The Gospel According to St. John; commentaries on Hebrews and 1–3 John

(a) The Truth and the Witness. It is characteristic of Christianity that it claims to be " the Truth." Christ spoke of Himself as "the Truth" (xiv. 6). God is revealed in Christ as "the only true (aA.r?0ivos) God" (xvii. 3). The message of the Gospel is "the Truth." This title of the Gospel is not found in the Synoptists, the Acts or the Apocalypse; but it occurs in the Catholic Epistles (James v. 19; i Pet. i. 22; 2 Pet. ii. 2), and in the Epistles of St Paul (2 Thess. ii. 12; 2 Cor. xiii. 8; Eph. i. 13, &c.). It is specially characteristic of the Gospel and Epistles of St John.

According to the teaching of St John, the fundamental fact of Christianity includes all that "is" in each sphere. Christ the Incarnate Word is the perfect revelation of the Father: as God, He reveals God (i. 18). He is the perfect pattern of life, expressing in act and word the absolute law of love (xiii. 34). He unites the finite and the infinite (i. 14, xvi. 28). And the whole history of the Christian Society is the progressive embodiment of this revelation.

In the presence of Pilate, the representative of earthly power, Christ revealed the object of His coming, as a permanent fact, to be that He might "bear witness to the truth" (yeycW^/xai, a, not rj\&ov, Iva /xaprvpiycra) TTJ ia, xviii. 37). This "Truth," it is implied, was already, in some sense, among men even if it was unrecognised. There were some who "were of the Truth,"drawing, as it were, their power of life from it (comp. i John ii. 21, iii. 19). Over these Christ claimed the supremacy of a King. Among the chosen people this testimony of conscience was supplemented by the voice of the representative of the prophets. The Baptist bore, and still bears, witness to the Truth (v. 33,

But Christ came not only to maintain a Truth which was present among men, but to make known a new fulness of Truth. The "Truth came (eyeWo "was realised as the right issue of things") through Him " (i. 17; comp. v. 14 TrA?//^?...aA^etas). His teaching was "the Truth" (viii. 40; comp. xvii. 17, d Ao'yos

And this work is carried out step by step by the Spirit (xvi. 13 ff.) who is sent in Christ's name by the Father (xiv. 26), as He also is sent by Christ Himself (xvi. 7). Under this aspect the Spirit, like Christ, is the Truth which He makes known (i John v. 6).

And again, the whole sum of the knowledge of Christ and of the Spirit is " the Truth" (i John ii. 21; 2 John i), which can be recognised by man (John viii. 32, yi/oxr€o-0e rffv aA^flciav), and become the object of fixed knowledge (i John ii. 21, oiSar« rrjv aA.); though on the Other hand men can withstand and reject its claims (viii. 44 f.; comp. Rom. i. 18).

So far the Truth is regarded as a whole without us (objectively), working and witnessing (3 John 8, 12). But at the same time the Spirit, as the Spirit of Truth, or rather of " the Truth," brings the Truth into direct communication with man's spirit (xiv. 17, xv. 26, xvi. 13;

Truth therefore reaches to action. We do or do not the Truth (iii. 2 1; i John i. 6)1. It follows that the reception of the Truth brings freedom (viii. 32), because the Truth corresponds with the law of our being. By the Truth we are sanctified (xvii. 17).

No one therefore can fail to see how inconsistent it is with the apostolic conception of Christianity to represent the Faith as antagonistic to any form of Truth. It is interpreted by every fragment of Truth. All experience is a commentary on it. And we must be careful to keep ourselves open to every influence of light.

The message which St John has to convey in his Gospel is "the Truth," and this is commended to men by various forms of witness (^aprvpia). There is nothing in the Synoptic Gospels to prepare for the remarkable development which he gives of this idea. It evidently belongs to a time when men had begun to reason about the faith, and to analyse the grounds on which it rested. The end of the witness is the confirmation of the truth (xviii. 37); and the Evangelist, looking back upon his own experience, is able to distinguish the several forms which the witness assumed and still essentially retains.

The witness to Christ which he records is therefore manifold, and extends over the whole range of possible attestation of divine things. In due succession there is, (i) the witness of the Father; (2) the witness of Christ Himself; (3) the witness of works; (4) the witness of Scripture; (5) the witness of the Forerunner; (6) the witness of disciples; and that which illuminates and quickens all, (7) the witness of the Spirit.

(i) The witness of the Father is that to which Christ appeals as the proper witness of Himself: / (ey°>) receive not my witness from a man... the Father which sent me, He (eVeu/os) hath borne witness concerning me (v. 34, 37). If I (ryw) bear witness concerning myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me, and I know that the witness which He beareth concerning me is true (v. 31 f; contrast viii. 14). I am he that beareth witness concerning myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness concerning me (viii. 1 8). This witness then is distinguished from the witness of a prophet (e.g. John the Baptist), and from the witness of Christ standing (if we can so conceive) in the isolation of His Personality. It lies in the absolute coincidence between the will and words and works of Christ and the will of the Father, realised by Christ in His divinehuman Person (/ know, v. 32). Such witness carries conviction to men so far as they have themselves been brought into unity with God. Man can feel what is truly divine while he reaches after it and fails to attain to it. The sense of his own aspirations and of his own shortcomings enables him to appreciate the perfection of Christ. Thus the witness of the Father is (what we speak of as) the " character " of Christ The witness is continuous, present and abiding (fj-aprvpel, p.t[iapTvpr)Ke), and it reposes upon the general conception of God as Father (the Father not my Father), standing in this paternal relation to all men. As soon as the thought of "the Fatherhood of God" is gained, it is felt that "the Son" expresses it absolutely. The witness of this perfect coincidence therefore finds its cogency in the response which it calls out from the soul of man. Man recognises the voice as naturally and supremely authoritative (i John v. 9).

(2) The witness of the Father finds a special expression in the witness of the Son concerning Himself. This witness is valid because it reposes on a conscious fellowship with God (comp. x. 30), in which no element of selfishness can find any place, and on a direct and absolute knowledge of divine things (iii. ii, 32 f.), and of a divine mission seen in its totality (viii. 14; comp. v. 55). In this sense Christ said, Even if I bear witness concerning myself my witness is true, becatise I know whence I came and whither I go (viii. 14). Such witness necessarily derives power from what can be seen of the witness of the Father in Christ's character. And more than this, Christ's claim to universal sovereignty lay in the fact that He came into the world in order to bear witness to the truth (xviii. 37). Every one therefore, He adds, that is of the truth heareth my voice (id.). Thus it is seen that the final power of the witness of Christ to Himself is derived from man's affinity to truth which is found perfectly in Him. His sheep, according to the familiar image, know His voice (x. 4 f.). And He has a special message for each: He calleth. (<£uveZ) His own sheep by name (x. 3). The end of this is that he that believeth on Him hath the witness in himself (i John v. 10).

(3) This divine witness, the internal witness which is addressed to man's moral constitution, takes a special and limited form in the witness of works. Thus Christ said, The witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do bear witness concerning me that the Father hath sent me (v. 36, note). Within a narrow range and in a concrete and sensible manner, His works revealed His perfect communion with the Father (v. 17 ff.). Men could see in them, if not otherwise, tokens of His real nature and authority. The works which I do in my Father's name, claiming a special connexion with Him, making Him known as my Father, these bear witness concerning me (x: 25; comp. xiv. u, xv. 24). And this kind of witness which was given in one form by Christ Himself during His historical presence is still continued. His disciples are enabled to perform greater works than those to which He appealed (xiv. 12 ff.). The Christian Society has still the living witness of "signs."

For in the record of the "works" of Christ St John draws no line between those which we call natural and supernatural. The separate "works" are fragments of the one "work" (iv. 34, xvii. 4). Whether they are predominantly works of power or of love, wrought on the body or on the spirit, they have the same office and end (comp. v. 20 f., 36, ix. 3 f., xiv. 10). They are "shewn:" they require that is a sympathetic interpretation (x. 32; comp. v. 20). The earliest emotion which they produce may be simply "wonder" (v. 20), but wonder is the first step to knowledge. This follows both in its decisive apprehension and in its progressive extension (x. 38,

LVO. yvwrc Kal yivoJcnojTe).

Works therefore according to St John are signs (vi. 26); and their witness, from their want of directness and from their outwardness of form, is secondary to that of "words "(xiv. n, xv. 22 ff.). The internal witness, according to our mode of speaking, is placed above the external. The former is an appeal to the spiritual consciousness, the latter to the intellect.

(4) So far we have seen that the witness to Christ is found in Himself, in what He is, and in what He did and does through His disciples. But He stood also in a definite relation to the past Witness was borne to Him both by the records of the ancient dispensation and by the last of the prophets. Ye search the Scriptures, Christ said to the Jews, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life — that they are in themselves the end, and not the preparation for the end — and they are they which witness concerning me; and ye will not come to me that ye may have life (v. 39, 40). Without Christ the Old Testament is an unsolved riddle. By the writings of Moses and the prophets (v. 46, i. 45) He was seen to be the goal and fulfilment of immemorial hopes which became a testimony to Him in whom they were satisfied. The Old Testament was to the first age and is to all ages, if regarded in its broad and indisputable outlines, a witness to

(5) The witness of the Old Testament found a final expression in the latest of the prophets. John the Baptist occupied a position which was wholly peculiar. He came for witness, to bear witness concerning the Light, that all men might believe through him (i. 7). His own light was borrowed and kindled (v. 35, i. 8); yet it was such as to attract and arrest (v. 35), and served to prepare men for that which should follow. In this sense Christ appealed to it. Ye have sent to John, and he hath borne witness to the truth. But I receive not my witness from a man, but these things I say that ye may be saved (v. 33 f.)- The witness was, so to speak, an accommodation to the moral condition of those for whom it was given. It was the attestation of a personal conviction based upon a specific proof. The Baptist realised his own character and office (i. 19 ff); and he recognised Christ by the sign which had been made known to him (i. 32 ff.). He realised the sternest form of Judaism, and at the same time perceived the universality of that in which Judaism should be crowned. In a signal example he offered the witness of the leader of men who sways the thoughts of the multitude.

(6) The witness of the Baptist was to one decisive event. By this was revealed to him the relation of Christ to the old covenant of which he was himself the last representative. His was the individual witness of an exceptional man. To this was added the witness, so to speak, of common life. The witness of the disciples was in various degrees a witness to what they had experienced in their intercourse with Christ, a witness to facts. Ye also, Christ said to the eleven, bear witness, because ye are with me from the beginning (xv. 27). He that hath seen hath borne witness (xix. 35). This is the disciple that witnesseth concerning these things and wrote these things (xxi. 24; comp. i John i. 2, iv. 14).

(7) But in all these cases there was need of an interpreter. Neither the mission nor the Person of Christ could be understood at once. It was necessary that He should be withdrawn in order that the disciples might be able to receive the full revelation of His Nature. This was their consolation in the prospect of persecution and hatred. WJicn the Paraclete is come wJwm I will send from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proccedeth from the Father, He shall bear witness concerning me (xv. 26). In this witness lies the continual unfolding of the infinite significance of the Incarnation. The Spirit takes of that which is Christ's, and declares it (xvi. 14). It is the Spirit, as St John himself says elsewhere, that bearcth witness, because the Spirit is the truth (i John v. 6).

If now we look back over these seven types of witness to which St John appeals in the Gospel, it will be seen that they cover the whole range of the possible proof of religious truth, internal and external. The witness of the Father and of Christ Himself is internal, and rests on the correspondence of the Gospel with that absolute idea of the divine which is in man. The witness of works and of Scripture is external and historical, and draws its force from the signs which the Gospel gives of fulfilling a divine purpose. The witness of the prophet and of the disciples is personal and experi- ential, and lies in the open declaration of what men have found the Gospel to be. Lastly, the witness of the Spirit is for the believer the crown of assurance and the pledge of the progress of the Truth.

(b) Light and Glory. The second pair of words, Light and Glory, which characterize St John's narrative correspond to a certain extent with the Witness and the Truth. The Witness becomes effective through Light. The Truth is revealed in Glory.

The description of God as Light (i John i. 5) expresses in its final form that idea of self-communication which is realised in many ways. The works of God are a revelation of Him (i. 4 f., note); and among these man's own constitution, though this is not specially brought out by St John (comp. Matt, vi. 23; Luke xi. 35). The Word as Light visited men (ix. 5, OTO.V) before the Incarnation (i. 9 f.; comp. v. 38; Rom. ii. 15 f.), at the Incarnation (viii. 12, xii. 46, iii. 19 — 21; comp. xi. 9 f.), and He still comes (xiv. 21); even as the Spirit who still interprets His "name" (xiv. 26, xvi. 13; comp. i John ii. 20 ff., 27).

St John draws no distinction in essence between these three different forms of revelation, in nature, in conscience, in history: all alike are natural or supernatural, parts of the same harmonious plan. But man has not independently light in himself. The understanding of the outward revelation depends upon the abiding of the divine word within (v. 37 f.). Love is the condition of illumination (xiv. 22 ff.). And the end of Christ's coming was that those who believe in Him may move in a new region of life (xii. 46), and themselves become sons of light (xii. 35 f.), and so, as the last issue of faith, have the light of life (viii. 12).

Under the action of the Light the Truth is seen in Christ as Glory. Christ, "the Light of the world," is seen by the believer to be the manifested glory of

(i) Step by step the Gospel of St John lays open the progress of this manifestation. The summary of its whole course is given by the Apostle at the outset: The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of an only son from a father (i. 14), absolutely representing, that is, Him from whom He came. The beginning of Christ's signs was a manifestation of His glory (ii. 1 1), and that it might be so, it was shewn only when the hour was come (ii. 4). For the glory of the Son was not of His own seeking (viii. 50), but was wholly the expression of His Father's will through Him (viii. 54). And conversely the Son by His perfect conformity to the Father's will glorified the Father upon earth in the fulfilment of His appointed work (xvii. 4), wherein He was also glorified Himself (xvii. 10).

(2) The glory of Christ was therefore in a true sense the glory of God. This sickness, the Lord said in regard to Lazarus, is not unto death, as its real issue, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it (xi. 4). And so the restoration of Lazarus to life was a vision of the glory of God (xi. 40), as producing faith in Him whom He sent (xi. 42). The glorification of "the name" of the Father was the historic work of the Son (xii. 28). When the crisis was past, Jesus saith, Now was the Son of man glorified (e'So- |ao-#r/), and God was glorified in Him (xiii. 31). At the end the correlation is not between the Son and the Father, but between the Son of man and God. In Him, little by little, under the conditions of human existence, the absolute idea of manhood was fulfilled.

(3) It follows that the thought of Christ's glory is extended beyond the Incarnation. The glory which was consummated through the Incarnation he had with the Father before the world was (xvii. 5); and when the prophet was allowed to look upon the Lord, sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up (Is. vi. i ff.), what he saw was the glory of Christ (xii. 41).

(4) And on the other hand, as the glory of the Son is extended backward, so also the glory Q{ Jesus, the Son of man, consummated on the divine side even in God (xiii. 32) at the Ascension (vii. 39, xii. 1 6), to which the way was opened by the Passion (xii. 23, xiii. 31), is to be realised by men little by little in the course of ages. The petitions of believers are granted that the Father may be glorified in the Son (xiv. 13): their fruitfulness, already regarded as attained, is a source of this glory (xv. 8). And one chief office of the Spirit is to glorify Christ by making Him more fully known (xvi. 14).

(c) Judgment and Life. The glory of Christ and of God in Christ, which is thus presented as the substance of revelation, belongs to a spiritual sphere. It can therefore only be perceived by those who have true spiritual vision. As an inevitable consequence, the revelation of the divine glory carries with it a judgment, a separation.

The fundamental notion of this Judgment lies in the authoritative and final declaration of the state of man as he is in relation to God and standing apart from God. It follows as a necessary consequence that Judgment in this sense is contrasted with "salvation," "life." He that believeth [on the Son] is not judged (iii. 18). He hath passed out of death into life (v. 24; comp. v. 29). For Christ has life (i. 4, v. 26), and His words are life (vi. 53; comp. vi. 68, xii. 50). He came to offer life to men (x. 28, xvii. 2), that they too may have it (iii. 15 f, v. 40, vi. 40, x. 10). He is indeed Himself "the Life" (xi. 25, xiv. 6) and the support of life (vi. 33, 35, 48, 51; comp. iv. 14). To know the Father and Him is eternal life (xvii. 3); and he that "believeth in Him," he that is united with Him by faith, hath the life as a present possession (iii. 36, v. 24, vi. 47, 54; comp. viii. 12), which otherwise he cannot have (vi. 53). The relation of the believer to Christ is made parallel with the relation of the Son to the Father (vi. 57). Because I live, Christ said to the eleven, ye shall live also (xiv. 19). Thus the believer, in virtue of the vital connexion which he has realised with God in His Son, is no longer considered apart from Him. Judgment therefore in his case is impossible.

This conception of judgment explains the apparent contradiction in the views which are given of the part of Christ in regard to it. On the one side judgment is realised as self-fulfilled in the actual circumstances of life. This is the judgment, that the light is come into the world and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil (iii. 1 9);

and by this contrast the unbeliever is convicted from within: he hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, Christ said, shall judge him at the last day (xii. 48). Hence it is said: God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved through Him (iii. 17). / came not to judge the world, but to save the world (xii. 47).

And yet on the other side judgment belongs to Christ, and satisfies the utmost ideal of judgment because it reposes upon adequate knowledge. Thus we read: the Father hath given all judgment unto the Son (v. 22; comp. v. 27); and for judgment (npifj-a) came I into this world.,.(ix. 39; comp. viii. 26). I judge no man; yea, and if I (cyw) judge, my judgment is true (aXyOwri, viii. 15 f.). As I hear I judge, and my judgment is just (v. 30).

Striking as the contrast between these passages appears to be, it is only necessary to consider what the judgment is in order to feel their harmony. Spiritual judgment is a consequence involved in the rejection of the revelation which Christ made. His will was to unite men to Himself, so that they might have life and not be judged. So far then as they rejected Him and stood away from Him, His Presence shewed them as they truly were. He judged them; and judgment was equivalent to condemnation. Thus the exhibition of the contrast of the true and the false became one of the means for developing belief and unbelief according to the character of Christ's hearers (viii. 26). Whatever might be the result, His message must be delivered.

In one sense therefore judgment, like the gift of life, is immediate. It lies in the existence of an actual relation (iii. 1 8) which carries with it its final consequences. In another sense it is still future, so far as it will be realised in a spiritual order of being in the last day (xii. 48). There is a resurrection of life and a resurrection of judgment (v. 29;, in which the issues of both begun here will be completely fulfilled. Meanwhile the process is going on upon earth. The manifestation of perfect holiness presented to the world in perfect self-sacrifice (v. 30) has set up a standard which cannot be put out of sight. Under this aspect Christ's coming was a sentence of judgment (Kpi/xa, ix. 39). The judgment of the sovereign power of the world in the Passion (xii. 31) has left men no excuse (see xvi. n, note). In that they can see the mind of God, and according as they surrender themselves to it or resist it, they find life or judgment.

So far the judgment is self- fulfilled. It cannot but be carried out. The word of Christ sooner or later must justify itself (xii. 48). There is no need that He should seek to assert and vindicate its supremacy. There is one that seeketh and judgeth (viii. 50), the eternal power of righteousness symbolized in the Law (v. 45), and expressed in the Gospel (xii. 48 ff.).

But though this is so, the idea of divine action is never lost in the Bible in an abstraction, however emphatic. And while the eternal necessity of judgment is thus set forth, the historical execution of judgment, both present and final, is recognised as a work of the Son; and though it was not the purpose of His mission, yet it was committed to Him in virtue of His mission. The Father doth not judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son (v. 22). Even as the Father gave Him to have life in Himself, and so to be a spring of life to all who are united with Him, so also He gave Him authority to execute judgment because He is a Son of man — not the Son of man — (v. 27), because He is truly man, and not only the representative of humanity. His judgment therefore (comp. Hebr. iv. 14 ff.) is essentially united with His complete sympathy with man's nature, and extends to the fulness of human life. It finds place always and everywhere.

These contrasts bring out into full relief the conflict between faith and unbelief, which, as has been said, is the main subject of St John's Gospel. In the Synoptic Gospels faith occupies a different position. It is in these almost exclusively relative to a particular object (Matt. viii. 10, ix. 2, 22, 29, &c.; Mark ix. 23, &c.). Only once does the full expression for faith in the Person of Christ occur (irLo-Tfvfiv €«, Matt, xviii. 6, || Mark ix. 42). In St John, on the other hand, this is the characteristic form under which faith is presented. The simple noun is not found in his Gospel. Faith is the attitude of the whole believing man. Such faith in Christ is the condition of eternal life (i. 12, vi. 40). To produce it was the object of the Evangelist (xx. 31). And the history marks in typical crises the progress of its development

The first sign is followed by an access of faith in the disciples (ii. n). The first entrance into Jerusalem was followed by faith disturbed by preconceived ideas (ii. 23, iii. 12 ff.). The preaching in Samaria called out a complete confession of faith (iv. 39 ff.), which stands in contrast with the faith resting on signs which followed in Galilee (iv. 48 ff.).

From this point active unbelief appears side by side with faith. By claiming authority over the Sabbath, and "making Himself equal with God" (v. 17 f.), the Lord offered a test of devotion to those who followed Him: He fulfilled that to which Moses pointed (v. 39, 45 ff.). The decisive trial in Galilee caused a fresh division between those who had hitherto been disciples. It was now revealed that life was to be gained by the personal appropriation of the virtue of Christ's Life and Death (vi. 53 ff.). Some turned aside, and St Peter confessed the Apostolic faith even in the mysterious prospect of the Passion (vi. 66 ff.). At the Feast of Tabernacles the antagonism of the. hierarchy was more decided (vii. 32, 47 ff.), and the Lord traced it to its source in an analysis of the spirit of those who believed Him with a view to the execution of their own designs (viii. 31, note). At the same time He revealed His preexistence (viii. 31 ff., 58). The separation between the old Church and the new, which was implicitly included in these discourses, was openly shewn in the scenes which followed. Christ offered Himself openly as the object of faith as "the Son of man" (ix. 35 ff.), and declared the universality of His work (x. 1 6). The raising of Lazarus, which carried with it the condemnation of the Lord, shewed Him to be the conqueror of death and through death (xi. 25 f., 50, xii. 23 ff.). So the public revelation was completed, and with it faith and unbelief were brought to their last issue (xii. 37 ff.).

The last discourses and the last prayer point to the future victories of faith; and the narrative closes with the beatitude of the Risen Christ: Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed (xx. 29), which crowned the loftiest confession of faith triumphant over doubt: My Lord and my God (xx. 28).

Even from this rapid summary it will be seen that the self-revelation of Christ became stage by stage the occasion of fuller personal trust and more open personal antagonism. In Him thoughts from many hearts were revealed (Luke ii. 35). And St John lays open the course of the original conflict which is the pattern of all conflicts to the end of time.

The characteristic repetition and development of the three pairs of ideas, Witness and Truth, Glory and Light, Judgment and Life, in the structure of St John's Gospel, serve to indicate the peculiarities of the style of the book. There is both in the vocabulary and in the form of the sentences a surprising simplicity, which becomes majestic by its solemn directness.

(a) It is not necessary to dwell upon the vocabulary. Any one who will trace out the use of the six words already discussed will feel how the apparent monotony contains a marvellous depth and fulness. An examination of other words, as sign (o-^/xetov), and works (epya), and name (iv TW ovo/xart, eis TO ovo/xa), the Father (o irar^p), and my Father (o TTCITT/P [J-ov), the world (/cocrjao?, not d alwv ouros and the like), to love, to know (etSevat and yivowTKeiv), will lead to the same conclusion (compare Additional Notes on i. 10, iv. 21). The apparent sameness of phraseology produces throughout an impressive emphasis.

(b) This emphatic monotony is still more observable in the form and in the combination of the sentences. The constructions are habitually reduced to the simplest elements. To speak of St John's Gospel as "written in very pure Greek" is altogether misleading. It is free from solecisms, because it avoids all idiomatic expressions. The grammar is that which is common to almost all language. Directness, circumstantiality, repetition, and personality, are the characteristic marks of the separate sentences. And the sentences and thoughts are grouped together in a corresponding manner. They are co-ordinated and not subordinated. The sequence of the reasoning is not wrought out, but left for sympathetic interpretation.

The narrative is uniformly direct. Even the words and opinions of others are given directly and not obliquely. Any one of the detailed incidents in St John's narrative will illustrate this characteristic of his style. Thus we read in the opening scene: This is the witness of John when the Jews sent... to ask him, Who art thou? and he confessed...! a m not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not...(\. 19 ff.). And again, Certain of the multitude therefore, when they heard these words, said, This is of a truth the Prophet. Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, What, dolh the Christ come out of Galilee? (vii. 40 f.; comp. ii. 3 ff., iv. 27 ff., v. 10 ff., vi. 14, viii. 22, ix. 2 ff., &C.)1.

It is a part of the same method that illustrative details are added parenthetically or as distinct statements, and not wrought into the texture of the narrative (vi. 10, iv. 6, x. 22, xiii. 30, xviii. 40).

The circumstantiality of St John's style is a necessary result of this directness. Each element in the action is distinguished, as a general rule, and set out clearly. Thus while the other Evangelists write habitually according to the common Greek idiom [Jesus] answering said (a7roKpi0€is etTre), St John never uses this form, but writes instead [Jesus] answered and said (dirtKpiOr) KCU etTrcv). He places the two parts of the act in equal prominence; and though it might appear at first sight that the phrases are exactly equivalent, yet the co-ordination of details brings a certain defmiteness to the

1 This directness of construction is so universal in the Gospel that the only example (so far as I have observed) of an oblique sentence is in iv. 51, where the true reading appears to be met him, saying that his son liveth, in place of met him and told him, saying, Thy son liveth; for, on the other hand, the common oblique reading in xiii. 24 is incorrect; and the vivid phrase, and saith to him, Say, who is it? must be substituted for that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.

This is in fact a characteristic of the New Testament style generally; see Winer, § LX. 9; but in St John it is most marked.

picture which fixes the thought of the reader. The same tendency is shewn in St John's analysis of other actions, Jesus cried aloud and said (xii. 44). Jesus cried aloud in the temple, teaching and saying (vii. 28). John beareth witness of Him and hath cried, say ing... (\. 15). They questioned him, and said (i. 25). In these and similar cases it will be found that the separation of the whole into its parts adds to the impressiveness, and to the meaning of the description.

One remarkable illustration of this particularity is found in the combination of the positive and negative expression of the same truth. All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made (i. 3). He confessed, and denied not (i. 20). Jesus did not trust Himself unto thetn, for that He knew all men, and because He needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man (ii. 24 f.). God... gave His only Son that whosoever believeth on Him may not perish, but have eternal life (iii. 16). Comp. x. 5, xviii. 20; i John i. 6, ii. 4, 27.

Such repetitions are singularly marked in the record of dialogues, in which the persons are constantly brought into prominence. Sentence after sentence begins with words, "Jesus said," "the Jews said," and the like, so that the characters in the great conflict are kept clearly present to the mind of the reader in sharp contrast (ii. 18 ff., iv. 7 ff., viii. 48 ff., x. 23 ff).

This usage leads to what has been called above the personality of St John's narrative. This is shewn by the special frequency with which he introduces a demonstrative pronoun to call back the subject, when a clause has intervened between the subject and the verb. This he does in two ways. Sometimes he employs the pronoun of present reference: Pie that abideth in me and I in him, this man (OVTOS) beareth much fruit (xv. 5; comp. vii. 18, &c.); and sometimes, which is the more characteristic usage, the pronoun of remote, isolated reference: He that entereth not by the

Another feature of the same kind is the frequency of St John's use of the personal pronouns, and especially of the pronoun of the first person. In this respect much of the teaching of the Lord's discourses depends upon the careful recognition of the emphatic reference to His undivided Personality. Yea, and if I (tyu>) judge — I, who am truly God, and truly man — my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me (viii. 16). In this case, as in most cases, the pronoun calls attention to the nature of the Lord: elsewhere it marks the isolation (so to speak) of His personality; so that we read two sentences which, being in appearance directly contradictory, are harmonized by giving due emphasis to the exact force of the pronoun (v. 31, viii. 14 note).

(c) The method of combining sentences in St John corresponds completely to the method of their separate construction. The simplicity, directness, circumstantiality, repetition, which mark the constituent sentences, mark also whole sections of his work. Words, sentences, paragraphs follow one another in what must appear to an unreflecting reader needless iteration, though in fact it is by this means that the central thought is placed in varied lights, so that its fulness can at last be grasped. The multiplication of simple elements in this instance, as elsewhere, produces in the end an effect of commanding grandeur, and so the student learns to pause in order that he may carefully consider the parts which separately contribute to it. (See, for example, ch. xvii.)

The most obvious illustration of this feature lies in St John's constant habit of framing his record of events and discourses without connecting particles. When the feeling is most intense clause follows clause by simple addition. No conjunction binds the parts together. The details are given severally, and the reader is left to seize them in their unity (iv. 7, 10 ff., xi. 34, 35, xiv. 1 5 if., xv. 1—20).

At the same time St John does in fact insist more than the other Evangelists upon the connexion of facts, even if he commonly leaves them in simple juxtaposition. His most characteristic particle in narrative (it is rare in the discourses) is therefore (ovv), and this serves in very many cases to call attention to a sequence which is real, if not obvious. There arose therefore a question on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about purifying (iii. 25). When therefore He heard that he was sick, He abode for the time two days in the place where He was (xi. 6). Comp. iii. 29, iv. 46, vii. 28.

In like manner the unusual frequency of the phrase in order that (<W), which marks a direct object, is a sign of the habitual tendency of St John to regard things in their moral and providential relations. Even where the usage departs most widely from the classical standard, it is possible to see how the irregular construction springs out of a characteristic mode of thought (e.g. iv. 34, v. 36, vi. 29, viii. 56, xii. 23, xiii. 34, xvii. 3); and frequently the particle suggests a profound interpretation of the divine counsel (v. 20, x. 17, xii. 38, xv. 8, xvi. 2).

The simple coordination of clauses is frequently assisted by the repetition of a marked word or phrase, such as occurs in separate sentences. In this way a connexion is established between two statements, while the idea is carried forward in a new direction. Sometimes the subject is repeated: / am the good Shepherd. The good Shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep (x. n). Sometimes a word is taken up from a former clause and repeated with significant emphasis: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends...No longer do I call you servants... but I have called you friends... (w. 13 ff.). Sometimes a clause is repeated which gives (so to speak) the theme of the passage: / am the door of the sheep... I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved... (x. 7 ff.). / am the good Shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep...! am the good Shepherd... and I lay down my life for my sheep (x. n, 14). / am the true vine...! am the vine: ye are the branches (xv. i, 5). Sometimes a clause is repeated which gives a closing cadence: The world hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world... Sanctify tliem in the truth... that they themselves may be sanctified in truth (xvii. i4ff.). Three times in the sixth chapter the clause recurs: / will (may) raise him up at the last day (39, 40, 44). And even in the simple narrative of St Peter's denial the scene is impressed upon the reader by the solemn repetition of the words: Peter was standing and warming himself (xviii. 18, 25)'.

(d) This repetition in some cases leads to a perfect poetic parallelism: (xiv. 26, 27).

And in fact the spirit of parallelism, the instinctive perception of symmetry in thought and expression, which is the essential and informing spirit of Hebrew poetry, runs through the whole record, both in its general structure and in the structure of its parts. From first to last the Truth is presented, so to speak, in ever-widening circles. Each incident, each discourse, presupposes what has gone before, and adds something to the result.

Our inquiry up to this point has established beyond doubt that the structure of the fourth Gospel corresponds with the fulfilment of a profound purpose. It is composed both generally and in detail with singular symmetry. There is a growing purpose wrought out from stage to stage in the great divisions of the record; and there are subtle and minute traits in each separate narrative which reveal to careful examination the presence of an informing idea throughout it. The correspondences of part with part may indeed be due as much to the one fundamental conception of the whole work as to special and conscious adaptation of details; but none the less we must feel that the historical elements are means to an end; that the narrative expresses distinctly (as it professes to do) the writer's interpretation of the events with which he deals. We must feel that it is not an exhaustive exposition (so far as the Evangelist's knowledge went) of the incidents of the Lord's life; that it

1 So also words are repeated through considerable sections of the Gospel: love, to love (xiii. — xvii.); life (v., vi.); light (viii. — xii.).

does not preserve some features of His work which were unquestionably prominent; that we could not put together from it a complete picture of Jesus of Nazareth as He went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil (Acts x. 38). We allow, or rather we press, the fact that the fourth Gospel, so far as it is regarded as a biography, or as a biographical sketch, is confined to certain limited aspects of the Person and Life and Work with which it deals. But while we make the fullest acknowledgment of these tmths, we affirm also that the literal accuracy of the contents of the Gospel is not in any way prejudiced by the existence of this particular purpose. The historical illustrations of the writer's theme — if we even so regard the incidents which he relates — are no less historical because they are illustrations: the Evangelist's conception of the real significance of Christ's Presence is not to be set aside because it is his conception: the special traits which are given are in no degree open to suspicion, because they are special traits emphasized with a definite object. Neither the apostolical authorship nor the historical trustworthiness of the narrative is affected by the admission that the writer fulfils his work, according to his own words, with an express purpose in view.

The first point is not before us now; but there is one argument directly bearing upon it, which underlies very much of the popular criticism of the Gospel though it is not very often put into a distinct shape, which may be most conveniently noticed here. It is sometimes plainly said, and more often silently assumed, that an Apostle could not have spoken of One with whom he had lived familiarly, as the writer of the fourth Gospel speaks of the Lord. In reply to this argument one sentence only is necessary. In order to have any force the argument takes for granted all that is finally at issue, and implies that it is not true that " the Word became flesh." If, on the other hand, this revelation is true, as we believe, then the fourth Gospel helps us to understand how the overwhelming mystery was gradually made known: how the divine Nature of Christ was revealed little by little to those with whom He had conversed as man. Unless our faith be false, we may say that we cannot conceive any way in which it could have been historically realised except that which is traced out in the experience reflected in the writings of St John. The Incarnation is confessedly a great mystery, in every sense of the word, but no fresh difficulty is occasioned by the fact that in due time it was laid open to those among whom the Son of God had moved.

Moreover, it may be added, the difficulty of admitting that an Apostle came to recognise the true divinity of One with whom he had lived as man with man is not done away by denying the apostolic authorship of the Gospel. The most conspicuous critics who refuse to assign the Gospel to St John agree in assigning the Apocalypse to him; and it is no easier for us to understand how (not to quote xxii. 13) an Apostle could speak of the Master whom he had followed to the Cross as being the Holy and the True, who has the key of David, " who openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth " (iii. 7), as joined with " Him that sitteth on the throne," in being " worthy to receive blessing, and honour, and glory, and might, for ever and ever" (v. 13), than to understand how he could look back upon His life as the life of the Incarnate Word. The Christology of the Gospel and the Christology of the Apocalypse are alike, we may venture to say, historically inexplicable unless we take as the key to their interpretation the assertion of the fact, " the Word became flesh," apprehended under the action of the Spirit, in the consciousness of those who had known Christ " from the Baptism of John to the Resurrection."

These considerations however carry us away from our immediate subject; for we are not concerned at present with the apostolic authorship of the Gospel. We have to inquire how far its trustworthiness is affected by the existence of a specific didactic design in the writing. But before discussing this question one other topic must be referred to, only to be set aside, which will be examined in detail afterwards. The arguments against the trustworthiness of the Gospel drawn from the fact that its contents do not for the most part coincide with the contents of the

Synoptic Gospels may be dismissed, or, at least, held in suspense. For this end it will be enough to insist on the obvious fact that a general difference in the contents of two narratives relating to a complex history, which are both avowedly incomplete, cannot be used to prejudice the accuracy of either. And the most cursory consideration of the fragmentariness of the records of Christ's life will make it evident that the mere addition of the facts related by St John to those preserved in the other Gospels cannot create any difficulty. They do not differ in kind from incidents related by the Synoptists; and we have no external means for determining the principles by which the choice of incidents embodied in the Synoptic narratives was determined. There is certainly no reason for supposing that these narratives would have included the incidents peculiar to St John, if they had been familiarly known at the time when the records were drawn up. The Synoptists indicate summarily cycles of events which they do not relate; and St John refers definitely to "many other signs" with which he was personally acquainted.

Thus we are brought back to the proper subject of our inquiry. Does the author of the fourth Gospel forfeit his claim to observe accuracy of fact because the facts are selected with a view to a definite purpose? He professes to write, as we have seen, in the hope of creating in others the faith which he holds himself (xix. 35, xx. 31). Now that faith is in reality a special interpretation of all history drawn from a special interpretation of One Life. We may therefore modify our question and ask, Does the Evangelist forfeit his claim to be a truthful historian, because he turns his eye steadily to the signs of the central laws of being? The answer to the question must be sought finally in the conditions of the historian's work. These conditions include in every case choice, compression, combination of materials. And he fulfils his work rightly who chooses, compresses, combines his materials according to a certain vital proportion. In other words, the historian, like the poet, cannot but interpret the facts which he records. The truth of history is simply the truth of the interpretation of an infinitude of details contemplated together. The simplest statement of a result presents a broad generalization of particulars. The generalization may be true or false; it may be ruled by an outward or by an inward principle; but in any case it only represents a total impression of the particulars seen in one way. It does not represent either all the particulars or all the impressions which they are capable of producing. What is called pure "objective" history is a mere phantom. No one could specify, and no one would be willing to specify, all the separate details which man's most imperfect observation can distinguish as elements in any one "fact;" and the least reflection shews that there are other elements not less numerous or less important than those open to our observation, which cannot be observed by us, and which yet go towards the fulness of the " fact." The subjectivity of history is consequently a mere question of degree. A writer who looks at the outside of things, and reproduces the impression which this would convey to average men, is as far from the whole truth as the writer who brings his whole power to bear upon an individual realisation of it. Thus every record of a " fact " is necessarily limited to the record of representative details concerning it. The truthfulness of the historian as a narrator lies therefore in his power of selecting these details so as to convey to others the true idea of the fact which he has himself formed. In this respect the literal accuracy of any number of details is no guarantee for the accuracy of the impression conveyed by the sum of them regarded as a whole; and it is no paradox to say that a " true " detail which disturbs the proportion of the picture becomes in the connexion false.

What has been said of separate "facts" is obviously true of the sequence of facts. It is impossible not to feel that a true conception of the character of a life or (if such a phrase may be used) of the spirit of a social movement would illuminate the connexion and meaning of the external details in which they are manifested, and that many details regarded externally would be liable to the gravest misapprehension if the conception were either false or wanting. And further, it is no less clear that the necessity for this inteipretative power becomes more urgent as the subject becomes more complex.

There is undoubtedly at present a strong feeling in favour of realistic, external, history; but it may reasonably be questioned whether this fashion of opinion will be permanent, and it is obviously beset by many perils. Realistic history often treats only of the dress and not of the living frame, and it can never go beyond the outward circumstances of an organization which is inspired by one vital power. The photographer is wholly unable to supply the function of the artist; and realism must be subordinated to the interpretation of the life, if history is to take its true place as a science. This is the thought which underlies the Hebrew type of historic record. In the Old Testament the prophet is the historian. The facts which he records are significant, if fragmentary, expressions of an inner divine law wrought out among men. His interest is centred in the life which is manifested in action, but not exhausted by it. His aim is to reveal this life to others through the phenomena which the life alone makes truly intelligible to him.

We are not now concerned to inquire whether the prophetic interpretation of the life of men and nations and humanity be true or false. All that needs to be insisted upon is that the historian must have some view of the life whereby the events which he chronicles are held together. This view will influence him both in the choice of incidents and in the choice of details. And he will be the best historian who grasps the conception of the life most firmly, and who shews the absolute and eternal in the ordinary current of events. For him each event will be a sign.

Now whatever debates may arise on other points it cannot be doubted that the writer of the fourth Gospel has a distinct conception of a spiritual law of the life of humanity which found its final realisation in the Incarnation. This conception is therefore his clue in the choice and arrangement of facts. He takes just so many events and so much of each as will illustrate the central truth which he finds in a particular view of the Person of Christ. If his view of Christ be right, it cannot be seriously questioned that the traits on which he chiefly dwells are intrinsically natural; and no other view appears to be able to explain the phenomena of the belief attested by the earliest Christian literature, the letters of St Paul and the Apocalypse, and by the existence of the Christian Church. Thus the Gospel of St John adds that express teaching on the relation of Christ to God — of the Son to the Father — which underlies the claims to exclusive and final authority made by Him in the Synoptists. And the definiteness of the Evangelist's aim does not diminish but rather increases his interest in the exact conditions and circumstances under which Christ acted and spoke; for our historic interest must always vary directly with our sense of the importance of the history.

Some of these points will come before us again in greater detail, but so much at least is clear, that the " subjectivity " of the fourth Evangelist affords in itself no presumption against his historical accuracy. Every historian is necessarily subjective. And it must be shewn that the Evangelist's view of the Person of Christ, which is established independently of his Gospel, is false, before any argument against his trustworthiness can be drawn from a representation of Christ's works and words which corresponds with that view.

It is then no disparagement of the strict historical character of the fourth Gospel that the writer has fulfilled the design which he set before himself, of recording such " signs " out of the whole number of Christ's works as he considered likely to produce a specific effect. But even if it is admitted that historical exactness is generally reconcileable in theory with the execution of a particular design in the selection and exhibition and combination of facts, and further that this particular design may be the interpretation of the innermost meaning of the life, while it includes only a small fraction of the outward events, yet it will be urged that this method of explanation does not apply to all the phenomena of St John's Gospel: that the discourses of the Lord, in especial as given there, cannot be regarded otherwise than as free compositions of the Evangelist; that their contents are monotonous and without progress from first to last; that they are of the same character under different circumstances; that they have no individuality of style; that, on the contrary, they are almost undistinguishable in form and substance from the first epistle in which the writer speaks in his own person, and from the speeches which he places in the mouth of other characters, as the Baptist. These objections, it will be seen, are quite independent of any supposed incompatibility of the accounts of St John and of the Synoptists, and require a separate examination. They arise out of the study of the book itself, and must be considered first. The apparent contrasts between the records of the teaching of the Lord given in the first three Gospels and in the fourth will be noticed afterwards.

i. What has been already said as to the conditions which determine the selection of representative details and of representative incidents in a narrative of events applies with necessary limitations to the historical record of teaching. It is obvious that if a record of a debate of several hours length is to be compressed into a few sentences, the value of the record will depend not upon the literal reproduction of the exact words used here and there or in a brief episode of the discussion, but upon the power of the historian to enter into the spirit of the debate and to sketch its outline in right proportion. The thoughts of the speakers are more important than the style of the speakers. And it is quite conceivable that the meaning and effect of a long discourse, when reduced to a brief abstract, may be conveyed most truly by the use of a different style, and even, to a certain extent, of different language from that actually employed.

Again: the style of a speaker enters in very various degrees into his teaching, according to his subject and his circumstances. At one time it is of the essence: at another time, it is wholly subordinate to the general drift of the exposition. The keen, pregnant saying, the vivid illustration must be preserved exactly, or their character is lost. The subtle argument may be best touched suggest- ively, so that the sympathetic reader can supply the links which cannot be given in full. A many-sided speaker will thus furnish materials for very different studies. But it would be wholly wrong to conclude that the sketch which preserves most literally those fragments of his words, which are capable of being so preserved, is more true than the sketch which gives a view of the ultimate principles of his doctrine. The former may give the manner and even the outward characteristics: the latter may reveal the soul.

Now to apply these principles to the discourses contained in the fourth Gospel, it is undeniable that the discourses of the Lord which are peculiar to St John's Gospel are, for the most part, very brief summaries of elaborate discussions and expositions in relation to central topics of faith. It is wholly out of the question that they can be literally complete reports of what was said. From the necessities of the case the Evangelist has condensed his narrative. He has not given, and he could not have given, consistently with the nature of this work, all the words which were actually spoken; and this being so, it follows that he cannot have given the exact words or only the words which were spoken. Compression involves adaptation of phraseology. And when once we realise the inevitable conditions of condensation, we find ourselves constrained to trust (in this case as in others) to the insight and power of him who selects, arranges, emphasizes words which are in his judgment best suited to convey the proportionate impression of discourses which he apprehends in their totality.

One or two illustrations will shew how a conversation is compressed in St John's narrative. A simple example is found in xii. 34. The question of the Jews turns upon the title " Son of man," which has not been recorded in the context. But it is easy to see how the previous references to the sufferings of Christ in connexion with the universality of His mission gave a natural opportunity for the use of it. The Evangelist however has noticed only the fundamental facts. The reader himself supplies what is wanting for the explanation of the abrupt use of names. The idea of "elevation"

is the key to the thought, and that word St John has preserved in his record of what had gone before (v. 32): the title " Son of man " was already familiar, and he passes over the particular phrase in which it occurred.

In viii. 34 ff. there is a more complicated and still more instructive example of the compression of an argument. The recorded words do no more than give the extreme forms: the course which the spoken words must have followed can only be determined by careful thought, though it can be determined certainly. Men are sinners, and if sinners then slaves of sin. What, therefore, is the essential conception of slavery? It is an arbitrary, an unnatural, relation: the opposite of sonship, which expresses a permanent, an absolute connexion answering to the very constitution of things. The communication of sonship to the slave is consequently the establishment of his freedom. And in spiritual things He alone can communicate the gift to whom the dispensation of it has been committed. If, therefore, " the Son " — the one absolute Son — give freedom, they who receive it are free indeed. The imagery of a whole parable lies implicitly in the brief sentence.

In other cases " answers " of the Lord evidently point to detailed expressions of feeling or opinion with which the Evangelist was familiar, and which yet he has not detailed: e.g. xii. 23, 35. At the close of his account of the public ministry of Christ he gives, without any connexion of place or time, a general summary of the Lord's judgment on His hearers (xii. 44 — 50). The passage is apparently a compendious record and not a literal transcription of a single speech.

And so elsewhere it is probable that where no historical connexion is given, words spoken at different times, but all converging on the illumination of one truth, may be brought together: e.g. x. (Xo'yos, v. 19).

The force of these considerations is increased if, as seems to be surely established, most of the discourses recorded by St John were spoken in Aramaic. Whatever may have been the case in some other parts of Palestine, a large and miscellaneous crowd gathered at Jerusalem was able to understand what was spoken to them " in the Hebrew tongue" (Acts xxi. 40), and the favour of the multitude was conciliated by the use of it. The divine voice which St Paul heard was articulate to him in Hebrew words (Acts xxvi. 14). St Peter evidently spoke in an Aramaic dialect in the court of the high-priest, and the bystanders not only understood him.but noticed his provincialism (Matt. xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70). Aramaic, it is said, in the Acts (i. 19), was the proper language of " the dwellers in Jerusalem " (rfj Sia/\.eKT<i> avrwv). And again, the title with which Mary addressed the risen Lord was " Hebrew " ('Pa/3/3ouvei, John xx. 1 6). The phrase which the Lord quoted from the Psalms upon the cross was "Hebrew" (Mark xv. 34). These indications, though they are not absolutely conclusive, are yet convergent, and lea.d to the conclusion that at the Holy City and in intercourse with the inner circle of the disciples Christ used the vernacular Aramaic dialect. As claiming to be the fulnller of the Law, He could hardly have done otherwise without offering violence to the religious instincts of the nation. If then He spoke in Aramaic on those occasions with which St John chiefly deals, the record of the Evangelist contains not only a compressed summary of what was said, but that also a summary in a translation '.

It may be remarked yet further that the providential office of St John was to preserve the most universal aspect of Christ's teaching. His experience fitted him to recall and to present in due proportions thoughts which were not understood at first. In this way it is probable that his unique style was slowly fashioned as he pondered the Lord's words through long years, and delivered them to his disciples at Ephesus. And there is nothing arbitrary in the supposition that the Evangelist's style may have been deeply influenced by the mode in which Christ set forth the mysteries of His own

1 It may be sufficient to add, without entering further into the subject, that the testimony of Josephus 'Antt.' XX. u i is explicit as to the feeling with which Jews regarded Greek as a foreign language, and to the fact that the Jews of Jerusalem habitually spoke Aramaic ('c.Apion.' I. 9, n6vos afrrbt ffvvlijv).

Person. Style changes with subject, according to the capacity of the speaker; and St John's affinity with his Lord, which enabled him to reproduce the higher teaching, may reasonably be supposed to have enabled him also to preserve, as far as could be done, the characteristic form in which it was conveyed.

However this may have been, such a view of St John's record of the Lord's discourses as has been given derogates in no respect from their complete authority and truthfulness. A complete reproduction of the words spoken would have been as impossible as a complete reproduction of the details of a complicated scene. Even if it had been possible it would not have conveyed to us the right impression. An inspired record of words, like an inspired record of the outward circumstances of a life, must be an interpretation. The power of the prophet to enter into the divine thoughts is the measure of the veracity of his account.

Thus the question finally is not whether St John has used his own style and language in summarising the Lord's teaching, but whether he was capable of so entering into it as to choose the best possible method of reproducing its substance. It may or may not be the case that the particular words, in this sentence or that, are his own. We are only concerned to know whether, under the circumstances, these were the words fitted to gather into a brief space and to convey to us the meaning of the Lord. We may admit then that St John has recorded the Lord's discourses with " freedom." But freedom is exactly the reverse of arbitrariness, and the phrase in this connexion can only mean that the Evangelist, standing in absolute sympathy with the thoughts, has brought them within the compass of his record in the form which was truest to the idea1.

These considerations seem to be amply sufficient to meet the objections which are urged against the general form

1 In this connexion the notes which are given by the Evangelist in ii. 21, vii. 39, xii. 33. are of the greatest importance. If he had not kept strictly to the essence of what Christ said, he might easily have brought out in the saying itself the sense which he discovered in it at a later time.

of the discourses in St John. A more particular examination will shew now far the more special objections which are based upon their alleged monotony are valid.

2. St John, as we have seen, writes with the purpose of revealing to his readers the Person of the Lord, and shews Him to be " the Christ," and " the Son of God." As a natural consequence he chooses for his record those discourses which bear most directly upon his theme, and dwells on that side of those discourses which is most akin to it. It will be seen later that the Synoptists have preserved clear traces of this teaching, but it was not their object to follow it out or to dwell upon it predominantly. With St John it was otherwise. He wished to lead others to recognise Christ as what he had himself found Him to be. There is therefore in the teaching which he preserves an inevitable monotony up to a certain point. The fundamental truths of the Gospel as an object of faith are essentially simple. They do not, like questions of practice and morals, admit of varied illustration from life. Christ is Himself the sum of all, and St John brings together just those words in which on exceptional occasions (as it appears) He revealed Himself to adversaries and doubters and friends. For there is an indication that the discourses recorded by St John are not (so to speak) average examples of the Lord's popular teaching, but words called out by peculiar circumstances. Nothing in the fourth Gospel corresponds with the circumstances under which the Sermon on the Mount, or the great group of parables were spoken. On the other hand, the private discussions with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria find no parallels in the other Gospels, and yet they evidently answer to conditions which must have arisen. The other discourses, with the exception of those in ch. vi., which offer some peculiar features, were all held at Jerusalem, the centre of the true and false theocratic life. And more than this: they were distinctively festival discourses, addressed to men whose religious feelings and opinions were moved by the circumstances of their meeting. On such occasions we may naturally look for special revelations. The festivals commemorated the crises of Jewish history; and a closer examination of the discourses shews that they had an intimate connexion with the ideas which the festivals represented. As long as the Jewish system remained, this teaching would be for the most part unnoticed or unintelligible. When the old was swept away, then it was possible, as the result of new conditions of religious growth, to apprehend the full significance of what had been said.

Yet further: while there is so far a "monotony" in the discourses of St John that the Lord, after the beginning of His public ministry, turns the thoughts of His hearers in each case to Himself, as the one centre of hope, yet the form in which this is done presents a large variety of details corresponding with the external circumstances under which the several discourses were held, and there is also a distinct progress in the revelation. The first point will be touched upon in the next section: the second becomes evident at once, if account be taken of the order of the successive utterances of the Lord, and of the limits of possible change in the variable element which they contain.

It is undoubtedly true that as we read St John's Gospel in the light of the Prologue we transfer the full teaching which that contains into all the later parts of the narrative, and that they derive their complete meaning from it. But if the discourses are examined strictly by themselves, it will be seen that they offer in succession fresh aspects of the Lord's Person and work: that the appearances of repetition are superficial: that each discourse, or rather each group of discourses, deals completely with a special topic. Thus in ch. v. the Son and the Jews are contrasted in their relation to God, and from this is traced the origin of unbelief. In ch. vi. the Son is shewn to be the Giver and the Support of life. In cc. vii., viii. He is the Teacher and the Deliverer: in cc. ix., x., the Founder of the new Society. The discourses of the eve of the Passion have, as will be seen afterwards, a character of their own.

3. There is, then, a clear advance and historical development in the selfrevelation of Christ as presented by St John. There is also an intimate correspondence between the several discourses and their external conditions. For the most part the discourses grew (so to speak) out of the circumstances by which they were occasioned. The festival discourses, for example, are coloured by the peculiar thoughts of the season. The idea of the Passover is conspicuous in ch. vi., that of the Feast of Tabernacles in cc. vii., viii., that of the Dedication in ch. x. The traits of connexion are often subtle and unemphasized, but they are unmistakable. There is a psychological harmony between the words and the hearers for the time being. Nothing less than a complete and careful analysis of the Gospel can bring home the force of this argument, but two illustrations will indicate the kind of details on which it rests. The scene by the well at Sychar illustrates one type of teaching (iv. 4 — 42): the discourse after the healing at Bethesda another (v. 19 — 47).

There can be no question as to the individuality of. the discourse with the woman of Samaria. The scene, the style, the form of opinion are all characteristic. The well, the mountain (v. 20), the fertile corn-fields (v, 35), form a picture which every traveller recognises. The style of the conversation is equally life-like. The woman, with ready intelligence, enters into the enigmatic form of the Lord's sentences. She gives question for question, and, like Nicodemus, uses His imagery to suggest her own difficulties. At the same time, her confession keeps within the limits of her traditional faith. For her the Christ is a prophet. And it is easy to see how the fuller testimony of her countrymen unparalleled in the Gospels was based upon later teaching (v. 42), which their position enabled them to receive as the Jews could not have done.

The discourse in ch. v. is characteristic in other ways. It is the recorded beginning of Christ's prophetic teaching. He unfolds the nature of His work and of His Person in answer to the first accusations of the Jews before some authoritative body (see v. 19, note). It is not a popular discourse, but the outline of a systematic defence. It springs naturally out of the preceding act, and it appears to refer to the circumstances of the Feast It is not so much an argument as a personal revelation. At the same time it offers an analysis of the religious crisis of the time. It discloses the relation in which Jesus stood to the Baptist (33 — 35)> to Moses (46), to revelation generally (37 f.), to Judaism (39 f.). It deals, in other words, with just those topics which belong to the beginnings of the great controversy at Jerusalem l.

One other illustration may be given to shew the inner harmony which underlies the progress of the self-revelation of the Lord as recorded by St John. Without reckoning the exceptional personal revelations to the woman of Samaria (iv. 26), and to the man born blind (ix. 37), the Lord reveals Himself seven times with the formula "I am," five times in His public ministry, and twice in the last discourses. It must be enough here to enumerate the titles. Their general connexion will be obvious.

(1) vi. 35 ff. I am the Bread of life. viii. 12. / am the Light of the x. 7. I am the Door of the sheep.

4. But it is said that the language attributed to the Baptist and that of the Evangelist himself are undistinguishable from that of the discourses of the Lord. What has been said already shews to what extent this must be true. St John

1 It may be added also that the occasion and. contents of the discourse are in complete agreement with the Synoptic narrative. In these no less than in St John the open hostility of the Jews starts from the alleged violation of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 2; Mark ii. 27 f.); and they offer the following correspondences of thought with St John's record:

deals with one aspect of the truth, and uses the same general forms of speech to present the different elements which contribute to its fulness. But beneath this superficial resemblance there are still preserved the characteristic trails of the teaching of each speaker. There is, as has been pointed out, a clear progress in the Lord's revelation of Himself The words of the Baptist, coming at the commencement of Christ's work, keep strictly within the limits suggested by the Old Testament. What he says spontaneously of Christ is summed up in the two figures of the "Lamb" and "the Bridegroom," which together give a comprehensive view of the suffering and joy, the redemptive and the completive work of Messiah under the prophetic imagery. Both figures appear again in the Apocalypse; but it is very significant that they do not occur in the Lord's teaching in the fourth Gospel or in St John's epistles. His specific testimony, again, this is the Son of God (i. 34), is no more than the assertion in his own person of that which the Synoptists relate as a divine message accompanying the Baptism (Matt. iii. 17, and parallels). And it is worthy of notice, that that which he was before prepared to recognise in Christ (i. 3.3) was the fulness of a prophetic office which the other Evangelists record him to have proclaimed as ready to be accomplished (Matt. iii. n)'.

Even in style too, it may be added, the language assigned to the Baptist has its peculiarities. The short answers, lam not; No; I am not the Christ (i. 20 f.), are unlike anything else in St John, no less than the answer in the words of prophecy (i. 23). Comp. iii. 29, note.

The correspondences of expression between the language attributed to the Lord in the Gospel and the Epistles of St John are more extensive and more important. They are given in the following table:

John iii. n. We speak that we do know, and testify that ive have seen.

v. 32 ff. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the. witness which he witnesseth of me is true... / receive not witness from man...

v. 24. He that hear -eth my word... is passed from death unto life.

v. 38....ye have not his word abiding in you.

vi. 56. He that eateth my flesh and drinkcth my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. Comp. xiv. 17.

viii. 29. I do always those things that please him.

viii. 46. Which of you convinceth me of sin?

viii. 47. He that is of God heareih God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

x. 15. / lay down my life for the sheep.

i John i. i — 3. That which was from the beginning... which we have seen with our eyes... for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness (testify}... that which we have seen and heard dedare we unto you.

v. 9 ff. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son...

iii. 14. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren.

ii. 14.... the word of God abideth in you.

iv. 15. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. Comp. v. 16; iii. 24.

iii. 22....because we... do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

iii. 5....in him is no sin.

iv. 6. We are of God: he that knoweth God hear eth us; he that is not of God heareth not us.

iii. 1 6....he laid down his life for us.

1 The passage, iii. 31 — 36, is to be attributed to the Evangelist and not to the Baptist. See note.

John xii. 35. He that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

xiii. 34. A new commandment I give unto yoit, That ye love one another; as I liave loved you, that ye also love one another.

xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.

xv. 1 8. If the world hate you...

xvi. 24. Ask and)\e shall receive that your joy may be fulfilled.

i John ii. ii....he that hateth his brother... walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth...

iii. 23. This is his commandment, That we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

iv. 1 6. God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in iii. 13. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

i. 4. These things write we unto you, that yaur joy may be fulfilled. Comp. 2 John 12.

v. 4 f. This is the victory that overcometh (^ vt/oycrao-a) the world, even our faith.

Compare also the following passages:

In addition to these phrases there are single terms, niore or less characteristic, which are common to the Lord's discourses and the Epistle: " true " (aXw- 0u/o's), " murderer," " to ask " (epurrav), "to receive witness," "the Son;" and the frequent use of.the final particle (?va) is found in both (xv. 12, xvii. 3; compared with iii. 23).

An examination of the parallels can leave little.doubt that the passages in the Gospel are the originals on which the others are moulded. The phrases in the Gospel have a definite historic connexion: they belong to circumstances which explain them. The phrases in the Epistle are in part generalisations, and in part interpretations of the earlier language in view of Christ's completed work and of the experience of the Christian Church. This is true of the whole doctrinal relation of the two books, as will be seen later on. The Epistle presupposes the Gospel, and if St John had already through many years communicated his account of the Lord's teaching orally to his circle of disciples, it is easy to see how the allusions would be intelligible to the readers of the Epistle if it preceded the publication of the Gospel. If the Epistle was written after the Gospel was published, the use of the Lord's words in what is practically a commentary upon them can cause no difficulty.

The Prologue to the Gospel offers the real parallel to this Epistle. In this there is the same application of the teaching of the Gospel from the point of view of the advanced Christian society. The exposition of the truth assumes the facts and words which follow in the narrative, while it deals with them freely and in the Apostle's own phraseology.

This will appear from the following table: v. i. In the beginning was the Word.

...the Word was with God (rjv Contrast xvii. 5.

i. i. That which was from the beginning... concerning the word of life...

i. 2.... the eternal life, which was with the Father (rjv v. g. The true light... was coming into the world.

v. 12. As many as received him, to them gave he right to become children of God...

—...to them that beliei>e on his name.

—... we beheld his glory.

ii. 8. The darkness is fast, and the true light now shineth.

iii. i. Behold, what manner of love the Father hath given unto us, that we should be called children of God, and such we are (xal coy/.a').

v. 1 3.... you that believe on the name cf the Son of God.

v. i. Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God (yeyew. IK).

iv. 2. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.

i. i. That which we beheld.

iy. 12. No man hath beheld ( God at any time. Comp. v. 20.

These parallels, which are found in eighteen verses only, offer, as it will be felt, a close affinity to the Epistle not in language only, but in formulated thought. And further, the Prologue and the Epistle stand in the same relation of dependence to the discourses. In this respect it is interesting to compare what is said in the Prologue on " the Life," and " the Light," and "the Truth," with the passages in the Lord's words from which the Evangelist draws his teaching.

It will be remembered that the cardinal phrases " the Word," " born (begotten) of God," are not found in the discourses of the Lord!.

Elsewhere in the Gospel there are in the narrative natural echoes, so to speak, of words of the Lord (ii. 4 compared with vii. 30, his hour was not yet come); and correspondences which belong to the repetition of corresponding circumstances (iv. 1 2 || viii. 53; iii. 2||ix. 33), or to the stress laid upon some central truth (vii. 28 || ix. 29 f. || xix. 9). Still the conclusion remains unshaken that the discourses of the Lord have a marked

1 The remarks made upon the Prologue generally, including the brief comment on the Baptist's testimony (i. 16 — 18), apply also to the two comments of the Evangelist upon the conversation with "the teacher of Israel" (iii. 16 — 21), and on the Baptist's last testimony (iii. 31 — 36). See notes.

character of their own, that they are the source of St John's own teaching, that they perfectly fit in with the conditions under which they are said to have been deliy.ered.

But it may be said that the last discourses, in which there may have been some compression yet not such as to alter their general form, offer peculiar difficulties: that they are disconnected, indefinite, and full of repetitions: that it is most improbable that thoughts so loosely bound together could have been accurately preserved in the memory for half a century: that we must therefore suppose that the Evangelist here at least has allowed his own reflections to be mingled freely with his distant recollections of what the Lord said.

It may be at once admitted that these discourses offer a unique problem. They belong to an occasion to which there could be no parallel, and it may be expected that at such a crisis the Lord would speak much which " the disciples understood not at the time," over which still some of them would untiringly reflect. Our modes of thought again follow a logical sequence; Hebrew modes of thought follow a moral sequence. With us, who trust to the instruction of books, the power of memory is almost untrained: a Jewish disciple was disciplined to retain the spoken words of his master.

Thus we have to inquire primarily whether the teaching really suits the occasion? whether there is a discernible coherence and progress in the discourses? If these questions are answered in the affirmative, it will be easy to understand how a sympathetic hearer, trained as a Jew would be trained, should bear them about with him till his experience of the life of the Church illuminated their meaning, when the promised Paraclete "taught him all things and brought all things to his remembrance which Christ had spoken."

If the discourses are taken as a whole it will be found that their main cdntentS offer several peculiarities. Three topics are specially conspicuous: the mission of the Paraclete, the departure and the coming of Christ, the Church and the world. And generally a marked stress is laid throughout upon the moral aspects of the Faith.

It is scarcely necessary to point out the fitness of such topics for instruction at such a time. If the Lord was what the Apostles announced Him to be it is scarcely conceivable that He should not have prepared them by teaching of this kind before His departure, in order that they might be fitted to stand against the antagonism of the Jewish Church, and to mould the spiritual revolution which they would have to face. The book of the Acts— "the Gospel of the Holy Spirit " — is in part a commentary upon these last words.

At the same time it is most important to observe that the ideas are not made definite by exact limitations. The teaching gains its full meaning from the later history, but the facts of the later history have not modified it. The promises and warnings remain in their typical forms. At first they could not have been intelligible in their full bearing. The fall of Jerusalem at length placed them in their proper light, and then they were recorded.

The moral impress of the last discourses is clear throughout. They are a sermon in the chamber to the Apostles, completing the Sermon on the Mount to the multitudes. In this section only Christ speaks of His " commandments " (eiroXai, evToAi;, xiv. 15, 21, xv. 10, xiii. 34, xv. 12; comp. xv. 14, 17), and by the use of the word claims for them a divine authority. The commandments are summed up in one, " to love one another." The love of Christian for Christian is at once the pattern and the foundation of the true relation of man to man. And as the doctrine of love springs out of Christ's self-sacrifice (xv. 13, xiii. 34)j so is it peculiar to these discourses iri the Gospel. The time had come when it could be grasped under the influence of the events which were to follow.

The successive forms under which the principle of love is inculcated illustrate the kind of progress which is found throughout the chapters (e.g. xiii. 34, xv. 12). The three following passages will indicate what is meant:

xv. 15. If ye love me, ye will) my commandments.

xiv. 21. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him, xv. 10. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I hare kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

At a first reading it might be easy to miss the advance from obedience resting on love to progressive knowledge, and then to a divine certainty of life. When the relation of the three connected texts is seen, it is difficult not to feel that what appears to be repetition is a vital move-

A similar progress is noticeable in the four chief passages which describe the work of the Paraclete: he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive...

The Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said unto you.

When the Paraclete is come whom I will send unto you from the Father even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.

xvi. 7 if. If I go not away, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And he, when he is come, will convict the world......when he is come, even the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all the truth...

Step by step the relation of the Paraclete to Christ is made clear: (i) / will ask, another Paraclete; (2) the Father will send in my name; (3) I will send; (4) if I go I will send him. And again His work is defined more and more exactly: (i) be with you for ever; (2) teach all things... that I said unto you; (3) bear witness of me; (4) convict the world, guide into all the truth. Such subtle correspondences are equally far from design and accident: they belong to the fulness of life.

The teaching on the relation of the Church to the world, which is peculiar to this section, moves forward no less plainly. In xiv. 17, 22 ff., it is shewn that the world is destitute of that sympathy with the divine Spirit which is the necessary condition of the reception of revelation. Afterwards the hatred of the world is foretold as natural (xv. 18 ff.); and then this hatred is followed out to its consequences (xvi. i ff.). Yet, on the other hand, it is promised that the Spirit shall convict the world; and at last Christ declares that He Himself has already conquered the world (xvi. 33).

The same general law of progress applies to the notices of Christ's departure and return in cc. xiv., xvi. In the first passage the central thought is "I come;" attention is concentrated on what Christ will do (xiv. 3, 1 8, 23). In the second the thought is rather of the relation of the disciples to Him (xvi. 16, 22).

These examples indicate at least the existence of a real coherence and development of thought in the discourses. It is unquestionably difficult to follow out the development of thought in detail. In the notes an endeavour has been made to do this. Here it must be sufficient to give a brief outline of the general course which the addresses take. These form two groups, the discourses in the chamber (xiii. 31 — xiv.) and on the way (xv., xvi.). The predominant thoughts in the first are those of separation from Christ as He had been hitherto known, and of sorrow in separation: in the second, of realised union with Christ in some new fashion, and of victory after conflict.

I. THE DISCOURSES IN THE CHAMBER (xiii. 31 — xiv.).

i. Separation, its necessity and issue (xiii. 31—38).

(a) Victory, departure, the new Society

(/3) The discipline of separation (St Peter) (36-38).

(a) The goal and purpose of departure (i—4).

(ft) The way to the divine (St Thomas) (5—7).

(y) The knowledge of the Father (St Philip) (8— n).

(y) He comes to them Himself (18— 21).

(ft) The mode of revelation (25 — 27).

(y) Christ's work perfected by His return (28 — 31).

The teaching springs from the facts of the actual position, and then deals with successive difficulties which it occasions.

(a) The fact of union (i, 2).

(y) The blessings of union (7 — 10).

(a) Christ's joy comes from sacrifice

(ft) The disciple's connexion with

(y) It is stable as resting on His choice (v. 1 6).

(a) Love of Christ calls out hatred of the world (17 — 21).

(ft) With this inexcusable hatred the disciples must contend (22 — 27).

(a) The last issues of hatred (i — 4). (ft) The necessity of separation (4 — 7). (y) The conviction of the world (8 — Ii).

The form of the discourse is changed. The Lord reveals uninterruptedly the new truths, till the close, when the disciples again speak no longer separately, but, as it were, with a general voice. The awe of the midnight walk has fallen upon them.

It is not of course affirmed that this view of the development of the discourses is exhaustive or final; but at least it is sufficient to shew that they are bound together naturally, and that the dependence of the parts is such as could be easily apprehended and retained by those who listened. There is novelty under apparent sameness: there is variety under apparent repetition: there is a spiritual connexion underneath the apparently fragmentary sentences. This is all that it is necessary to shew. As far as we can venture to judge the words befit the occasion: they form a whole harmonious in its separate parts: they are not coloured by later experiences: they might easily have been preserved by the disciple who was in closest sympathy with the Lord.

III. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL. i. Relation to the Old Testament.

St John recognises in his narrative the divine preparation for the advent of Christ which was made among the nations. Such a discipline is involved in the view which he gives of the general action of the Word before His Incarnation (i. 5), and particularly in his affirmation of His universal working (i. 9). Nor was this discipline wholly without immediate effect. At the time of the advent Christ had other sheep, which were not of the Jewish fold (x. 16). There were children of God scattered abroad (xi. 52): some who had yielded themselves to the guidance of the divine light which had been given to them, and who were eager to welcome its fuller manifestation (iii. 20 ff.): citizens of a kingdom of truth waiting for their king (xviii. 37).