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

But while these broader aspects of the divine counsel find a place in the fourth Gospel, St John brings out with especial force that the discipline of Israel was the true preparation for the Messiah, though Judaism had been perverted into a system antagonistic to Christianity, and Christ had been rejected by His own people. If he affirms more distinctly than the other apostolic writers, from the circumstances of his position, that the Jews had proved to be ignorant of the contents and scope of the revelation which had been committed to them (v. 37 ff.), and of the nature of the LORD whom they professed to worship with jealous reverence (xvi. 3, vii. 28, viii. 19, 54 f., xv. 21); if he affirms that their proud confidence in the literal interpretation of the facts of their providential history was mistaken and delusive (v. 37; contrast Gen. xxxii. 30; Exocl. xx. i8ff., xxiv. 10; Deut. iv. 12, 36, v. 4, 22: — vi.

32, cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 24); he affirms no less distinctly that the old Scriptures did point to Christ, and that the history was instinct with a divine purpose. This appears by (a) his general recognition of the peculiar privileges of the Jews; (b] his interpretation of types; (c) his application of prophecies; and particularly by his treatment of the Messianic expectations of the people.

(a) The words of the Prologue, He came to His own home (TO. iSta), and His own people (ot 18101) received Him not (i. n, note), place beyond question the position which the Evangelist assigned to his countrymen in the divine order. They were in a peculiar sense the subjects of the Christ. In this sense Christ claimed their allegiance, and sovereign authority in the centre of their religious life. His greeting to Nathanael was: Behold an Israelite indeed (i. 47): His command in the temple at His first visit: Make not my Father's house a house of merchandise (ii. 16). In answer to the questionings of the Samaritan woman, who placed the tradition of her fathers side by side with that of the Jews, He asserted the exceptional knowledge and the unique office of His people: we worship that which we know (iv.. 22), and salvation — the promised salvation (-./ o-toTT/pia) — is from (<V) the Jews (iv. 22), two phrases which mark at once the progressive unfolding of the divine truth (Heb. i. i), and the office of the old dispensation to furnish the medium out of which the new should spring. In the beginning of His conflict with official Judaism, Christ assigns to the Scriptures their proper function towards Himself (v. 39, 46 f). From this point "the Jews " take up a position of antagonism, and their privileges perish in their hands (comp. pp. Ixxxv., Ixxxvi.).

(b} It is a significant fact that three and three only of the old saints, Abraham, Moses, and Isaiah, are mentioned by the Lord or by the Evangelist in connexion with Messiah. These three cover and represent the three successive periods of the training of the people: so subtle and so complete are the harmonies which underlie the surface of the text. Christ claimed for Himself testimonies from the patriarchal, the theocratic, and the monarchical stages of the life of Israel.

viii. 56. Your father Abraham rejoiced to see — in the effort to see (fva tSr;) — my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

The point of the reference lies in the view which it gives of the first typical example of faith as reaching forward to a distant fulfilment. It was not stationary, but progressive. In that onward strain lies the secret of the Old Testament.

The second reference to the patriarchal history in the Gospel of St John is the complement of this effort after the remote. Abraham looked onwards to that which was not yet revealed: Jacob rested in his present covenant with God. This aspect of faith also is recognised by the Lord.

i. 51. Verily, verily,! say unto you, ye shall see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

The desire of Abraham was fulfilled in the universal sovereignty of Christ: the vision of Jacob was fulfilled in the abiding presence of Christ. A greater than Abraham brought freedom for all through the Truth: a greater than Jacob opened a well whose waters sprang up within the believer unto eternal life.

The references to Moses are not less pregnant It is shewn that just as Christ was the object to whom the patriarch looked in the future and in the present, so He was the object in regard of whom all the discipline of the law was shaped. Jesus said to the leaders of the Jews: Had ye believed (Did ye believe) Moses, ye would have believed (would believe) me, for he wrote of me (v. 46).

This thought is brought out by references both to details of the Law and also to the circumstances which accompanied the promulgation of the Law.

Twice the Lord defended Himself from the charge of violating the Sabbath. On each occasion He laid open a principle which was involved in this institu- v. 17. My Father worketh even until now, and I work.

The cessation from common earthly work was not an end, but a condition for something higher: it was not a rest from work, but for work (see note ad loc.).

vii. 22. For this cause — by which I have been moved in my healing — hath Moses given you circumcision (not that it

is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the sabbath ye circumcise a man,

The Sabbath, therefore, was subordinate to the restoration of the fulness of the divine covenant. It was made to give way to acts by which men were "made whole."

The one reference to the idea of the Passover is equally significant. These things, the Evangelist writes in his record of the crucifixion, were done that the Scripture should be fulfill&d, A bone of him shall not be broken (xix. 36, note). The words come like an after-thought. They are left without definite application, and yet in that single phrase, by which the Lord is identified as the true Paschal Lamb, the meaning of the old sacrifices is made clear. " The Lamb of God " is revealed as the one offering to whom all offerings pointed.

The two interpretations of facts in the history of the Exodus which St John has given are even more remarkable than these lights thrown upon the Mosaic discipline and the Mosaic ritual. Thp first is the interpretation of the brazen serpent: the second the interpretation of the manna.

Jesus said to Nicodemus: As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted rip (iii. 14). The Jews said: Our fathers did eat the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Jesus therefore said unto them, Verily, verily, I say untp you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my father giveth you the true bread from heaven...I am the bread of life... (vi. 31 ff.). Thus the most significant deliverance from the effects of sin. and the most striking gift of divine Providence recorded in the Pentateuch, are both placed in direct connexion with Christ. In each case that which was temporal is treated as a figure of that which is eternal. Great depths of thought are opened. The life-long wanderings of the Jews are shewn to be an image of all life '.

(c) St John's dealing with the later teaching of the prophets, the interpreters of the kingdom, is of the same character. He does not deal so much with external details as with the inner life of prophecy.

He presents Christ as being at once the Temple (ii. 19), and the King (xi{. 13). He makes it clear that the new dispensation towards which the prophets worked was one essentially of spiritual blessing. The sense of complete devotion to God, of the union of man with God in Christ, of the gift of the Spirit through Him, were the thoughts in which he found the stamp of their inspiration. Thus it is that he has preserved the words in which the Lord gives us the prophetic description of the Messianic times: They shall all be taught of God (vi. 45); and those again in which He gathers up the whole doctrine of Scripture on this head: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water (vii. 37 f., note); and those in which He shewed that the conception of the union of God and man was not foreign to the Old Testament, when it was said even of unjust judges, Ye are gods, because the Word of God, in which was a divine energy, came to them (x. 34 f., note).

On the other hand St John has recorded how the Lord recognised the hostile unbelief of the Jews in the spirit of their fathers, who hated the Lord's Anointed without a cause (xv. 25), and pointed out how the treachery of Judas had its counterpart in that of Ahitophel, of whom it was written, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me (xiii. 18).

There is the same mysterious depth, the same recognition of a spiritual undercurrent in common life, in the references which the Evangelist himself makes to the later books of Scripture. Once at the beginning of the Gospel he tells how the disciples were enabled to see fulfilled in the Lord the words of the suffering prophet, The zeal of thine house shall consume me (ii. 17); and at the close of the account of the public ministry he points out how the unbelief of the Jews, the most tragic of all mysteries, had been foreshadowed of old. These things, he writes, said Isaiah, because — because, not when (on not ore, see note) — he saw Christ's glory, and spake of Him in the most terrible description of the unbelief and blindness of Israel (xii. 37 ff.1).

1 The following table of the prophecies quoted

It seems to be impossible to study such passages without feeling that the writer of the fourth Gospel is penetrated throughout — more penetrated perhaps than any other writer of the New Testament— with the spirit of the Old. The interpretations which he gives and records, naturally and without explanation or enforcement, witness to a method of dealing with the old Scriptures which is of wide application. He brings them all into connexion with Christ He guides his readers to their abiding meaning, which cannot be broken; he warns the student against trusting to the letter, while he assures him that no fragment of the teaching of the Word of God is without its use. And in doing this he shews also how the scope of revelation grows with the growth of men. Without the basis of the Old Testament, without the fullest acceptance of the unchanging divinity of the Old Testament, the Gospel of St John is an insoluble riddle.

The history of the Gospel of St John is, as has been seen, the history of the development of faith and unbelief, of faith and unbelief in Christ's Person. It is therefore under another aspect the history of the gradual unfolding of the true Messianic idea in conflict with popular expectations. On the one side are the hopes and the preoccupations of the in the Gospel will suggest further illustrations:

(2) Coincidence marked (xaffus Iffri ytyp.)

Jews: on the other side are the progressive revelations of the Lord. And there is nothing which more convincingly marks the narrative as a transcript from life than the clearness with which this struggle is displayed. A summary outline of the Gospel from this point of view will probably place the facts in a distinct light.

The opening scene reveals the contrasted elements of expectation as they had been called into activity by the preaching of the Baptist (i. 19 fT.). The Baptist's words and testimonies (i. 29, 33> 36) were fitted to check the popular zeal, and at the same time to quicken the faith of those who were ready to receive and to follow that greater One who should come after according to the divine promise (i. 29 f., 36). So it came to pass that some of his disciples found in Jesus, to whom he mysteriously pointed, the fulfilment of the old promises and of their present aspirations (i. 35 — 42). Others at once attached themselves to the new Teacher (Rabbi, i. 38); and He was acknowledged as Messiah (i. 41); the Son of God, and King of Israel (i. 49). The "sign " which followed confirmed the personal faith of these first followers (ii. n); but so far there was nothing to shew how the titles which had been at least silently accepted were to be realised.

The cleansing of the temple was in this respect decisive. Messiah offered Himself in His Father's house to His own people, and they failed to understand, or rather they misunderstood, the signs which He gave them. As a consequence, He did not commit himself unto them, because He knew all men; and... what was in man (ii. 23 ff.). The origin of this misunderstanding is shewn in the imperfect confession of Nicodemus (iii. 2 ff.), and in the complaint of the disciples of the Baptist (iii. 26). On the other hand, the testimony of Christ and the testimony of the Baptist set the real issue before men, as the Evangelist shews in his comments on the words. The Messiah of those whom the Evangelist characterizes as "the Jews" had no place in the work of Jesus; and His work as Messiah had no place in their hearts.

Such was the situation at Jerusalem. It was otherwise in Samaria. There Jesus could openly announce Himself to be the Christ, inasmuch as the claim was rightly though imperfectly understood (iv. 25 f.); and the confession of the Samaritans who had sought His fuller teaching shewed how far they were from resting in any exclusive or temporal hopes (iv. 42, the Saviour of the world> according to the true reading).

The next visit to Jerusalem (ch. v.) gave occasion for a fundamental exposition of the nature and work of the Lord, and of the manifold witness to Him, side by side with an analysis of the causes of Jewish unbelief. The later history is the practical working out of the principles embodied in this discourse.

The first decisive division between the followers of Christ was in Galilee. There.superficial faith was more prevalent and more eager. The " multitude " wished to precipitate the issue according to their own ideas (vi. 14 f.). In answer to this attempt Christ turned the minds of those who came to Him by most startling imagery from things outward, and foreshadowed His own violent death as the condition of that personal union of the believer with Himself, to bring about which was the end of His work. So He drove many from Him (vi. 60), while He called out a completer confession of faith from the twelve (vi. 69). Words which had been used before (ch. i.), have now a wholly different meaning. To believe in Christ now was to accept with utter faith the necessity of complete self-surrender to Him who had finally rejected the homage of force.

The issue at Jerusalem was brought about more slowly. The interval between ch. v. and ch. vii. was evidently filled with many questionings (vii. 3 f., 1 1 f.); and when Jesus appeared atjerusalem He created divisions among the multitude (vii. 30 f., 43). Some thought that He must be the Christ from His works (vii. 31), and from His teaching (vii. 26, 37 ff., 46 ff). They even questioned whether possibly their leaders had reached the same conclusion (vii. 26, tyvwo-av). But they did not see that He satisfied the prophetic tests which they applied to Messiah (vii. 27, 42, 52).

In the midst of this uncertainty the rulers openly declared themselves (vii.

32, 48); and under their influence the mass of the people fell away when Christ set aside their peculiar claims and purposes (viii. 33, 58 f.). He still however continued to lay open more truths as to Himself, and revealed Himself to the outcast of the synagogue as " the Son of man " (ix. 35, note). Divisions spread further (ix. 16, x. 19); and at last the request was plainly put: If thou art the Christ, tell ^ls plainly (x. 24). Again, the result of the answer was a more bitter hostility (x. 39), and wider faith (x. 42).

The end came with the raising of Lazarus. This was preceded by the confession of Martha (xi. 27), and followed by the counsel of Caiaphas (xi. 47 ff.). There was no longer any reason why Christ should shrink from receiving the homage of His followers. He accepted openly the title of King when He entered the Holy City to die there (xii. 13 ff.); and the public ministry closed with the questioning of the people as to " the Son of man," who seemed to have usurped the place of Him who should reign for ever (xii. 34).

Such a history of the embodiment of an idea, an office, carries with it its own verification. The conflict and complexity of opinion, the growth of character, the decisive touches of personal and social traits, which it reflects, stamp it not only as a transcript from life, but also as an interpretation of life by one who had felt what he records. The whole history moves along with a continuous progress. Scene follows scene without repetition and without anticipation. The revelation of doctrine is intimately connected with a natural sequence of events, and is not given in an abstract form. Thoughts are revealed, met, defined from point to point. We not only see individualised characters, but we see the characters change under intelligible influences as the narrative goes forward. And this is all done in the narrowest limits and in a writing of transparent simplicity. Art can shew no parallel. No one, it may be confidently affirmed, who had not lived through the vicissitudes of feeling, which are indicated often in the lightest manner, could have realised by imagination transient and complicated modes of thought which had no existence in the second century.

It did not fall within the scope of the Synoptists to trace out the unfolding of the Messianic idea in the same way; but the teaching upon the subject which they record is perfectly harmonious with that of St John.

The Synoptists and St John agree in describing (a) the universal expectation at the time of the Advent (Matt. iii. 5, and parallels; John i. 41, 19, 20, iii. 26, iv. 25); (/?) the signs by which the Christ should be heralded (Matt. xvi. i; John vi. 30 f.); the preparation by Elijah (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 10; John i. 21), and (none the less) the suddenness of His appearance (Matt. xxiv. 26 f.; John vii. 27); (y) the readiness of some to welcome Him even as He came (Luke ii. 25 ff., Symeon; 36, Anna; John i. 45, Philip; 49, Nathanael).

They agree likewise in recording that the Lord pointed to His death under figures from an early time (Matt ix. 15, and parallels; John iii. 14); and that open hostility to Him began in consequence of His claims to deal authoritatively with the traditional law of the Sabbath (Matt. xii. 13 ff.; John v. 16); and of His assumption of divine attributes (Mark ii. 6; John v. 18).

There is, however, one difference in this far-reaching agreement. All the Evangelists alike recognise the prophetic, royal, and redemptive aspects of Christ's work; but St John passes over the special reference to the Daviclic type, summed up in each of the two Synoptists by the title " Son of David " (yet see vii. 42; Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16)'. The explanation is obvious. The national aspect of Messiah's work passed away when "the Jews" rejected Him. It had no longer in itself any permanent significance. The Kingdom of Truth (xviii. 37) was the eternal antitype of Israel. The Gospel was a message for the world. The fall of Jerusalem proclaimed the fact; and that catastrophe which interpreted the earlier experience of the Apostle made the recurrence of like experience impossible.

Thus the fall of Jerusalem determined the work of St John with regard to the conception of the Lord's office. The

1 The title occurs twice only in the Epistles, but in important passages: Rom. i. 3; i Tim. ii. 8.

apprehension of the absolute office of Messiah corresponds with the apprehension of Christianity as essentially universal. These truths St John established from Christ's own teaching; and so by his record the title of "the Son of God" gained its full interpretation (xx. 31; i John iv. 15, v. 13, 20).

St John shews in a word how Christ and the Gospel of Christ satisfied the hopes and destinies of Israel, though both were fatally at variance with the dominant Judaism. And in doing this he fulfilled a part which answered to his characteristic position. The Judaism in which the Lord lived and the early Apostles worked, and the Judaism which was consolidated after the fall of Jerusalem, represented two distinct principles, though the latter was, in some sense, the natural issue of the former. The one was the last stage in the providential preparation for Christianity: the other was the most formidable rival to Christianity.

The gradual self-revelation of Christ which is recorded in St John's Gospel carries with it of necessity the revelation of the characters of the men among whom He moved. This Gospel is therefore far richer in distinct personal types of unbelief and faith than the others.

Attention has been called already (pp. viii. ff.) to the characteristic traits by which the classes of people who appear in the history are distinguished — " the multitude," " the Jews," " the Pharisees," "the high-priests." In them the broad outlines of the nature of unbelief are drawn. In the events of the Passion three chief actors offer in individual types the blindness, and the weakness, and the selfishness, which are the springs of hostility to Christ. Blindness — the blindness which will not see — is consummated in the high-priest: weakness in the irresolute governor: selfishness in the traitor apostle. The Jew, the heathen, the disciple become apostate, form a representative group of enemies of the Lord.

These men form a fertile study. All that St John records of Caiaphas is contained in a single sentence; and yet in that one short speech the whole soul of the man is laid open. The Council in timid irresolution expressed their fear lest " the Romans might come and take away both their place and nation if Christ were let alone." They had petrified their dispensation into a place and a nation, and they were alarmed when their idol was endangered. But Caiaphas saw his occasion in their terror. For him Jesus was a victim by whom they could appease the suspicion of their conquerors: Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not (xi. 49 f.). The victim was innocent, but the life of one could not be weighed against the safety of a society. Nay rather it was, as his words imply, a happy chance that they could seem to vindicate their loyalty while they gratified their hatred. To this the divine hierarchy had come at last. Abraham offered his sou to God in obedience to the Father whom he trusted: Caiaphas gave the Christ to Caesar in obedience to the policy which had substituted the seen for the unseen.

Caiaphas had lost the power of seeing the Truth: Pilate had lost the power of holding it. There is a sharp contrast between the clear, resolute purpose of the priest, and the doubtful, wavering answers of the governor. The judge shews his contempt for the accusers, but the accusers are stronger than he. It is in vain that he tries one expedient after another to satisfy the unjust passion of his suitors. He examines the charge of evil-doing and pronounces it groundless; but he lacks courage to pronounce an unpopular acquittal. He seeks to move compassion by exhibiting Jesus scourged and mocked and yet guiltless; and the chief priests defeat him by the cry, Crucify, Crucify (xix. 6). He hears His claim to be a " King not of this world " and " the Son of God," and is " the more afraid;" but his hesitation is removed by an argument of which he feels the present power: If thou let this man go, thou art not Ccesar's friend (xix. 12). The fear of disgrace prevailed over the conviction of justice, over the impression of awe, over the pride of the Roman. The Jews completed their apostacy when they cried: We have no king but Cczsar (xix. 15); and Pilate, unconvinced, baffled, overborne, delivered to them their true King to be crucified, firm only in this, that he would not change the title which he had written in scorn, and yet as an unconscious prophet.

Caiaphas misinterpreted the divine covenant which he represented: Pilate was faithless to the spirit of the authority with which he was lawfully invested: Judas perverted the very teaching of Christ Himself. If once we regard Judas as one who looked to Christ for selfish ends, even his thoughts become intelligible. He was bound to his Master not for what He was, but for what he thought that he would obtain through Him. Others, like the sons of Zebedee, spoke out of the fulness of their hearts, and their mistaken ambition was purified; but Judas would not expose his fancies to reproof: St Peter was called Satan — an adversary — but Judas was a devil, a perverter of that which is holy and true. He set up self as his standard, and by an easy delusion he came to forget that there could be any other. Even at the last he seems to have fancied that he could force the manifestation of Christ's power by placing Him in the hands of His enemies (vi. 70, xviii. 6, notes). He obeys the command to "do quickly what he did," as if he were ministering to his Master's service. He stands by in the garden when the soldiers went back and fell to the ground, waiting, as it were, for the revelation of Messiah in His Majesty. Then came the end. He knew the sovereignty of Christ, and he saw Him go to death. St John says nothing of what followed; but there can be no situation more overwhelmingly tragic than that in which he shews the traitor for the last time standing (cumyKei) with those who came to take Jesus.

The types of faith in the fourth Gospel are no less distinct and representative. It is indeed to St John that we owe almost all that we know of the individual character of the disciples. St Peter, it is true, stands out with the same bold features in all the Evangelists. St Matthew and St Mark have preserved one striking anecdote of the sons of Zebedee. St Luke gives some traits of those who were near the Lord in His Infancy, of Zacchseus, of Martha and Mary. But we learn only from St John to trace the workings of faith in Nathanael, and Nicodemus, and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, and "the disciple whom Jesus loved;" in the woman of Samaria, and in Mary Magdalene. As in the case of Caiaphas, Pilate and Judas, a few words and acts lay open the souls of all these in the light of Christ's presence.

Of St John it is not necessary to speak again. His whole nature, his mode of thought, his style of speech, pass by a continuous reflection into the nature, the thought, the style, of the Master for whom he waited. In the others there is a personality more marked because more limited. To regard them only from one point of view, in Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria we can trace the beginnings of faith struggling through the prejudice of learning and the prejudice of ignorance. In St Philip and St Thomas we can see the growth of faith overcoming the hindrances of hesitation and despondency. In St Peter and St Mary Magdalene we can see the activity of faith chastened and elevated.

The contrast between Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria, the two to whom Christ, according to the narrative of St John, first unfolds the mysteries of His kingdom, cannot fail to be noticed. A rabbi stands side by side with a woman who was not even qualified in popular opinion to be a scholar: a Jew with a Samaritan: a dignified member of the Council with a fickle, impulsive, villager. The circumstances of the discourses are not less different. The one is held in Jerusalem, the other almost under the shadow of the schismatical temple in Gerizim: the one in the house by night, the other in the daylight by the wellside. Christ is sought in the one case; in the other He asks first that so He may give afterwards. The discourses themselves open out distinct views of the kingdom. To Nicodemus Christ speaks of a new birth, of spiritual influence witnessed by spiritual life, of the elevation of the Son of man in whom earth and heaven were united: to the Samaritan He speaks of the water of life which should satisfy a thirst assumed to be real, of a worship in spirit and truth, of Himself as the Christ who should teach all things.

But with all this difference there was one thing common to the Jewish ruler and to the Samaritan woman. In both there was the true germ of faith. It was quickened in theonebythe miracles which Jesus did (iii. 2); in the other by His presence. But both were drawn to Him and rested in Him. Both expressed their difficulties, half seizing, half missing His figurative language. Both found that which they needed to bring them into a living union with God. The pretensions of superior knowledge and discernment were cast down. The suspicions of rude jealousy were dispelled. The revelation of a suffering Redeemer scattered the proud fancies of the master of Israel: the revelation of a heavenly Father raised the conscience-stricken woman to new hope. Even after the Crucifixion Nicodemus, "who came by night at first," openly testified his love for Christ; and the Samaritan at once, forgetful of all else, hastened to bring her countrymen to Him whom she had found.

Here we see the beginning of faith: in St Philip and in St Thomas we see something of the growth of faith. It is an old tradition (Clem. Alex. 'Strom.' in. 4, § 25) that St Philip was the disciple who asked the Lord that he might first go and bury his father, and received the stern reply, "Follow thou me, and let the dead bury their dead." Whether this be true or not, it falls in with what St John tells us of him. He appears to hang back, to calculate, to rest on others. " Jesus," we read, " findeth Philip " (i. 43). He had not himself come to Jesus, though the words imply that he was ready to welcome, or even waiting for, the call which was first spoken to him. So again, when the Lord saw the multitude in the wilderness, it was to Philip He addressed the question, to "prove him," "Whence shall we buy bread, that these may eat? " (vi. 5 ff.). And even then he could only estimate the extent of the want. He had no suggestion as to how it must be met. But if his was a slow and cautious and hesitating faith, it was diffusive. He had no sooner been strengthened by the words of Christ than he in turn found Nathanael. "We have found," he saith, "Him of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets wrote" (i. 45). He appealed, as we must believe, to the witness of their common search in the Scriptures in times gone by, and his only answer to his friend's doubt — the truest answer to doubt at all times — was simply " Come and see." Yet his own eyes were holden too in part. Even at the last he could say, " Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us " (xiv. 8). But he said this in such a spirit that he received the answer which for him and for us gives faith an object on which it can rest for ever: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9 f.).

Philip believed without confidence. Thomas believed without hope. The whole character of Thomas is written in the first sentence which we hear him speak: " Let us also go, that we may die with him" (xi. 16). He could love Christ even to the last, though he saw nothing but suffering in following Him. He knew not whither He went; how could he know the way? (xiv. 5). But even so, he could keep close to Him: one step was enough, though that was towards the dark. No voice of others could move him to believe that which of all he wished most. The ten might tell him that the Lord was risen, but he could not lightly accept a joy beyond all that for which he had looked. " Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe" (xx. 24 ff.). But when the very test which he had laid down was offered, the thought of proof was lost in the presence of Christ. He saw at once what had not yet been seen. The most complete devotion found the most fervent expression in those last words of faith, "My Lord, and my God " (xx. 27 f.).

In this way disciples were led on little by little to know the Master in whom they trusted. Often they failed through want of enthusiasm or want of insight. Some there were also who failed by excess of zeal. Mary Magdalene, when the blindness of sorrow was removed, would have clung to the Lord whom she had again found, lest again He should be taken from her. She would have kept Him as she had known Him. She would have set aside the lesson that it was good that He should go away. Then came those words which at once satisfied and exalted her affection, " Go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God" (xx. 15 ff.). She, the tender, loving woman, is made the messenger of this new Gospel: she is first charged to declare the truth in which her own passionate desire was transfigured: she who would have chained down heaven to earth is commissioned to proclaim that earth is raised to heaven.

Something of the same kind may be noticed in the history of St Peter. Unlike Philip he is confident, because he knows the strength of his love: unlike Thomas he is hopeful, because he knows whom he loves. But his confidence suggests the mode of his action: his hope fashions the form of its fulfilment. Peter saith unto Jesus, " Thou shall never wash my feet," and then with a swift reaction, " Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head " (xiii. 6 ff.). If he hears of a necessary separation, he asks, " Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake" (xiii. 36 ff.). He draws his sword in the garden (xviii. 10 f.).: he presses into the courtyard of the high-priest (xviii. 1 6 ff.). He dares all and doubts nothing. But when the trial came he was vanquished by a woman. He had chosen his own part, and the bitterness of utter defeat placed him for ever at the feet of the Saviour whom he had denied. He knew, though it was with grief, the meaning of the last triple charge: he knew, though it was through falls, the meaning of the answer to his last question: If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou me (xxi. 22).

There is one other character common to all four Evangelists which cannot be altogether passed by. St John's notices of the Baptist have little externally in common with the Synoptic narratives, but they reveal a character which answers to the stern figure of the preacher of repentance. His last testimony to Christ (iii. 27 — 30) completely corresponds with the position of one who is looking forward to a future dimly seen. The herald must fulfil his herald's work to the end.

His glory is to accept the necessity of decline (iii. 30).

It is needless to add any comments to this rapid enumeration of the characters who people the brief narrative of St John. The vividness, the vigour, the life, of their portraitures cannot be mistaken or gainsaid. The different persons shew themselves. They come forward and then pass out of sight as living men, and not like characters in a legendary history. They have an office not only separately but in combination. They witness, in other words, not only to the exactness but also to the spiritual completeness of the record.

This fulness of characteristic life in the fourth Gospel is practically decisive as to its apostolic authorship. Those who are familiar with the Christian literature of the second century will know how inconceivable it is that any Christian teacher could have imagined or presented as the author of the fourth Gospel has done the generation in which the Lord moved. The hopes, the passions, the rivalries, the opinions, by which His contemporaries were swayed had passed away, or become embodied in new shapes. A great dramatist could scarcely have called them back in such narrow limits as the record allows. Direct knowledge illuminated by experience and insight, which are the human conditions of the historian's inspiration, offers the only adequate explanation of the dramatic power of the Gospel.

It will be evident from the illustrations which have been already given that there is a subtle and yet unmistakable harmony within the different parts of St John's Gospel; that each narrative which it contains is to be considered not only in itself, but also in relation to the others with which it is connected: that fact is interpreted by thought and thought by fact: that the historical unity of the book is completed by a moral and spiritual unity. Under one aspect the lessons of the Old Testament are illuminated by Christ's presence. Under another aspect the characters which move about the Lord offer typical representations of faith and unbelief in their trials and issues.

And in all this there is not the least violence done to the outward history, but there is simply a practical recognition of the necessary fulness which there was in the Life, in the Words, and in the Works of the Son of man.

St John himself is careful to explain that all which he saw when he wrote his Gospel was not clear to the disciples at once. The words of the Lord to St Peter had a wider application than to any one detail: What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt come to know (yvwo-y) hereafter (xiii. 7). The Resurrection was the first great help to this advance in knowledge (ii. 22, xii. 1 6); and the meaning of the Resurrection itself was extended when Christ raised a new Temple in place of the old after the fall of Jerusalem, and His Church was finally established (ii. 19, note).

There can then be no cause for surprise if St John, looking back over the whole range of his experience, selects just those parts of Christ's ministry for his record which fit together with the most complete mutual correspondences. Such a selection would not be so much the result of a conscious design as of a spiritual intuition. His Gospel was in the truest sense of the word a "prophecy," a revelation of the eternal under the forms of time.

In this respect the miracles of the Lord which he has related form an instructive illustration of his method. Taken together they are a revelation of Christ, of "His glory." A very brief examination of them will be sufficient to establish by this one example that principle of a spiritual meaning in the plan and details of the Gospel which I have called the symbolism of St John.

The two characteristic names which miracles bear in St John's Gospel mark distinctly the place which he assigns to them in relation to the general course of the divine government. They are signs (ii. ii, note) and they are works (v. 20, note). They are " signs " so far as they lead men to look beneath the surface for some deeper revelations of the method and will of God, to watch for the actionof that spiritual ministry — "the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man " — which belongs to the new dispensation. They are " works " so far as they take their place among the ordinary phenomena of life (v. 17), differing from them not because they involve any more real manifestation of divine energy but simply because they are suited to arrest attention. They are "signs" in short, for they make men feel the mysteries which underlie the visible order. They are "works," for they make them feel that this spiritual value is the attribute of all life.

St John has recorded in detail seven miracles of Christ's ministry and one of the risen Christ. Their general connexion with the structure of his Gospel (see p. xlii.) will appear from the following table:

The walking on the sea, vi. 16 — 21. The restoration of the man born

Of these the first two give the fundamental character of the Gospel, its nature and its condition: the next five are signs of the manifold working of Christ, as the restoration, the support, the guidance, the light and the life of men: the last is the figure of all Christian labour to the end of time.

The first two miracles, which the Evangelist significantly connects together as wrought at Cana, seem at first sight to have nothing in common. They are given without any comment except the record of their effects (ii. n, iv. 53). But these two brief notes give the clue to the interpretation of the signs. They shew from the beginning that Christianity is the ennobling of all life, and that its blessings are appropriated only by faith.

The change of the water into wine has always been rightly felt to be a true symbol of Christ's whole work. The point of the second miracle at Cana lies in the discipline of faith. The request to Christ (iv. 47) was itself a confession of faith, yet that faith was not accepted as it was. It was necessary at once to raise faith to the unseen. Whatever outward signs may be granted they do but point to something beyond. At the commencement of His ministry Christ declared in act what He repeated afterwards at its close: Blessed are they that see not, and yet believe.

The four chief miracles which are connected with Christ's conflict form the basis on each occasion of discourses in which their lessons are enforced. Here there can be no doubt of the symbolism: it is declared unmistakably that the works are " signs," charged with a divine purpose. In the case of the paralytic suffering is definitely connected with sin (v. 14). Christ removes the malady spontaneously and on a Sabbath. Such action is revealed to be after the pattern of God's action: My Father worketh even until now, and I work (v. 17). God seeks without ceasing to repair by tenderness and chastisement the ravages which sin has made in His creation, and to lead it onward to its consummation.

In the feeding of the five thousand the teaching is carried a step further. Man needs not restoration only but support. He has wants as well as defects: he has to struggle against material difficulties. Christ reveals Himself as sufficient to supply every craving of man, and as sovereign over the forces of nature: / am the bread of life. He that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst... (vi. 35). What then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where He was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth (vi. 62 f.). So the works are invested with a permanent prophetic power.

Man needs support and he needs enlightenment also; for we must go forward, and in one sense we are " blind from our birth." This is the next lesson of the miracles which St John records. Before the blind regained his sight at Siloam Christ said: When (OTO.V) I am in the world, I am the light of the world (ix. 5). Sight was given to the obedient disciple. The Pharisees refused to read the sign which conflicted with their prejudices. And He then added: For judgment I came into this world, that they which see not may see; and that they which see may be made blind (ix. 39).

But even if failings be remedied, if wants be satisfied, if light be given, there yet remains one more terrible enemy: death, physical death, comes at last. Here also Christ gave a sign of His power. In the very agony of apparent loss He said: He that believeth in me, even though he die, shall live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die (xi. 25 f.). And so far as any single fact offered to the senses can confirm the truth, the raising of Lazarus shewed that there is a Life sovereign over physical life, a Life victorious over death.

The sequence of these " signs," these living parables of Christ's action, these embodiments of truth in deed, can hardly be mistaken. Nor is the meaning of the one miracle of the risen Lord less obvious. The narrative is the figure of the history of the Church. The long night passes in what seems to be vain effort. Christ stands in the dawn upon the shore, and at first His disciples know Him not. Even so in due time He is revealed in blessing; and men are charged afresh to use the new gifts which He has enabled them to gather.

It would be easy to follow out these correspondences and connexions of the different parts of St John's Gospel in other directions and in fuller detail; but enough has been said to direct attention to the subject. If the principle be acknowledged the application will follow.

i. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptists.

It is impossible for any one to turn directly from the first three Gospels to the Fourth without feeling that he has been brought in the later record to a new aspect of the Person and Work of Christ, to a new phase of Christian thought, to a new era in the history of the Christian Church. In this there is a halo of divine glory always about the • Saviour even in scenes of outward humiliation: the truths of the Gospel are presented in their relations to the broadest speculations of men: the society of believers, of "the brethren" (xx. 17, xxi. 23), stands out with a clear supremacy above the world. As we compare the pictures more carefully, and in this view they are two and not four, we find that the general difference between the Gospels which is thus obvious reaches throughout their whole composition. The Synoptists and St John differ in the general impression which they convey as to the duration, the scene, the form, the substance of the Lord's teaching. They differ also in regard to the circumstances under which they were composed. The latter difference furnishes the final explanation of the former. And here it may be well to make one remark on the total effect which these differences produce upon the student of the New Testament. At first they are not realised in their true weight and value. The conception of the Lord which is brought to the study of any Gospel includes elements which are derived from all. Contrasts are already reconciled. So it was with the early Church. No teacher found the Fourth Gospel at variance with the other three, though they recognised its complementary character. Then follows in many cases an exaggerated estimate of the importance of the differences which are apprehended upon a careful comparison of the books. Fresh results impress us more in proportion as they are unexpected, and at variance with our preconceived opinions. Still later perhaps that comprehensive conception of the subject of the Gospel is regained by labour and thought, from which, as a tradition, the study began; and it is felt that a true and intelligible unity underlies external differences, which are now viewed in their proper position with regard to the records and to the subject.

Before considering the differences or the correspondences of the Synoptists and St John, it is necessary to apprehend distinctly the fragmentary character of the documents which we have to compare. The narrative of St John, and the narratives of the Synoptists, are alike partial, and alike recognise a large area of facts with which they do not deal.

i. Limited range of St Johris Gospel. The Gospel of St John forms, as we have seen, a complete whole in relation to "its purpose;" but as an external history it is obviously most incomplete. It is a Gospel and not a Biography, an account of facts and words which have a permanent and decisive bearing upon the salvation of the world, and not a representation of a life simply from a human point of sight. The othei Gospels, as based upon the popular teaching of the Apostles, include more details of directly human interest, but these also are Gospels and not Biographies. All the Gospels are alike in this: they contain in different shapes what was necessary to convey the message of redemption to the first age and to all ages in the unchangeable record of facts. Their completeness is moral and spiritual and not historical. The striking Jewish legend as to the Manna was fulfilled in Christ. He was to each true believer, from the absolute completeness of His Person, that which each desired; and the Evangelists have preserved for the society typical records of apostolic experience.

The fragmentariness of St John's record is shewn conclusively by his notice of periods of teaching of undefined length of which he relates no more than their occurrence:

iii. 22. Jesus and his disciples came into the land of Judcea; and there he tarried (Su'rpi/3ei/) with them and baptized... (iv. i — 3) making and baptizing more disciples than John. Comp. iv. 54.

vii. i. After these things Jesus walked (TreptcTraTct) in Galilee; for he would not walk in Judcea, because the Jews sought to kill him.

x. 40 — 42. And he went away again beyond Jordan, into the place inhere John was at first baptizing; and there he abode (the reading is uncertain, e/mvev or Ifwev)... and many believed on him there.

xi. 54. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews, but departed thence into the country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim; and there he abode (l/xetvev) with the disciples.

The last passage seems to describe a period of retirement, but the others imply action and continuous labour in Judaea, Galilee and Peraea, of which St John has preserved no details. He passed these over (such is the obvious explanation) because they did not contribute materials necessary for the fulfilment of his special purpose. And so again the two days teaching in Samaria, at which he was present, is represented only by the confession which it called out (iv. 42). The same conclusion follows from the frequent general notices of " signs " and "works" which find no special recital:

ii. 23. Many believed on his name beholding his signs which he did (liroiu). Comp. iv. 45, The Galilceans received him, having seen all the things that he did (ocra e7ro«7<rei') in Jerusalem at the feast; and iii. 2, No man can do these signs that thou doest, except God be with him.

vi. 2. And a great multitude followed him, because they beheld the signs which he did (en-out) on them that were sick.

vii. 3. His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works which thou doest.

vii. 31. But of the miiltilude many believed on him; and they said, When the Christ shall come, will he do more signs than those which this man hath done (eVotifcrei/) f

x. 32. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from the Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

xi. 47. The chief priests... said, What do we? for this man doeth many signs.

xii. 37. Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him.

xx. 30. Many other signs therefore did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not written in this book...

xxi. 25. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that should be written.

A consideration of what the Lord's Life was, as it has been made known to us, shews that this last summary statement is only a natural expression of the sense of that which we must feel to be its infinite fulness. And the other passages open glimpses of a variety and. energy of action of which St John's narrative itself gives no completer view. Of " all that the Lord did " at Jerusalem, which moved the faith alike of "the teacher of Israel," and of "the Galilaeans,"

he has noticed only the cleansing of the temple. Of the healings of the sick in Galilee, he has recorded only one. He tells us nothingof "the disciples in Judaea" (vii. 3), who might desire to see works such as Christ wrought in other places. Of the "many good works" shewn at Jerusalem (x. 32), two only are given at length. A fair appreciation of these facts will leave no doubt that St John omitted far more events than he related out of those which he knew. The Gospel of the Church, which it was his office to write, might be expected to take shape in special festival discourses at the centre of the Old Faith. He deals with aspects of Christ's Life and teaching which were not clear at first, but became clear afterwards. And in doing this he leaves ample room for other accounts widely differing in character from his own.

One other point deserves notice in this connexion. The abrupt breaks in St John's narrative shew that he was guided by something different from a purely historic aim in his work. The simple phrase after these things (iii. 22, v. i, vi. i) is used to mark a decided interval in time and place; and if the interpretation of x. 22 which has been adopted be correct, the transition in ix. i is not less sharp1.

2. Limited range of the Synoptists. The Synoptic Gospels, no less than St John, imply much more than they record. The commencement of the Galilasan ministry in their narratives not only leaves room for, but points to, earlier work.

Matt. iv. 12. Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew rja-fv) into Galilee.

Mark i. 14. Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the Gospel of God.

The words have no force unless it be supposed that the Evangelists referred to an earlier ministry in Judasa which is deliberately passed over (comp. John ii., iii.). Nor is there anything in Luke iv. 14 f. opposed to this view. The summary which is there given may in-

1 It may be added that St John nowhere notices scribes (viii. 3 is an interpolation), taxgatherers ("publicans"), lepers, or demoniacs.

elude any period of time, and specifies a wide area of place (comp. v. 23).

Again, the Sermon on the Mount involves some previous teaching in Judaea in which the character of the Scribes and Pharisees had been revealed. It is most unlikely that their " righteousness " would have been denounced (Matt v. 20) unless the Lord had met them in the seat of their power and proved them.

Still more instructive is the great episode in St Luke (Luke ix. 51 — xviii. 14, see note), which shews how much material there was at hand of which no use was made in the oral Gospel of the Apostles. At the same time it is of interest to observe that this peculiar section has in one incident (x. 38 ff.) a point of connexion with St John, and the notices of the Samaritans which it contains (x. 33, xvii. 16, [ix. 52]) offer in some respects a parallel to the fourth chapter of his Gospel.

3. The differences of the Synoptists and St John. Taking account of these characteristics of the Gospels we can form a juster estimate of their differences. The Synoptists and St John differ at first sight (as has been already said) as to the time, the scene, the form, and the substance of the Lord's teaching.

If we had the Synoptic Gospels alone it might be supposed that the Lord's ministry was completed in a single year: that it was confined to Galilee till the visit to Jerusalem at the Passover by which it was terminated: that it was directed in the main to the simple peasantry, and found expression in parables, and proverbs, and clear, short discourses, which reach the heart of a multitude: that it was a lofty and yet practical exposition of the Law, by One who spake as man to men. But if we look at St John all is changed. In that we see that the public ministry of Christ opened as well as closed with a Paschal journey: that between these journeys there intervened another Passover and several visits to Jerusalem: that He frequently used modes of speech which were dark and mysterious, not from the imagery in which they were wrapped, but from the thoughts to which they were applied: that at the outset He claimed in the Holy City the highest prerogatives of Messiah, and at later times constantly provoked the anger of His opponents by the assumption of what they felt to be divine authority. And beyond all these differences of arrangement and manner, the first three Gospels and the Fourth have very few facts in common. They meet only once (at the Feeding of the five thousand), before the last scenes of the Passion and Resurrection. And in this common section they are distinguished by signal differences. To mention only two of the most conspicuous: the Synoptists do not notice the raising of Lazarus, which marks a crisis in the narrative of St John; and on the other hand, St John does not mention the Institution of the Holy Eucharist, which is given in detail by each of the Synoptists (see notes on cc. xi., xiii.).

A student of the Gospels can have no wish to underrate the significance of phenomena like these, which must powerfully affect his view of the full meaning both of the documents and of their subject. But he will interrogate them, and not at once assume that they have only to witness to discrepancies. From such questioning one result is gained at once. It is seen (to omit the question of time for the present) that differences of form and substance correspond to differences of persons and place. On the one side there is the discourse at Nazareth, the Sermon on the Mount, the groups of parables, words first spoken to the Galilsean multitudes with the authority of the Great Teacher, and then continued afterwards when they came up to the Feast full of strange expectations, which were stimulated by the Triumphal Entry. On the other side there are the personal communings with individual souls, with "the Master of Israel" and the woman of Samaria, unveilings of the thoughts of faithless cavillers, who had been trained in the subtleties of the Law, and rested on the glories of their worship: glimpses of a spiritual order opened at last to loving disciples, in which they were prepared to find, even through sorrow, the accomplishment of their early hopes. On the one side there is the Gospel of " the common people who heard gladly:" on the other side the Gospel of such as felt the deeper necessities and difficulties of faith. The lessons which appealed to broad sympathies are supplemented by those which deal with varieties of personal trial and growth. The cycle of missionary teaching is completed by the cycle of internal teaching: the first experience of the whole band of Apostles by the mature experience of their latest survivor.

These general remarks are supported bynumerous minute details which indicate that the Synoptists do in fact recognise an early Judaean ministry and teaching similar to that of St John, and that St John recognises important work in Galilee and teaching similar to that of the Synoptists.

(a) The scene of the Lord's teaching. The general description of the Lord's following as including multitudes "from Judcea and Jerusalem" (Matt. iv. 25; comp. Mark iii. 7 f.) cannot be pressed as proving that He had Himself worked there. Similar language is used in connexion with the Baptist (Matt. iii. 5). But the reading of St Luke iv. 44, he was preaching in the synagogues ofjudaa (for Galilee), which is supported by very strong MSS. authority (tfBCLQR Memph.\ taken in connexion with Luke v. 17, may fairly be urged in favour of such a view. Indeed the feeling of the people of Jerusalem on the Lord's last visit is scarcely intelligible unless they had grown familiar with Him on former visits. So again the well-known words of the lamentation over Jerusalem, How often would I have gathered thy children... and thou wouldest Jiot (Matt. xxiii. 37 ff.), scarcely admit any other sense than that Christ had personally on many occasions sought to attach the inhabitants to Himself, as now when the issue was practically decided. The visit to Martha and Mary (Luke x. 38 ff.) suggests previous acquaintance with them, and so probably previous residences in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem (John xi. i ff.). The circumstances connected with the preparation for the last visit (Matt. xxi. 2 f., xxvi. 17 ff., and parallels), point to the same conclusion. Compare Acts x. 37, 39. On the other hand St John when he notices a brief sojourn of the Lord and His first disciples at Capernaum (ii. 12), seems to imply a longer abode there at another time; and in a later passage he records words which shew that Galilee was the ordinary scene of Christ's ministry (vii. 3). It might indeed have been plausibly argued from these words that when they were spoken He had not wrought any conspicuous works in Judaea.

(/3) The manner of the Lord's teaching. It has been already shewn that the form of the Lord's teaching could not but depend upon the occasion on which it was delivered; and there is no scene in St John which answers to those under which the Sermon on the Mount, or the chief groups of parables were delivered; and conversely there are no scenes in the Synoptists like those with Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria. The discourses at Jerusalem recorded by the Synoptists were spoken after Christ had openly accepted the position of Messiah by His triumphal entry: those recorded by St John belong to earlier times, when He was gradually leading His hearers to grasp the truth of faith in Him. As the circumstances become more like in character there is a growing resemblance in style. In John x., xii., we have the implicit parables of the Sheepfold, the Good Shepherd, the Grain of Corn. In Matt. xi. 25 fF.; Luke x. 21 ff., there is a thanksgiving spoken in regard to the disciples' work which in character is not unlike the last discourses.

(y) The duration of the Lord's teaching. The data for determining the length of the Lord's ministry are singularly few. The time of its commencement is approximately fixed by the different elements given by St Luke (iii. i), as marking the Call of the Baptist. But there is nothing in the Gospels to connect its close with any particular year of Pilate's procuratorship. Pilate was recalled in A.D. 36, and Herod was banished in A.D. 39. They may therefore have met at Jerusalem in any year during Pilate's term of office. Caiaphas retained his office till the end of Pilate's procuratorship. The date of the death of Annas is not known, but he lived to old age. So far there is a wide margin of uncertainty; and this can only be removed by the assumption that the Gospels supply a complete chronology of the Ministry, for the earliest tradition is both late and conflicting. Here however we are left to probability. The Synoptists appear to include the events of their narrative in a single year; but it is very difficult to bring the development of faith and unbelief to which they witness, the missions of the Twelve and of the Seventy, and the different circuits of the Lord, within so brief a space1. St John, on the other hand, notices three Passovers, but he gives no clear intimation that he notices every Passover which occurred in the course of the Lord's work. In such a case the fragmentariness of the records is a conclusive answer to the supposed discrepancy.

4. The coincidences of the Synoptists and St John. So far we have dwelt upon the differences between the Synoptists and St John. Their correspondences are less obvious and impressive, but they are scarcely less important.

The common incidents with which they deal are the following:

2. The feeding of the five thousand (St John notices the time, the Passover was near, vi. 4: the persons, Philip and Andrew, vi. 5, 8: the command to collect the fragments, v. 12: the issue of the miracle and the retirement of Jesus, v. 14 f.).

3. The Walking on the Sea (St John mentions the distance, vi. 19: the feeling of the disciples, v. 21: the result, ib.).

5. The Triumphal Entry (St John mentions the time, on the next day, xii. 1 2: the reference to Lazarus, v. 1 8: the judgment of the Pharisees, v. 19).

6. The Last Supper (St John records the feet-washing, xiii. 2 ff.: the question of St John, v. 23: the ignorance of the Apostles, v. 28: the discourses in the chamber and on the way*).

1 The reading and interpretation of Luke vi. i (SevrepoTrpuTt?) is too uncertain to be pressed. Yet see note on Mark ii. 23.

1 On the apparent difference between the

The Betrayal. See notes on c.

The Burial (St John notices the action of Nicodemus, xix. 39: the garden, v. 41).

ii. The Resurrection. See note on

Not to enter in detail upon an examination of the parallels, it may be said that in each case St John adds details which appear to mark his actual experience; and also that the facts in all their completeness form a natural part of both narratives. They do not appear either in the Synoptists or in St John as if they were borrowed from an alien source.

The passages in which St John implies an acquaintance with incidents recorded by the Synoptists are more numerous.

— 32 ff. The circumstances of the known, xviii. 33. The title " the King of the