The Books of the New Testament Part 8

II. _The author was a Jew of Palestine._

He shows a minute acquaintance with the geography of the Holy Land. At the present day elaborate guide-books and histories make it possible for a very clever writer to disguise the fact that he has not visited the land in which he lays the scene of his story. But even at the present day such procedure is dangerous, and likely to be detected. In ancient times it was almost impossible. Yet no one has ever detected an error in the geography of this Gospel. The writer mentions Cana of Galilee (ii. 1, 11), a place not noticed by any earlier writer, and Bethany beyond Jordan (i. 28); he knows the exact distance from Jerusalem to the better-known Bethany (xi. 18); the "deep" well of Jacob at Sychar (iv. 11); the city of Ephraim near the wilderness (xi.

54); Aenon near to Salim, where John baptized (iii. 23). This word Aenon is an Aramaic word signifying "springs," and even Renan ridicules the notion of such a name having been invented by Greek-speaking sectaries at Ephesus. The place was too obscure to be known to ordinary travellers, and, on the other hand, such a name cannot have been invented by a Gentile.

The topography of Jerusalem is described with equal nicety. We may notice viii. 20; ix. 7; x. 23; xviii. 1, 15; xix. 17, 41; and particularly the pool near the sheep-gate, having five porches (v. 2), and the place which is called the Pavement, "but in the Hebrew Gabbatha" (xix. 13). Even a person who had heard of Solomon's porch and of Golgotha might well have been ignorant of the sheep-gate and the Pavement, unless he had been in Jerusalem.

Lastly, the writer shows an acquaintance not only with the {90} Jewish feasts, but also with facts connected with them which imply special knowledge on his part. He could not have gathered from the Old Testament the fact that the later Jews were in the habit of keeping a feast in honour of the dedication of the temple after its profanation by Antiochus Epiphanes (x. 22), nor would he have learned how to introduce an allusion to the rite of pouring forth water from the pool at Siloam at the Feast of Tabernacles (vii. 37).

The only important argument which can be urged against the author having been a Jew is that founded on the use of the phrase "the Jews,"

which is said to imply that the writer was not a Jew. Now, in some pa.s.sages (as vii. 1), "the Jews" may mean the inhabitants of Judaea, as distinct from those of Galilee, and such pa.s.sages are therefore indecisive. But in other pa.s.sages the phrase "the Jews" does not admit this interpretation, and is used with a decided suggestion of dislike.

But when we remember the bitter hostility which the Jews soon manifested towards the Christians, and remember that in Asia Minor this hostility was active, the phrase presents no real difficulty. St. Paul was proud to reckon himself a Jew, but long before the Jews had shown their full antagonism to Christianity, St. Paul spoke of "the Jews" (1 Thess. ii. 14-16) with the same condemnation as the writer of the fourth Gospel.

The only important arguments in favour of the author having absorbed Gnostic views are drawn: (1) _From the alleged Dualism of the Gospel_.

In theology the word Dualism signifies the doctrine that the world is not only the battle-ground of two opposing forces, one good and the other evil, but also that the material world is itself essentially evil. Such was the doctrine of the great Gnostic sects of the 2nd century. But this Gospel, in spite of the strong contrast which it draws between G.o.d and the world, light and darkness, is not Dualist.

It teaches that there is one G.o.d, that the world was made by the Word who is G.o.d, that this Word was made flesh and came to save the world.

In thus teaching that the material world was made by the good G.o.d, and that G.o.d took a material human body, this Gospel opposes the fundamental tenet of Gnostic Dualism. (2) _From the alleged condemnation of the Jewish prophets by Christ in x. 8_. Other pa.s.sages make it perfectly plain that this is not a condemnation of the Jewish prophets, but of any religious pretenders who claimed divine authority.

In this Gospel an appeal is made to Moses (v. 46), to Abraham (viii.

56), to Isaiah {91} (xii. 41), and, what is most remarkable of all, our Lord says, "Salvation is of the Jews," _i.e._ the knowledge and the origin of religious truth came from the Jews. The Jewish Scriptures are ratified (v. 39; x. 35). It is impossible to find a shred of the anti-Jewish theories which the Gnostics taught. And though it is true that some Gnostics were fond of using such words as "life" and "light"

in their religious phraseology, it is much more probable that they were influenced by the fourth Gospel than that this Gospel was tinged with Gnosticism.

We conclude, therefore, that the author was a Jew of Palestine, and that he was not a Gentile or in any sense a Gnostic.

III. _The author was a contemporary and an eye-witness of the events described._

His knowledge of Jerusalem and of the temple, which we have already noticed, strongly suggests that he knew the city before its destruction in A.D. 70. So far as can be tested, his treatment of the Messianic ideas of the people is exactly accurate, and of a kind which it would have been difficult for a later writer to exhibit. This Gospel represents the people as pervaded by a nationalist notion of the Messiah as of a king who would deliver them from foreign powers (vi.

15, xi. 48; xix. 12), a notion which was dispelled in A.D. 70, and apparently did not revive until the rising of Bar Kocheba in A.D. 135, a date which is now almost universally recognized as too late for this Gospel to have been written. We also find the two contradictory ideas as to the place of the Messiah's origin then current (vii. 27, 42), and the writer distinguishes "the prophet" (i. 21, 25; vi. 14; vii. 40), who was expected to precede Christ, from Christ Himself. At a very early date the Christians identified "the prophet" with Christ, and it is in the highest degree improbable that any but a contemporary of our Lord would have been aware of this change of belief.

It is claimed that the author is an eye-witness in i. 14; xix. 35; and xxi. 24. We may add 1 John i. 1, for the author of the Epistle was obviously the author of the Gospel. Numerous details, especially the frequent notes of time, suggest the hand {92} of an eye-witness. And the delicate descriptions of the inner life of the disciples and of Christ Himself point to the same conclusion. The description of the Last Supper and the words spoken at it suggest with overwhelming force that the writer knew the peculiar manner of seating employed at this ceremony. Another Jew would have known where the celebrant sat, but he would scarcely have been able to make the actions of our Lord and Judas, St. John and St. Peter, fit their places at the table with such perfection.[4]

The Gospel claims that the disciple who "wrote these things" is the disciple "whom Jesus loved," and who reclined "in Jesus' bosom" at the Supper. It was not Peter, for Peter did not recline "in Jesus' bosom."

The presumption therefore is that it was either James or John, these two being with Peter the closest friends of Jesus. It could hardly have been James, who was martyred in A.D. 44, as the whole weight of tradition and external evidence is against this. It must, then, have been John, or a forger who wished to pa.s.s for that apostle. And to suppose that an unknown forger, born two generations, or even one generation, later than the apostles, could invent such sublime doctrine, and insert it in so realistic a story, and completely deceive the whole Christian world, including the district where St. John lived and died, is to show a credulity which is without parallel in the history of civilization.[5]

Now that we have reviewed the internal evidence for the authenticity, we are able to return with renewed vigour to deal with the popular rationalistic hypothesis that the author was a Christian who had learned some genuine stories about Jesus current in the Church at Ephesus, and then wove them into a narrative of his own composing. We have observed that the marks of an eye-witness and contemporary of Jesus are {93} scattered over the whole surface of the Gospel. If the Gospel is not by St. John, only one other explanation is possible. It must be composed of three distinct elements: (a) some genuine traditions, (b) numerous fictions, (c) a conscious manipulation of the narrative contained in the Synoptists. But the internal evidence is absolutely opposed to any such theory. We can trace no manipulation of the Synoptic narrative. The writer seems to be aware of St. Mark's Gospel, and possibly the other two, but he evidently did not write with them actually before him. He plainly had a wholly independent plan and an independent source of information. And if we turn to the pa.s.sages which tell us facts not recorded by the Synoptists, it is quite impossible to separate the supposed fictions from the supposed genuine traditions. Both style and matter proceed from one and the same individuality. One pa.s.sage alone can be separated from the rest without interrupting the flow of the story, and that pa.s.sage is absent in the best ma.n.u.scripts. It is the story of the woman taken in adultery (vii. 53-viii. 11). It seems to have been originally placed after Luke xxi. 36, and was inserted into St. John's Gospel after it was completed. We cannot apply the same process to any other pa.s.sage in the Gospel. It is an organic whole, as much as any play of Shakespeare or poem of Tennyson. And over the whole book we find the same morsels of history and geography. They are of a kind which tradition never hands down unimpaired, and which no Ephesian disciple of an apostle would be likely to commit to memory. In spite of all attempts to divide the Gospel into parts derived straight from an apostle and parts invented by later minds, the Gospel remains like the seamless coat which once clothed the form of the Son of man.

[Sidenote: Date.]

It is important to observe that even the most hostile criticism has tended to recede in its attempt to find a probable date for this Gospel. Baur fixed it about A.D. 160-170, Pfleiderer at 140, Hilgenfeld 130-140; Julicher and Harnack will not date it later than 110, {94} and the latter grants that it may be as early as 80. The year 80 is as early a date as the most orthodox Christian need desire, and we can reasonably believe that it was written by the apostle at Ephesus between A.D. 80 and A.D. 90. We learn from Irenaeus that St.

John survived until A.D. 98.

[Sidenote: Literary Style.]

Several points in the literary style of the apostle have been noticed in dealing with the internal evidence which they afford to the authenticity of his Gospel. But it is necessary to add something more, for there is no writer to whom we can more fitly apply the profound saying that "the style is the man." The language of St. John is the result of a long and impa.s.sioned contemplation. Whether he writes down his own words, or records the words and deeds of our Lord, his language shows the result of careful reflection.

The teaching of Jesus exhibits a development different from that in the Synoptists. We find in chs. ii., iii., and iv. that our Lord definitely taught that He was the Son of G.o.d and Messiah quite early in His ministry, while in the earlier part of Mark our Lord's teaching about His Messiahs.h.i.+p is far less definite. And the method of teaching is also different. In the Synoptists we find picturesque parables and pointed proverbs, while in John we find long discourses and arguments.

In the Synoptists the teaching is generally practical, in John it is much more openly theological. This difference between the Synoptists and St. John can be partly accounted for by the fact that St. John's Gospel contains much more of the instruction given by our Lord to His intimate friends, and that this instruction was naturally more profound than that which was given to the mult.i.tude. But there is another reason for the difference. If we attend to such pa.s.sages as xiv.

15-21, 25-26; xv. 26-27, we see that our Lord teaches that there are two manifestations of His Person, one during the time between His birth and His death, and the other after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit is not a subst.i.tute {95} for an absent Christ; His coming brings with it an inward presence of Christ within the Christian soul (xiv. 18). By the aid of the Spirit, St. John condenses and interprets the language of our Lord in a manner which can be understood by the simplest of simple souls who live the inner life. In St. John we find a writer who is writing when Jesus spoke no longer in parables and proverbs, but "plainly" (xvi. 25, 29). He records the teaching of Jesus, as it had shaped itself _in_ his own mind, but not so much _by_ his own mind as by perpetual communion with the ascended Christ.

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

We have noted on p. 31 the fact that St. John's Gospel shows that he was acquainted with facts in the Synoptic Gospels which he does not himself narrate. Yet the broad difference between the character of the Synoptic writers and that of St. John is that the Synoptists are historical, he is mystical. We do not mean that St. John does not trouble about historical accuracy. His history is often more minute than that of the Synoptists. But his purpose is to bring his readers into deeper life through union with the G.o.d who is in Christ and is Christ. The true mystic ever desires to maintain the knowledge of this inward union in life with G.o.d. It is a knowledge which is made possible by obedience, made perfect by love, and causes not new ecstasies, but a new character. St. John adjusts all his material to this one purpose. "These are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of G.o.d; and that believing ye may have life in His name" (xx. 31).

The Introduction or Prologue (i. 1-18) teaches that Jesus Christ is that personal manifestation of G.o.d to whom the Jews had given the name of the Word. The Palestinian Jews were accustomed to describe G.o.d acting upon the world by the name _Memra_, or "Word" of the Lord. The Alexandrian Jews also were in the habit of giving the t.i.tle _Logos_, which means both "Word" and "Reason," to an idea of G.o.d which perfectly expressed all that G.o.d is. The Greek Stoics had {96} used the name in a similar sense, and thus St. John, having realized that Jesus is truly G.o.d made manifest, called Him by a name which every educated Jew and Greek would understand. Unlike Philo, the great Alexandrian Jew who tried to combine Greek philosophy with Jewish religion, St. John teaches that this divine Word is a Person, and took human flesh and revealed Himself as the Messiah. The whole Gospel shows how this revelation met with increasing faith on the part of some, and increasing unbelief and hatred on the part of others. The crises of this unbelief are represented chiefly in connection with our Lord's visits to Jerusalem, when He made His claims before the religious leaders of Judaism. His revelation is attended by various forms of _witness_. There is that of the apostle himself (i. 14); that of the other apostles who also witnessed His "glory," as displayed by His miracles (ii. 11). There is that of John the Baptist (i. 34); and when we remember that there had existed at Ephesus an incomplete Christianity which had only known the baptism given by John the Baptist (Acts xix. 3), we see how fit it was that the apostle should record the Baptist's testimony to Christ's superiority. There is the witness of His works, and that which the Father Himself bore (v. 34-36). We should notice that the miracles are called "signs," and are carefully selected so as to give evidence to the reader concerning particular aspects of our Lord's glory.[6] Even the Pa.s.sion is described as containing an element of glory (xii. 28, 32), it contains a secret divine triumph (cf. Col. ii. 15), and is a stage towards the glory of the Ascension. The "darkness" contends with the {97} divine "light,"

but cannot "suppress" it. After the "world" has done its worst, the final victory of faith is seen in the confession of St. Thomas, "My Lord and my G.o.d" (xx. 28).

We find other points of doctrine corresponding with the mystical teaching that "eternal life" does not begin after the last judgment, but may be enjoyed here and now by knowing "G.o.d and Jesus Christ whom He hath sent" (xvii. 3). Thus the judgment is shown to be executed in one sense by the mere division which takes place among men when they come in contact with Christ, according as they are good or bad (v. 30; viii. 16; ix. 39). The principle of this moral testing is made plain in iii. 19. Those who stand the test, and believe in Christ, undergo a resurrection here (xi. 26). On the other hand, there is also a future judgment (v. 22, 29) and a future consummation (v. 28, 29; vi. 39 f., xiv. 3).

Similar beautiful paradoxes are found in the teaching that the "work"

which G.o.d requires of us is to believe in His Son (vi. 28, 29); and that to fulfil G.o.d's will is the mark not of servants but of friends (xv. 14). And those who hope that they are numbered among the friends of Jesus will find in this Gospel all the deepest experiences of the soul--the new birth, the finding of the living water and the true light, and that abiding in Christ which is made complete by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.

To realize the meaning of Jesus it is necessary to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Synoptists tell us comparatively little of His work, though they show us the Spirit descending on Christ at His baptism, driving Him into the wilderness to be tempted, speaking in His disciples, pervading His work (Luke iv. 18), and possessed of a personality into which the Christian is baptized (Matt. xxviii. 19), and against which blasphemy is unpardonable (Luke xii. 10). In John we find a much fuller doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The fact that He is not a mere impersonal influence of G.o.d is very clearly shown. And it is impossible to accept the modern rationalistic {98} hypothesis that the Holy Spirit is only a phrase for describing the idea which the apostles had about the invisible presence of Christ. He is called "another Advocate" (xiv. 16). Christ was an Advocate or Helper; the Spirit will be another. Again, it is the work of the Spirit to refresh the memory and strengthen the apprehension of the disciples concerning Christ (xiv. 26); and our Lord definitely says, "If I go, I will send Him unto you" (xvi. 7). With regard to the unbelieving world, the Spirit will prove the sinfulness of opposition to Christ, will convince the world of His righteousness as testified by the Father's approval manifested in the Ascension, and will procure the verdict of history that by the crucifixion the evil spirit who inspires worldliness was condemned (xvi. 8-11). The Spirit's work is the same in kind as the work of Christ, but the two Persons are distinct. That Christ continues His advent and His work in the world through the Spirit implies neither that the Spirit is an impersonal influence nor that He is personally identical with Christ.

This Gospel gives us invaluable help in determining the chronology of our Lord's ministry. His ministry is connected with six Jewish feasts (ii. 13; v. 1; vi. 4; vii. 2; x. 22; xii. 1). All are named except that in v. 1, which is probably Pentecost, A.D. 27. The forty-six years in ii. 20 are correct. Herod began to rebuild the temple in 20-19 B.C. Therefore the Pa.s.sover in ii. 13 cannot be before A.D. 27.

a.n.a.lYSIS

Introduction: i. 1--i. 18.--The Word ever with G.o.d and Himself G.o.d, manifested in creation, in conscience, in the incarnation.

A.

Winter A.D. 26 till after Pa.s.sover 27.

The preparation and beginning of the ministry: i. 19-iv. 54.--The testimony of John the Baptist to Jesus {99} and his baptism of Jesus, his disciples come to Jesus, the gathering of other disciples, the promise of seeing heaven opened (i.). Jesus and Mary at the marriage at Cana, the disciples believe. Jesus at Capernaum. At the Pa.s.sover Jesus goes to Jerusalem and cleanses the temple (ii). At Jerusalem Jesus teaches Nicodemus of the new birth, He labours in Judaea while John is at Aenon (iii.). The woman of Samaria converted; Jesus returns and is welcomed in Galilee, is again at Cana, cures the Capernaum n.o.bleman's son (iv.).

B.

Pentecost A.D. 27 till before Pa.s.sover 28.

The increased self-revelation of Jesus at Jerusalem: v.--Jesus cures the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda, is accused of sabbath-breaking.

He co-ordinates His work and His honour with the work and honour of the Father, claims to give life now and execute judgment, claims the testimony of John, of His own miracles, of the Scriptures.

C.

Pa.s.sover A.D. 28 till before Tabernacles 28.

Full self-revelation of Jesus in Galilee: vi.--Christ sustains physical life by feeding the 5000, the people wish to make Him King. He again shows power over nature by walking on the sea. He reveals Himself as the Bread sustaining all spiritual life, commands the eating of His flesh and drinking of His blood. The effect of this teaching is increased enmity, the desertion by nominal disciples, and intensified faith as shown by Peter's confession.

D.

Tabernacles, September A.D. 28 till early 29.