Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/859

Rh nax he trine rat or. ANALYs1s.] faith has at last begun to germinate, and He can now prepare to leave them, because He discerns already the temple of the new kingdom founded upon the inspired con- fession of Simon Peter. In the Fourth Gospel, on the other hand, the desertion of the disciples is represented as due to another cause, namely, their unspiritual dulness and their inability to understand the doctrines of their Master. Here and there in this discourse appear glimpses of the synoptic utterances,—for example, in the words “ N 0 man can come unto Me except My Father draw him” (vi. 44) ; and in the words “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the ﬂesh proﬁteth nothing” (vi. 63), one seems to recognize a version of part of the blessing of Peter, “Blessed art thou Simon, son of Jona, for ﬂesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.” But elsewhere, in the greater part of this discourse, the author departs entirely from the synoptists. In the con- fession of Peter, a very striking peculiarity is presented. Not only do we ﬁnd brought out in a very touching manner what may be almost called the despairing faith of the con- fessing apostle———“ Lord, to whom shall we go'!”——as though the disciples were driven in desperation to remain with Jesus because, if they deserted Him, they had no hope, no refuge, elsewhere; but we also ﬁnd Peter avowing the cause of his belief, and it is the same cause as moved the believing Samaritans; it is not the “signs” but the “words” of J esus—“ Thou hast the words of eternal life.”1 Hitherto the Gospel has dealt with the Word as puri- fying and nourishing; now it has to speak of it as en- lightening. The types have hitherto been water (under various aspects), wine, ﬂesh, blood, bread; now we are to read of Jesus as Light. This is the highest or nearly the highest doctrine; for it is another aspect of the doctrine of the Spirit. The two doctrines are closely connected in Philo, who (Creation of the World, 8) declares that God assigned a “pre-eminence to the elements of spirit (or breath or air) and light, calling the former the spirit of God because it is the most life—giving element, and God is the cause of life,” and the visible light Philo declares to be the image of the invisible light, which is the image of God. In the short summary of Christ’s doctrine set forth to Nicodemus (iii. 3-21), a brief suggestion of the doctrine of the light follows on the doctrine of baptism; now the higher doctrine is to be expanded. But light implies darkness, and therefore the development of the doctrine of light connects itself naturally with the period of conﬂict between light and darkness, i.e., between the Vord and “ the J ews,”—a conflict that becomes from this time more and more prominent. First of all, however, comes a climax of the doctrine of water, and a preparation for the doctrine of light. This section (vii. 2-40) begins with a very distinct indication, differing widely fron1 the synoptic treatment, of the rela- tions between the Lord and his brethren. It is possible that the Ebionite school based their low views of Christ’s 1 Although the word used by Peter (ﬁﬁna) is not the same as that used by the Samaritans (M5'yozI), yet a comparison of a great number of passages in which the “ word ” of Jesus (Ad-yos pay) is said to be the object of belief, and the source and province of spiritual life (ii. 22; iv. 50; v. 38, the word of God; viii. 31; viii. 37, 43, 51, 52; xii. 48; xiv. 23, 24) seems to show that the name A6-yos itself had some influence in leading the author to insist so frequently upo11 the “ word” rather than “ the works" as being the prime cause by which the incarnate Word generated faith in the souls of men. In the Fourth Gospel the plural M570; is only once used by Jesus of }Iis words (xiv. 24); and there in a passage where (seemingly) it is desired to distinguish the separate from the collective ‘ ‘ words : ” '0 pi; 6:-ya1rc'Jv pa robs Miyovs you on’; -r'npe'i' nal 6 M5705 iw dxoﬁere, oihc émrw Eyes and‘: 1'03 1re’;u.l«azn-69 p.£ zra-rpds. On the other hand, the synoptists frequently represent Jesus as speaking of “ my words ” and of “ the word,” but never of “ my word.” Note also the remarkable passage (xii. 48) where it is said that Jesus does not judge men, but that the word which He has spoken will judge them. GOSPELS 835 nature upon traditions derived, or supposed to have been derived, from the Lord’s brethren, and that the author is here striking at a particular school of thought. Com- paring Mk. iii. 21 with Mk. iii. 31, we see clearly that the mother and brethren of Jesus, alarmed per- haps for His safety, and deceived by false reports about His sanity, desired to place Him under restraint,‘ and Matthew and Luke unite in asserting that the mother as well as the brethren desired to speak to Him, and were rejected. But there is no mention of the mother in the Fourth Gospel as ever doubting or ever alarmed concerning her Son ; the brethren alone doubt, and their doubt amounts almost to an antagonistic scepticism. They do not “ believe in Him,” yet they urge Him to go to “ J udzea that the disciples may see the works that Thou doest. If T/mu doest these things, show Thyself to the world” (vii. 3-5). No reproof could be n1ore severe (from the point of view with which the Fourth Gospel regards the “ world ”) than the reply of Jesus: “The world cannot hate you ; but Me it hateth.” So imbued are the Lord’s brethren in fleshly worldliness, that the world recognizes in them that familiar darkness which it loves, because its works are dark, while it hates the convicting light. It is not surprising, after this, that Mary, who throughout this Gospel is regarded with affectionate reverence, is not committed to the guardianship of these sceptical brethren of the Lord. The discourse itself is, as has been said, mainly pre- paratory. After one brief appeal to the conscience as the ﬁnal test of the truth of His teaching (vii. 17), the conﬂict is predicted: “Why go ye about to kill He?” A hint of the synoptic saying “He casteth out devils through Beelzebub ” is perhaps contained in the reply of the people, “Thou hast a devil ; ” but the author deviates from the synoptists, in the justiﬁcation of the .sabbath—cure, not from the “ ass ” or the “ox” in the pit (Lu. xiv. 5), but from the practice of circumcision on the sabbath (vii. 29, 23). The violent spirit ﬁrst manifested after the cure of the impotent man (V. 16, 18) now breaks out again, and a direct attempt made by the Pharisees to arrest Him (vii. 32), frustrated by the wonder of His words (vii. 46 ; and compare xviii. 6), leads Jesus once more to predict that He will soon pass away from them, and ﬁnally to conclude the “ doctrine of water,” by exclaiining in “ the last day, the great day of the feast,. . . he that believeth in Me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall ﬂow rivers of living water” 9 (vii. 38). The spiritual climax thus given to the doctrine of water is very striking. The well of living water, before promised to the woman of Samaria, is now not merely to spring up in the believer, as there stated (iv. 14), but it is also to flow forth fron1 Him to others, thus preparing the way for the higher doctrine of the Spirit of fellowship which the author touches on in the next verse: “ But this He spake of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should receive” (vii. 39). The method of the author is admirably illustrated by the dialogue between the people (vii. 41, 42): “Others said, This is the Christ, But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said that Christ cometh 2 These words have caused perplexity, as not being found in any book of the Old Testament; but they are probably a corrupt reading or reminiscence of the LXX. version of Isa. xliv. 3, 4, “ I will give water in the midst of drought to them that walk in a waterless land; I will place My spirit upon thy seed, and My blessings upon thy children—xal ¢’zz/an-ekoilcrw {as due‘: pécrov i58a-ros, &c.” The Greek words quoted above were probably separated from their context; dua-rexoiicrw was taken transitively and connected with z‘;5c6p (z‘;8c‘up dz/a1'e'))£u/, Pind. Is., 6 (5) 111, being a recognized phrase for “to make water gush forth”); and drain p.e’crozz was rendered “the middle parts," En nomias. Such corruptions of the Old Testament are readily paralleled from Barnabas and Justin, although altogether unlike the method of quoting the Scripture assigned to our Lord by the synop- tists. Irony of the Fourth Gospel.