61 The beginning, with this chapter, of a series of discourses characteristic of the Gospel of John calls for some development of what has been said in note 7 upon the treatment these have received at the hands of critics. Westcott, in his conservative “Introduction to the Study of the Gospels,” has remarked that, as mom compared with the Synoptists, in the fourth Gospel there is a “transition from one world of thought to another... a contrast in form and spirit between the earlier and later narratives” (p. 249). As the leading conservative scholar in Germany says, the Johannine teaching is “esoteric” (Zahn, ii. 528). It is, however, with the statement of the narrowly “scientific” writers that we have to deal.
One of the objections of F. W. Newman (following Strauss) was that the Evangelist makes our Lord and the Baptist speak in the same, his own manner (p. 153 f.). As to this, reference might be made to the Reply to the younger Newman made in “The Irrationalism of Infidelity” by J. N. Darby, whom Mr. Benn (in a footnote of his second volume) describes as “fanatical.” The present writer, from twelve years’ acquaintance with the “Irish clergyman” towards the close of his life, found him the very opposite of what one may suppose Tertullian as a Montanist or George Fox to have been, and singularly characterized by the Pal-iliac σωφρονισμός (2 Tim. 1:77For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. (2 Timothy 1:7)). For a balanced objective appreciation, see Cheetham, “History of the Christian Church since the Reformation” (1907), p. 306 f. See, further, an interesting letter by the elder Newman in Plummer, p. 100, on the difference between the ancient and the modern mind with regard to the use of direct for indirect speech.
Renan, while accepting the historical character of the narrative portion of the Gospel, treated the speeches as romance. So Jülicher: a “philosophical fiction,” “prose poem,” and much to the same purpose you find in Weizsäcker, Pfleiderer, and the Pfleiderer and the Holtzmanns. Wendt, on the other hand, attaches more credit to the discourses than to the incidents reported, and seeks to show the harmony between the Synoptic and Johannine teaching. But, asks Wernle, is it psychologically possible that Jesus preached alternately in the manner of the Sermon on the Mount and of John 14-16? (p. 421; cf. Gardner, p. 165). Goethe does not seem to have felt any such difficulty; cf. the great difference between the second part of his “Faust” from the first. Contrast the late Dr. Hort’s “Dissertations,” etc., with his “Village Sermons.” We have to remember the very different audiences our Lord would have in Jerusalem from those in Galilee or Peru. Of course, much depends for us on the way in which we regard the mystery of His Person.
Again, German writers raise a difficulty over the “eyewitness” of the Evangelist, impeaching this in respect of the conversation with Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman, and Pilate. Briggs’ scheme of the ministry would get over this so far as regards Nicodemus, especially if we suppose (although the wind in the trees may suggest Olivet) that the Lord lodged in John’s house at Jerusalem (cf. 19:27). The record in the fourth chapter is not prejudiced by the statement that “His disciples had gone away to the city,” which are the Evangelist’s own parenthetical words, besides being in accordance with his manner; and if he himself stayed behind, he would be reticent about it, whilst the propriety of language admits of exception from the whole number of the disciples. As for Pilate’s judgment hall, the fourth Evangelist records how “the beloved disciple” hovered about the scenes of this chapter of our Lord’s sorrows, and the words exchanged between Him and Pilate may accordingly have well been within John’s hearing.
The question of possible interpolation is discussed. Delff (“Fourth Gospel,” p. 11) has suggested that a considerable amount of matter has been added by a later hand, which H. Holtzmann and Jülicher will not allow, for they insist on the unity of the book; but Wellhausen, in his lately published monograph, supports the idea. Some of his supposed “interpolations” are taken seriatim in notes below. This idea of interpolation is a favorite resource of critics when stumbling on passages which contradict their theories.
The Evangelist’s own comments are for the most part easily discerned. Such are 2:21 f., 7:39, 8:6, 11:l 31, 51 f., 12:6, 16, 33, 13:11, 18:2. Other alleged cases are uncertain, as 1:16-18, 3:13, 16-21, 31-36, where commentators differ as to who is the speaker.
Much is made of this Evangelist’s supposed dependence on Paul’s writings, the publication of all of which is generally supposed to have been intermediate between the appearance of the last of the Synoptic Gospels and that of the fourth. H. Holtzmann attributes the authorship of this to a John who was an Ephesian disciple of Paul, and quotes the Epistle to the Ephesians, as Jülicher that to the Romans, in support of this position. Holtzmann supposes that the “critical” John was afterwards confounded with the son of Zebedee, so that a later generation ascribed the writing of the Gospel to “the beloved disciple” (“Introduction,” p. 170). This notion is reflected in the American Professor Bacon’s book (“Deutero-Pauline Christianity of Theologos,” etc.). Weiss (“New Testament Theology,” ii., p. 228), on the conservative side, sees the influence of the Epistle to the Hebrews on John’s thought. There is a useful note in Salmon (p. 265) on the parallels gathered between the Pauline writings and the Johannine. See also Stevens, chapter 15., Bernard, p. 12 f. The recent English and American writers generally show scarcely more balance than the German and French (as Loisy). There is little to choose between Professor Wernle’s saying that John is a mere plagiarist of Paul (“Beginnings,” ii., pp. 262, 264, 274) and Mr. Scott’s committal to the statement, “The Evangelist is everywhere indebted to Paul” (p. 46) “for almost all his larger doctrines” (p. 49). Of course, no one could deny that, as far as we can judge from writings, “it was Paul who first conceived of the glorified Christ as the real object of faith”; the manner of his conversion determined that. That the basis of the life of each of these two Apostles was “profoundly mystical” (Illingworth, chapter 9) all would allow. But whilst Paul sets the believer in Christ before God, John sets God in Christ before the believer; in other words, the one instructs us in the Divine counsels, the other in the Divine nature. Scott speaks of John’s advancing on Paul (p. 51), but this is gratuitous: the types of doctrine are throughout really distinct. The Church had already received the Pauline scheme; the Johannine, assuming the Synoptic accounts, was needed to complete the doctrine, not of the Church, but of the Person of Christ.
Even as regards the truths of redemption, Mr. Scott is at sea. A writer must be infatuated who can say that “sin has a subordinate place” in John’s Gospel (p. 51 f.). The Evangelist’s sense of the acuteness of it is evidenced by 16:8, 9. Paul’s writings had sufficiently emphasized it in respect of man’s need. On p. 52 we are told that Paul’s doctrine of atonement has disappeared, in the sense of being transcended; and that John takes exclusive account of the Life as possessing the significance which Paul attached to the Cross. But this writer must have forgotten Rom. 5:1010For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (Romans 5:10): “Much more... we shall be saved by His life.” That John 8:33-3933They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? 34Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. 35And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. 36If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. 37I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you. 38I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:33‑39) flows from Rom. 6:16-2316Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. 18Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. 19I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. 20For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. 21What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:16‑23) (cf. Gal. 4:3030Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. (Galatians 4:30)) there is no more ground for Mr. Scott’s saying than any other writer’s alleging the converse. Indeed, it is open to so-called “apologists” to suggest that, when in the company of this “pillar” during his stay in Judæa, Paul had opportunity of learning from him as to the Lord’s ministry; for “imparted nothing to me” (Gal. 2:66But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2:6)) has reference to authority and capacity rather than to information.
62 Verse 1― “Nicodemus.” As to Abbott’s identification of him with Nicodemon, sun Gorion, who was employer of the water carriers in Jerusalem during the Passover, see Westcott, contra.
63 Verse 2.― “By night.” See note 61 above. For Nicodemus’ subsequent history, see 7:50 and 19:39. What we may learn from this state of mind in the present passage is that “it is not learning, but life, that man needs” (Govett). For the function of signs, see note 52, and cf. 5:36, 10:25, 15:24.
64 Verse 3 f.― “Anew.” So most commentators, as Godet, Westcott, Luthardt, Weiss and Zahn here and in verse 7, after the Peschito-Syriac, etc. Origen followed, amongst others, by Bengel, Meyer and Pfleiderer, prefers the meaning “from above”; “from heaven” is the interpretation put upon ἄνωθεν by most of the Greek writers. Cf. Abbott, “Johannine Vocabulary,” §1,707e, referring to verse 31 and 19: 11.
65 “The kingdom of God.” This phrase is used only here in the fourth Gospel. For the connection between the Kingdom and Life cf. Mark 9:43, 45, 4743And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (Mark 9:43)
45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (Mark 9:45)
47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (Mark 9:47), and Luke 18:18, 2418And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? (Luke 18:18)
24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! (Luke 18:24). As to other links between the second (critical first) and fourth Gospels, see notes 18, 94, 122, 130, 146 on Mark, and note on verse 5 below; and in particular the exposition at p. 366.
66 Verse 5 ff .― “Born of water and Spirit.” Advanced critics oddly support the “Catholic” tradition that Christian Baptism is here spoken of (verse 24); to this theory Scott adheres (p. 40). If Paul’s doctrine is to control the interpretation of this Gospel, why do such writers ignore a passage like Eph. 5:2626That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:26)? That the words bear some relation to the Baptism of John, which Nicodemus may have shirked, one may well believe (cf. Luke 7:3030But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. (Luke 7:30)). As to ἐκ, “out of,” and the one article in the Greek, see R. Govett’s exposition of the passage. A reference to the Jewish baptism of proselytes owes its plausibility to that practice, which originated in part from the interpretation put on Ezek. 3630And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye shall receive no more reproach of famine among the heathen. (Ezekiel 36:30). cited in the Exposition. Cf. Seeley, “Ecce Homo,” p. 98.
66a “Enter into the kingdom.” See note 99 on Mark. “Enter” seems to be always used of the time of recompense. Cf. Matt. 25:2121His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25:21), Luke 24:2626Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? (Luke 24:26), with, of course, Matt. 18:33And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 18:3), which links itself specially with this passage of John. The Messianic bearing of the first Gospel must always be kept in mind. Readers of Mr. Scott’s book might derive from it an impression that the fourth Evangelist discards that point of view, which would be a mistake.
67 Verse 11.―The Lord takes up the “We know” of Nicodemus. “We” here seems used by Christ of Himself, as in Mark 4:3030And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? (Mark 4:30). So Theophylact of old, Ryle and McRory among moderns. If it mean John the Baptist as well as Himself (so Zahn), then there is a reference to the law’s requirement of two witnesses (Govett). Luthardt, Godet and Westcott understand it of the disciples associated by the Lord with Himself.
68 Verse 13.― “That is in heaven.” Words actually spoken by the Lord on earth; not supposing the Ascension accomplished, as Weiss thinks, apparently with 6:62 in mind (cf. Arnold, “God and the Bible,” chapter 6, § 5). It is probably the later passage that induces some to take verse 13 here as parenthetical, and as words of the Evangelist himself (note 61).
As to the note on ὤν (p. 60 of the Exposition), see Winer, p. 429. Bengel has been followed by Hofmann, Luthardt, Weiss, Barth and Zahn, some founding it on the passage in chapter 6, whilst the last named writer refers to 9:25. Moulton is amongst those who reject these word.
69 Verse 15.― “Life eternal.” Oosterzee, comparing this with 6:35, says that it expresses established personal communion with Christ (“Theology of the New Testament,” p. 170). Cf. notes 106, 110 on Mark. The rendering in R.V. results from acceptance of ὲν (see critical note), whilst Mr. Kelly has followed א, etc.
70 Verses 16-18.-Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet, Westcott, Sadler, and Plummer, after Erasmus and others, take this and the following verses to 21 as words of the Evangelist himself (note 61). That, however, the third person is used does not tell against the Lord’s speaking the words may be seen from 4:10, 5:19, 29. If they are His (Zahn), Christ speaks of Himself definitely as Son of God (cf. Sanday, s. tit. in Hastings, “D. B.,” p. 572). He used the third person when speaking of Himself as Son of man also (Mark, as John).
On the significance of verse 16 for the Biblical doctrine of Atonement, see essay on that subject by Von Gerdtell, pp. 42, 77. He pulverizes the theological travesty of it, to which unbelievers have rightly shown no mercy.
For the sentiment cf., of course, Rom. 8:32, 232He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? (Romans 8:32)
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:2), Cor. 9:15. As to the scope of salvation here conflicting with the narrower outlook of the Synoptists (Matt. 10:55These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: (Matthew 10:5) f., etc.), observe that it is precisely when the Lord is speaking in Judæa that He strikes the universalistic note, and when away from there that He speaks of His mission having been to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel.” In verse 16 we have the compassion of the love of God as such (cf. note on 16:2).
Verse 17 is on the same lines as 12:47. As to 9:39, see note there.
71 Verse 19.― “Loved.” Ryle, comparing 15:8 and also Rom. 8:3030Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:30), would take the aorist here as “proleptic” ―that is, in a present sense. See, however, Mr. Kelly’s footnote on 13:31, where reference is made to the sixth verse of chapter 15.
72 Verse 20 f.-Cf. 5:29, where the same distinction obtains between ποιεῖν, said of good, and πράσσειν, of evil.
74 Verse 22.― “He. . . baptized.” Cf. verse 26. Schmiedel (col. 2,538) sets against this 4:2. But what about Pilate’s scourging JESUS, and his writing the superscription for the Cross?
75 Verse 24.―Wernle (“Sources,” p. 27 1.) treats this parenthetical note as “correcting” the Synoptists, as though they stated that the Lord’s work in Galilee, with which His ministry opens in their Gospels, was. the beginning of His public activity! Briggs, in his last book, raps the knuckles of a good many answerable for such “historical” criticism (cf. note on Mark 1:1313And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him. (Mark 1:13) f.).
76 Verse 26.―Schmiedel (col. 2,538), after H. Holtzmann, finds a contradiction here to verse 32. That is, the people say to the Baptist something, to be taken for what it is worth, to which he (or Matthew Arnold’s “theological lecturer”) takes exception. In any case, where is the self-contradiction on the part of the Evangelist? It is in connection with such cases, of course, that suggestions of dual authorship arise; but many are the cobwebs spun.
77 Verses 31-36.―The words are taken as the Baptist’s by Luthardt, Godet, Plummer and. Zahn. See, again, note 61, as for the last preceding note. Erasmus’s view, that they are the Evangelist’s, has been followed by Bengel, Tholuck, Westcott, Sadler, and Milligan Nothing seems to be gained by the suggestion, nothing to need amendment in the older view, followed by the expositor. The words may have been suggested to the Baptist by those contained in Matt. 9:1515And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast. (Matthew 9:15).
Verse 32.― “No one receiveth His testimony.” This has been set in conflict with verse 26, where, however, we meet with exaggeration of fervour: so Weiss and Westcott. The latter notes the singular darkness and hopelessness of the close of the Apostolic age (q. 1 John 5:1919And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness. (1 John 5:19)).
78 Verse 32 f.―See J. H. Newman (“Apologia,” p. 199): “In religious inquiry we arrive at certitude by accumulated probabilities.” Cf. the examination of that book by J. N. Darby. We have in verse 33 the touchstone of the quality of a man’s “faith.”
79 Verse 36.―Mr. Darby, in his version, has rendered ἀπειθῶν, “not subject,” as supporting the view that the Baptist was the speaker (cf. Luke 3:77Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Luke 3:7)). The words of this verse expose the delusion of a modern idea that, because God is love, He forgives as such, not because of the death of His Son.