but the experimental mission of the twelve was obviously restricted. They were not to go to cities of the Samaritans, nor into the wo.y of the Gentiles; yet the synoptists (all three) tell us that he himself did go into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, to Cresarea Philippi and Decapolis. Consequently, the warning of the twelve, in their first trialjO'Urney, against the cities of the Samaritans may have been equally compatible with what John tells 118 about his own visit to Samaria. It cannot be maintained that the story of Lazarns and his sisters introduces novel matter, as Luke bas already introduced us to" Martha and Mary," and the representation he gave of the contrast between them, of eager service and quiet meditation, is exqui- sitely unfolded in the home of Bethany as portrayed by John. The ILt1ral features of the two sisters correspond in a most remarkable way with the characteristics of Peter and John, both alike loving and beloved of their Lord. Some critics have gone so far as to suggest that the Lazarus of eh. xi. is a dramatic representation of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. No two sets of facts could be much more dissimilar, except it be that the language of Abraham (" If they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead ") finds a kind of parallel in the fact that the Lazarus who was raised from the dead did not convince the heads of the priesthood that Jesus was the Christ. But the record of this great event is found, like the narrative of Nicodemus, that of the impotent man, and that of the blind man, in the Jerusalem ministry. When John takes his reader in the sixth chapter into Gali"lte, he at once confirms the three synoptists by detailing two great miracles which they had aiready described, but in connection with discourses of immense impressiveness which they had failed to record. The few characters to which the fourth evangelist makes e:,;clusive reference are by no means numerous, nor are they more important than those which are severally peculiar to Matthew and Luke. Thus Matthew alone tells us of "the Wise Men;" and Luke of "the shepherds," of "Simeon," and of "Anna." Matthew and Mark tell ua of the "leper;" and Luke only of the" widow of Nain." Matthew, of the mission of the twelve; and Luke, of the mission of the seventy disciples. Matthew draws with startling clearness the portraiture of Herod the Great. Luke refers to Zacchams. To each synoptist-evangelist, therefore, we owe special characteristics and portraits of indivi- duals which are scarcely more peculiar or unique than those which are peculiar to John. Other portraitures of the Fourth Gospel correspond in a very impressive way with those of the synoptic Gospels. Where these portraitures differ in some striking feature, the ground of the difference is not far to seek. (a) The treatment of the person of the mother of O'Ur lArd provides one illustration, Brevity and reticence characterize a.II that is said in any of these documents concerning the life or death of Mary the virgin-mother. A few scattered notices, all charged with suggestion which might lead astray, and which have left room for extraordinary development both legendary and dogmatic, contain all that we know. Her house and lineage as the betrothed and espoused wife of the last heir of the throne and family of David are declared at length. It is not improbable that both the genealogies are those of Mary as well as of Joseph, but this cannot be positively proved. The story of the miraculous conception as given in Matthew is enriched with several interesting details by Luke, which make evident Mary's holy submission to her myste'.ious destiny, her purely Old Testament piety and anticipations, and her acquaintance with the great pro-- JOUN, t  cxiv IN'l'RODUCTION TO