23333352332%:

i),',l,',l,',l,VI,'.l.',l,U,VI,',l,'.l,',l,',l.',l,',I.UAl,',I.M,'.l.',l.',l.'.l,M.M,,'.I.M,!.l,'.l.!.l.TC

Library of the
pile IDtvfnttg Scbool

The Books of
Ifrank Cbamberlatn porter
Winkley Professor of
Biblical Theology

rlVITOi'lVIVI'i'i  gmg  rl'l'l'l'IVI'i'lVlvi  ¦¦iviriviyiviywiyivmR

A4.-J--). ^*

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

By the Same Author.

THE PAULINE THEOLOGY. A Study of the
Origin and Correlation of the Doctrinal Teach
ings of the Apostle Paul. Cr. 8vo. $2.00.

THE

JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
A STUDY OF THE
DOCTRINAL CONTENTS
OF
THE GOSPEL AND EPISTLES OF
THE APOSTLE JOHN

GEORGE B. STEVENS, Ph.D., D.D.
PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRETATION
IN YALE UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1894

FX7D
StHr(j cop. \

Copyright, 1894, -
By Charles Scribner's Sons.

Mntbersitg -Press:
John Wilson and Son, Cambridge, U.S.A.

TO
TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D., LL.D.
PRESIDENT OP YALE UNIVERSITY
MY INSTRUCTOR AND MY PREDECESSOR IN THE CHAIR OF NEW
TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION
I DEDICATE THIS VOLUME
AS A TOKEN OF GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION

PKEFACE
The aim of this volume is to present, in system
atic form, the theological contents of the Gospel and
Epistles of John. No account is here taken of the
Apocalypse, since, whatever view be held respecting
its authorship, it represents a type of teaching so
peculiar in its form and matter that it should be
treated separately. Accordingly, most writers on
Biblical theology discuss its contents as a distinct
subject, whether they ascribe it to the author of the
Gospel and Epistles or not.
The purpose of my work also determines its scope.
My plan did not require me to discuss the vexed
literary questions connected with the writings which
form the subject of my study. I ascribe these
writings to the apostle John, but my task would not
have been essentially different upon any other sup
position respecting their authorship. The Gospel
and Epistles which are commonly attributed to
John present a certain distinctive type of Christian
teaching, and this it has been my effort to interpret.
I should have undertaken briefly to trace the history
and describe the present state of criticism respecting
the Fourth Gospel, had not this work been ade
quately done by others. I would refer the reader, in

vni PREFACE
this connection, to two articles by Professors Schurer
and Sanday, respectively, in the Contemporary Review
for September and October, 1891. Schiirer's article
presents the negative, Sanday's the positive view
respecting the apostolic authorship of the Gospel.
The history of this controversy is reviewed at length,
on the conservative side, by Archdeacon Watkins,
in his Bampton Lectures for 1890, entitled Modem
Criticism considered in its Relation to the Fourth
Gospel. I would especially commend to the student
the arguments for the apostolic authorship of the
Fourth Gospel by Dr. Ezra Abbot,1 Bishop Lightfoot,2
3 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel : External Evidences, pub
lished in Dr. Abbot's posthumous Critical Essays, Boston, 1888 ;
also in a volume entitled The Fourth Gospel (Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, 1892), which contains one of the articles of
Bishop Lightfoot referred to in the next note, and another by
Dr. A. P. Peabody. These last two articles are on the internal
evidence. Dr. Abbot's Essay is also published separately
(Boston, 1880). It was originally printed in The Unitarian
Review for February, March, and June, 1880. Statements of the
argument, on the negative side, may be found in Keim's Jesus
of Nazara, S. Davidson's Introduction, Holtzmann's Einleitung
and Hand-Commentar, E. A. Abbott's article Gospels in the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, and Cone's Gospel Criticism and His
torical Christianity.
2 Two dissertations, one on the internal and the other on
the external evidence, will be found in the late Bishop Light-
foot's Biblical Essays (London and New York, 1893). The
former of these was originally published in The Expositor for
January, February, and March, 1890, and was reprinted in the
volume, The Fourth Gospel, referred to in the preceding note.
The essay on the external evidence was printed from lecture-

PREFACE ix
and President Dwight.1 Mr. R. H. Hutton's essay
on The Historical Problems of the Fourth Gospel (in
his Theological Essays) is an able review and refuta
tion of Baur's objections to its genuineness.
The problem of authorship is not the only literary
problem which the Fourth Gospel presents. For
those who hold John to be its author there remains
the interesting and important question as to its his-
torical accuracy. Its account of the words and deeds
of Jesus differs to such an extent in language and
subject-matter from the account contained in the
Synoptic Gospels, that candid scholarship cannot
avoid the inquiry as to their relation and relative
correctness. Are we to suppose that Jesus uttered
verbatim the long discourses which John reports, and
which are so different in style and matter from the
Synoptic discourses ? It can hardly be doubted that
at least the form of these reports is more or less
affected by the apostle's own thought and reflection.
But this admission implies a subjective element
in the Fourth Gospel. To define its limits with
absolute precision is a task for which we have no
adequate data. We can establish the substantial
notes and is found only in Biblical Essays. In this same vol
ume are found important additions to the essay on the internal
evidence as originally published. The two essays, with the
additions, make nearly two hundred pages of the volume, and
are of the highest value.
1 Introductory Suggestions with reference to the Internal Evi
dence, appended to vol. i. of the American edition of Godet's
Commentary on the Gospel of John, New York, 1886.

X PREFACE
agreement in underlying ideas between John's ver
sion of the teaching of Jesus and that of the Synop-
tists. It would seem evident, however, that the
apostle has given us this teaching in his own words,
and in the shape and color which it had assumed
through long reflection upon its contents and mean
ing. But whatever conclusion may be reached
respecting these problems, it holds true that
the Fourth Gospel represents in all its parts the
Johannine theology. The question concerning the
subjective element in John is a question for literary
criticism rather than for Biblical theology. Since
we have to deal exclusively with the contents of
the book as a product of its author's mind, the
validity of our results will not be dependent upon
any views which may be entertained respecting the
accuracy of his narratives.
In the preparation of this volume I have pursued
substantially the same method as was employed in
my treatise on the Pauline Theology.1 I have
sought to exhibit the salient features of the type of
teaching with which I have dealt, and to show how
the leading ideas stand related to one another and
to the writer's method of thought. Since this
method is intuitional rather than logical, it is more
difficult than in the case of Paul to determine pre
cisely the correlation of his ideas. It has seemed to
1 The Pauline Theology, a Study of the Origin and Cor
relation of the Doctrinal Teachings of the Apostle Paul. Charles
Scribner's Sons, New York, 1892.

PREFACE xj
me, however, that this task could be, in a good
degree, accomplished by giving close attention to
the peculiarities of John's thinking, and by taking as
our guides a few fundamental and comprehensive
ideas in which his whole theology seems to centre.
In the first chapter on the peculiarities of John's
theology I have sought to indicate how the scattered
elements of doctrine in John may be traced up into
the unity of certain great comprehensive conceptions.
I have hoped by applying this method, to make clear
the genetic connection of the writer's thoughts, and
the real unity and simplicity of his teaching.
The Bibliography which is appended to the volume
will guide the student to the most important recent
literature of the subject. I have thought that it
would prove useful, in addition, to prefix to each
chapter a special account of the literature which
might well be consulted in the further study of the
various topics treated. I have made these references
somewhat detailed by giving specific titles, number
of pages, etc., in order that the student may form
some judgment in advance respecting the nature and
scope of the discussions. These various references
to literature may also serve to indicate my own
indebtedness to other writers on the theology of
John. I have derived more or less assistance from
almost all the authors to whose writings I have
referred. My work has been chiefly done, however,
on the basis of the text itself. I have been more
aided by a few standard commentaries — especially

XU PREFACE
those of Meyer, Westcott, Haupt, Weiss, and Plum-
mer — than by any other books outside the Johannine
writings themselves.
No treatise which purports to furnish a critical
and systematic presentation of the theology of John
has hitherto been composed in English. The works
of Sears, Lias, and Peyton, which are cited in the
Bibliography under the head of Treatises on the
Johannine Theology, are either too limited in scope,
or too apologetic or purely practical in aim, to be
regarded as works on Biblical theology in any
very strict sense. Nor is there any recent German
work distinctly on the subject. The most recent
and the most satisfactory one — at least, as respects
method, scope, and thoroughness — is that of Weiss,
published in 1862. It can hardly be doubted, there
fore, that there is room in our theological literature
for an exposition of the theology of John, which
shall set forth the salient features of this great t^v,e
of New Testament teaching. The Johannine con
ceptions of religious truth are destined to hold a
larger place in theological thought than has usually
been accorded to them. I shall be gratified if this
volume serves in some measure to elucidate and
emphasize some of those conceptions, to make more
manifest their great depth and richness, and to
illustrate their value for Christian thought and life.
G. B. S.
Yale University,
Sept. 1, 1894.

CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. The Peculiarities of John's Theology , . 1
II. The Relation of John's Theology to the
Old Testament  22
III. The Idea of God in the Writings of John 46
IV. The Doctrine of the Logos  74
V. The Union of the Son with the Father . 102
VI. The Doctrine of Sin  127
VII. The Work of Salvation  156
VIII. The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit .... 189
IX. The Appropriation of Salvation .... 218
X. The Origin and Nature of the Spiritual
Life  ,  241
XI. The Doctrine of Love  266
XII. The Doctrine of Prayer  290
XIII. The Doctrine of Eternal Life  312
XIV. The Johannine Eschatology  328
XV. The Theology of John and of Paul Com
pared  355
Bibliography  373
Index of Texts  377
General Index  881

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
CHAPTER I
THE PECULIARITIES OP JOHN'S THEOLOGY
Literature. — Westcott : The Gospel according to St. John,
Characteristics of the Gospel, pp. lxvi.-lxxvii. ; Weiss : Bibl.
Theol., The Character of the Johannean Theology, ii. 315-320
(orig. 589-593) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol, Eigenart des
Lehrbegriffs, ii. 404-406 ; Kostlin : Johann. Lehrbegriff, All-
gemeiner Character des Johanneischen Lehrbegriffs, pp. 38-72 ;
Sears : The Heart of Christ, The Johannean Writings, their
Congruity, Interior Relations, etc., pp. 64-90; Gloag: Intro
duction to the Johannine Writings, The Theology of John, pp. 236-
263 ; Farrar : The Early Days of Christianity, chap, xxxiii.,
Characteristics of the Mind and Style of St. John (various edi
tions) ; Reuss : Hist, of Christ. Theol., etc., General Outline of
the Theology of John, ii. 375-382 (orig. ii. 418-428); Haupt:
The First Epistle of John, Theological Principles of the Epistle,
pp. 375-385 (orig. pp. 320-329) ; Cone : The Gospel and its Earli
est Interpretations, etc., chap, v., The Johannine Transformation,
pp. 267-317 ; Horton : Revelation and the Bible, The Johan
nine Writings, pp. 369-402 ; Neander : Planting and Train
ing of the Christian Church, The Doctrine of John, ii. 28-57
(Bohn ed.) ; E. Caird : The Evolution of Religion, The Gospel
of St. John and the Idea of a Divine Humanity, ii. 217-243.
Biblical theology undertakes to define the peculiar
ities of the various types of teaching which are found
in Sacred Scripture. It aims to distinguish each type
as sharply as possible from every other, in order to
l

2 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
set the given writer's method of thought and style
of argument in the strongest relief. This process
does not prejudice the underlying unity of the differ
ent types, but by its sharp discriminations it enables
us to define the nature and limitations of that unity.
The fundamental unity in doctrine among the various
Biblical books cannot be clearly discerned without a
close study of each author separately, or of each group
of books which naturally belong together.
No type of New Testament teaching has more of
individuality than the Johannine ; none has charac
teristics at once more marked and more difficult to
define. The peculiarities of John's thought elude
exact description. They are felt by all attentive
readers, but they almost defy the effort to deduce
from them the modes and laws of the writer's own
thinking upon the great themes of religion.
I should place among the most prominent of John's
peculiarities the tendency to group his thoughts around
certain great central truths. Whatever may have
been the actual order in which his ideas were un
folded in his mind, it is noticeable that in his presen
tation of them in the Gospel and in the First Epistle
his thought moves out from certain formative and
determining conceptions which he has of his subject.
Whatever be the interpretation of the prologue, or
the origin of its ideas, it is certain that it is designed
to present the apostle's loftiest conception of the per
son of his Master, and of his relation to mankind.
The writer starts from this height of contemplation.

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 3
In a way somewhat analogous, the First Epistle opens
with a reference to eternity, in which the content of
the gospel message was stored up ready to come to
the world in Christ. In both cases this secret of
God which is to be disclosed to mankind is life or
light. The Word was the bearer of life, " and the
life was the light of men " (i. 4) ; x so also in the
Epistle the import of the heavenly mystery which
Jesus discloses is life (I. i. 2), and the "message"
which he brought to the world is summed up in the
truth that "God is light" (I. i. 5).
We thus see how the apostle has concentrated his
thought upon a profound conception, which hence
forth became for him the epitome of all that he had
to teach. He grounds the work of Christ in his per
son. It is, in part, this order of thought which leads
him to place his highest claims for the person of
Christ at the opening of his Gospel. The incarnate
life of Jesus is, to use one of Horace Bushnell's
words, the "transactional" revelation of principles
and forces which are essential and eternal in his
very being. His bringing of life and light to men
on his mission to earth was grounded in the larger
and deeper truth that he had always been illumining
the minds of men. All through the Old Testament
1 Passages from the Fourth Gospel are referred to simply
by chapter and verse, without any further designation, thus :
viii. 42. To passages from the Epistles I have prefixed a
numeral in large type, indicating the number of the Epistle
from which the citation is made, thus : I. iv. 8 : H. 4, etc.

4 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
period of revelation the true light of the Logos was
shining into the lives, not of the Jews only, but of all
men (i. 9, 10). This fact, again, was based on the
essential nature of the Logos, who was with God in
the beginning, and was God. But in the development
of his thought John starts from this last and highest
point. Thus, the specific Messianic mission of Jesus
to earth is grounded in his universal relation to the
world and man, and this relation, in turn, is grounded
in his essential nature.
In accord with this mode of thought, we find that
the action of God is always conceived of as springing
from the divine nature. John is thus by pre-eminence
the theologian in the original sense of that word.
More explicitly than any other New Testament writer
he sets his idea of God in relation to all his teaching.
What God has done in revelation and redemption it
was according to his nature to do. If God has loved
the world, it is because he is love. If he has en
lightened the world, it is because he is light. In
revealing himself to men in Christ, he has expressed
under a personal form his own thoughts, feelings, and
will. The revelation does not consist primarily in
announcements made about God ; it consists rather
in the coming to men of One who, in his own person
and character, is a transcript of the divine nature. In
John's interpretation of the revelation, it consists in
what Jesus Christ is, in his power to say : " I and the
Father are one " (x. 30) ; " He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9). God has not merely

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 5
sent to mankind a message, but has come to the
world in Christ, who embodies in his own person the
Father's will and nature.
It is very clear that in the First Epistle, John de
duces his whole teaching concerning the nature and
demands of the Christian life from the idea of the
ethical nature of God. Having said that the import
of the gospel message is that God is light (I. i. 5), he
proceeds to show that this holy purity of God must,
on the one hand, make Christians see and feel that
sin still clings to them, and, on the other, show them
what is the true nature of the life which they profess.
When we know that God is light we know that we
are still sinful, but we also see the path which leads
from all sin unto himself. In the light of God we
see that he has provided for the forgiveness of our
sins and for our fellowship with each other in Chris
tian love. These ideas are unfolded by no formal
process of reasoning ; but they are not, on that
account, less plainly developed from the truth that
God is light (I. i. S— ii. 6).
This truth also involves the principle and duty of
love. Light and love are synonyms. He that loves
is dwelling and walking in the light, while he who
hates is in darkness. The nature of God as light or
love determines the law and requirement of the Chris
tian life (I. ii. 7-11). The same relation is denned
even more explicitly in I. iv. 7-21, where the apostle
shows that since God is love, the principle of love
is the essential requirement of religion and the bond

6 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of all true brotherhood. Love is divine. It has
its primal source in God. The love of God for us
explains our endowment with capacity to love him in
return, and this answering love of the heart to God
carries with it the obligation to love our fellow-men,
who are one with us by virtue of a common nature,
and by being, like ourselves, the object of God's
fatherly love. The tendency of John to refer all the
duties and demands of religion to the moral nature
of God as their source and norm, is nowhere better
illustrated than in the passage : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God ; and every one that
loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He
that loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is love "
(I. iv. 7, 8).
This peculiarity of thought, which centralizes ideas
in their logical source or ground, is pervading and
fundamental in the writings of John. It is partially
described by the terms by which the Gospel and
Epistles are commonly characterized, such as " spirit
ual," " intuitive," " contemplative." These and kin
dred designations have their truth in the fact that
the apostle's mind penetrates to the heart of things,
and dwells in rapt contemplation upon those deepest
realities with which all true religion is mainly con
cerned. Religion is altogether a matter of personal
relations. It is God-likeness, fellowship with Christ,
sympathy with his spirit, fraternal helpfulness among
men. John's treatment of the truths of religion is
intensely ethical and spiritual. It deals wholly with

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 7
the relations between God and man, and with those
of men to one another. It is characterized by an
intense sense of God. It is contemplative, mystical,
emotional, but not in the sense of being vague or
shadowy. The most secure of all realities is God.
The apostle is most certain as to what kind of a
being, in his essential nature, God is, especially in his
feeling toward the world. He knows that he is light,
— pure, glorious, diffusive, beneficent, life-giving. He
knows that he is love, — condescending, pitying,
sympathetic, forgiving. These deep truths he has
read in the life of Christ. Of all the disciples he
most clearly penetrated to those divinest truths
which lay at the root of every specific precept, par
able, or miracle of the Saviour. To John the life,
teaching, and death of Jesus are the language in
which God has written out most plainly his deepest
thoughts and feelings toward mankind. His con
ception of the life of Christ is well expressed in
Tennyson's lines : —
And so the Word had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds
In loveliness of perfect deeds.
Just as the acts of God flow out of his nature, and
the work of Christ is grounded on what he is, so the
acts and choices of men are determined by what the
men are in their fixed preferences and character.
This correspondence between character and conduct
John does not conceive after the manner of philo
sophical determinism ; he treats it as the result of

8 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
an ethical necessity. The Jews did not understand
Jesus' speech because they could not hear his word
(viii. 43). It was none the less true that they would
not hear it. The moral inability to hear his word
sprang out of their deep-set opposition in character
and spirit to that which he taught. In such cases
the ethical kinship of men is often denoted by say
ing that they are " of God " (viii. 42, 47 ; I. iii. 10 ;
I. iv. 4, 6), or " of the devil " (I. iii. 8) ; " of the truth "
(I. iii. 19), or "of the world" (I. ii. 15, 16 ; I. iv. 5),
and the like. A man does the things which are
consonant with the moral sphere of motive and in
terest to which he belongs, and in which he dwells
and walks. To be of God, or to be born of God, is
to live a life of which God is the determining power ;
to be of the Evil One is to live a life of sin. He
who is of the truth is described as belonging to it,
so that it is his encompassing element, determining
the whole quality and tendency of his being. The
truth is in him ; he does not merely possess it ; it
has its seat and home in him, and sways his life in
all its aspirations and issues. He, on the other hand,
who is of the world, lives a life of transitory pleas
ures, and all the expressions of his interest and
desire are determined by motives of selfishness.
It naturally results from this mode of view that
man is regarded as a unit in all his powers and
actions. All the acts of a man involve his total
personality. This is the reason why terms descrip
tive of acts and choices have with John so compre-

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 9
hensive a sense. To know the truth, for example,
is to be free, and to have eternal life ; but this does
not mean, for the apostle, that the religious life is
an intellectual affair, consisting in the mere posses
sion of knowledge. To know the truth is to possess
it as a determining power in one's life ; to know God
is to be in harmony and sympathy with his will.
John's mode of thought is, in these respects, syn
thetic rather than analytic. He never separates mind
and heart, will and emotion. In this he is true to
life. The truths of religion make their appeal to
the entire man. He who really knows God, in the
apostle's sense of the word know, also obeys, trusts,
and loves God. These various terms designate, no
doubt, distinguishable phases of the religious life
and spirit ; but they cannot be separated, and should
not be treated as if they could exist apart. The
application of analytic thought to religion breaks it up
into various departments, and often subdivides these,
making the religious life an elaborate programme,
and the conditions of salvation an extended series of
exercises or ordo salutis. John's mode of thought is
the opposite of all this. He simplifies and unifies acts
and experiences which modern minds have learned
sharply to discriminate, and even to treat apart.
It certainly can be justly said that, necessary as
discrimination and analysis are in dealing with the
truths of religion, the apostle's method of thought is
that which corresponds best with normal and healthy
religious life. His conception of religion is adverse

10 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
to all narrowness and one-sidedness. As against the
Gnostic over-emphasis of knowledge, he insisted that
he only who does righteousness is righteous (I. iii. 7).
The mere intellectual possession of truth cannot suf
fice ; truth is not merely something to be known,
but something to be done (iii. 21 ; I. i. 6). The
Christian is to walk in the truth as his native ele
ment (II. 4 ; III. 3, 4) ; the truth dwells within him
(viii. 44 ; I. ii. 4), controls and guides him ; he
belongs to it, and draws from, it the strength and
inspiration of his life (xviii. 37 ; I. ii. 21 ; I. iii. 19).
Doctrine and life are inseparable. John -never thinks
of the truths of religion as dead, cold forms which
one might hold without livjng the life which corre
sponds to them. Such a mere intellectual assent to
truth would have for religion, in his view, no value
or significance. Religion is life after the type which
has been perfectly exemplified in Jesus Christ; but
it is life in a full and rich, not in a narrow and lim
ited, sense. It is a life that is abundant, a life which
embraces the fullest activity and best development
of the entire man. All powers and gifts should con
tribute to its enrichment. It should draw its supplies
from the deepest sources, — abiding fellowship with
God, and ethical likeness to him. Neither a barren
intellectualism nor a dreamy and unpractical mys
ticism in religion could ever develop along the lines
of teaching which John has marked out. All such
excesses would be excluded by the very comprehen
siveness and depth of his idea.

PECULIARITIES OF JOHNS THEOLOGY 11
The mind of the apostle seems to see all things in
their principles and essential ideas. This peculiarity
of thought gives rise to a species of realism. All
the forces of goodness are comprehended by him
under some general idea, like light or truth, while
all the forms of evil are summed up as darkness or
falsehood. The whole course of history illustrates
the conflict of these opposing powers or principles.
The individual is allied to the one or to the other.
The character and actions of men correspond to the
principle which sways their lives. Individual acts
spring out of the deep affinities of the soul. What
men desire and choose is determined with a moral
necessity by the governing idea of their lives. " Thus
it happens," as Haupt has so aptly said, " that his
tory appears to John not so much as a sum of indi
vidual free human acts, interwoven with one another,
but rather is for him a great organism, — if one will
not object to the word, — a process, the inner law of
whose development is as much prescribed to it, and
as naturally flows from it, as the plant springs from
the seed. For everything individual stands inevit
ably and immediately, consciously or unconsciously,
in the service of the idea. History is for John the
outworking of the idea, the body which the idea
assumes to itself ; and this body is naturally con
formed to the soul — that is, to the idea — which
builds it for itself. History is the invisible trans
lated into the visible." x
1 Der erste Brief des Johannes, pp. 321, 322.

12 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
The apostle's habit of thinking in antitheses is an
illustration of this peculiarity of his mind. Accord
ingly, his writings are characterized by a species of
dualism, — not the metaphysical dualism which makes
evil an essential and eternal principle of the universe,
but a moral dualism which, as a matter of fact, finds
illustration in human history from the beginning of
the race. The moral history of mankind is the con
flict of light and darkness, the shining of the true
light in the world's darkness, and an appropriation,
but slow and partial, of the light by the darkness.
Attention should here be directed to the way in
which John conceives religion, as consisting in this
immediate personal relation of the soul to God or to
Christ. Religion is, above all things, fellowship with
God, and this fellowship involves likeness to God. It
is such an abiding in God, such a walking in his light,
that the soul becomes possessed of something of the
purity and love which dwell perfectly in God. The
religious life begins with an impartation from God.
\To be born of God means to receive from him a com
munication of spiritual life whereby the soul is more
and more transformed into Christlikeness. To the
mind of John religion signifies the progressive attain
ment by man of his true type or idea, — not, indeed,
by efforts of his own, but by his appropriation and use
of that divine power which God freely bestows upon
him. To be begotten of God is to be righteous, even
as Christ is righteous (I. ii. 29). The Christlike life is
the true life, and the only true life. Hence our author

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 13
insists with great energy that Christianity means
pure character. "He that doeth righteousness is
righteous, even as he [Christ] is righteous " (I. iii. 7).
Between the Christian life and sin there is an abso
lute contrariety in principle. The Christian man is
characteristically righteous, and while sin still cleaves
to him (I. i. 8-10), he cannot live the life of habitual
sin (d/jLapTtav ov iroteV) (I. iii. 9). The Christian man
has been cleansed ; but as the traveller in Oriental
lands needs, on coming in from the dusty street, to
wash his feet, so the Christian needs to be purified
from the sin which still cleaves to his life (xiii. 10).
But supremely and characteristically sinful he can
not be ; that would be a contradiction in terms.
Hence, with his strong emphasis on the governing
idea of the religious life, and with his intense sense of
its characteristic quality, John does not hesitate to
affirm : " Every one who abideth in him sinneth not "
(oi>x dfiaprdvei) ; " Every one who has been begotten
from God does not do sin, because his seed abides in
him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten
of God " (I. iii. 6, 9).
Another peculiarity of the Johannine theology is
seen in the way in which the apostle blends the
religious life in this world with the eternal spiritual
order. By his conception of erternal life as a present
possession he unites this world with the world to
come. To his mind the spiritual life is the heavenly
life already begun. He comprehends the particular
in the universal, and estimates all things in the light

14 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of eternity. Therefore the individual life that is
formed upon the divine pattern belongs by its very
nature to the world of abiding realities. Since it is
the life of fellowship with God, it partakes of his own
purity, and has in it the elements of true strength,
endurance, and growth. The idea of eternal life
which is found in the Fourth Gospel springs directly
out of the Johannine mysticism. Whenever man
receives the impartation of the Spirit of God and
walks in fellowship with God, eternal life is begun.
Heaven and earth are near together, and that which
separates iiiem is not death, but sin.
It will be apparent from the considerations which
have thus far been presented that John has given us
a purely ethical and spiritual conception of religion.
The whole emphasis is raid upon the inner quality of
the life. True worship is rroia^he heart, and may be
offered anywhere. Nothing is saioKof institutions,
not even of the Church. No emphasis /is laid upon
sacraments. The establishment of the/Lord's Supper
is not recorded. The references to baptism are quite
incidental, and are chiefly to John's baptism. The
practice of baptism as a Christian rite receives no
emphasis, unless the somewhat doubtful reference in
iii. 5, "Except a man bev\,ori}i of water and the
Spirit," etc., be referred to baptism; and, in that
case, as Reuss remarks, " baptisV is represented as
a symbol of the spiritual birth, a\pd not as the com
memorative sign of an association.";' x It looks toward
1 Hist. Christ. Theol. ii. 491 (oifig. ii. 548).

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 15
union with Christ, and not toward union among
believers in a community. The type of mind which
our author illustrates, naturally concentrates its
interest mainly upon the immediate relation of the
soul to God. This is not done after the manner of
a narrow subjective individualism. Duties to fellow-
men are repeatedly emphasized. The person of Christ
is not for John a mere ideal to be contemplated with
devout rapture ; the Master's life was the pattern of
service. It was not, however, the outward aspects of
his life, but the underlying motives and principles
of it, which appealed most powerfully to the mind
and heart of John. It was not the mere fact that
he once performed an act of menial service in wash
ing the disciples' feet ; but it was the relation in which
this service stood to the truth that he came forth
from God and was going unto God (xiii. 3), to which
John attaches such great significance. Indeed, the
whole historic life of Christ seemed to him to be
grounded in the eternal self-revealing impulse in God,
and to express in terms of human life and experience
the nature and thoughts of God which in all ages he
had been making known in other ways to men (i. 4,
5, 9, 10).
Let us now raise the inquiry, What elements of
Christian doctrine is the Johannine theology especially
adapted to supply ? It will hardly be questioned, I
suppose, by any student of theology, that the Johan
nine type of thought has been far less influential than
the Pauline type in shaping the great dogmatic sys-

16 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
terns. The Christian doctrine of God has usually
been developed from the legal conceptions of his
nature and relations to men which underlie Paul's
Jewish forms of thought. The dominant idea of
John concerning the nature of God as light or love
has not been the characteristic and central conception
of the prevailing historic theologies. It has had its
influence, but it has not occupied the commanding
place which it occupied in the mind of the apostle
John. Christian thought concerning God has con
tinued through all the centuries predominantly Jewish,
taking its color from the terms of Paul's polemic
against Judaism, and growing more and more stereo
typed in that form through the influence upon it of
the severe logic of certain great minds of a strongly
legal cast, such as Augustine, Calvin, and Grotius.
In direct connection with this legalistic tendency
of thought concerning God stands the fact that the
soteriology of the Church has been characteristically
Pauline. The way of salvation has been expounded
in rigid adherence to Paul's doctrine of juridical jus
tification. The Pauline legal method of thought —
rendered natural to his mind by his Jewish educa
tion, and made especially necessary by his conflicts
with Judaizing errors — has, in great part, given the
law to all Christian thinking on the subject. The
conception of God's nature as consisting primarily
and essentially of retributive justice, the idea of his
absolute decrees, and the application of commercial
and governmental analogies to the work of his grace

PECULIARITIES OP JOHN'S THEOLOGY 17
in redemption, flow directly out of the Jewish aspects
of Paul's thought. It is aside from my present pur
pose to pursue the inquiry, how far this development
of thought was justifiable and wholesome, and how
far one-sided and misleading. The fact, however,
can hardly be denied that the more mystical and
purely ethical methods of thought which are illus
trated in John have had but a sporadic influence in
historic theology. I venture the opinion that theol
ogy would have been vastly deepened and enriched,
had the profoundly spiritual thought of John per
meated and shaped it in anything like the degree
in which the polemics of Paul have done. With
out detracting in the smallest measure from the
great truths which Paulinism has contributed to
Christian thought, it appears to me that there is
much reason to desire that the spiritual mysticism of
John may in time to come acquire its legitimate in
fluence in Christian theology and life. The theology
of John is consonant in spirit with that of Paul in
its highest ranges ; but it represents a mode of thought
concerning God and his grace in salvation that is
distinctly higher than the legalism of Paul, which
he brought over from Judaism, and which supplied
his weapons of war against his adversaries rather
than furnished his favorite forms for the purely
positive expression of the truths of his gospel. In
any case, Paul's more legal mode of thought may
well be supplemented by John's more spiritual mode ;
his argumentative handling of religious truth by

18 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
John's more direct and intuitive presentation of it,'
and his more analytic method by John's more syn
thetic method, which binds together all separate
truths in the great all-comprehending truth that
God is love.
It is not in the interest of Christian thinking
chiefly, but in the interest of Christian life, that I
would urge the value of the teaching and spirit of
the Johannine writings. The tendency of an in
creased appreciation and application of John's methods
of thought must be to lead to a better adjustment
of doctrine and life. A one-sided adherence to the
polemics of Paul — called out by the peculiar con
ditions of his age — has given to our Protestant
theology a formally logical aspect which has often
made religion too much a set of opinions, and" too
little a life of fellowship with God. This tendency
has often set dogma above life, and theology above
religion. It is certain that theology and religion are
inseparable, and that they react upon each other ; but
religion is primary, theology secondary. Theology
is the intellectual construction of the realities which
in religion are known and experienced. Theology
is theory, religion is life. Theology purports to be
the intellectual equivalent — which must always be
approximate only — of the realities of the religious
life. The true method of thought respecting theology
and religion is not to separate them, but to assign to
each of them its true function. Our Lord's primary
concern was religion, — that men should love and

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 19
trust God, and live in harmony with his require
ments. But these primary truths of religion raise
at once great theological questions : What is God's
nature ? What are his requirements, and how does
he make them known to us ? There can be no
religion without theology, — unless religion can be
divorced from thought, since theology begins with
the simplest efforts of the mind to construe its relig
ious ideas and experiences, and to interpret their
significance, ground, and end. But for this very
reason theology is secondary. It is religious thought,
— reflection upon religious truth and experience, —
and therefore quite distinct from religious life.
Theology is to religion what a theory of knowledge
is to our actual consciousness of ourselves and of
the objects about us. No human being attains fully
developed reason without some wonder, inquiry, or
reflection concerning the way in which he knows
himself and the world ; but his thought respecting
these perceptions — be it ever so simple or ever so
profound — is clearly distinguishable from the actual
living experience in which he knows himself and
the world.
The apostle John has placed in the foreground of
all his teaching the realities of the religious life, —
God as love, man as needy, fellowship with God
through likeness to Christ as eternal life. He had
no occasion so to overlay these primal truths with
arguments that they should present themselves to
the mind primarily as matter for reasoning ; he pre-

20 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sents them rather to the heart, with the certainty
that they will meet the conscious wants of mankind.
His teaching summons men, first of all, to live the
sort of life which Jesus Christ has revealed and il
lustrated. He seems to feel that in the living of
that life lies the guaranty of essentially right ideas
concerning God and man and duty. He seems will
ing to trust the religious life to give direction and
shape to religious thought. He thus places at the
centre what is by its very nature central. His
method of treating religion — could it have had its
legitimate effect in the Christian life of the world —
would have tended strongly to the preservation of
unity and harmony among Christians. The divis
ions of Christendom have arisen mainly from intel
lectual, and not from religious, differences. They
have been differences which have not, in the main,
touched the real essential unity in which believers
stand through their common fellowship with Christ.1
1 Compare the observations of E. H. Sears on this point in
his treatise on the Fourth Gospel : " We cannot move toward
the Christ without coming closer to each other. Leave him
out and his unitizing Word, and let every man strike out for
himself, and we tend to a crumbling individualism, to endless
distraction and confusion. But those who acknowledge Jesus .
Christ as the supreme authority and guide, and enter more
into his all-revealing mind, are making progress toward the
harmonizing truths which he represents. However wide apart
they may be at the start, their progress is ever on converging
lines. Essential truth becomes more and more central and
manifest, the non-essential falls away to its subordinate place,
and orthodox and unorthodox move alike toward a higher

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY 21
The assertion of Maurice that those who fraternize
on any other basis than that of fellowship with
Christ thereby deny the only true ground of Christ
ian fellowship, is a just inference from John's con
ception of the unity of Christendom. This unity is
real, despite all the efforts of men to destroy it by
their conflicts of opinion and theory. It underlies
their differences ; and if the time shall ever come
when Christianity is seen to be primarily not a
dogma, but a life, it will reassert itself, and reduce
to insignificance those superficial divisions among
Christians which different modes of thought respect
ing metaphysics, polity, and ritual have created in
the essentially indivisible Church of Christ. To the
attainment of this end I believe the teachings and
spirit of the apostle John are especially adapted to
contribute.and higher unity. It is not that any one sect is making a con
quest of the others, but Jesus Christ is making a conquest of
us all." — The Heart of Christ, p. 516.

CHAPTER II
THE EELATION OF JOHN'S THEOLOGY TO THE OLD
TESTAMENT
Literature. — Franke : Das Alte Testament bei Johannes;
Wendt: Teaching of Jesus, Attitude toward the Old Testa
ment in the Johannine discourses, ii. 35-48 (orig. pp. 356-
368) ; Weiss : Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Zweiter Abschnitt,
Die Alttestamentlichen Grundlagen des johanneischen Lehr
begriffs, especially pp. 101-128 ; Biblical Theology, The prepara
tory revelation of God, ii. 384-392 (§ 152) ; O. Holtzmann :
Das Johannesevangelium, Das Johannesevangelium und das
Alte Testament, pp. 182-195 ; Beyschlag : Neutestamenlliche
Theologie, Wurdigung des Alten Testaments, i. 229-232;
Westcott : The Gospel of St. John, Introduction, Relation (of
the Gospel) to the Old Testament, pp. lxvi-lxix ; Godet : Com
mentary, The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Religion of
the Old Testament, i. 127-134 (Am. Ed.).
Foe the apostle John, Christianity is the absolute
religion. The Old Testament system was preparatory
and provisional. It was, indeed, a divine system, but
it was special in its nature. Underneath it, and oper
ating through it, has ever been the essential gospel
of the self-revealing Word. The religion of the Old
Testament was a product of this self-revelation in its
earlier stages, the purpose of which was to prepare
the way for the personal manifestation and work of

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 23
the Logos. The Old Testament religion and Christ
ianity are one, so far as their origin and aim are
concerned ; they differ as the temporary form differs
from the permanent substance. " The law was given
(ehodrf) by Moses;" it was a temporary, historic
form which revelation assumed for a special purpose ;
but " grace and truth " — the full and final revelation
of God's free love, the realization of the heavenly
realities — "came (eyeVero) by Jesus Christ" (i. 17).
The two words by which the introduction of the two
systems is described suggest, respectively, their differ
ing nature. The law-system is a temporary polity,
embodying essential contents of divine truth, framed
by a human agent ; it is introduced, established,
" given." The gospel is a system of spiritual truths
and principles, or, rather, it is the work of God
revealing himself in Christ, and through him recon
ciling the world unto himself ; it is personal ; it is
inseparable from him who brings it to the world ; it,
therefore, becomes, transpires, " comes ; " in the per
sonal coming of Christ into humanity came God's
grace and truth in their full manifestation.
In the epistles of John there are no quotations from
the Old Testament, and no direct allusions to it.
Although the Old Testament is quoted less frequently
and less fully in the Fourth Gospel than in several
other New Testament books, the points of contact
between it and the Jewish religion and scriptures
are numerous and significant. According to John,
Jesus grounds his work and teaching distinctly upon

24 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
an Old Testament basis. In the conversation with the
Samaritan woman, he identifies himself with the Jews
in respect to religion, and ' asserts that the Jewish
people alone have a right knowledge of the object of
worship : " We worship that which we know " (iv. 22).
This statement he explains by declaring that sal
vation proceeds from the Jews ; that is, that the
Messianic salvation which he brings is historically
grounded in the religion of the Jewish people. They
are the people of revelation. Their history has been,
in a special sense, a preparation for the Messiah.
Jesus, therefore, assumes both the reality of Old
Testament revelation, and the inseparable connection
of his own work with that revelation as its comple
tion. The same relation is plainly implied in the
prologue : " He came unto his own (ra, ibta), and
they that were his own (oi iBtot) received him not "
(i. 11). The Jewish people as a whole were the
true and proper possession of Christ, because all
through their history God had been preparing for his
coming and work. The refusal, therefore, of those
who of right belonged to him to accept him, involved
a great failure on their part to realize the purpose of
God in their history.
The necessity that Old Testament prophecy should
be fulfilled, is as explicitly asserted in the Fourth
Gospel as it is in the First, or in the Epistles of Paul
(cf. xv. 25 ; xvii. 12). " The scripture cannot be
broken " (x. 35) ; that is, cannot be deprived of its
validity. Both the unity and the inspiration of Old

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 25
Testament Scripture are pre-supposed in this asser
tion. According to John, Jesus frequently refers to
events in Old Testament history, and builds in his
teaching upon their significance. The lifting up of
his body upon the cross, and its saving benefits, are
compared to Moses' lifting up the brazen serpent in
the wilderness (iii. 14 ; of. Num. xxi. 8). He appeals
(vi. 45) to the prophetic word : " And all thy children
shall be taught of the Lord " (Is. liv. 13) — freely quoted
from the Septuagint — as describing the spiritual en
lightenment of the people in the Messianic time, and
affirms that it is those in whom this description is
fulfilled — the spiritually susceptible and teachable —
who are accepting him as the Messiah. Sometimes
reference seems to be made to the import of Old Test
ament teaching in general where no single passage
is exclusively in mind. Such an instance is found in
the words, " He that believeth on me, as the scrip
ture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of
living water" (vii. 38). The thought of the passage
is, that the divine grace which the believer receives,
shall not remain shut up within him, but shall com
municate itself to others. This communication is
metaphorically described as the flowing forth from
him of a stream of living water, and this result is
said to be according to Old Testament Scripture.
Some have supposed the reference to be to an apocry
phal writing, others have referred to the smiting of
the rock in the wilderness ; but the preferable view is
that the general import of Scripture respecting the

26 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
fulness of blessing in the Messianic age is here indi
cated, in view, especially, of such passages as employ
the figure of a stream or spring in describing that
blessing (e. g. Is. xliv. 3 ; lv. 1 ; lviii. 11).
There are several instances in which the apostle
sees close and definite relations between particular
words of Old Testament prophecy and specific cir
cumstances in the life of Jesus. In the unbelief of
the Jews he sees fulfilled the words of Isaiah : " Lord,
who hath believed our report ? " (Is. liii. 1), where the
prophet speaks of the disbelief by the heathen and
the ungodly of his description of Jehovah's righteous
servant (xii. 38). Again, he explains (xii. 39, 40) that
the Jews could not believe on Jesus because Isaiah
had said, " He [God] hath blinded their eyes," etc.
(Is. vi. 9, 10), a passage in which the prophet is bidden
to declare to his hearers their incapacity for spiritual
instruction, and, indeed, — in accordance with a pecul
iar Hebrew mode of thought, — himself to effect this
result as Jehovah's representative. The apostle con
cludes : " These things said Isaiah, because he saw
his glory ; and he spake of him " (xii. 41). Our
author, in accord with the methods of interpretation
current in his age, sometimes applies language to the
events of Jesus' ministry or experiences which in its
original connection referred to circumstances of the
prophet's own time, and even grounds the necessity
of the event upon the supposed prediction of it. The
language of the Psalmist, where he speaks of his ene
mies hating him without a cause (Ps. Ixix. 4), must

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 27
have its fulfilment, says the apostle, in the treatment
which Jesus received from the Jews (xv. 25). In the
narrative of the crucifixion are found several ex
amples. The soldiers cast lots for Christ's garments
(xix. 24) in order to fulfil — not consciously, but in the
divine purpose — the words : " They parted my gar
ments among them, and upon my vesture did they
cast lots" (Ps. xxii. 18), where, so far as an examina
tion of the psalm itself shows, the garments were
those of the writer, which he describes as stripped off
by his fierce enemies. Again, the legs of Jesus were
not broken after the crucifixion, " that the scripture
might be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken "
(xix. 36). This language, in its substance, occurs in
Ex. xii. 46 and in Num. ix. 12, where the method of
cooking and eating the paschal lamb is prescribed.
One of the requirements was that the animal must be
cooked entire, and eaten without being dismembered.
If this requirement be here referred to, then the
meaning is, that in the case of Jesus, who is the
antitypical paschal lamb, the same requirement must
find fulfilment. It is possible, however, that the ref
erence is to Ps. xxxiv. 20 : " He keepeth all his bones :
Not one of them is broken," — a passage in which
Jehovah's protection of the righteous man is cele
brated. In either case, it will be noticed how definite
is the relation which the apostle presupposes between
these passages and the particular events in the history
of Jesus, — a connection so definite that the events
must occur in order to fulfil the Old Testament words.

28 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
One further example from the history of the pas
sion may be noted. In xix. 37 the language of Zecha
riah (xii. 10), " They shall look upon me [or to me]
whom they have pierced," is applied to the piercing
of Jesus' side by the spear of the Roman soldier.
The evangelist departs from both the Hebrew and the
Septuagint in substituting the phrase " on him "
(«'<? ov) for " on [or to] me" ("Sk ; Septuagint, irpos
fie), following, probably, in so doing, some manuscript
or version of his time. The prophetic passage is a
difficult one, and Old Testament scholars are not
agreed either as to its translation or interpretation.
Some would render : " They " (the people of Jerusalem)
" shall look to me " (Jehovah) " in respect to him
(n^s nx) whom they have pierced " (slain) ; that is,
they shall turn penitently to Jehovah for comfort
and forgiveness on account of their brethren of
Judah who were slain in war with foreign enemies,
in consequence of enmity between Jerusalem and the
country districts.1 More commonly the passage is
rendered as in our versions. On this view the rela
tive pronoun in the passage (int) is regarded as in
apposition with the personal pronoun, and the prepo
sition of the original (nx) is explained as marking
the following relative more plainly as an accusative,
since otherwise it might mean, " who pierced [me]." 2
The general sense of this passage, then, as commonly
understood is : In consequence of the " spirit of grace
1 So Toy, Quotations in the Neio Testament, pp. 92, 93.
2 So Keil and Delitzsch, Minor Prophets, in loco.

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 29
and of supplication" which Jehovah will pour out
upon them, the inhabitants of Jerusalem will regard
him whom they have pierced (Jehovah) by their sins
with bitter sorrow and penitent grief. The apostle
seems to regard the language as referring directly to
the Messiah, and as literally fulfilled in the act of
the Roman soldier.
It is clear that, in the case of the quotations last
cited, criticism must distinguish between their orig
inal sense and application, and the reference which is
assigned them by the apostle. In accord with the mode
of viewing Messianic prophecy which was current
among the Jews, and which was inherited from them
by the first Christians, the primary reference of in
dividual passages is often disregarded ; and if the
words find a parallel in some incident in the history
of Jesus, they are freely applied to it, and even held
to necessitate that particular circumstance. While
it is to be admitted that the New Testament writers
often apply passages without reference to their his
toric sense, and in the belief that they primarily re
lated to the particular circumstances which are in
hand, two important considerations are to be remem
bered. The first is that this excess — - if I may so call
it — in the application of particular passages to spe
cific events springs out of their profound and true
sense of the prophetic and Messianic import of Old
Testament history. The second point is that, while
exegesis cannot always justify the identification of
the immediate reference in quotations with the situ-

30 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
ation to which they are applied, it is seldom difficult
to discern a deeper point of connection, a relation of
principle between the two, which shows that it is not
alone the form of individual prophetic passages with
which the writer's mind is concerned, but that he
penetrates to the prophetic significance of Jehovah's
relation to the theocratic people, and regards that
relation as the type of that which shall at length be
constituted between Jehovah, on the one hand, and
the incarnate Redeemer and his kingdom, on the
other. The problem which is involved in the use
of Old Testament passages by the New Testament
writers can neither be solved by making their appli
cation of texts give the law to Old Testament in
terpretation, nor by the supposition of a double sense
in prophecy, but only by admitting, on the one hand,
the limitations which verbal exegesis, universal in
their time, imposed upon their minds, and by maintain
ing, on the other, the principle of typical parallel
ism, — the view that the religious truths and ideals
of prophecy furnish parallels and illustrations of the
various stages and aspects of the final revelation
of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
The discourses in the Fourth Gospel are very ex
plicit in their recognition of the Messianic import of
the Old Testament. In his discussion with the Jews,
Jesus takes common ground with them so far as the
foundation of the Messianic hope in the Old Testa
ment is concerned (v. 45-47). You appeal to Moses,
he says, on whom you have set your hope ; to Moses

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 31
you shall go. If you did really believe him, in the
true import of the system which he founded, you
would thereby be led to accept me as the Messiah,
" for he wrote of me " (v. 46). Here, too, the refer
ence is to the general Messianic import of the Pen
tateuch and to the prophetic nature of its types,
although, possibly, Deut. xviii. 15 may be especially
thought of : " The Lord thy God will raise up unto
thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy breth
ren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken."
What is of importance, for our present purpose, is
that Jesus treats the teaching of Moses as so related
to his own mission that a true belief, involving a
right spiritual apprehension of what is taught in the
Mosaic law, would logically conduce to an acceptance
of his Messiahship. To the same effect, according
to the most probable interpretation of the passage,
is the assertion of Jesus in v. 37 : " And the Father
which sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye
have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen
his form." The witness which the Father has borne
to him is most naturally understood to be that which
is contained in Sacred Scripture, since in the next
verse (38) he refers to the " word " of God, and es
pecially because in verse 39 he refers to the Scrip
tures, and asserts that they bear testimony to himself.
The reference to the Mosaic books at the end of the dis
course (verses 45-47) confirms this view. The Jews are
reproached, in language somewhat anthropomorphic,
with failure to hear the voice of God which speaks

32 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
in their own Scriptures, and to see the form of God
— a figurative designation of his true nature — which
is there disclosed. In the words that follow, Jesus
repeats the idea, which is here presented under the
figure of moral deafness and blindness, in terms
which are designed to emphasize the lack on the
part of the Jews of the essential, inward possession
of the truths contained in the Old Testament, which
would, if dwelling in them, have disposed them to
believe on him.1
In a way somewhat similar to that in which he
refers to Moses does he appeal to Abraham as a wit
ness to his Messiahship. The Jews resent his claims
because they seem to them to involve the absurd idea
that Jesus is greater than Abraham. Jesus replies
that Abraham, who was a friend of the truth, re
joiced in hope of seeing (tW iBg) " his day," the
realization of the Messianic ideal, " and he saw it " —
in Paradise he beheld the fulfilment of the Messianic
promise — " and was glad " (viii. 56). The exultation
of Abraham in anticipation of witnessing the appear
ance of the Messiah and the joyful realization of this
hope in the world beyond, require the supposition of
the Messianic significance of God's covenant with
him (cf. Gen. xv. 1-6), and present a striking point
of contact between the Johannine discourses and
the Old Testament.
The references of Jesus to the facts of Old Testa
ment history and life as points of departure for hia
1 Cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 40-44 (orig. pp. 360-365).

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 33
own teaching, often reveal his mode of viewing the
institutions of the old covenant. Thus he speaks of
Moses as giving the Jews circumcision, but explains
that the rite was not original with Moses, but was a
primitive patriarchal custom whose observance Moses
re-enacted (vii. 22). He calls the temple his " Father's
house " (ii. 16), and by his indignant expulsion from
it of those who profaned it by buying and selling
animals for sacrifice, and by exchanging for profit the
various kinds of money which strangers brought to
the feast, he reminded the disciples of the Psalmist's
avowal (Ps. Ixix. 9) of his consuming zeal for God's
house (ii. 17). In argument with the Pharisees, Jesus
takes his stand upon the maxim of the law (Deut.
xvii. 6; xix. 15) that "the witness of two men is true"
(viii. 17), and claims that he has even a stronger
attestation for his Messiahship than this principle
requires. He has his own consciousness of his Mes
sianic calling, and, in addition to this, the testimony
of the Father to his Messiahship. This testimony is
variously understood to refer to the witness of God
which is contained in Scripture, to that borne by the
divine voice from heaven, to the attestation which
God gave to Jesus through the power conferred upon
him to work miracles, and to the sense of the Father's
approval which was given in Jesus' own conscious
ness. In any case, his attitude toward the Old
Testament maxim remains unchanged. Our Lord
also assumes the Old Testament standpoint in desig
nating the judges of the theocratic people as gods
3

34 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
(x. 34, 35). In consideration of the dignity of their
stations as the representatives of Jehovah in the
nation, the Psalmist addresses them as gods (D,!? '#),
notwithstanding their personal unrighteousness (Ps.
Ixxxii. 6 ; cf. xiv. 6 ; Ex. xxii. 28). The argument in
the passage in question is, that if the judges of Israel,
as the dispensers of justice and the bearers of the
Divine Word, may be called Elohim, or (as in the
Septuagint) 6eoi, with how much better right may
he, whom the Father has consecrated to a work far
higher than theirs, claim the title " Son of God "
(x. 36).1
To the general view which we have presented of
the relation, according to the Johannine discourses,
of Jesus to the Old Testament, it is sometimes ob
jected a that, in some of the passages in question, he
speaks of the Old Testament as their law, as if he
did not recognize it as authoritative : " In your law
1 The argument turns on the superiority of his dignity
and person as compared with those of the judges and rulers.
If they were called Elohim without blasphemy, surely he may
be called " Son of God " without blasphemy. It is very doubt
ful whether (with Meyer and Westcott) we are to suppose a
further contrast to be intended between their designation
"gods" and his "Son of God," on the view that he claimed
only a humbler title than that which the law applied to them.
In this case the argument would depend upon a double con
trast, thus: The judges and rulers were, called gods,- one who
is greater than they may surely claim the lesser title " Son of
God." Most interpreters do not recognize this supposed second
contrast. 2 For example, by Messner, Lehre der Aposlel, p. 345.

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 35
it is written, that the witness of two men is true "
(viii. 17 ; cf. x. 34; xv. 25). But it is to be noticed
that Jesus uses this expression, " your law," in an
argumentum ad hominem with the Jews. His mode
of argument is : Your law upon which you lay such
stress, which you prize as your chief authority, but
so inadequately comprehend and apply, is quite ca
pable of being turned against you, and in my favor.
Your law requires two witnesses to prove a case ; I
furnish them, and one of them is God. Your law
calls the judges of Israel gods ; I, who came forth
from the Father, have only claimed the title Son of
God. It is obvious that the emphasis of these ex
pressions does not lie upon the idea that the law is
theirs and in no sense his, but upon the idea that
they, in their false view, consider it theirs in the
sense that it is unfavorable to him, and justifies their
opposition to him, whereas he shows how the re
verse is the case. The use which he makes of the
Old Testament passages in the cases where he refers
to them as " your law " shows that he too builds
upon their authority, and, so far, takes common
ground with the Jews in respect to the Old Testa
ment. The objective way in which the gospel con
stantly refers to " the Jews " has been thought to
indicate a writer who stood outside the sphere of
Judaism. But this- peculiarity is naturally accounted
for, partly by the fact that the writer, although a
Jew, had long resided in a Roman province, and had
long been identified with Gentile Chris.tianity, and

36 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
especially by the fact that the Jews are almost al
ways thus spoken of as the determined opponents of
Jesus. It is not the writer's relation to " the Jews,"
but their relation to Jesus, which his mode of refer
ence to them is intended to indicate.
The words in the allegory of the Door of the Sheep
fold, " All that came before me are thieves and rob
bers" (x. 8), have often been appealed to, on the
supposition that they refer to Moses and the prophets,
as evidence that the gospel was the work of a Gnostic
of the second century. But in view of the estimate
elsewhere placed upon the Old Testament in the
passages which we have reviewed (cf. iv. 22; v. 37, 45;
vii. 19), it is impossible to justify this supposition. The
reference must be, either to false Messiahs who had
claimed to be " doors of the sheep," that is, teachers
and guides to the people,1 or, as is more commonly
held, to the members of the Jewish hierarchy, who
had been increasing their influence as religious leaders
previous to the appearance of Jesus as the " door "
to the fold. On this view the present tense — " are
thieves and robbers" — has force, as depicting the
existing antagonism which Jesus is experiencing from
these would-be leaders of God's people. In either
case, the passage cannot be legitimately used as
illustrating an anti-Judaistic tendency in the Fourth
i So Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 46, 47 (orig. pp. 366, 367),
following many earlier interpreters. The principal objection
to this interpretation is that historical proof of the appearance
of false Messiahs before Christ's day is wanting.

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 37
Gospel, inconsistent with that found elsewhere, or
inconsistent with the Johannine authorship.
It is important to observe, however, that while
Jesus is at one with his contemporaries in recogniz
ing the authority of the Old Testament, he often
stands in sharp contrast with them in respect to the
understanding and application of it. By no incident
is this difference more clearly illustrated than by the
discussion which arose between him and the Jews
over the healing of the infirm man at the pool of
Bethesda. The Jews regarded the action of Jesus in
curing the man as a violation of the Old Testament
Sabbath law (v. 16). Jesus replies, in substance, that
their whole idea of the Sabbath law moves in the
sphere of the letter ; that they have not grasped the
conception of the utility of the Sabbath, and of its
subservience to human well-being. They have pro
ceeded as if the rest of God after creation, on which
the law based the sabbatic institution, meant inac
tivity on his part, and involved his refraining from
lending man his sympathy and aid, and from actively
promoting his true interests. On this false view was
based the idea of the necessity of man's complete
inactivity on the Sabbath, precluding even the right
to relieve human suffering. Jesus affirms that the
premises on which their, whole conception of the
Sabbath rests are false. God is intensely active in
helping and blessing men. He " works " from the
beginning " even until now " (v. 17). He is unceas
ing and untiring in his efforts to promote human

38 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
welfare. There can, therefore, be no reason, grounded
in the nature or action of God, why works of benevo
lence should cease on the Sabbath. In doing good on
the Sabbath day Jesus is therefore but doing " what
he seeth the Father doing " (v. 19). In this narrative
we find a striking illustration of the way in which
Jesus was accustomed to correct the religious and
moral errors of his time by exposing the false idea
of God upon which they rested, and by substituting "
for it a true conception.
Whether or not the words of Jesus, " Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up " (ii. 19),
should be cited in illustration of his attitude toward
Old Testament institutions, depends in some degree
upon the view taken of John's explanation of the
words, " He spake of the temple of his body " (ii. 21).
Meyer adopts the opinion that the evangelist has
given the intended meaning of Jesus' words, which
were designed to " throw out a seed of thought for
the future which could not take root at the time."
This author seeks, however, to give the language a
reference to the literal temple also, by supposing that
in speaking the words in the temple court, Jesus
points to the Jemple, in which he " sees the sacred
type of his body ; " and, by identifying, without explan
ation, the type and the antitype, he announces " in
a pictorial riddle " his resurrection.1 Others have
recognized more explicitly than does Meyer a double
sense in the words, " Destroy this temple." The
1 Commentary, in loco,

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 39
supposition is made that by " this temple " he means
the Jews' sacred house, but that a reference to his
resurrection can still be veiled under his words, since
he knows that it is in his own person, and specifically
by his death, that the destruction of the Jewish relig
ious system, represented in the temple, will be con
summated. The meaning therefore is : Destroy, as
you are bent upon doing, your temple ; overthrow,
as your present conduct surely will, your religious
system ; I will reconstruct it according to its true,
divine idea through my death and resurrection. On
the view just mentioned, it may be held either that
Jesus intended the double sense which is found in
his words, — in which case the theory would be sub
stantially the same as Meyer's, — or, that he directly
referred only to the literal temple, but that, since the
reconstruction predicted was actually to be accom
plished by his resurrection, the evangelist's explana
tion of what was involved in his words is a just one.
If it is once admitted that the apostle's explanation
of Jesus' words was derived from the subsequent
events of his death and resurrection, and did not
rest upon any clear reference or exposition of Jesus
at the time, criticism is left free to regard this explan
ation as more or less natural, according to its estim
ate of its appropriateness. The way is thus opened
to the theory that John's interpretation of the words,
" Destroy this temple," etc., is the result of his own
reflection, in the light of subsequent events, upon
later teachings of Jesus concerning the temple-wor-

40 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
ship and the abrogation of the Jewish religious sys-
tem through its fulfilment in the gospel. If the
definite reference to " three days " seems to forbid
this supposition, it is answered, on the other side,
that these are probably the very words which gave
rise to the evangelist's interpretation ; and that while
they naturally suggested to his mind, in the light of
facts which occurred afterwards, the idea that Jesus
spoke of his resurrection after three days, they are
really capable of quite another interpretation. " Three
days " is a proverbial expression for a short time. The
prophet Hosea, describing the healing of the wounds
of the nation by Jehovah, says : " After two days will
he revive us : on the third day he will raise us up, and
we shall live before him " (Hos. vi. 2). This view, it is
said, accords with an incident which is preserved in
the Synoptic tradition of Jesus' trial. The false wit
nesses declared : " We have heard him say, I will
destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in
three days I will build another made without hands "
(Mk. xiv. 58 ; Matt. xxvi. 61). These were, indeed,
false witnesses, and the falseness of their testimony
is apparent in their ascribing to Jesus the assertion
that he would destroy the temple, whereas he dis
tinctly asserts that it is they who are to do this
(Xvo-are, John ii. 19). But neither this false state
ment nor any perversion of his meaning which their
testimony may be naturally supposed to contain, can
disprove the view that some word of Jesus about
rebuilding the temple in three days had been pre-

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 41
served (cf. Acts vi. 13, 14). In view of these consid
erations, and on account of the difficulties of the
"double-sense" theory, many scholars adopt the
opinion that in saying that he would rebuild " this
temple " in three days, Jesus means that he will in
the shortest possible time reconstruct the system of
worship, which the Jews are destroying, according
to its true idea. This is the " sign " which he will
give, and which will show that he is the Messiah of
the nation. They treat him as the destroyer of their
religious institutions ; he tells them that it is they
themselves who persist in overthrowing their own
religion. He, on the contrary, conserves its ideal,
essential doctrines, and will re-establish it on the
secure foundations of imperishable spiritual truth.
That which he will establish is the Church, the
spiritual temple of God ; but he can still call it " this
temple," because he regards his kingdom as organ
ically connected with the Jewish theocracy, and, so
far, historically identical with it.1
It is not necessary for our purpose to decide con
fidently which of these theories is to be preferred.
I can only say of Meyer's view that, if a " riddle "
is to be found in the passage, it seems much more
natural to ascribe the making of it to the writer of
the gospel than to Jesus. On either of the other
views which I have sketched, the passage is import
ant in its bearing upon the attitude of Jesus toward
1 So Weiss, Life of Christ, ii. 12-17. Wendt, Teaching of
Jesus, ii. 37 (orig. pp. 356, 357).

42 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the Old Testament. It illustrates his strong sense
of the continuity of divine revelation, culminating in
himself. He comes to establish no different religion
from that of the Jewish people. His work is a recon
struction of their demolished temple. The divine
ideal which the Jewish religion contemplates, can be
realized only in his truth and kingdom. But his
words illustrate, at the same time, the wide separa
tion between him and the' actual religion of his con
temporaries. He must build what they are destroying.
He ironically bids them go on with the work of de
struction, to which they are devoted. They are blind
to the true meaning of their own history, false to the
divine ideal which is contained in their own Scrip
tures and embodied in their institutions. He has
come to disclose the real import and goal of this
history, to reveal and to embody in himself this ideal ;
but with his conception of the Messianic work they
have no sympathy, and of the proofs which he gives of
being the Chosen of God they have no appreciation.
These two truths are brought out side by side in
other narratives. To the Samaritan woman he
affirms : " We [Jews] worship that which we know :
for salvation is from the Jews " (iv. 22) ; and, at the
same time, he contrasts his conception of God as
spirit (iv. 24) with the current Jewish idea " that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship "
(iv. 20), as well as with the tenet of the Samaritans.
The import of his teaching is : The Jewish people
have, indeed, preserved the true idea of God as com-

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 43
pared with that of other peoples, but this idea has
been greatly lowered and narrowed. The Jewish
people know the true God, but they do not know him
adequately. Their conception must be greatly ele
vated and ennobled before it can be the basis of a
true spiritual worship. To bring this fuller knowl
edge, I am come. The hour has already arrived
(verse 23) for worthier thoughts of God and of his
worship than those which prevail even among the
chosen people.
In no passage is the independence of Jesus, and his
elevation above the religious life and scriptural knowl
edge of his contemporaries, more forcibly presented
than in the words : " Ye search the scriptures be
cause ye think that in them ye have eternal life ; and
these are they which bear witness of me ; and ye will
not come to me, that ye may have life " (v. 39, 40).
It appears to me certain that the Revised Version has
rightly rendered ipavvare (verse 39) as indicative,
" ye search," instead of as an imperative, as our
older version renders, " search." The surrounding
verbs in the context are indicative (ovk e^ere, verse 38 ;
ov OiXere, verse 40) ; the causal clause which follows,
" because ye think," etc., gives a natural reason for
the fact that they search the Scriptures, but not for
an exhortation to them to search them ; and the drift
of the passage as a whole shows that Jesus is rebuk
ing their profitless study of Scripture. They search
the writings (to? <ypa<pd<;), but in a manner so super
ficial and prejudiced, and with so little discernment

44 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of their import, that they do not find God's true word
(rbv Xoyov avrov, verse 38) therein. Jesus certainly
does not mean, in so speaking, to place a light esti
mate upon the study of the Old Testament Scriptures,
or to intimate that the way of eternal life may not
be found in them, but only to assert that their study
as conducted by his Jewish opponents cannot yield
this result, and especially to affirm that a true under
standing of Sacred Scripture would conduct to the
acceptance of himself as the Messiah. In saying,
" These are they which bear witness of me " (verse 39),
he shows that his work stands in inseparable connec
tion with the Old Testament, and that he attaches
the highest importance to its authentication of his
mission. Jesus does not, therefore, rebuke the Jewish
zeal for the Scriptures, in itself considered, but he
deprecates the narrowness, selfishness, and blindness
of mind which have misdirected that zeal, turned
it into a superficial adherence to the letter, and
subjected the language of Scripture to strained
and unnatural interpretation in support of current
traditions. That which is most striking and important in the
attitude of Jesus toward the Old Testament, as rep
resented in the Fourth Gospel, is the confidence wit!
which he asserts — as against the Messianic ideas ol
his time — the correspondence of his person and work
to the prophetic ideal. He brushes aside the super
ficial verbal exegesis of his contemporaries, which
found in the Messiah of the prophets only a second

JOHN'S THEOLOGY AND THE OLD TESTAMENT 45
David who should subdue Israel's enemies and rule
the nation in power and pomp, and asserts that such
is not the real prophetic ideal of Messiah's character
and work. The Messiah in whom that ideal is real
ized, and who can accomplish that moral renewal and
bestow that spiritual life for lack of which the nation
is perishing, belongs to a higher order, — the order of
the spirit and of holiness. That true Messiah is him
self. Whether the Jewish people will receive him or
not, is for them the question of destiny.

CHAPTER III
THE IDEA OP GOD IN THE WRITINGS OP JOHN
Literature. — Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol., Die Gottesidee,
i. 220, 221 ; Wendt : Teaching of Jesus, Conception of God in the
Johannine Discourses, i. 203-206 (orig. pp. 154-157) ; Weiss :
Johann. Lehrb., Der Begriff der Erkenntniss Gottes, pp. 11-18;
Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol., Of the Essential Nature of God, ii.
383-388 (orig. pp. 428-435) ; Lechler : Apostolic and Post-
Apostolic Times, Of God, ii. 181-183 (orig. pp. 458-461); Baur:
Neutest. Theol., Das Wesen Gottes als rei ne Geistigkeit und als
absolute Thatigkeit, pp. 354-356 ; Lias : Doctrinal System of St.
John, The Nature and Attributes of God, pp. 16-32 ; Westcott :
The Epistles of St. John, The Fatherhood of God, pp. 27-34 ; St.
John's Conception of Love, pp. 130-133 ; Kostlin : Johann.
Lehrb., Lehre von Gott, 73-113.
The study of the idea of God as presented in the
writings of John should proceed from that word of
Jesus to the Samaritan woman : " God is spirit " (iv.
24). Both our English versions here render irvevfia " a
spirit"; but the sense which is given by the trans
lation " God is a spirit " is less appropriate, since
the context shows that it is not the personality but
the nature of God which the words are intended to
describe. In contrast to the inadequate idea of the
Samaritans, and even to the current popular notion
of the Jews, that God must be worshipped in one

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 47
particular place, as if his presence were local, Jesus
sets- his thought that God may be truly worshipped
anywhere. As spirit, he is above all limitations of
time and space. The conditions of true worship are,
that it shall be rendered "in spirit," — that is, that
the highest affections of the worshipper shall be conse
crated to God, — and that it shall be "in truth," —
that is, shall proceed from a true and worthy idea of
the* divine nature. Moreover, it accords better with
a mode of thought frequently found in John's writ
ings to understand irvevfia 6 #eo's as a generic de
scription of the divine nature. Analogous expressions
are: "God is light" (I. i. 5) and "God is love"
(I. iv. 8). The statements of verse 23 as to the
nature and conditions of true worship, accord best
with the idea that, in the sentence under considera
tion, Jesus is presenting the true idea of the spiritual
nature of God which a genuine worship, proceeding
from the heart, presupposes and requires. The ar
gument therefore is : The genuine worshippers — as
opposed to those who suppose that God must be
worshipped on Mount Gerizim or in Jerusalem — ¦
will render him a purely spiritual service, a service
which alone accords with what he is, for his nature
is spiritual. It should also be noticed that the em
phatic position of irvevfia in the sentence shows
that this word is the pivot of the whole argument,
and accords perfectly with the interpretation of its
meaning which we have given.
This passage presents the most abstract and generic

48 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY'
idea of God which is to be found in the Johannine
writings. God is, in his essence, spirit. He is not re
stricted in respect to the time or place of his manifest
ation. There is no time when the sincere worshipper
may not find him ; there is no place where he will not
manifest himself to the trustful and obedient heart.
This idea of the spirituality of God is not, as is some
times supposed, placed in contrast to the Old Testa
ment idea of God, for there we meet with the view —
most impressively presented — that God is not lim
ited to earthly dwelling-places, nor even to the high
est heavens (1 Kings, viii. 27). Nor is the idea of
Jesus opposed to the Samaritan theology as such;
but it stands in contrast to the practically imperfect
apprehension of God's transcendence and omnipres-
„ence which was implied in^ such questions as that of
the Samaritan woman as to where men ought to
worship. The statement of Jesus, " God is spirit,"
communicated no new conception of the divine na
ture ; it only gave strong, fresh emphasis to a truth
which was very inadequately apprehended and ap
plied in religious thought and life, and furnished a
basis for showing how essential is a true idea of God
to a worship which shall be at once rational and__
sincere. Closely connected with the conception of God as
spirit stands the idea that he is invisible. " JN o man
hath seen God at any time" (i. 18). He reveals him-"
self to men not by making to their senses an immed
iate presentation of himself, but by manifesting his
E^lbiijg' "The Tolnannirpe Dec-trine oi GicJ
Source; Georae B. Sfev/ens. %. ^^<^%Jk$

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 49
will and nature to them in the person of the only
begotten Son, who ever stands in most intimate
fellowship with himself, and who therefore has an
immediate intuition of the mind of the Father. This
Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared
God to men (i. 18). It is obvious that in this pas
sage the contrast is drawn between God as hidden to
the senses of man and as revealed in his grace and
truth through Jesus Christ. In I. iv. 12, where God
is spoken of as invisible and yet as dwelling in men,
the idea is that, although he cannot be discerned by
the senses or known by the natural understanding
of man, he reveals himself as love to those who
themselves have the disposition of love, and who
therefore have an affinity of life with him. In so
far as man is morally like God, is he capable of re
ceiving the knowledge of God. " If we love one
another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected
in us" (I. iv. 12).
Both the ways in which the invisible God is thus
said to reveal himself stand directly connected with
the conception of God as spirit. As spirit he reveals
himself to the senses of men only mediately through
the incarnation of the Son, who so perfectly em
bodies in his own person the Father's will and na
ture that he can say, " He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father" (xiv. 9). So also does the other
form of revelation by which the invisible God be
comes known accord with the divine nature as spirit.
God reveals himself as love to the inner life of man,
i

50 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
where the conditions of a spiritual apprehension of
him are fulfilled. Since God is a spiritual being, he
can only reveal himself to man as a spiritual being,
and upon the fulfilment of spiritual conditions. As
spirit, God is apprehended by man only by the devel
opment of a capacity for what is spiritual. Thus, the
very nature of God as spirit determines the method
and conditions of his direct manifestations of himself
to the soul. Only through moral likeness to him
self can God be truly apprehended and known.
The words recorded in v. 37, " Ye have neither
heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form," seem,
when taken by themselves, to be a denial of the pos
sibility that God can be perceived by the senses. The
context, however, makes it apparent that this is not
their purpose. The words are intended to assert
that the Jews by reason of their moral obduracy and
spiritual blindness have failed to apprehend those
revelations of God which he has made in their own
history. The assertion which immediately follows
(v. 38), " And ye have not his word abiding in you,"
makes it clear that the sentence just referred to is a
rebuke of their insusceptibility. They have not heard
in any such way as to appreciate the voice of God,
which has spoken to them through their own prophets,
nor seen God's self-manifestation, which he has made
in their own Scriptures, which they search to so little
purpose (v. 39).
The spiritual, invisible God is presented in the
writings of John as " the true God " (6 aX-ndtpbs 0e6?,

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 51
I. v. 20), the One who in reality corresponds perfectly
to the idea of God. All other so-called gods are but
idols ; the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ is
God alone. Hence he is called " the only God " (d
povos 0e6<;, v. 44) ; and, again, eternal life is defined
as consisting in the knowledge of the only true God
(tw fiovov akrjdivbv deov, xvii. 3), and of him whom
God did send, Jesus Christ. The Johannine doctrine

of God, so far as we have traced it, may be summed
up in the statement that in contrast to all anthropo
morphic ideas of God he is presented in these writ
ings as the invisible, absolute Spirit, and in contrast
to" all polytheistic conceptions he is affirmed to bp
tine one and only Being who corresponds to the true
idea ol Deity-
The terms which have thus far been considered,
especially the definition of ftoH «« gpin\ are chiefly
descriptive of those divine attributes which in theol
ogy are calledv^nmajrenj^ These attributes represent
qualities which belong to the metaphysical nature of
the Deity. They are intended to describe what God
is in himself. But God is not presented to us in the
Johannine writings in this aspect of his being alone.
He is not thought of as self-contained, or as dwelling
within himself in separation from the world and man.
On the contrary, the main emphasis is laid upon the
relations which God sustains to his creatures, and
upon the way in which he manifests himself to them
in mercy and love. Speaking in the language of
theology, we should say that the writings of John

52

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

dwell most upon those attributes of God which are
calledQjthical ortransitiye^ As we found that the
statement "God is spirit" formulated more pre-
cisely than any other the conception of what God
in his metapnysical nat

nature is, so we_ shall find that
trie Johannine idea of God's moral nature — of his

disposition an
is best

mode of action toward his creatures —
tEe words, " God is love "

up in

summed
(L iv. 8, 10). 
This proposition in both places where it occurs in
the First Epistle, has a practical and not a dogmatic
purpose. John exhorts his readers to love one an
other, on the ground that love is of God, that is, has
its seat or dwelling-place in the being of God (I. iv. 7).
He whose life is ruled, by this divine, p^'n^jple is born_
of God, and knows God. He has received from God
a divine impartation of spiritual life, and has entered
into that fellowship with God which his likeness to
God makes possible. Conversely, he who does not
love cannot be in fellowship with God, for "God is
love" (I. iv78). Better than any other single worcTlove
describes God's moral nature in its lorth-puttiiig of
interest and sympathy toward his creatures^ It desig^
nates God as existing and acting in relations. It
implies not only the existence of an object of love,
but the idea of a self-impartation to that object. Love
is, in its very nature, the disposition to impart bless-
ing to its ob] ect.
Love

implies the existence of goodness in the sub
ject of it and the impartation of good to its object.

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 53
The statement of the apostle, therefore, means much
more than that God has love. He is love, that is, he
is the absolutely good Being, for love is the essence of
goodness. Love, the impulse to bless and to impart
his own goodness, makes him what he is. Were he
less than perfect love at any moment or in any de
gree, he would not be God. Love is a name for his
moral perfection. In other words, the assertion of
the apostle indicates that love is not a mere temper
or inclination which it is optional with God to exer
cise or not to exercise toward the beings whom he
has made. Itjs^ absolutely essential and constituent
in God's being. Love is not a mere determination of
the divine will, as if it were said thai God were full
of love ; it is a name for his ethical nature in its
essential and changeless character. The affirmation
of the apostle appears to me to exclude the position of
some theologians, that God may at will suspend the
operation of his love.1 To do this would be, in the
apostle's use of terms, to relinquish moral perfection,
to cease to exercise toward his creatures those feel
ings of interest and sympathy which are fundamental
in the ethical character of God. If love is held to be
1 Cf. , e. g., Strong, Philosophy and Religion, p. 196 : " Love is
an attribute which, like omnipotence, God may exercise or not
exercise, as he will."
Shedd, Theological Essays, p. 285 : " We can say, ' God may
be merciful or not, as he pleases," " etc.
Patton, Princeton Review, Jan. 1878 : " God is bound to be
just ; he is not bound to be generous. The measure of God's
benevolence is a matter of option."

54 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
an optional quality of God's action, it must be much
more narrowly defined than John has conceived it.
It must be understood not in the .sense of universal
benevolence, the exercise of which God cannot be con
ceived as withholding without impairing the very idea
of God, but in the narrow sense of complaisance or
favor, — terms which denote feelings whose exercise
is conditioned upon the attitude of God's creatures
toward him. The position that God ever does or
ever could cease to be generous, merciful, and loving
is a perilous admission for theology, involving, as it
does, the alternative that either naked justice alone
is essential to moral perfection, or that God can be
conceived as choosing to become something less than
perfect. Neither of these positions seems to me to
be reconcilable with the teaching of John. In the
effort which theology has often made to enthrone
justice as the one essential and necessary attribute of
God,1 it is compelled to ground the remaining attri
butes in his will alone. This view involves the denial
that all God's perfections are grounded in his essence,
and confuses the idea of his ethical completeness by
assigning a different basis to justice from that which
is assigned to other attributes. We shall recur to
this subject in a later chapter.
As in the passage just considered (I. iv. 8) the affirm-
1 Cf. Shedd, op. cit., p. 285 : " Whatever else God may be or
may not be, he must be just. It is not optional with him to
exercise this attribute or not to exercise it, as it is in the in
stance of that class of attributes which are antithetic to it."

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 55
ation " God is love " is made the ground of the negative
statement that only he that loveth can be begotten-
of God, so in the second passage (I. iv. 16) the same
statement is made the support of the corresponding
positive assertion that " He that abideth in love
abideth in God, and God abideth in him." Since
God's nature is love, he who loves has entered into
fellowship with God, and abides in him.
This most general statement concerning God's
nature as love is illustrated by several concrete
examples. Three objects of thelove of God are
specified. The^rsfrpf these is his Son, Jesus^phTfr^
" The Father loveth the Son, and-4*aAh given. a44-
things intoJns_hand " (iii. 35). Similarly in xvii. 24^.
Jesus speaks of the Father as loving him befor^-*
the foundation of the world. This love of the
Father for the Son is treated, in the connection, as a
type of the love which God bestows upon Christ's
disciples. Again, when Jesus has occasion to defend himself
against the objections of the Jews on the ground that
he did works of healing on the Sabbath, he urges that
in so doing he is but working along the lines of the
Father's activity : " My Father worketh even until
now, and I work" (v. 17). "For," he continues,
" the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all
things that himself doeth " (v. 20). Again, the love
of the Father to the Son is grounded upon the will
ingness of the Son to lay down his life for the world :

56, THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
" Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay
down my life, that I may take it again"7' (xT"TT).
Jesus also mak^s~lh^Ioveoi the Father toTitraeelf
the type and measure of his own love to his disciples :

" Even as the Father hath lovedme, I also have loved
you^jx^FP
ig love of God is most fully illustrated in the
Gospel of John by this love of the Father to the Son.
The language of the apostle which describes it pre
supposes the existence between Jesus and the Father
of a unique, pretemporal relation. With good reason,
therefore, has theology appealed to these passages as
illustrating the idea that love must find within the
divine Being himself an eternal object for its exer
cise. If God is the absolute Being, and the universe
is not eternal but dependent upon his will, then must
the essential nature of God as love find its object and
exercise within God himself. This could not be the
case if God were absolutely solitary ; on the other
hand, the conception of love requires the view that
there is within his essence some kind of a manifold-
ness and intercommunion of life. The very nature_
of love as the outgoing, self-imparting impulse in
God, suggests, and even seems to require, some con
ception of the divine "Being which includes the idea
of the lnT^rrelation of subject and object. Many
theologians, therefore, from Augustine onward, have
SOUght tO deduce the Concept of the Trinity frnmJl>A
nature of God as love, or, at least, to illustrate from

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 57
the idea of love the necessity of a Trinitarian concep
tion of thedivine nature.1 the divine lo so loved the^

The second object of thedivine love which th^?1
Ted the\

world thaThe gave his only begotten Son," etc. (iii. 16),

and in the First Epistle John refers to the divine love
as~shown by the fact^FraTTGoH^has made him and his.
readers^ children of GjHJjjj^lj^X-hp. lnv^nf^fi-nd
to ur^oaorYinc lr|pri i" thn hn^is of salvation. This
love antedates and underlies all human love. The
love ol Uoa lor men was the motive which prompted

th£T5g2duig^of Christ
should both quicken our gratitude to God and beget
in us a corresponding love to one another (I. iv. 9-11).
The love of Christians for one another has its ground
and spring in the love of God to men. It is because
God's nature is love, and because he makes men the
sharers of his spirit, that men are impelled to love
God and their brethren. Love among mgp is th,e_
1 Cf. Sartorius, The Doctrine of the Divine Love, p. 8, sq. It is
obvious that this line of argument is greatly weakened by that
type of theological thought to which we have adverted, which
grounds love in the divine will, and makes it a disposition subject
to the divine choice. The essentialness and centrality of love
in God are justly insisted upon by Sartorius as the presupposi
tion of his whole argument in deducing the notion of the Trinity
from the idea of love. " The attributes of the divine nature,"
he says, " are explained and combined in too poor and human a
relation of reflection, if they are not perceived to be one in all-
comprehending love, which, as free as necessary in its action,
is not so much an attribute which God has, as the nature which
he is; for God is love." Op. cit. p. 8.

58 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
answering echo of the love of God JoxJhgm. " We
love, because he first loved us "_(I. iv. 19).
In the third place, believers are said to be the
^objects of God's lox£1_JThis idea is presented in the
passage already alluded to (xvii. 23), where a parallel
is drawn between the love which the Father has for
the Son and that which he has for the disciples of
Jesus. The passages which describe God'slove to
menjustifv the— iJw<4(->ai,cal distinction thatwhife
God loves all men witli_JJie-4e-¥e--dLj3gnevolence, he
loves only_the_ trirstfuland obedient with the love of
cojnplacency. In the former sense the world is the
object of Gfod's love ; yet Jesus says, " If a man love
me, he will keep my word : and my Father will love
him," etc. (xiv. 23), — meaning, of course, with the
love of approval, as is shown by the assurance that
with such both he and the Father will make their
abode (ib.). Elsewhere the love of God for the dis
ciples of Jesus is grounded upon their love to their
Master and their acceptance of him as the Messiah :
" The Father himself loveth you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came forth from
the Father" (xvi. 27). This love of the Father for
believers can only be that closer sympathy and fel
lowship which faith makes possible, and which cannot
exist where love is not appreciated and reciprocated.
Such are the elements of the teaching respecting
theMrvin"e~ro"ve mjjjs-yritinga of John. Qud is-ftPe.-
sented in this teaching as the great Giver. In^-his
love_j3^grounded the gift nf hip S^n for thfl wmdrVa

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 59
salvation, and all the gifts of grace with which he has
blessed the world through him. According to this
teaching God is near to usl His transcendence is,
indeed, affirmed and emphasized, but it is an ethical-
transcendence which is grounded in his holiness. It
is not a transcendence which implies remoteness or
absence from the world ; nor is it founded upon the
idea of a purely legal relation between God and man,
which requires man to approach God through sacred
rites and meritorious works. The theology of John
represents God as accessible to every loving and
obedient heart. Man may enter into fellowship of
life with God on conditions which are Simple and"
purely spiritual. ~~~ ~
IN or is liod merely accessible. Love, which is the
essence of his ethical nature, is an active, energetic,
self-revealing principle. God constantly seeks to
make men the recipients of influences of grace and
blessing. The divine love is always pouring itself
forth upon the world, and is the perpetual motive and
inspiration of all the impulses of religion in man.
There are several forjji^jn^^TiifVh., in the writings
of John, this self-revealing impulse of God's" nature
is emphasized. Thejmost general ol these is that in
which God is depicted~as tne Source and Giver of
life to men : " As theFatEer~Tiatrr lif-g-r.tr" himaelf ,
"^°"^fl gflY° hp to thp Snn_k»--h?w«_lTfpin himself "
(v. 26) . * Many theologians have understo^a~1Ms-giv-
ing of life to the Son as referring to his " eternal
generation " from the Father ; but the context shows

60 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
decisively that the reference is to the spiritual or
eternal life which is imparted to believers. The
whole passage (v. 19-27) is best regarded as a de
scription of the life-giving work of Jesus, in which it
is shown that this work is grounded in the purpose
and nature of God. The quicke/nino; of the spiritn-
ally^dead (verse 25s) is wrought by Christ, because
when thlTFather sent him into the world he gave
him(note the aorist, eoWei/jthe right and power~Eb
cormTTnnicate divine_life, or salvation, to men. It is
according to the nature of God as the absolutely liv
ing One (o £tuz> irarrjp, vi. 57) to bestow life. God
imparts this spiritual life to the world through the
Son, who, by reason of his unique and essential rela
tion to the Father, is said to live " because of the
Father " (8ta tov irarepa, vi. 57), that is, because the
Father is the absolute Source of life. We may note in
passing that while these passages do not refer to what
is called the "eternal ..ggBgrationJl^f ,the Son, they do

imply bothjajjreternporal existence of the Sonanrl~a
metapliyskaljinion qfjEaZSpn with the .Faljmr;- 
The representation of God as light (I. i. 5) is espec
ially significant in this connection. Haupt defines
the distinction between the idea of God as light and
the idea of him as love to be that the former desig
nates the metaphysical being of God, — the totality of
the divine perfections, — while the latter designates
his ethical activity. " The former is the iriimanent,
the latter the transitive, side of the divine nature." a
1 Commentary, on 1 John iv. 8.

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 61
It is very doubtful whether this distinction can be
strictly applied. The figure of light, both in itself
and in its use, is especially adapted to define the
principle or impulse of self-revelation and self-impart-
ation in God. In the First Epistle light is little
more than a figurative designation for life, as the con
text of the passage (I. i. 5) shows. God has brought
life to the world through his Son (I. i. 1-4). To do
this was according to his nature, which is light, and
in which is no darkness (I. i. 5). God is perfect and
self-imparting holiness. As light, he blesses men,
banishes from their lives the darkness of sin, and
makes them participants in his own purity. The two
ideas of life and light are placed in closest relations
in the Gospel (viii. 12) : " He that followeth me shall
not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of
life" (to $w? Tr)<i £&»)?), — that is, he shall possess
within himself the saving power which confers life
upon men ; he shall be a mediate source of the light
of truth to others.
We^fhiid^simi]aTiTsejTf_the jWiire of light in the

logue of the GospeT^> Thejre thejifp thar,.aw*4ha-in
the^Logos is describee! as "Jhj^li^ht-of~nTe-n " (i. 1).
The wora_represents the self-maiiifesting quality of
the divine lifel This heavenly light shines- in the"
darklie3STjf-4he-world's ignorance and sin. Through
the activity of the Logos this true light "lighteth
every man, coming into the world" (i. 9). This
passage (especially if ip^dfievov be construed with

62

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

avQpwtrov and not with 6) 1 presents the iLogQS-as-fehe
..principle of self -revelation in God whereby God has
3rrr-ail ages~made trhTaself^iiown^tQ-mgn. The the-
oSogy j?~J?hn^ti^reJorete|gh£S-explicitIyy

^-iH-tt&^pwTr
peculiar terms,%he uniyersalj|y^ordivine revelation^
The gracious^ saving activity of Godisstrikingly*"
presented in the words of Jesus, which are found in
connection with the narrative of the healing of the
impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath
(v. 2-18). The Jews objected both to the performance
of the cure (verse 16) and to the man's carrying his
bed on the Sabbath day (verse 10). " But Jesus
answered them, My Father worketh even until now,
jind I work " (verge_l£)! Activity in the line of bless
ing to his creatures is accordant with the very nature
of God ; his benevolence knows no Sabbath^ In serv
ing and blessing men Jesus is but doing what he sees
the Father continually doing (verses 19, 20). The
right of Jesus to work miracles of grace on the Sab
bath is based upon the perfect harmony of such action
with-ijie perpetual working of the jFathfiiy^-~4hfiLCjaasfi-
less^uMew-^fhis boundless- goodness hi streams of
hleaajngjio the worlcL_
The bgnggolent or_jfilfdmjartirig_ aspect of God's
natnrejs much more frequently^^rnphngiypd in ~ffie
JoEanrjJn^writiiig^JJj^^-dsJiis^lmH ation. References to the latter are not, however,
1 As in our older English version : " That was the true Light,
Which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 63
entirely wanting. In one passage only in the Gospel
is the word hl/cato? applied to God : " 0 righteous
Father, the world knew thee not, but I knew thee,"
etc. (xvii. 25). The idea of God's righteousness here
appears to be that it is the quality which prevents
him from passing the same judgment upon Christ's
disciples which he passes upon the sinful world.
Upon this equitableness of God, Jesus bases his con
fidence in asking that special blessings be conferred
upon his disciples. The thought
where the Father is designated a^ ayto<;)i
who is absolutely gqojL=- wholly
that is sinful and wxmig — HpiLis--buijuu"hl Lu uuuid
from evil those whom he— has g.ivnw to his Son In

both these cases the holiness of God is conceived of,
not as a forensic or retributive quality, but as God's
moral self-consistency, his justice to his own equity.
The retributive action of God toward sin is, how
ever, abundantly recognized in the Gospel of John.
God is described as subjecting the world to a con
tinuous process of judgment. Although the coming
of Christ into the world had salvation and not judg
ment for its object (iii. 17 ; viii. 15 ; xii. 47), yet a
process of judgment is inevitably involved in his sav
ing work. When Jesus says (ix. 39), " For judgment
(et? icpipa) came I into this world," he seems to con
tradict such statements as, " God sent not the Son
into the world to judge (Iva tcpivg) the world " (iii. 17),
and, "I judge no man" (viii. 15) ; but a careful con
sideration of the context shows that the judgment for

64 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
which (in ix. 39) he says he came, does not stand in
contrast to the world's salvation, but is a judicial
hardening of the self-righteous who rejected him and
his mission. He must, in the very act of presenting
himself to menj3rin^-4e--tli£ni__the penalty qf_their
obduracy in_case_they reject hiriL_ He comes to them
to call them to repentance ; but if they deem them
selves to be just and to need no repentance, his com
ing then necessarily involves, according to the law of
the divine order, an increase of their blindness. This
was the case with the Jews. They said, " We see ; we
have no need of thy light or guidance." He can there
fore only pronounce the judgment — and it belongs to
his mission to do this — that in case of those who are
of this spirit, their sin — the sin of wilful, moral ob
duracy and spiritual pride — abides (fj dpaprta v/j,a>v
pevet, ix. 41). The judgment which Jesus disclaims
is the world's judgment as opposed to its salvation ;
the judgment which he pronounces is that which is
unavoidably involved in the attitude which men take
toward the truth (iii. 19-21). In this view of the
matter Jesus is represented as judging men (v. 30 ;
viii. 16), and even as appointed to perform this func
tion (v. 22), in so far, that is, as the attitude of men
toward the revelation of God's grace which has come
to them in human form (v. 27) involves a test of
their obedience to God. In accepting or rejecting
Christ they honor or dishonor God himself (v. 23),
and are thereby judged.
Twice in the First Epistle (I. i. 9 ; ii. 29) God is

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 65
described as righteous (oY/caw), and, in both cases, in
a sense closely akin to that which we have found in
the Gospel. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and righteous to forgive us our sins," etc. (I. i. 9).
The correlation of the word righteous with the word
faithful (7tio-t6<;), as well as the entire context, shows
that righteousness here is that quality of God which
would certainly lead him to forgive those who repent.
It would be inconsistent in God — contrary to his
promises and to his nature — not to forgive the peni
tent, and to exert upon his life the purifying influences
of his grace.
In the remaining passage, the term righteous has
a broader meaning, and designates the moral perfec
tion of God in general, as the type and ideal of all
goodness in man : " If ye know that he [GodJ is
righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth
righteousness is begotten of him " (I. ii. 29). Since
God is essentially righteous, those who are begotten
of him must also be righteous. A similar thought is
presented in I. iii.. 7, but in the reverse order. Here.
instead "of deducing from the divine righteousness
the liruth that those who live righteot
of God, the apostlestai-ts from the human _side, and
affirms that__he who lives a righteous life is thereby
'shown to~tT8*li-ke the pure and spotless Son of God.
-Tftp. qnastinn now_nrigpg ; ITnwJ nppPrHinjT t" T"V|"J
do men arrive at the knowledge of God ? Underly
ing all that is said on this subject is the idea that this
knowledge presupposes a likeness between its subject

66

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

and its object.
comes like God.

Man can know God only as he be-
" "Every one that loveth~T~7~rknO"w^

is love." (1. iv.7,8). It is
obvious that by knowledge the apostle here means
much more than the intellectual apprehension or pos
session of truibp^TJie knowledge of God is pre-emi-
_implies^n~tEe bd

ossessor
The Johannine usage
abundantly illustrates this conception of knowledge.
Jpke sinful world did not know the heavenly light of
s^ie Logos which was shining in its darkness (i. 10)(^
The Jews in their spiritual blindness have not known
God (viii. 55) ; " but I know him," said Jesus, " and
keep his word " (ib.). Whatever be the precise
meaning of the phrase " eternal life," and the rela
tion between it and the knowledge of God, in the
passage, " This is life eternal, that they should know
thee the only true God," etc. (xvii. 3), I do not see
how the objection of Weiss 1 to the " deeper sense " of
the word know can be sustained. He asserts that
"exegetical tradition" unwarrantably makes the word
know in this passage mean practically the same as
love. But what does Weiss himself make it mean?
He admits that it denotes no mere theoretic, but an
intuitive and contemplative knowledge, and that it is a
peculiarityof John's thinking to conceive of thewKole
sprriffiaTljerng of man as a unit in its action. &&
acknowledges that "a way leads direct from this
knowledge to willing," 2 but insists that the view of

1 Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, § 2.

lb. page 13.

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 67
Messner that the knowledge of God here includes an
action of the will, is to be rejected. The separation
which Weiss maintains between the cognitive and the
voluntary elements in the knowledge of God is cer
tainly formal rather than real. We cannot exclude
the mystical element Irom Jonri's conception of the
knowledge of God. Even if the view which excludes
from the knowledge of God the element of fellowship
with God and of likeness to him, could be maintained
in the case of the passage under review, it would
certainly prove inapplicable in the First Epistle, where
the knowledge of God is so blended with the idea of
being begotten of God as to make it clear that this
knowledge is grounded in a new direction of the will
and affections (I. iv. 7).
The view which I have presented is confirmed by
such passages as that in which the knowledge of the
life which Christ has brought to the world is based
on fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ (I. i. 2, 3), and that in which the certainty of
possessing the knowledge of God is conditioned upon
the keeping of his commandments (I. ii. 3). In
I. iii. 2 the assurance of becoming like Christ in the
heavenly world is based upon the fact that we shall
see him as he is.1 While the form of thought in this
passage is peculiar, — since likeness is here condi-
1 1 prefer, with Haupt, Rothe, Westcott, and Holtzmann, to
refer the pronouns in this verse to Christ. Liicke, Huther, and
Plummer refer them to God. It must be admitted, however,
that the point remains a doubtful one.

68 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
tioned upon knowledge or sight, and not knowledge
upon likeness, — this passage, equally with the others,
illustrates the fundamental Johannine idea of an in
separable connection between a true knowledge of
God and moral likeness to him. Finally, in answer
to the question, How is God known ? we would quote;
the following passage : " He that hath my command
ments, and keepeth J^hem. Tift it is that loveth~nte :
and he that loveth me shaTTlbe loved of my Father, i
and I will love him and manifest myself to him. |
Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is
come to pass that thou will manifest thyself unto us
and not unto the world ? Jesus answered and said
unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word :
and my Father will love him and we- will come unto
him, and make our abode with him " (xiv. 21-23).
The attributes of God are not particularly dwelt
upon in the writings of John except so far as they
are involved in the conception of God as spirit, light,
and love. The omniscience of God is, however, as
serted in one passage : " Hereby shall we know that
we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before
him, whereinsoever our heart condemn us ;* because
God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things"
(I. iii. 19, 20). Interpreters are divided upon the
question whether God's omniscience is here thought
of as the basis of severity or of leniency in his judg
ment of men's faults. On the former view the passage
means : We shall persuade Qrreio-opev) our hearts that
in whatsoever we condemn ourselves, God condemns

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 69
us yet more severely, because he is greater (in strict
ness) than our heart, and knoweth all things ; that is,
if our hearts detect and condemn our sins, he in his
omniscience sees them yet more clearly, and condemns
them yet more severely.1 For the linguistic consid
erations which bear upon the question I must refer
to the critical commentaries.2
It is necessary, in order to get the natural force of
the passage, to read it in the light of the preceding
argument. In verse 18 the apostle exhorts his readers
to cultivate sincere love ; for by so doing, he says, we
shall prove ourselves to belong to the truth (19 a).
The sentence which now follows, " and shall assure
our heart before him" (ical epnrpoaOev avTov Treto-ofiev
rr)v /capSiav f)p,Siv, 19 b), is co-ordinate with the state
ment, " We know that we are of the truth ; " that is,
it expresses the idea of a comforting assurance which,
like the certainty of possessing the truth, arises from
genuine love. It seems impossible to place the two
parts of verse 19 in contrast. They together express
the comfort which springs out of love. Now the
second part of verse 20 gives the reason for this com
fort, namely, " God is greater than our heart, and
knoweth all things." But if greatness in severity
or judgment were meant, this could not be a ground
of comfort. The thought Jjieref ore is : Those who
truly_ love God and men thereby know Ttrafr-thoy be
long to the truth, and have this comfort, — that the

1 So, e. g., Liicke, Neander, DeWetEe,"Ebfa"rd.
8 See, especially, Huther, Haupt, and Westcott.

70

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

faults for wl

their own hearts

Gngjill JVeely fortri-vp^j-mi^lj^is grpater_iri_mercy
f1'fH1 tnQ1'i:-ewft~CQiiscience is. He knows all things,
— the right moral direction and sincere intentions of
him who belongs to the truth, the weakness of his
nature, and the strength of his temptations, — and he
pardons the faults which still inhere in the child
of God more freely than the man's own conscience
condones them. The presupposition of the whole
argument is that the life of the persons in question I
is ruled by love, and that they are therefore sincerely!
ponitonj;. fm- tLnii- siMe innd desirous to forsake them,1 4
In the Johanninediscourses Jesus frequently speaks
"of God as his Father, and refers to the intimate fellow
ship which exists between the Father and himself
(i. 18 ; iii. 35: v. 17 sq.). "Rnt God is alsp-tha^ather
in his relation to men generally. f^Thetru£^worshi^
pers" snail worslup the Father in spirit and trull
(iv. .23). Especially in his assurances to his diSciples-
that their prayers in his name will be answered, does
Jesus speak of God as the Father : " If ye shall ask
anything of the Father, he will give it you in my
name " (xvi. 23 ; cf. xv. 16). In the Epistles also God
^rs frequently spoken of as the Father, without further
definition (I. ii. 1; iii. 1 ; II. 3, 4). God, then, is
tlie^Father of all men. JDoes it therefore follow that
all men are
correlated '(

There are two passages which must be
This interpretation, in substance, is adopted by Haupt,

>Westcott, Huther, and Dwight.

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 71
appealed to in answer : " As many as received him,
to them gave he the right (igovo-tav) to become chil
dren of God (reicva 0eov yeve'adat), even to them that
believe on his name" (i. 12). Here, certainly, men
are said to receive, on condition of faith in Christ, the
right or privilege of becoming sons of God, — a state
ment which clearly implies that they were not such
before. In the following verse (13) the apostle
explains that men become children of God by a
spiritual^ renewal or transformation .~ Men are not-
naturally children of God lrTthe "sense of the terms
of this passage ; in other words, the natural relation
in which all men alike stand to God as his creatures
or offspring is not designated as^sqnship. That term
is reserved to express the relation of likeness, fellow
ship, and loving obedience into which men enter by
faith. It is true that all men are ideally sons of
God, — that is, it is their true destiny, and they have
the capacity, to become such. But they actually
>ater\ upon the possession of this divine privilege
"onry-flirough an inward transformation.
The other passage to which reference must be
made is I. iii. 1 : " Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be
called children of God (reicva Oeqv) : and such we
are." The writer is addressing his fellow-Christians.
This condition r>f RonRhip Tn ^^ hp dpse.rjbes as the
resultofaspiritual begetting, the reality of which is
attesteii_by the doing of righteousness^Ljifjh^ljO^
Sonship to God, therefore, In the sense of the passage,

72 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
is conditioned upon being begotten of God, that is,
upon the renewal of the natural man by regeneration.
We may, then, state the conclusion to which these
passages lead us in this paradoxical form : God is
tl^e Father of men, but men become sons of GoST*-
Between God the Creator ana man the~cTea?l?eH*e the
ideal relation is one of unity and harmony. But this
ideal relation does not, as matter of fact, exist. Man
has impaired it by sin. God continues good and
gracious to man ; he always corresponds to the per
fect idea of what he should be ; he is the Father still ;
but man has forfeited his moral sonship to God, in
volving fellowship and likeness, by disobedience. In
this sense God can be called the Father of men
because he always remains actually in his relations
to men what he is ideally; whereas men must become
sons of God because they are not actually what they
are ideally ; it is on their side that the ideal relation"
has been impaired ; on their side, therefore, must it
be restored. Only as men renounce their sins and
become obedient and like to God, do they become, in
an ethical sense, his sons. The laggrrage of John
especially emphasizes thq_ idea of ^cowth ix likeness
and fellowship with God by the Use" ~ui the word
child (reicvov) rather than son (yio<s). The latter
word — characteristic of Paul — emphasizes the dig
nity of the believer's position, while the former
emphasizes more the close relation of fellowship
with God into which the believer has entered, — a
1 Cf. Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, i. 194.

THE IDEA OF GOD IN WRITINGS OF JOHN 73
relation in which lies the guaranty of his continuous
progress in all that is Godlike. This distinction is
well defined by Haupt : " According to Paul, we
secure, for Christ's sake, the right of a child (Kindes-
recht) ; according to John, we secure, through Christ,
the nature of a child" (Kindeswesen).1
How evident it is that the idea of God which is
found in the writings of John is one which accords
with the demands of the religious life. Those aspects
of the divine character are presented which are essen
tial to practical religious thought, and inspiring to
religious confidence and joy. We do not meet in
these writings the God of abstract philosophical
speculation, — the vague, absentee Deity of Gnosti
cism, — but the Father of our spirits and the God
of all tender mercies. TheGod whom this apostle
knflgg_and proclaims is the living God, who per
petually reveals his goodnesg tn "iprf^^r] whtv-TTrKnps
to the world in the fulness of his
n Jcauo Chricit...

Commentary, on I. iii. 1.

CHAPTER IV
THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS
Literature. — Lucke : Commentar uber das Evangelium des
Johannes, Der Prolog, pp. 249-294, and 365-378, translated in
the Christian Examiner for 1849, pp. 165-189 and 412-432 ;
Weiss-: Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, Die sogenannte johan-
neische Logoslehre, pp. 239-251 ; Bill. Theol. The Christology, ii.
325-347; Reuss: Hist. Christ. Theol., Of the Essential Nature
of the Word, ii. 389-399 (orig. ii. 435-447); Baur: Neutest.
Theol., Der Logos als das gbttliches Offeubarungsorgan, pp. 356-
359 ; Lias : Doctr. Syst. of St. John, Doctrine of the Logos and the
Person of Christ, pp. 33-64 ; Siegfried : Philo von Alexandria,
Die Lehre vom Logos, pp. 219-229, and Das Johannesevangel
ium, pp. 317-321 ; Frommann : Der Johann. Lehrb., passim (F.
treats the whole theology of John from the standpoint of the
Logos-doctrine); Lipshis: art. Alexandrinische Religionsphil-
osophie in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon ; Schurer : Hist. Jewish
People, Philo, the Jewish Philosopher, iii. 321-381 ; Gloag :
introduction to the Johannine Writings, Dissertation on the
Logos, pp. 167-189 ; Smith's Bible Dictionary, arts, on The
Wisdom of Solomon, and The Word (For ample references to
the literature of the subject see especially the latter article ;
also Schurer and Gloag, op. cit.) ; Sand ay : The Authorship and
Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, The Prologue, pp. 5-
20 ; Harnack : Ueber das Verhaltniss des Prologs des vierten
Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk, in the Zeitschrift fur Theol-
ogie und Kirche, 2 Jahrg., 3 Heft, 1892 ; Salmond : article
Logos in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ; Weizsacker : Das apos.
Zeitalter, Die Logoslehre, pp. 549-558 ; Liddon : The Divinity of

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 75
our Lord, Lect. II. Anticipations of Christ's Divinity in the Old
Testament, pp. 45-99, and Lect. V. The Doctrine of Christ's
Divinity in the Writings of St. John, pp. 209-278. For full
discussions of the Logos-doctrine in Philo and in Greek Phil
osophy I refer to the following works : James Drummond :
Philo Judceus, or, Jewish Alexandrian Philosophy in its Develop
ment and Completion, London, 1888; E. Zeller : Die Philosophie
der Griechen, u. s. iv., 3 Theil, 2 Abtheilung, pp. 338-418; M.
Heinze : Die Lehre vom Logos in der Griechischen Philosophie,
Oldenburg, 1872, pp. 204-297. For the critical exposition of
the language of the prologue I would refer especially to the
Commentaries of Lucke, Meyer, Westcott, and Godet.
The (posf fhnrne.teristic l single doctrine which is

found in the writings of John is trip, doctrine r>t the
Logos or Word. He uses thig__term to denote the
pre-existent Son of God who became incarnate in
Jes"flsT It is evident from the fact that the apostle
does not explain the word or seek to justify its use
by argument, that it was a term of current speech
which he assumes that his readers will understand.
But to modern ears the term Word has a strange
sound as a designation for Christ, and the force of
John's use of it can only become apparent by an
investigation of its historical meaning.
Baur and his school, who ascribed the Gospel to a
Christian Gnostic who wrote about, the middle of the
second century, held that the idea of the Logos was de
rived from the Gnostic systems ; a but all the consider
ations which have been adduced since Baur's time in
1 See, e. </., Baur: Neutest. Theol., p. 361 sq. ; Pfleiperer:
Urchristenthum, p. 698,

,76 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
favor of an earlier date for the Gospel unite to render
this supposition improbable. The Logos-idea is indeed
found in the systems of Basilides and Valentinus,
but it is only a minor element in a complex series of
asons or emanations. The Logos in these systems
has a different character and an inferior significance
compared with those which it bears in the Fourth
Gospel.
- It is still a debatable question whether the primary
source of John's Logos-doctrine was Jewish or AtBX=-
andnan, — whether we are to look chiefly to the Old
"has long been, and"" doubtless is still the prevailing
view.1 But it is to be noticed that even if we attrib
ute John's use of the term Logos to the direct or
indirect influence of Philo, we do not thereby dis
prove the Old Testament origin of the conception.
Two main streams of thought met and mingled in
the Alexandrian philosophy, — one Hellenic, eman
ating frorn PI a t,n arT?T— rhp. Sfoic.s, the other Jewish.
emanating from the Old Testament and the later
JewlstrHirrerrlofjy. Pllilo was a. devout .Ip.w1 and t.hp
'basis of his philosophy of religion was the Old Testa
ment. With the Jewish religion he sought to blend
ideas derived from the Greek philosophy, on the as
sumption that this philosophy was also the product of
a real divine inspiration. The result was a conglom-
1 So, for example, Meyer, Liicke, Reuss, Beyschlag, Weiz
sacker, Harnack ; per contra, Luthardt, Weiss, Liddon, Godet,
Plummer,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 77
erate system, incoherent and self-contradictory in
many of its parts, but still resting, in the belief of
its author, upon an Old Testament basis.
In order clearly to indicate the bearings of the
question at issue, it is necessary briefly to illustrate
the ideas from the Old Testament, and those from
Philo, which stand connected with the Johannine use
of the terrnj;
In Lli'tr Old Teslaiihiril we fiequeiillv meet wiLh Lhe-
phrase " word of Jehovah " as a symbol of the power
of God or of the energizing of his will.
" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ;
And all the host of them by the breath of the mouth.
For he spake, and it was done ;
He commanded, and it stood fast " (Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9).
Theseexpressions are based upon the idea of God's
creativevWi^Sas it appears, for example, in the cos
mogony inSsLeiiesis : " And God said, Let there be,"
etc. In some passages, " the word of God " is poetic
ally described as an energetic agent which is active
in accomplishing the divine purposes ; as when, in a
description of God's action in nature, it is said :
" He sendeth out his commandment upon earth ; His
word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15), or as
when, through the prophet, Jehovah declares that
his word shall accomplish that which he pleases
(Is. lv. 10, 11).
With the use of God's word as a symbol of his
power, is closely connected the use of it as a name for

78 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the revelation of his will, applied especially to his
""gPICTis. t.o rr"?n ^""jf' +"P prophets. Isaiah " saw
the word [of Jehovah] concerning Judah and Jeru
salem (Is. ii. 1). " The word of the Lord came " is
the formula with which most of the prophetic books
are prefaced.
Some of the passages already quoted illustrate_u_
tendency to personify the word. This tendency is
still more noticeable where attributes of God are^
predicated of his word, as when it is affirmed to be
right (Ps. xxxiii. 4), enduring (Ps. cxix. 89), and
powerful (Jer. xxiii. 29). These personifications are,
of course, poetical, but they illustrate the beginnings
Qf a mode of thought which is carried much further in
the uses of the terms word and wisdom which we haVe
yet tojiotice^and which throws light upon-the genesis
and significance of the Johannine Logos-rWrr-inq,
In the Book- of Joh_ajid in Proverbs we find a
personihcation of wisdom. In^objthe term is a
poetical_designation for the gracious purpose of God"
^mcnheis

which heis^wffldrinp; out in human experience, rferrftfl .
in the theodicy of the book it is only the righteous
man who knows and shares in this wisdom. This
divine wisdom is the great secret of life (Job xxviii.,
passim). It is more securely hidden from men than
are the metals in the earth (1-6) ; the wild birds
arid beasts have not found in the rocks and mountains
its hiding place (7, 8^ ; the costliest jewels cannot
equal it in value (15-19) ; only God "knoweth the
place thereof" (23).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 79
" Whence then cometh wisdom ?
And where is the place of understanding ?
Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom ;
And to depart from evil is understanding " (20, 28)..
More strikingly still is wisdom personified in the
Book of P^vert^chsTTnfrrix?r: — She is the~c'ardinal~
1 virtue whoNstaarfls on the street-corners and at the city
, gates, and invites men to walk in her ways (viii. 1-4).
Mjrod created, or prepared her, before the world was
iriade (22-29), and she was at his side as the art
ist who shares the Creator's plans ; she was " daily
his delight, rejoicing always before him " (30) ; she
therefore exhorts men to listen to her instruction and
assures those who do so of life, blessedness, and the
favor of Heaven (32-36).
It will be seen that the concppfirm '¦ppr°R"ntpd hy
the word_ of God in Hebrew-thought relates— more to -
tKedivine activity ; that represented bv wisdom re
lates more to the^di^in«--attributes.^_Both terms are
mearisof expressing the idea of the living, sel£reve"at=
ing God"! The manifestations of Jehovah's powers
especiarry-in nature, are the operations of his ivord ;
the revelation of his ethical nature and of the moral
requirements which God makes of men, is the voice
of his wisdom.
The next step in thejh^TChmment of thought which
we_are_ tracingis_fpund in the Apocryphttr—booka^
" Bcclesiasticus " or " Jesus^the Son 6i~Sirach-,^~and
" TlSljWisjlom of "S^lomoii? Both TE5SB— tJoTJte^

80 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
bejong to the second century before Christ, and rep
resent — especially the Book of Wisdom — a develop-
ment of Biblical~id«as--und££>tb.e influence of Greek
_spec^latroji:__*^cclesiastu3U£_^_^ clearly an imitation
ofthF "canonical Book of Proverbs. Its fullest de
scriptions of wisdom are found in chapters i. and xxiv.
The ideas closely resehrM&_.those of Proverbs viii.
which we have noticed. A few exSnafcalfig are here
adduced : —
" All wisdom cometh from the Lord,
And is with him forever.

Wisdom was created before all things,
And prudent understanding from everlasting.

He created her, and saw her, and made her known,
And poured her out upon all his works.

The root of wisdom is to fear the Lord,
And the branches thereof are long life " (i. 1, 4, 9, 20).
In chapter xxiv. is found a much more highly
colored description of wisdom in the form of a solilo
quy which represents the most characteristic thought
of the book. We quote a few verses : —
" I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
And covered the earth as a mist.
I dwelt in the heights,
And my throne was on a cloudy pillar.
I alone compassed the arch of heaven,
And walked about in the depth of abysses.
In the waves of the sea, and in all the earth,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

81

And in every people and nation, I got a possession.
With all these I sought rest ;
And in whose inheritance should I abide?
Then the Creator of all things gave me a commandment,
And he that made me caused my tabernacle to rest,
And said, Let thy dwelling be in Jacob,
And thine inheritance in Israel.
He created me from the beginning, before the world,
And I shall never fail.
In the holy tabernacle I served before him;
And so was I established in Sion " (xxiv. 3-10).

It is evident that we have here a poetic description
_cf God's self-revelation under an objective and-pefc-
sjjriaJJiQrm. TJie2nfiES2nII2l^^
jostatizbswisdbm, but only^-toSgei^eftifxrfoi' rlietori-
caT

le manifestation of Go

ributes which

is made in tfte government of the world, and espec-
iallyTh th
In theL&pok of Wqgdonjf thedevelopment of thought
is-^arned__pjie_step farther. Its~auTnor was evidently"
an Alexandrian

Jew who sought to combine Greek
speculation with the Jewish religion, and who may
therefore be regarded as one of the forerunners of
that peculiar philosophy of religion which is best
represented in Philo. Solomon is the speaker. In
chapters vii. and viii., he gives a de^gjiptiea^aLwis-

dorn^ " who sdipis, and how she arose^

is "the artificer of all things" (vii. 21), a subtle, all-
permeating principle (vii. 24), " is initiated into the
mysteries of the knowledge of God, and is a chooser
of his works " (viii. 4). " She is a breath of the power
6

82 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of God, and a pure effluence from the glory of the
Almighty ; therefore no defiling thing falls into her ;
for she is a reflection of the everlasting light (airav-
jaapa (pcoToi aiSiov ; cf. cnravyaapa ttj? h6t~rpi k. t. X..,
Heb. i. 3), and an unspotted mirror of the efficiency
of God, and image of his goodness. And though
but one, she can do all things ; and though remaining
in herself, she maketh all things new ; and from gen
eration to generation entering into holy souls, she
equippeth friends of God, and prophets. For God
loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. For
she is more beautiful than the sun, and above every
position of stars ; being compared with the light, she
is found superior " (vii. 25-29).
It is impossible to determine with certainty how far
this ascription of personal qualities and activities to
wisdom is to be regarded as merely poetic or figurative. /
''The description of wisdom asj^ holy spirjt_oflight and

anactiye agent of God in the world seems to form e
connecting link between the poetical personifications
in the canonical Wisdom-books and the Logos-doctrinel
of Philo, the chief features of which we shall presently
notice. Attention should here be directed to the personifica
tion oi the wordCMemra.) of Jehovah which isToTmd
in the Targums or Aramaic paraphrasejj>_jiL-tJi£_Qld
Testament booksJ These Targums were in current
use amongtKerJews in the apostolic age, and John
1 See Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, Das Memra Jehova's,
pp. 174-179.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

83

was probably acquainted with their phraseology, They
(personified the word of God _and ascribed to it divine
pQwerlri order more"compleifiIy to separataJjod from
the world. Especially were the anthropogagrpfetrrgcts-
nf Qori jgafprrpH froTHe MetriTa-: fnsfead of Adam and
Eve hearing the voice of theLord in the garden (Gen.
iii, 8), they are said to have heard the voice of the
word of the Lord, and the like. This word is described
Jay the Rabbis as proceeding out oftEe" mouth of~€rod-
and becoming an activejaotency. a pj?rsoiuiITiypTTsta7sis,
whom the angels_seryp, in exp^tting JJie divine" will.
lGotf^dwetig-rrr-aoiL works through the MemrapTlB-
stands for the popular thougj]dnp.~tliep"lace of Jehovah,
and.the providential andj^dprnptiyp a.p,tZjrTlffnH--n.rp
freely ascribed to him. The Memra of the paraphrasts
presents a striking analogy to the Logos of the Jewish
A,h|xandnaji4iu4wop"iror Phlku^iLjtO-DU a. d.j:  r~
Philo's system is a complex of Jewish, Greek, and
Oriental elements. As, a Jew. ^a h°''°H jp"th'e"'fjrpd-
o.f. the OTdTTestamant. "but under thfuiniluenee of plnj-'
osophy he was led to the most abstract conception of
his nature. God was absolutely removed frOTn-^fche-
world and could have no contact with it. Between the
pure Spirit and the sensible world there could be no
communication. This gulf between the transcendent '
Deity and the lower world Philo sought to bridge bj
his doctrine of intermediate powers or ideas. The
sum or epitome of these various agencies is the Is^ojl i
This term Philo probably adopted from the Old Testa
ment, but the content and use of it were determined

84 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
s  ¦
by that gnosis which had its principal sources in the
Platonic doctrine of ideas and in the„Stoic doctrine of
causes or powers.
JC The term Jjogos. as denoting the archetypal ideaj
was fitted to express "both the immanentmison of Goq
and also the principle of revelation in the divine nature^
The Logos, considered as immanent reason, correspond
ing to unuttered thought (X070S evhiddeTos) in man, is
as transcendent and incomprehensible as God him
self ; huf, in-itft nth'r.r nripnrt nn mi iftJYfi) forth-putting
power, corresponding to uttered thought (Xoyo<i irpatyop-
uak) in man, the Logos ia-Jh^^^MJas-^af^fiad'a-gelf-
communication by which he reveals hirngjpJXjn^creation
fl.nd__provid£iica. — This uttered__Word is the agent.
through whom jGod created the world and is continu
ally actiyew^tlini iti^_I^ihim is summed up ail divine
wisdom and goodnesfe—ffe js the first-born son of God,
the highest angel, Tfagjsecond Godj^S SevTepo? #ed?).
Whether Philo regardsthe Logos as strictly a person
distinct froni Uod is a disputed question. The diffi
culty of deciding it with certainty arises from the
shifting and inconsistent meanings in which he employs
the term. Much of his language can, no doubt, be
explained as poetical, and in no case can a clear and
consistent conception be derived from his expressions.
But after all due allowance is made for vague and
figurative language, there remains, I think, decisive
evidence that his descriptions of the Logos can denote
nothing less than_a real person, an hypostasis distincT"
faun__God. Since the Logos is defined to be "the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 85
second God " in a figurative sense (iv icaTaypriaei), is
begotten ofjthe^Father, and therefore dependent for his
existence upon him, the monotheism of Philo would
not be undermined by the ascription of personality to
the Logos. 
SucrTare the elements of the Logos-doctrine in its }
various stages of development. It is rooted in the soil
of the Old Testament. But, although it stands in
direct connection with the Old Testament personifica
tion of God's power under the term word and the
personification of his ethical attributes under the term
wisdom, it is hardly conceivable that the Logos-idea
should have taken the form which it has assumed in
Philo except through contact with Greek speculation.
The doctrine of ideas as the archetypal pggpnppg oj^j_
things and kindreiLiorms^Qf thought, and the concep-
tionof God's metaphysical absoluteness, are the two
elements of Greek thought which gave snape to the
idea of the Logos which Philo had derived from the
Old Testament. I The Logojyioctrine was a means of
showing how the transcendent God might still come/
into relation with the world and man.^ The later Jewish!
theology, which more and more removed God from
active contact with the world, solved the same problem
by its doctrine of angels who were the agents of God
in all his acts. We have occasional traces of this
tendency to ascribe God's action to the mediation- of
angels in the New Testament.1
1 Acts vii. 35 ; Heb. ii. 2 ; and, especially, Gal. iii. 19, where the
giving of the law is ascribed to the mediation of angels, — an

8# THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
, It is evident from what has been said that the(
Logo~s=idea must nave been a tamiliar one when"the
apuslle John- wrote" Wisdom literature had been
current lor twp centuries or more, and the elaborate
system of PhTio was wrought out forty or fifty years"
bSfure Hie Fourtli liospel was written. The apostle
""cttd iiuL adupT"tne wora Logos because he was him
self inventing some recondite system of speculation
concerning the person of Christ. He adopted it as a
term of current philosophical speech in order by its
use to adapt his idea of Christ's pre-existence and
divinity to the minds of his Greek readers. In his
use of it we need not suppose that it retains precisely
the same associations and contents which it had in the
speculations of the time. On the contrary, it bears"
.quite a new character as employed by John. " The
|/personification of the divine word in the Old Testa-^
' ^ent is poetical, in Philo metaphysical, in St. John
nistorical." J The use of the term is an illustration

of the natural tendency of Christian thought to avail
itself of the philosophical conceptions and phraseology
which prevail at any given time. Other examples are
found in Paul's use, in the Epistles of the Imprison
ment, of terms derived from an incipient Gnosticism,
especially 7rXijpo)pa, and the wide adoption in the
idea not found in the narrative of the giving of the law. It is
probably found, however, in the original of Deut. xxxiii. 2, and
is clearly expressed by the Septuagint rendering of that passage
(ayye\oi per' avrov).
1 Plummer, Cambridge Gk. Test. Notes on John i. 1.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

87

theological language of our time of phraseology de
rived from the theory of evolution. It is as jf John
had said to his readers :

You are familiar withtrle
sp'eTTuTations which have long been rife respe^filrg-tihe
means whereby God reveals himself, — the~~doctfine
of ari intermediate agent through* whom he commu-

"Ttm |.HTM UlTWKPr-

to the question i^gnrd in g^tlnsmediator is, that it is
our Lord ^Jesus-Christ. He is God's agent in revela"""
tion; he is the, bond whiolTunitps"bp.a.VpT]^g:d-^rtib_,
The development of the Logos-doctrine which""" we
have briefly traced indicates the answer to the ques
tion as to the origin of the idea in the writings of
John. Tt cannot be explained without reference to
"?hilo. Whether John had ever read the wrff!rrgs-e£-
x'hilo we do not know. Whether he was directly
familiar with Philo's system we have no means of
deciding. But that he was familiar with that type of
speculation concerning the Logos whose chief repre
sentative is found in Philo seems certain, and some
direct knowledge of Philo's system is highly probable.
Be that as it may, we cannot naturally explain his
usejo^ trie" term Logos without supposing him arrd-4>is
readers to have been somewhat ja^ilia7~WTtrr^A4ex-
andrian thought. But it is none the less" true that
Jonn's Logos-doctrine is rooted in the Old Testa
ment, partly because he was himself familiar with the
Jewish ideas of the word and wisdom, and partly be
cause in Philo's system the conception of the word is
an elaboration of these ideas under forms of thought

88

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

derived from Greek philosophy. The dispute whether
John's Logos-doctrine is Jewish or Alexandrian draws
the lines too closely. It is both, for the Alexandrian
philosophy of religion was largely Jewish. Both the
effort to find the occasion and ground of John's doc
trine in the Old Testament alone,1 and the failure to
take account of the Old Testament basis of the (toe-
trine,2 are alike unwarranted. The fact is that the
philosophy of Philo, which developed and applied the
Old— [Testament idea, was the medium through which.
that idea

and so passed into his writings.

Let us now turn to the prologue of the Gospel^
i. 1-18, aiToT^ee In what way and for what purpogi^
'Jolnii employs Lhe Logos-idea

From such an ex-s
lamination we shall be able to determine the points!
of likeness and of difference between John's Logos- '
doctrine and that of Philo, and to define the pur
pose of the doctrine in its relation to the Gospel as a
whole. The_prologue begins with the idea of the eternity of
the Logos (ev apxy vv ° A.0'70?, i. 1). This ideals ,
repeated in verse V (ovtov ijv iv o\p%fi irpbs tov OeovX
and is confirmed by the expresskm of Jp.sns^g*g?lt~5r-
where he speaks of the glory which he had with^Jhe
Father " before the world was " Qirpb tov tov Koafiov
elvai). To the same effect is his statement, "Before
Abraham was born, I am QirpXv 'Afipaap, yeveaOai iya>
1 See, e. g., Weiss, Der Johann. Lehrb., pp. 244, 245.
2 See, e. g., Weizsacker, Das apostol. Zeitalter, p. 551.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 89

»/u',Wiii. 58 1 cf. Ps. xc. 2). In the opening words of
the FKai^Bpistle (I. i. 1) we find a parallel to the be-
gining of the prologue, where the saving grace which
came to the world in Christ is designated as " that
which was from the beginning " (o r\v air a/3%?}? J"
It has been held by many that these- statements
amount only to an assertion of the relative pre-exist
ence of the (,Log"b"sV and are not equivalent to an af
firmation of hiselernity.1 The opening words of the
prologue present, no doubt, an allusion and a parallel
to the opening ¦rords__ol2_GenesisJ Keuss there"ioTe~
affrrnTs--thTCt" " if we infer from these words the eter
nity of the Word, we must infer also from the begin
ning of Genesis the eternity of the world." But,
supposing that in both cases the word " beginning "
denotes the beginning of time, there remains the
important difference that in Genesis that which is
placed at the beginning is an act (creation), while in
John that which is placed at the beginning is the
existence of the Word. The WonijtfasjriJit&Jifigin^
ning ; he existed before th"e world came into being. It
is true that John does not employ the words" eternal
or eternity in the connection, but we hold that this
idea is involved in the logical relation between the
terms was and in the beginning. When John speaks
of that which comes into existence he uses both a
different word and a different tense (jrdvfa oY avTov
iye'veTo, k. t. X., i. 3). AJl_things_£i7WP into being, hjit^
in the beginning of things heLwas. Without assign-
1 See, e. g., Reuss, op. cit., ii. 391, 392 (orig. ii. 438, 439).

90 VdUffHE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
ing to apxn — with some of the older interpreters —
the meaning eternity, we think that the idea is in
volved in the passages which we have noticed, as well
as demanded by other assertions of the apostle con
cerning the Word.1
John's nextproposition congfixning the Tin^os is.
that he existed in intimate fellowship with God (jcal
6 Xoyof rjv 7rpo9 tov deov. i. IV. The force of the
preposition irpo^ may be partially indicated by the
very unidiomatic English rendering: " The Word
was toward God." The preposition expresses more
than irapa would do (cf. xvii. 5.). It emphasizes a
direction or tendency of life. The moral movement
of his life is centred in God, and ever goes out
toward God. The bond of this essential fellowship
is love, since the Father loved the Son " before the
foundation of the world" (xvii. 24). A similar
thought is probably intended in the words, " which
is in the bosom of the Father " (6 d>v ek tov koXttov
toO TraTpos, i. 18). Some interpreters understand
these words to be spoken from the standpoint of
i^ha^vriter at tb& timj, and therefore to refer to the
xaltation of Jesus. y But the point of the passage
^rs^rfrwyL- how frhp Snn js fitted to reveal God to
mankind, and it is his essential and eternal relation
to the Father which would constitute the ground of
that fitness. The declaration of the Father referred
1 "For 'before the world was,' a philosophical writer would
have said 'from eternity.'" Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol., ii. 427.
2 So Meyer, Commentary, in loco ; Weiss, Johann. Lehrb., p. 239.

&

yfemjsc^

CTRINE OF THE LOGOS

91

to in iijvyrjo-aTo, is that which the Son has made in
his incarnation. His fitness to make that revelation
must therefore be logically grounded in his pre-incar-
nate relation to the Father (tov 9e6v) to which alone
can the words 6 wv ek tov koXttov naturally refer.1
Here, too, the use of the preposition (e«), indicating
motion or direction, should be observed, suggesting
an " active a.nd living relation" (Godet) between
the Son a.ndtbe Father. ~" 
To the assertion of the pre-existence of the Logos
and of his abiding fellowship with God. John now adds:
" and the Word was God (teal debs TyiAo^o^oy, i. l^L-
©eo? is here emphatically prefixed because the stress
of the thought lies upon the divine nature of the
Logos, and is without the article because John will
'not ahsoTrrhjdvjdpjrMfy n Anrynr.'jnd n_flenc~~ To dr>
this would be to contradict the previous sentence
where a distinction is presupposed between 6 Xo'70?
and 6 Oeos (the Father). John here uses g HeAc to
denote specifically the Father — the central seat and
fountain of "Hivinity — ancTfleo'? to denote the category

of diyjn^natlire~rjr~^s-stmce~"in winch the Son^equally
with the Father, partakes. He thus affirms adifp
persona, but aindentity_of_essence, be

tween the Logos and the Father. That this"
import of the apostle s words is generally admitted
by candid interpreters, whatever adjustment they
may make of the fact with theological speculation.
1 So Lucke, De Wette, Godet, Westcott (Commentari.es, in
loco).

92 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Writers who, like Ritschl 1 and Beyschlag,2 suppose
the Logos to denote a principle or impulse in God, or
a pretemporal purpose of God to reveal himself in a
person, appeal in support of their views rather to what
they regard as the practical, non-speculative purpose
of the prologue than to the simple, immediate import
of the words. Liicke's objections to the usual inter
pretation are untenable.3 He says, for example, that,
if debs fjv 6 Xo'709 was intended to emphasize the unity
of essence as an offset to the distinction of persons
implied in o Xo'70? fjv irpbs tov deov, an adversative
particle (dXXd or Se), and not the simple connective
Kai, would have been required. To this the answer
is, in part, that it is the commonest peculiarity of
John's style to string sentences together, in Hebrais
tic fashion, by the simple connective, and, further,
that the apostle's thought does not require him to
set these statements in contrast, but in unity. His
assertion that the common view would necessitate
the article with 0eo'? to correspond to trpof tov 6e6v,
overlooks the natural and intentional difference be
tween 6 Oeds and Oeos. This author weakens 0ed? to
the sense of Philo's phrase 6 Sei/repos 0ed? which he
applied to the Logos by accommodation. Liicke's
conclusion is that the sense is npjply-iJit. ^^0^
if J^tniJuijlJn^f]^ed^tire_^ogos asfetoy, a^d that the
words 0eo? fjv 6 Xo'70? do not add a^i©w4hought to
1 Rechtferligung und Versiihnung, iii. 378 sq.
2 Neutest. Theol., ii. 427.
, s Commentary, in loco.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

93

the two "previously expressed, but only further define
"and explain- the relation denoted by irpo<; tov t)eov.
Tbjg-TrrteTpl^faffioir unwarrantably allows the natural^
force of John's words to bp nverhnme by the assump
_tion of a close resemblance between John's idea of the
gos and that of Philo.
The creation of the world is ascribed to the Logos
/(Trd.VTa_&L_m'>TOii eyeveTQ, ft, j, > i 3 10), It will be
noticed that it is a mediate function (Sid) in creation
which is here designated. Nothing came into being
apart from him (x^P^ aviov). In this respect the
theology of John accords with the representations of
other New Testament writers, for example, with that
of Paul : " In him (eV avra) were all things created,"
etc. ; " All things have been created through him (oY
avTov) and unto him (et? avrov) ; and he is before
all things and in him all things consist" (Col. i. 16,
17). In Hebrews also the writer speaks of the Son
"through whom (6Y ov) God made the worlds," and
who " upholds all things by the word of his power "

(i. 2, 3;
but the Logos ij
creating, sustaji

.Creator in the absolute sense,
Jicient agent of Goth-in
iffthe woil

thus a matter of interest to observe that Jolin, as
well as Paul, has the idea of " the cosmic significance
of Christ," — an idea which sustains an important
relation to his doctrines of revelation and redemption.
The fifth and final thought of the introductory
passage (i. 1-5), which max-bu rarl-rod Lhe^prQlague"
in the narrower sense, is that the Logos is the giVpy_

94 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of life or dispenser of light to men (i. 4, 5). The
-Eogos is the agent of divine revelation, — the inSdiaLui
of spiritual life to mankind universally. He is the
seat and source of life, which he communicates to
men. This life is defined under the figure of light
in order to emphasize its diffusive and beneficent
character and power. ThJg, light has been pouring
itself forth upon—the sinful and unreceptive world"

in

ur

The-jemainder of the prologue may be regarded as
¦aarrlrggU atie»~and amplification of this thought, drawn
from the historical manifestation of the Logos in Jesus
Christ. From the sixth verse onward the writer makes

the incarnation and life of Jesus his ruling thought.
John the Baptist — the last representative of the old
covenant and the herald of the new — testified that
Jesus was the true divine light of the world (6-9).
As participating in the world's creation he has an
abiding relation to it. He was perpetually active (f)v)
in the world as the revealer of God, but the world
received not his revelation (10). At length he came
(rjXdev) in his incarnation to his own proper possession
(et? tc\ iSia), the Jewish nation, but those who were,
in the divine destination, his own people (ol I'Stot),
acting in their free self-determination, rejected him
(11). Such as did receive him, however, entered by
faith in him into a new world of blessedness in loving
fellowship with the Father (12, 13). The main thoughts
which are here indicated respecting divine revelation
are : (1) Revelation is universal ; the light of the

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 95
eternal Logos shines in the world's darkness, seeking
to bless and save men. (2) It is the sinfulness of
men which blinds their minds to the true knowledge
of God and prevents them from realizing the blessed
ness of fellowship with God. (3) In the incarnation of
the Logos a special revelation was made to the Jews,
in whose whole history God had been seeking to pre
pare the way for the reception of the Messiah when
he should come. (4) While as a nation the Jews,
who thus, in a peculiar sense, belonged to Christ, re
jected him, he was accepted by others on conditions
purely spiritual ; and these have attained the end con
templated in all revelation, — loving obedience and
fellowship with God.
The final section of the prologue (14-18) introduces
no strictly new thoughts. John affirms that the Logos
became incarnate (6 Xo'70? o-t\p% iyeveTo, 14), and that
he dwelt in humanity as in a tabernacle (icricrivmo-ev iv
r)plv, 14). The word o-dp% denotes human nature, and
not a human body (o-wfia) merely. The verb iyeveTo
cannot, in view of John's whole doctrine, be understood
J,o mean that the Logos changed his nature and became
human in the sense of ceasing to be divine. The sen
tence 6 Xo'70? o-gpZ iyeveTo expresses with preg'lltlJil
brevity the idea of his assumptionof humarTnature by
union wjthu_wjii£lj--th£_^iyjn^-liu^an~ personality is
constituted. We must understand this formula in the
light of the explanatory words : " and tabernacled
among us" (i. 14), and of expressions like iv aapicl
cpxeadac (I.iv. 2 ; II. 7) as denoting the mysterious unity

96 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of divinity with humanity in the person of Jesus Christ.
In his person, " full of grace and truth " (14), the glory
of God — his holy perfections — stood revealed to
men. Again the Baptist's testimony is quoted :
Although Jesus came after me in time he has taken
rank before me in the dignity of his work (eixirpoaOev
pov yeyovev, 15), because he existed before me (irp&Td<i
fiov rjv, 15). We became sharers, continues the apostle,
in the plenitude of divine blessing which came to the
world in Christ, and, in consequence, one gift of grace
has succeeded, another (xdptv dvrl ^a'ptTo?, 16). He
closes by hinting at the greater fulness of revelatioji
through the incarnation in comparison with that made
in Old Testament times. The revelation made through
Moses — from which the activity of the Logos must
not be supposed to have been absent — was a reArela-
tion of law which, in the nature of the case, could
make only a very partial manifestation of God. Com
mandments and prohibitions are extrinsic to God, and
furnish, at best, but partial disclosures of his will and
nature. But in Christ revelation became pprsm-ial
God came crose~~to men in a lrfewbich revpaleiLjfcfac
veryJtem-t-rjfijoa to tnem, and, while he still remained
hidden to the senses, lie wns dnfl1ni,0d-in his f^wpnrp
and disposition by the Son, who in Mr pq°°ntin1 life is
Jn-^rpeTiuaTlrnd perfect fellowship with the Father—
A comparison of the Logos-idea, as thus'developed,
with that of Philo, will reveal similarities of form with
striking and essential differences of content. The
Logos of John, like that of Philo. is the mediator

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 97
betwee-n— the ¦ -atee4ut&-Gfld--.and--±he_woxldr. but _the
motive for the mediation in the two systems is funda
mentally different. In_ Philo the motive lies^ in a
ce'rtain—phTlosophical view of the world and of God.
The world is gross and evil, and the transcendent "God"
caTrtoIarnb direct relations with it. God comes into

relation with the world only mediately through the
Loge-a. :Thu^"~tlTe"lrioliive for the Logos-doctrine in
Piulo is found in a metaphysical view of the universe.
With John the motive is historical. The fact of

divine revelationinJesus Christ is the logicalstarting-
point of the Johannine theology. For John, God is
-aisTrTrauscendent^bnt his transcendence is ethicaLnot
metaphysical. For him the world is separated from
GorlT^butTEiFsepara'tion is due^ not to the constitution""
~6l the world, but to ilSf^mfulne^7~~PSlQ!s__systein
rests--irrxrrr^rrnetaphysicai>d^iajj^m~lnherent in the
univSrsgT John's doctrine "proceeds upon the jdea of
aiTelihlcal dualism, incidental to the system and arising
from human si.n.._ -The Logos-doctrine is not adopted
and shaped by John — as by Philo — as a means of
solving the difficulties inherent in a certain philosophy,
but is adopted as a convenient and useful method of
presenting the fact that the pre-existent Son of God
became incarnate in Jesus Christ. John in the pro
logue seeks to present to his readers, under the terms
of a doctrine which was current among them, two
truths concerning Jesus : (1) the fact of his saving
historical work, whose blessing he had himself experi
enced ; and (2) the fact of his personal pre-existence

98

the Johannine theology

and essential unity with the Father, to which Jesus had
testified in his teaching concerning himself.
Again, in John we have what is not found in
Philo, — a clear and consistent personification of the

JLogos. ~Tn Philo the use of the word oscillates be-'
tween the two common meanings of the term, reason
and word. The Logos, considered as the immanent
reason of God, is a name for an element or phase of
the personality of the absolute Being, while the Logos,
in the sense of the uttered Word of God, is treated
as a distinct hypostasis. These two quite different
senses of the term are not clearly distinguished.
The word is thus involved in vague and shifting
senses. Moreover, the relation of Philo's philosophy
to Old Testament and later Jewish thought, enhances
the uncertainty of its meaning. Many of Philo's titles
for the Logos, — the Wisdom of God, the Son of God,
the Archangel, the Man of God, etc., — seem to be
reproductions of Jewish conceptions which may be
inderstood figuratively or poetically. But in John
\e identification oJ_JJie--Logoa with the person of

fesus'tifiristTand the clear assertion of his pretem-
pofSr-existence and of his deity, make it impossible,
withoutreSegetical arbitrarines^to interpretJiis-lan-
guage in a merejdgal or poetrcai-sense. 
"Fr^mT~wl^t^hasHjeeH^aidof thediff'ering motives

of the Logos-doctrine in JohjijyidJji.-P4rrr8T-ii- i« pvi-'
^errt-thaHrthe Idea of the incarnation of the Logos-
would be "radicaUy^Tnconsisteril, wii.b Philo'g whole
system

The dTvTne Logos could form no union with

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 99
weak and corruptible human nature. The words 6
Xo'70? aapl; iyeveTo, (i. 14) mark a fundamental differ-
fnce between John's doctrine and Philo's. Tljere are
no presuppositions in the apostle's thought which_con-_
stitute -a-ba#-rier-to' tire" idea oFa unjanoJL divinity- with
tranianityrrTii fact lTC~haT Tiad personal knowledge of
T5uiebr-a~~tfnion in the person of his Master, in whom
the divine life has been manifested (I. i. 1, 2). John's
doctrine is grounded thus, not in abstract specula
tion, but m observation and expeflerrre; — His fel
lowship-. -with--hTS~i!ffa^eT-aTrrT_EisTcnowledge of his
teaching and claims are the grounds on which he
builds his doctrine of the nature, incarnation, and
historical function of the Logos.
While we thus recognize ajn'sro1'1'" roiaHnn hef.wp.pn
Alexaridriansjeiiulatianas represented in Philo, and
John's Lggos-doctrinPj1 we think the differences much

m.fH'prTundamental than the resemblances. If this is
the case, it raises a strongpresumption against the
opinion 2 that the Logos-idea is the starting-point and
controlling thought of the Fourth Gospel. In this
view it is regarded as the aim of the Gospel to exhibit
the various stages of a conflict between light and
darkness (i. 4, 5, 7, 9 ; iii. 19-21 ; viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ;
xii. 35, 36, 46). The Gospel is a highly wrought de
scription of the meeting of opposing powers which
1 The resemblances in phraseology and idea are exhibited in
detail in Siegfried's Philo von Alexandria, pp. 317-321.
2 See, e. g., Weizsacker, Das apostol. Zeitalter, p. 553 ; O. Holtz
mann, Das Johannesevangelium, pp. 78, 79.

100

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

are represented by the Logos and the sinful world
respectively. This abstract, philosophical conception
which the writer adopted when he appropriated to his
use the term Logos determines his whole representa
tion of the life of Jesus, and gives to it a distinctively
speculative cast. Philo furnished the fourth evange
list, concludes Oscar Holtzmann, with " an essentially
new conception of Christianity." 1
The phenomena of the Gospel do not appear to me
to sustain this view. The term Logos, as a personal
designation, does not occur ou1isIde~oT~the prologue,"
and evp1n''TlierprnT~r?pa rather- TTTfrn
rihilosophically. The .Logos is jiot--pfes6ntgd~-aa. aji
abstract principle, buJLa&-thc prctemcaral form of the
person Jesus Christ. Light and darkness" iriTBe~pfb-
logue, and in the Gospel elsewhere, are not abstract
metaphysical conceptions, but ethical conceptions.
Darkness is sin, and light is goodness. These terms are
symbols of ethical realities, the use of which accords
with the writer's peculiar mode of thought respecting
the nature of God and of man, and which abound in
the First Epistle (i. 5, 7 ; ii. 8-10) where the Logos-
doctrine is not developed and, in the view of many,
is not even referred to (see I. i. 1, irepl tov Xoyov tt}?
_£&>?)?). The writer's own account of his purpose in
composing the Gospel is : " These (signs) are written,
that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Som
of God; and that believing ye may have life in his
name " (xx. 31). His pjrr^ose_was^ strictly historical
1 Op. cit., p. 79.

THE DOCTRINE OF yHE.^OGOS 101
and practical. The saving good that has come to the
wtffld is fouricTin the person ana work of Jesus, who
declared himself to have exiiifted in essential union
with Gcjibefore his human appearance. To empha

size this pre-existence and' union with "God, and to
present the thought that, as the eternal Son, Jesus
was the medium of divine revelation in all ages, John
employs the term Logos.
Harnack concludes his discussion of the relation of
the prologue to the Gospel as a whole, in these words :
" The prologue of the Gospel is not the key to the
understanding of the Gospel, but it prepares the Hellen
istic readers therefor. The writer seizes upon a known
quantity, the Logos, works it over and transforms it —
implicitly combating false Christologies — in order to
substitute for it Jesus Christ, the p.ovoye.vr\<; 6e6s, that is,
in order to disclose it as being this same Jesus Christ.
From the moment when this is done, the Logos-idea is
allowed to fall away. The author continues his narrative
now only concerning Jesus, in order to establish the faith
that he is the Messiah, the Son of God. This belief has
for its principal element the recognition that Jesus origi
nates from God and from heaven ; but the author is far
removed from the purpose of securing this recognition
from cosmological and philosophical considerations. Upon
the basis of his testimony, and because he has brought
full knowledge of God and life — absolutely heavenly,
divine benefits — does Jesus prove himself, according to
the evangelist, to be the Messiah, the Son of God." *
1 Op. cit., pp. 230, 231. I do not intend by this citation to
indicate my accord with Harnack's general estimate of the
Logos-idea in the Fourth Gospel,

CHAPTER V
THE UNION OP THE SON WITH THE FATHER
Literature. — Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Die Einheit des Sohnes
mit dem Vater, u. s. w., pp. 203-219, and Bibl. Theol., The Christ-
ology, §§ 143-145; Wendt: The Teaching of Jesus, The Rela
tion of Jesus to God, and Pre-existence of Jesus according to the
Johannine Discourses, ii. 151-178 (orig., pp. 450-472) ; From-
mam: Johann. Lehrb., Sohn Gottes, pp. 409-418; Beyschlag:
Neutest. Theol., Der Eingeborene, ii. 409-420 ; H. P. Liddon :
The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Lecture V.,
The Doctrine of Christ's Divinity in the Writings of St. John,
pp. 209-278.
Some of the most important considerations which
bear upon the present subject have come under our
notice in the study of the Logos-idea. It remains to
examine the apostle's teaching as a whole in the light
of the Christology of the prologue, in order to de
termine whether or not the ideas there found are per
vading and fundamental in the Johannine view of
Christ's person. This inquiry will involve chiefly a
study of the terms the Son of God and the only be
gotten Son, and an examination of those passages
which refer to the pre-existence of the Son and to
his relation to the Father.
The title the Son of God, or its shortened form the
Son, is applied to Jesus about thirty times in the

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 103
Gospel, and more than twenty times in the Epistles
of John. In a few passages the title is modified by
the word only-begotten (p,ovoyevij<;) (i. 14, 18 : iii. 16,
18; I. iv. 9). It is necessary to determine, if pos
sible, what this title signifies. The principal problem
is, whether the term Son refers merely to an ethical
union of Christ with God, or also denotes or implies
a metaphysical union; whether it simply describes
Christ as the chosen object of the divine love, or also
designates him as standing in essential and eternal
union with the Father in respect to his nature.
No one can read the passages in the Gospel of
John where Jesus speaks of his filial relation to God
without receiving the impression that this relation is re
garded as something unique, — that he is declared to
be the Son of God in some pre-eminent sense. Take,
in illustration, such passages as these : " The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his
hand" (iii. 35). "Not that any man hath seen the
Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen
the Father " (vi. 46). " I and the Father are one "
(x. 30). " I am in the Father, and the Father in
me " (xiv. 11). The question now arises whether
this unique relation to which these passages refer is
solely ethical, that is, a relation of loving fellowship,
and thus the same in kind with that in which all
men as " sons of God " stand to God, or whether a
relationship of essence is also involved. Weiss has
adopted the former view in respect to the meaning of
Son, In his opinion the term Son of God describes

104 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Jesus " as the object of the divine love, upon whom
the good pleasure of God rests." 1 This author, how
ever, holds, in general, that the pre-existence of Clirist
and the metaphysical union of essence between Christ
and God are taught in the writings of John.2 But
he maintains that these ideas are not involved in
the title Son of God, which is an Old Testament
metaphor derived from human relations, and with
which is sometimes joined the designation " only-be
gotten " in order to emphasize " the closest relation
of love" existing between the Father and the Son.3
But this author holds that on the question " whether
this [sonship] reaches back into eternity and depends
upon an original relationship of essence on the part
of the Son to the Father, the self-testimony of Jesus
could give no disclosure." * Other recent writers
seek, in connection with this view of the sonship of
Jesus, to rule out from the Fourth Gospel the idea of
a personal pre-existence of the Son.5
The title Son of God was not in current use among
the Jews as a designation for the Messiah. It is,
i Bibl. Theol., § 17, b.
2 Weiss admits that " the Johannean self -testimony of Jesus
decisively goes beyond that of the Synoptists," and holds that
passages like xvii. 5 and viii. 58 denote " an existence which ex
cludes all becoming," and point to " a pre-historical existence
with the Father." lb. 144, a.
8 Ib. § 145, a.
4 lb. § 17, c, note 3.
6 For example, Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol, ii. 412 sq. and
417 sq. ; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 151 sq. (orig. p. 450 sq.).

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 105
indeed, found in the Book of Enoch (cv. 2), and in the
Fourth Book of Esdras (vii. 28 sq. ; xiii. 37 sq. ; xiv. 9),
where Jehovah is represented as calling the Messiah
his Son; but these passages are only reminiscences
of the Old Testament conception of Israel, and espe
cially of Israel's king, as God's Son. From extra-
Biblical sources we derive no light upon the meaning
of the title as applied to the Messiah. It is probable
that our Lord's application of the term to himself
stands historically connected with the Old Testament
representations to which we have just referred. In
2 Sam. vii. 14 we read : " I will be his (David's)
father, and he shall be my son ; " and in Hosea xi. 1 :
" When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and
called my son out of Egypt." As the ideal theocratic
Son of God, the antitypical King of Israel, Jesus
applies to himself the term Son in order to designate
the unique relation in which he stands to God. The
name stands closely connected with the title Messiah,
but is not strictly synonymous with it. In Peter's
confession they are united : " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God " (Matt. xvi. 16). In like
manner the titles are several times coupled together
by others, as by the high priest (Matt. xxvi. 63), by
Martha (John xi. 27) and by the apostle John (xx. 31).
But these passages do not prove more than that son-
ship to God was an attribute of the Messiah and a
prerequisite of his work. The Messianic title of Jesus
remains XpiaTof. The title Son of God desig
nates the personal, rather than the official, character

106 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
and relations of Jesus. It refers not so much to the
work to which he has been appointed as to the rela
tion to God which that work presupposes. The
Messianic work of Jesus is grounded in his sonship
to God.
It is necessary, now, to examine the more signifi
cant passages from the Gospel in which this term is
used, in order to determine what peculiarities of the
person of Christ it is intended to describe. The first
question to which an answer must be sought is,
whether the name Son, as applied to Christ, refers
only to his historic life on earth, or also points,
directly or inferentially, to a pretemporal existence
and thus to an eternal relation on his part to the
Father. Christ is twice referred to in the prologue as the
only begotten Son (i. 14, 18). In the first of these
passages it is uncertain whether he is directly called
" the only begotten from the Father" (A. V., B. V.),
or is only compared to a father's only begotten son.
The absence of the article from the words only-begot
ten and Father (tu? povoyevov? irapa irarpos) favors the
rendering : " An only begotten from a father " (R. V.
marg.). On this view the words designate Jesus as
the One on whom God concentrates his special love
and favor, as an earthly father would concentrate his
love upon an only son. So far, the view which re
gards the sonship in question as an ethical relation
seems to meet the requirements of this passage. But
the glory (&6%a) which has been manifested is cer-

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 107
tainly regarded, as the whole import of the prologue
shows, as belonging to this Son and as inhering in his
person, before its manifestation in his incarnate form
of being. He does not become a Son by his incarna
tion, as men by faith become children of God (i. 12).
He brought to manifestation in his incarnation " the
glory which he had " with the Father " before the
world was " (xvii. 5).
The bearing upon our subject of the second of these
passages (i. 18), "No man hath seen God at any
time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him," is partly de
pendent upon its interpretation. If the participle
wv is referred to the time when the author is writing,1
the passage would then be an assertion of the exalt
ation of the Son into closest fellowship with the
Father, but would contain no reference to his pre-ex
istence, and would therefore have no bearing upon the
question whether the idea of pre-existence was here
ussociated with the phrase " the only begotten Son."
On the other hand, if this participle be given the
force of an imperfect,2 the passage would assert that
the only begotten Son was, in his pre-incarnate life,
in closest fellowship with the Father, and that he had
left this position in order to reveal God to men. On
a third interpretation, which seems to me preferable,
the participle wv is a timeless present, and the pas
sage would designate the only begotten Son as in
a continuous, abiding fellowship of life with the
1 So Meyer, Weiss, 2 So Luthardt, Gess.

108 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Father. He is, even in his earthly life, in the bosom
of the Father, even as the Son of man is said to be
" in heaven " (iii. 13) because heaven is the sphere to
which he belongs.1 On either of these last two
views the term " only-begotten Son " carries with it
the idea of personal pre-existence and clearly implies
a unique relation of Jesus to God.
Upon the reading povoyevrjs (9eo'? (God only begot
ten) in i.- 18, which is now widely adopted among
scholars, instead of 6 povoyevfy vto'?, our passage
would still have an important bearing upon the
general subject of John's conception of our Lord's
person, but not upon the special question now under
consideration, whether Son of God involves only an
ethical, or, in addition, an essential relation of Jesus
Christ to God. For these two readings the evidence
is — all things considered — very evenly balanced.2
While the preponderance of external testimony may
be regarded as favoring povoyevrjs Geo?, considerations
of internal probability reinforce in no small degree
the evidence for the other text. The expression
God only begotten occurs nowhere else, and, while
the fact that the Logos is called Beds in the pro-
1 So Tholuck, Westcott.
2 For a very full exhibit of the evidence on both sides, see
Dr. Ezra Abbot, On the reading " only begotten God," in his
Critical Essays, p. 241 sq. ; also briefer summaries, with refer
ences to the literature of the subject, in Westcott and Hort's
Greek Testament, vol. ii., and in Westcott's Commentary. Dr.
Abbot favors the reading 6 povoycvns vlos ; Drs. Westcott and
Hort adopt povoyevrjs #edy.

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 109
logue weakens in some degree the presumption against
this reading, it is possible that the words ical 0e6? fy o
Xo'70? may serve to explain how the usual expression
6 fjtovoyevi]? vioi might the more readily be changed
by copyists into (d) povoyevr}<; 0eo'?. Since, therefore,
we have to do in this passage both with a doubtful
text and with an uncertain interpretation, our conclu
sion must be a cautious one, but we think the proba
bilities favor the view that this passage designates
the only begotten Son as standing in close, perpetual
intimacy with the Father. If so, then the two pas
sages reviewed would, taken together, describe the
glory of the pre-existent Son dwelling in abiding
union with the Father. But what the nature of this
glory and of this union is, may still be regarded as
undefined. The great majority of the passages where the Son
is spoken of are indecisive and cannot be shown to
involve, in themselves, more than the ethical relation
of Jesus to God. When, for example, it is said that
" the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand " etc. (iii. 35), the nature of the rela
tion is not explicitly defined. In the connection,
however, we find the coming of the Son from heaven
referred to and the statement that he is " above all "
(iii. 31). While it cann#ot justly be claimed that the
term Son is used in such passages in the hypostatic
sense, it must be admitted that there is coupled
with it the idea of his pre-existence and of his pre-emi
nence as representing the authority of God. In the

110 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
two remaining passages from the Fourth Gospel where
Christ is called "the only begotten Son" (iii. 16,18),
it is not clear that the phrase refers to a metaphysical
relation of essence. Yet the sending of "the only
begotten Son " is said to be the means by which God
saves the world ; faith in him is declared to be the
condition of having eternal life, and to refuse him is
to expose one's self to the divine judgment. It seems
to me, therefore, that the question of Christ's relation
to God as represented in John cannot be pivoted upon
the phrase the Son of God by itself, but must be
studied in the light of the associations which that
term carries with it.
The Jews understood Jesus to claim for himself
a unique sonship to God, and sought to kill him
partly because he " called God his own Father
(iraTepa iBtov), making himself equal with God"
(v. 18). He did not, indeed, make himself equal
with God in the sense in which they understood
him to do so, for " he answered and said to them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do noth
ing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing "
(v. 19) ; and elsewhere (xiv. 28), when speaking of
his return to the Father, he says that this return
will involve a gain for his disciples, " because the
Father is greater" than he^ that is, because in the
renewed fellowship with the Father who is the source
of his authority for his mission, he will be able to
work with even greater efficiency toward the ends
of his kingdom. In reply to the criticism of the

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 111
Jews noticed above, Jesus explains the nature and
conditions of his work. In this explanation we find,
as we should expect, not a definition of his person,
but a defence of his authority. He explains that he,
as the object of the Father's special love, has been
made the giver of life (v. 20, 21) and the dispenser
of judgment (22), and that it is God's will that " all
may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father "
(23), and then, from the bestowment of spiritual life
the thought shades over into the idea that in the Son
lie the power and authority to quicken men at the
resurrection : " The hour cometh, in which all that
are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth" (28). Granting that the word Son refers in
this whole passage only to the ethical relation of
Jesus to God, — that is, to him as the chosen object
of divine love and the bearer of divine authority, — -
we have still to deal with the question whether the
whole claim of Jesus to be the author of salvation
and the judge of the world, does not presuppose the
consciousness of a relation to God specifically dif
ferent from that which any other human being
sustains. In his teaching concerning himself as the bread of
life (vi. 22-65) it was certainly not the purpose of
Jesus to comment on the nature of his relation to
God except so far as was necessary in order to assert
his claim as the bearer of salvation. Yet in the
course of this teaching he affirms that he bestows
eternal life, and that faith in him is the one required

112 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
"work of God" (27-29). He claims to represent
on earth the mind and will of God, and to be the
One who will raise men from the dead at the last
day (38, 40). When the Jews murmur at these
claims, he asserts in reply that he stands so related
to God that those who really know God are led by
this knowledge to receive him, and that his is a
fellowship with God which is absolutely unique : " Not
that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is
from God, he hath seen the Father " (vi. 46 ; cf.
Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22). When every fair conces
sion, to those who maintain the ethical import of
these passages is made, there still remains the capital
fact that Jesus makes claims for himself which would
be preposterous in any other ; that he declares that
he comes forth from God and represents God in a
sense altogether unique, and that he is the bearer
in himself of divine life, and the judge of the world.
It becomes more and more evident as the decisive
passages are passed in review that the Johannine
doctrine of Christ's person is dependent in but a very
small degree on the question whether the term Son
has always an ethical sense, or sometimes also a
metaphysical import. But this question, as forming
an element in the larger problem, must be further
considered. There are several passages which show that it is
not the sending of Jesus Christ into the world which
constitutes him Son of God, but that he is the Son
who is sent into the world, and that his sonship to

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 113
God therefore involves his relation to the Father
previous to his incarnation ; for example : " God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,"
etc. (iii. 16). He is the Son of God previous to his
coming into the world, whatever that relation may
include. To the same purport is the next verse :
" God sent not the Son into the world to judge the
world," etc. (iii. 17). In some passages where the
term Son is not employed, the same idea is brought
out even more explicitly : " And now, 0 Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self (irapa, aeavrai,
at thy side) with the glory which I had with thee be
fore the world was " (xvii. 5). " Verily, verily, I say
unto you, before Abraham was born, I am " (viii. 58).
While these passages do not in themselves bear
directly upon the import of the title Son of God,
they do tend, in connection with passages which
speak of God's sending the Son, to establish the con
clusion that the sonship of Christ to God presup
poses and includes a pretemporal and eternal relation
between him and the Father.
It is doubtless true that the ethical aspect of Jesus' <
relation to God and of the mission given him by the
Father, is what is most prominently brought forward
in the passages which speak of his sonship. This
is what the practical and historical character of the
Gospel should lead us to expect. The Gospel is not
a treatise on the metaphysical nature of Christ, but
an account of the way in which he revealed God.
His perfect harmony with the Father's will, and his

114 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
consequent fitness to accomplish the work of man's
salvation, are naturally made especially prominent.
He is the bearer of divine life because he stands in
immediate relation with the " living Father " (vi. 57).
He and the Father " are one " (x. 30) in the work
of redemption. In this passage a unity of will and
purpose, and not a unity of essence, is primarily re
ferred to, as the context shows. The meaning is
that his sheep are safe since the Father has given
them to him, and the Father's power is therefore
pledged to keep them. In this determination to
guard them he and the Father are one. It is a " dy
namic fellowship" (Meyer) which is here asserted.
He and the Father perfectly co-operate in all that
concerns the salvation of his people. Not even
Calvin referred this passage, to the unity of essence.
This interpretation, however, in no way prejudices
the question whether the metaphysical unity is pre
supposed and required by that ethical unity which is
asserted. It accords with the whole purpose of the
Gospel to present Christ as doing nothing of himself
(acb' eavrov, v. 19), that is, in independence of the
Father's will and purpose. Hence Jesus says : " He
that hath seen me hath seen the Father " (xiv. 9),
since he is conscious that he perfectly embodies and
reveals the Father's will. This he does by virtue of
that perfect fellowship which subsists between himself
and the Father : " I am in the Father and the Father
in me" (xiv. 11). His words and works are the
proof of this mutual fellowship, this perfect moral

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 115
unity. The same reciprocal fellowship in will and
purpose is depicted in x. 38, where Jesus exhorts
the Jews to acknowledge his works that they may
" know and understand that the Father is in me, and
I in the Father." That an ethical unity is referred
to in xvii. 21 is evident from the fact that our Lord
prays that his followers may be one even as he and
the Father are one. Since an ethical union only can
exist among believers, it must be the ethical aspect
of his own union with the Father which he presents
as the type of Christian fellowship. These passages
do not, however, militate against the idea of a meta
physical unity, but leave the question open whether
this perfect ethical or dynamic fellowship itself re
quires the supposition of a unity of essence. Much
less can these passages justify a negative answer to
the question whether, in other terms and for purposes
different from those which are here in view, the
Apostle John teaches that the Son exists in an eternal,
essential unity with the Father.
The decision of this latter question — which must
go a long way toward answering the former —
hinges chiefly on 'the meaning of the passages which
assert or imply the pre-existence of Christ. Wendt
makes the ethical relations which we have noticed
determining for the interpretation of these passages,
which have been thought to assert more than ethical
union.1 He finds in the sayings of Jesus that his
disciples were not of the world (xv. 19), and that the
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 151 sq. (orig. p. 450 sq.).

116 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
unbelieving Jews were of the devil (viii. 44), the key
to Jesus' meaning when he claims to come forth
from God (xvi. 28). He concludes that Jesus comes
from God and is sent by the Father into the world
only in a " figurative " sense. But are these two
classes of passages parallel, or even * kindred in
meaning and purpose ? Can we reason from the sig
nificance of those passages which depict the moral
kinships of men, to a figurative use of language on
Jesus' part concerning his own person and the
grounds of his authority and claims ? Does Jesus
ever apply to any other the " figurative " language
which he applies to himself ? Does he ever say of
any other that he comes from God and that God
has sent him into the world ? Wendt reminds us
that " believers are born of God and come from
God," 2 and appeals in illustration to passages like I.
iv. 4: "Ye are of God" (iic tov 6eov). But it is self-
evident that this expression is but the counterpart of
the phrase " of the world " (verse 5), and is equivalent
to the phrase " begotten of God." The whole passage
shows that it is an ethical kinship to God, on the one
hand, or to the wicked world, on the other, which is
meant. Can any one seriously consider these pas
sages as furnishing any parallel to those in which
Jesus asserts that he was sent by the Father into
the world, and that he abode at the Father's side,
sharing his glory before the world was (xvii. 5, 22,
24) ? This procedure treats the whole self-testimony
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 161, note (orig. p. 458).

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 117
of Jesus as " figurative " — where the language gives
no sign of being such — on the ground that the
figure of a new birth is common in John to express
the idea of a moral renewal. The fact of chief sig
nificance remains that Jesus never applies to himself
this language about being begotten from God which
he applies to others, and that he never applies to any
other the descriptions which he gives of his own com
ing from God. The two cases are so different that
to make the former determining for the latter does not
result so much in making the terms of the latter " fig
urative " as in making them meaningless and untrue.
On this method of interpretation the statement " I
came forth from God " (xvi. 28) means, I was chosen
by God ; and the assertion " I came down from
heaven " (iii'. 13, 31 ; vi. 38) means, I am in fellowship
with God. It may well be doubted whether these
texts can sustain to the meanings which they are
thus made to yield the relation of figure to reality.
But Wendt's interpretation may be further tested
by his handling of the crucial texts, xvii. 5 and
viii. 58.1
In his intercessory prayer (xvii. 5) Jesus uses these
words : " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 168 sq. (orig. p. 464 sq.). The passage
vi. 62, " What then if ye should behold the Son of man as
cending where he was before," Wendt rules out of court, be
cause, in his view that our Fourth Gospel is a redaction by a
later hand of memoranda preserved by John, he considers that
this passage bears the marks of an interpolation by the editor.
lb. p. 168, note.

118 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
thine own self (irapa, aeaimp), with the glory which
I had with thee before the world was." This passage
seems plainly to refer to a mode of personal pre-exis
tence on the part of Christ in heaven to which he
expects to return ; and Wendt admits that to modern
ears the language naturally conveys this meaning.
But he affirms that " according to the mode of speech
and conception prevalent in the New Testament, a
heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be
conceived and spoken of as existing with God and
belonging to a person, not because this person already
exists and is invested with glory, but because the
glory of God is in some way deposited and preserved
for this person in heaven." x In illustration, reference
is made to the treasure or reward which is said to be
laid up for the disciples in heaven (Matt. vi. 20 ; v. 12
et al.). Wendt concludes that the glory which Christ
had with the Father before the world was, could only
have been the ideal glory for which the Father had
destined him from eternity ; and he thinks this view
is confirmed by the way in which, in his teaching, he
makes his prospective glorification to depend upon
the accomplishment of his earthly ministry.
We must consider whether this alleged difference
between New Testament and modern modes of thought
in respect to the subject under discussion is estab
lished by adequate evidence. It is to be noticed, first
of all, that our passage does not merely assert (as
Wendt's argument seems to assume) the existence in
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 169 (orig. p. 465).

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 119
heaven of the glory with which Christ was to be
endowed. The passage asserts the existence of Christ
himself, not that of a glory destined for him, " before
the world was." Wendt treats the passage as if its
import were : Confer upon me now the glory which
has been designed and kept for me from eternity ;
whereas it really says : Bestow upon me the glory
which I possessed at thy side, in loving fellowship
with thee, before the world existed. The difference
between these two propositions is one that can be
resolved by no known variation between New Testa
ment and modern modes of thought. The passages
cited by Wendt do not afford the slightest evidence
that the New Testament ever speaks elsewhere of
the pre-existence of persons, where it means only that
some endowment or gift is prepared for them in God's
purpose. The expressions respecting the laying up
of the reward of well-doing (Matt. v. 12), and the
preparation of the kingdom (Matt. xxv. 34), are de
signed to emphasize the certainty of the blessedness
to which the terms refer. This result is already
assured in God's fixed purpose. But who can imag
ine Jesus bringing out this truth by telling his dis
ciples that they themselves had existed in eternity in
the enjoyment of heavenly blessedness ? If these
representations were so changed as to be made really
parallel in form and import to John xvii. 5, the mean
ing of Matt. xxv. 34 would be : Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom in which you have
participated from the foundation of the world. But

120 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
this is a very different statement from that which
the passage actually contains ; yet it is no more
different from it than is the statement of John xvii. 5
from those of the passages which Wendt appeals to
in explanation of its meaning.
It is very important in Biblical study to recognize all
actual differences between ancient and modern modes
of conception and thought. But I am not aware
that the representation of a reward prepared and
ready for those to whom it is to be given, is a mode
of thought peculiar to antiquity ; but, even if it were,
I can see no ground in that fact for the opinion that
the New Testament may even speak of the persons
themselves who are to receive the destined rewards as
already pre-existing in heaven in the enjoyment of
them. If so, it is remarkable that Christ alone is so
spoken of. It is, moreover, certain that the passages
which Wendt cites from the Synoptists furnish no
parallel to John xvii. 5. The truth is that these pas
sages prove nothing in favor of his view of John xvii. 5,
and that if they were of such a kind as to prove any
thing, they would prove too much, since they would
justify the representation of Christ's disciples as also
pre-existing. The statement of Jesus in viii. 58, " Before Abraham
was (i. e. was born, yeveadai), I am," Wendt explains
as denoting the existence of Jesus " in the thoughts,
purposes, and promises of God."1 He admits that
" the discourse is fashioned as if it treated of real
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 176 (orig. p. 470).

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 121
existence," but " we can still perceive from the con
nection that an ideal existence is intended." x Let us
glance at the connection. The Jews reproach Jesus
with claiming to be greater than Abraham (viii. 53).
Jesus admits, and even maintains, the claim. Abraham
longed to see the day of the Messiah, " and he saw it,
and was glad " (viii. 56). Whether it was in prophetic
hope on earth, or in paradise centuries afterwards, that
he saw Messiah's work, the purport of the statement,
in either case, is that Abraham's interest as a " man
of religion " centred in the Messiah and presupposed
the Messiah's superiority to himself. The Jews again
object : If Abraham has seen you, you must have seen
him ; but you are not half a century old, and he lived
centuries ago. The point of their objection is that
centuries have intervened between Abraham's lifetime
and that of Jesus. To this objection Jesus replies :
" Before Abraham was born, I am." The purpose of
this affirmation is to offset the charge that he could
never have seen Abraham because he was never con
temporary with him. Now, which assertion would best
meet the point of his opposers, that of an ideal exist
ence in God's purpose, before Abraham's birth, or that
of a real existence ? No doubt either statement, if
admitted to be true, would serve to establish his general
superiority to Abraham ; only the latter, however,
would meet the objection of the Jews which called it
forth. Wendt maintains that, since Abraham's seeing of
1 Teaching of Jesus , ii. 177 (orig. p. 471).

122 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Messiah's day must have been only prophetic and ideal,
beCaftse Messiah's day was not a reality in Abraham's
time, the existence of Christ before Abraham must,
therefore, have been ideal also. I prefer the inter
pretation according to which Abraham is represented
as seeing in paradise the day of the Messiah in its
actual realization ; but even if we adopt the view that
this seeing was in prophetic vision, the conclusion
which Wendt draws would not logically follow. The
prophetic foresight of Messiah's work is as consistent
with his real pre-existence as it is with his ideal pre-
existence. The prevision of Messiah's earthly mission
in no way prejudices the question as to the nature of
his person. As in dealing with xvii. 5, Wendt overlooked
the difference between the idea that Christ's glory was
laid up in God's purpose for him and the actual asser
tion of the passage that Christ existed in eternity in
the possession of heavenly glory, so here he lightly
passes over the objection of the Jews which immedi
ately called out Jesus' statement, and also leaves
unnoticed the natural and very significant contrast
between Abraham's birth and Christ's absolute existence
("lam").
Certain passages in the First Epistle also should be
placed in connection with those already considered.
In I. i. 1 we are told that the content of the gospel
message was "from the beginning" (o ?jv air' a/a^?).
Despite the involved construction of the opening verses
of this epistle, the idea is plain. The substance of the
message is eternal life. This life is in Christ, and was

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 123
brought to the world by him. But before its manifest
ation it was with the Father (77/30? tov iraTepa, verse
2) by virtue of the fellowship of the Son in whom it
abides. Here the heavenly good which the apostle
experienced in his fellowship with Christ is pictured
as pre-existing " from the beginning ; " then it was
manifested in the life of Jesus, we saw and heard it,
he says, and now declare it unto you. If these words
fall short of a direct assertion that Christ himself was
from the beginning, we cannot doubt that they imply
it when later we read : " Ye know him which is from
the beginning" (iyvdncaTe tov air ctpx^, ii- 13, 14).
The " word of life " to which the gospel message relates
(irepl, i. 1) is the record of the revelation of him
(Christ) who is from the beginning.
We thus find that the ideas which are presented in
the prologue are not without support in the writings
of the apostle when taken as a whole. It is true that
the pre-existence of the Son and his essential relation
to the Father, are incidentally presented. It accords
with the purpose of John's writings that these ideas
should stand in the background, rather than in the
foreground, of his picture of Christ. They are the
presuppositions of his descriptions and arguments,
rather than their immediate subject. But they are not
on this account less fundamental in his whole view of
the person and work of Christ. The prologue is seen
to present, in its peculiar terms and for its peculiar
purpose, a view of Christ's pre-incarnate nature and
relation to God which the whole Gospel assumes. The

124 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
prologue thus stands related to the Gospel as the ves
tibule to the house ; it is a means of entrance, but it is
also an integral part of the structure.
Respecting the term Son of God, our conclusion
must be that it is used to denote a unique relation
of fellowship and unity on the part of Jesus with
God. It is more than a designation of his Messiah-
ship. It denotes a permanent relation. Others be
come sons of God ; he is the Son of God, and as such
was sent into the world. While, therefore, the title
is used chiefly to emphasize the authority of Christ
as the agent of the divine will, it presupposes an
essential relation of Jesus to God, since as Son he is
sent into the world. The unique ethical or dynamic
union of Jesus with God stands in the foreground,
but this union requires and rests upon an essential
union of nature. The phrase Son of God cannot,
indeed, be said to carry in itself directly the signifi
cance which it bears in the Trinitarian creed, but it
can be justly maintained that the term, in connection
with the Logos-doctrine and with the assertions of
Christ's pre-existence, inevitably gives rise to the
problem with which theology has sought to deal
in its doctrine of the hypostatic sonship of Christ.
Although the title Son is not directly used by John
in a metaphysical sense, it is so used as to imply a
pretemporal relation of Jesus to God, and stands so
related to explicit assertions of the pre-existence and
divinity of Christ as to justify the conclusion that it
is a fundamental assumption of John's theology that

UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER 125
Jesus Christ, in his pre-incarnate form of being,
existed eternally in an essential unity of nature with
God. This conclusion also determines our view of the
import of p,ovoyevrj<;. It is not used in the sense of
the Athanasian creed, to denote an eternal process of
generation as contrasted with an act of creation. It
is employed to add emphasis to the idea of Christ's
unique relation to God as the perfect object of the
divine love and the perfect representative of the
divine will. The import of the term was determined
for the apostle, not by metaphysical speculation, but
by the analogy of human relations. The term can
justly be appealed to as emphasizing that unique
relation of Jesus to God which, as we have seen,
presupposes a kinship of essence, but not as intended
or adapted itself to describe or indicate the nature of
that relation.
Criticism can only avoid the conclusion that Jesus
possessed the consciousness of having personally ex
isted previous to his life on earth in an essential
life-fellowship with God, to which he knew that he
should return after his work was finished, either by
unnatural interpretations of the passages which speak
of that relation, or by discrediting the historical trust
worthiness of the Fourth Gospel. Those who con
sider the Gospel to be a product of second century
speculation can consistently regard its Christology as
a post-apostolic dogmatic development. Others who
accept its direct apostolic authorship, as Beyschlag,

126 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
or who accept it in a conditional form, as Wendt, can
escape the conclusion that it teaches the pre-exist
ence and deity of Christ only by resolving the Logos
into an abstract principle, and by treating the state
ments of Christ's consciousness of a pretemporal
life as examples of a Jewish mode of thought which
is not current among moderns.
The total impression of John's conception of the
person of his Master can be gained only by combin
ing what he says of the Logos, of the Son, and of
his pre-existence. When this is done and when the
various passages are taken in their natural meaning
and force, the conclusion — so far as the teaching of
the Johannine writings is concerned — can be no
other than that to which Cremer is led in view of
the teaching of the New Testament as a whole:
" It lies in the idea of the Messianic sonship to
God, as this is embodied in the person and history
of Jesus, that this sonship is something superter-
restrial and eternal." " The Messianic Son of God
is the pre-existent Son of God." J
1 Bibl.-lheol. Worlerbuch der Neutest. Grdcitdt, sub voce, 6 v'tbs

CHAPTER VI
THE DOCTRINE OP SIN
literature. — Reuss: Hist. Christ. Theol., Of the World, ii.
415-428 (orig. pp. 463-478) ; Westcott : Epistles of St. John,
The Idea of Sin in St. John, pp. 37-40 ; Messmer : Lehre der
A postel, Die Siinde, pp. 328-334; Frommann : Johann. Lehrb.,
Verh'altniss der Menschheit zu Gott und dem Logos, pp. 242-
345; Plummer: The Epistles of St. John, The Three Evil- Ten
dencies in the World, and Antichrist, pp. 154-160; Wendt:
Teaching of Jesus, Being from God or from the devil according
to the Johannine discourses, ii. 114-121 (orig. pp. 420-426) ;Bey-
schlag : Neutest. Theol, Die Welt, Siinde und Teufel, ii. 428-
432 ; Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Die beiden Menschenklassen,
pp. 128-138 ; Lechler : Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, The
World and the Prince of this World, ii. 181-188 (orig. pp. 461-
465); Baur: Neutest. Theol, Der Gegensatz des Lichts und der
Finsterniss, u. s. w., pp. 359-362.
The idea of sin is presented in the writings of John
in a considerable variety of forms. The nearest ap
proach to a definition of sin is found in the First
Epistle (iii. 4) : " sin is lawlessness " (f) dpapTta
iarlv rj avop,ia). The apostle is showing the incon
sistency between sonship to God and the Christian's
hope of attaining likeness to Christ, on the one hand,
and the practice of sin (irotelv ttjv dptapTtav), on the
other. This contrariety is grounded in the fact that

128 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sin is a violation of the divine order. The precise
nature and scope of the law to which sin is contrary
is not defined. We are at liberty to regard it as an
expression of the divine will in general, and to consider
sin, as here described, as the selfish assertion of the
human will against the divine: The passage yields
us a generic idea only ; for more concrete descriptions
of sin we turn to other passages.
The apostle's tendency to employ ethical contrasts
naturally leads him to define sin as " the darkness "
(r) o-icoTia, to o-«o'to?). • In these expressions the
article is generally found, and designates the moral
condition which is symbolized by " darkness " as char
acteristic of the sinful world. This contrast of light
and darkness meets us in the prologue. The life
which emanated from the Logos " was the light of
men " (i. 4). This light "shineth in the darkness "
(i. 5), a symbol for the sinful state of the world in its
selfish isolation from God. Elsewhere in the Gospel
the term is chiefly used in the expression, " to walk
in darkness " (viii. 12 ; xii. 35 ; cf. I. i. 6), or " to abide
in darkness " (xii. 46), and refers to the wicked moral
blindness which disobedience to God induces. Sim
ilarly in the First Epistle " the darkness " — the sinful
folly of the pre-Christian life — is described as "pass
ing away " (ii. 8) from the true Christian man ;
where hatred is still indulged the darkness continues.
We may say, then, that light is with John the symbol
of goodness, love, and spiritual life, and that darkness
is the synonym of evil, hate, and moral death.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 129
The question now arises, What is the nature of the
dualism which the contrast implied in the use of the '
terms light and darkness involves ? Is it physical,
that is, grounded in the nature of man as consisting
of matter and spirit ; or metaphysical, that is, inherent
in the essence of the universe ; or ethical, that is, the
result of free volition ?
The contrast of flesh and spirit is most explicitly
presented, in the writings of John, in the passage,
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (iii. 6). This
statement occurs in our Lord's conversation with
Nicodemus respecting the new birth. It is intended
to meet the difficulty of Nicodemus, who could only
think of the " birth from above " after the analogy of
man's natural birth. Jesus says to him in effect:
" Man stands related to two orders, the natural and
the spiritual. The first birth pertains to the lower
sphere of being, the second to the higher." The point '
of importance for our present purpose is that these
two spheres are not related to each other as evil
and good, but only as lower or natural, and higher or
spiritual. They are not here described as essentially
and necessarily opposed to one another. In the con
trast is implied a relative opposition, however, in so
far as the lower elements of human nature which are
comprised in the term flesh form the sphere in which
animal appetites and passions operate, while the higher
powers of our being, denoted by spirit, ally us to God
and render us susceptible to moral and spiritual influ-
9

130 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
ences. The same contrast is presented in vi. 63 : " It
is1 the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth noth
ing : the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and are life." The work of Jesus for man is in the
realm of the spirit ; it is concerned with his higher
nature which connects him with God. No mere phys
ical knowledge of Christ or contact with him (cf. the
preceding verses) can avail to secure the new life
which he would impart. Here, too, it is evident that
flesh and spirit are not contrasted as specifically evil
and good, but rather as outward or non-spiritual, and
vital or essential.
One other passage should be cited in this connec
tion : " For all that is in the world, the lust of the
flesh (f) iiridvpla tjj? era/a/ed?), and the lust of the
eyes, and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father,
but is of the world " (I. ii. 16). Here the flesh is
conceived of as the seat, just as the eyes are regarded
as the organs, of evil desires. An absolute identifica
tion of evil desire with the flesh is not, however, in
volved ; much less an identification of sin in general
with the flesh. The thought might be presented thus :
Sensuous pleasures belong to the temporary, passing
world, the /coVyuo?, and not to God's unchanging spirit
ual order. We conclude that these passages do not
warrant the ascription to John of a natural dualism
inherent in the human constitution.
Is, then, the " dualism " of John metaphysical ?
The question will recur in connection with various
passages which are to be examined later, but should

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 131
here be briefly considered with special reference to the
meaning of the terms light and darkness. It is to
be observed that in the prologue, where the light of
the Logos is set in contrast with the world's dark
ness, the whole description has the practical aim of
showing how the heavenly " light " came into the
" darkness " and how " the darkness apprehended it
not." The terms are obviously figurative, since they
are freely interchanged with personal designations.
The statement " The light shineth in the darkness ;
and the darkness apprehended it not " (i. 5) is only
a figurative way of saying, " He came unto his own,
and they that were his own received him not " (i. 11).
The " light " is synonymous with the personal Logos ;
the " darkness " is synonymous with the sinful world,
or, more specifically, with the people to whom Jesus
came in his earthly manifestation. The references to
the " light " and the " darkness " are set in unmistaka
ble connection with free, personal action. The " dual
ism " which they imply must, therefore, be an ethical,
not an essential or metaphysical dualism. This con
clusion is confirmed by the way in which the contrast
is employed throughout the Gospel. The conflict of
light and darkness is the conflict of morally good
actions and dispositions, on the one hand, with morally
evil, on the other. One representative passage will
make this clear : " And this is the judgment, that the
light is come into the world, and men loved the dark
ness rather than the light ; for their works were evil.
For every one that doeth ill hateth the light, and

132 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
cometh not to the light, lest his works should be
reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the
light, that his works may be made manifest, that they
have been wrought in God " (iii. 19-21). How obvi
ous it is that the sphere of the conflict of light and
darkness is here the sphere of free moral action
(c/..viii. 12; xii. 35,36,46).
The passages from the First Epistle which bear
upon the subject warrant no other view. The apos
tle's assertion that the substance of the gospel mes
sage is, " God is light, and in him is no darkness at
all " (i. 5), has the practical purpose of showing that
the moral conduct of men proves whether they really
have fellowship with God or not (i. 6, 7). "Dark
ness" symbolizes the old sinful life, "light" the new
spiritual life (ii. 8) ; " darkness " is practically synon
ymous with hate, " light" with love (ii. 9, 10).
The efforts which have been made, in connection
with the modern denial of the apostolic authorship
of the writings under consideration, to show the kin
ship between the ideas contained in them and those
of Alexandrian speculation or of Gnostic dualism, are
not supported by the natural force of the descriptions
of evil and goodness which we have passed in review.
Whether the terms employed be derived or original
is of small consequence; their significance and use
are distinctly ethical, and in this essential respect they
illustrate a radical difference between the conceptions
of sin and of the world which pervade these writings,
and those which are characteristic either of Neo-

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 133
Platonic Philosophy or of Gnosticism. Our author
regards the world of human and divine action whose
forces and agencies he describes, as a moral system,
a sphere of free choice and of strict responsibility.
From this standpoint we shall proceed to consider his
doctrine of " the world " (6 tcoo-fioi).
John uses the term world in three shades of mean
ing.1 It designates, in the first instance, the created
universe in general without regard to moral qualities,
as in the expressions " before the world was " (xvii.
5), and "before the foundation of the world" (xvii.
24). More frequently it denotes, or at any rate promi
nently includes, the totality of rational and moral
beings, — the world as the sphere of free and intelli
gent action. In this sense it is said that light came
into the world when Christ came (iii. 19). So when
the coming of the Son into the world (xi. 27 ; xvi. 28)
is spoken of, it is his relation to mankind as the sub
jects- of salvation which is primarily meant. It is
now but a short step from this sense of the word to
that which prevails in the writings of John, viz., the
sinful world, mankind as alienated from God. Some
passages seem to illustrate a use of the term which
stands midway between these two shades of meaning
last mentioned, as where Jesus speaks of coming into
the world (of mankind) in order to " save the world "
(xii. 46, 47), whose evil and lost condition is as
sumed. The three meanings are not perfectly dis-
1 Cf. Reuss, Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 415 sq. (orig. ii. 463 sq.);
Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol, ii. 428 sq.

134 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
tinct but shade off into one another, as may be seen
in i. 10 : " He (the Logos) was in the world (of
mankind), and the world (universe) was made by him,
and the world (of sinful men) knew him not." From
passages like this it appears that, even where no refer
ence is made to moral qualities, it is assumed that the
world is the sphere of evil, and that where mankind
in general is referred to, the universality of sin is pre
supposed. We are here concerned chiefly with that
prevailing usage in John in which " the world " means
distinctly the sinful world in estrangement from God.
Only a few of the most emphatic passages which be
long under this head need here be quoted. Speaking
to the Pharisees who were plotting against him, Jesus
said : " Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye
are of this world ; I am not of this world " (viii. 23).
He declares that his kingdom is not of this world
(xviii. 36); that the world hates his disciples (xvii.
14) ; has not known God (xvii. 25) ; cannot, en ac
count of its moral blindness and perverseness, receive
the Spirit of truth (xiv. 17) and is subject to Satan
as its prince (xii. 31 ; xiv. 30). To the same effect
in the First Epistle the apostle exhorts his readers to
" love not the world, neither the things that are in
the world," on the ground that the love of the world
and the love of God are essentially opposed (I. ii. 15,
16). Finally, the whole Johannine doctrine of the
world may be summed up in the emphatic assertion,
" The whole world lieth in the evil one " (iv r<p irovqpy)
(I. v. 19),

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 135
That the dualism which is involved in the opposition
between God and the world is not metaphysical but
ethical, is made clear by the terms of the description.
When Jesus says that " for judgment " he " came into
this world, that they which see not may see ; and that
they which see may become blind " (ix. 39), he clearly
means that his work must, by reason of its very nature,
occasion a still greater obduracy in those who wickedly
oppose him, through their continued rejection of his
truth. The world, so far as his Pharisaic opponents
represent it, is wicked by its own fault, and becomes
more so through the inevitable recoil upon it in judg
ment of its own action in refusing the light. In iii.
19 the concrete synonym for the abstract " world "
is " men," and the ground of the world's condemna
tion is affirmed to be that the men who compose it
" loved the darkness rather than the light ; for their
works were evil." The world is opposed to God be
cause it is wilfully wicked, is animated by hate to
those who follow Christ (xv. 18, 19), and in relation
to Christ personally is convicted " in respect of sin,
because they [who compose it] believe not " on him
(xvi. 8, 9).
In one striking passage (viii. 33-36) sin is described
as a state of bondage. Jesus had said to certain Jew
ish believers that his truth should make them free
(viii. 32). Not perceiving the profound spiritual sig
nificance of his words, they replied that as children of
Abraham they had never yet been in bondage, — im
plying, apparently, that the captivities which the

136 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
nation had experienced had not touched its essential
life or annulled its inalienable prerogatives. Jesus
does not drop his thought to the level of theirs, but
proceeds : " Every one that committeth sin [o iroiwv
Trjv d/iapTtav — lives an habitual life of. sin] is the
bondservant (SovXos) of sin " (verse 34) : If you con
tinue the sinful life you will forfeit your place in
God's house over which I have authority ; you will
lose your citizenship and rights in the spiritual order
to which I belong ; therefore I say again that the real
freedom is that which the truth, as embodied and
represented by me, bestows. True freedom is found
only in obedience to God ; sin is in its very nature
slavery, because it involves the loss of God-given
spiritual rights, the forfeiture of man's divinely in
tended destiny.
The words sin (dpapTta) and to sin (dpapTavetv)
occur frequently in our sources. Sin is commonly
employed in an abstract sense to denote a power or
principle, as in the phrases, " the sin of the world "
(i. 29), "to commit sin" (viii. 34), "your sin"
(viii. 21), etc. The word is also used to designate an
act of sin as in the phrase, " a sin unto death "
(I. v. 16, 17), but this meaning is chiefly found where
the plural (dpapTtai) is used (e. g., viii. 24 ; xx. 23 ;
I. i. 9). The verb is also employed in a two-fold
sense corresponding to that above noticed. It may
have the force of the phrase iroielv t^v dpapTiav (viii.
34 ; I. iii. 4, 8, 9), to sin habitually, to live a sinful
life, as in the following passages : " Whosoever abideth

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 137
in him sinneth not : whosoever sinneth hath not
seen him, neither knoweth him " (I. iii. 6) ; " Whoso
ever is begotten of God doeth no sin (d/jtaprtav ov
iroiei), because his seed abideth in him : and he can
not sin, because he is begotten of God " (I. iii. 9). In
other connections dpapTaveiv means to do an act of
sin, as where the disciples ask Jesus concerning the
man who was blind ffom his birth, " Who did sin, this
man, or his parents, that he should be born blind ? "
(ix. 2, 3), and in I. i. 10 (cf. verse 8) : " If we say
that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his
word is not in us."
The importance of bearing in mind the distinction
which we have just been tracing is especially seen in
the apparent contradiction among certain passages in
the First Epistle to which we have already had occa
sion, in other connections, to refer. It is affirmed, on
the one hand, that no Christian can truly say that he
has not sinned, and the apostle exhorts his readers to
confess their sins (I. i. 9, 10); and yet we are told
in the same Epistle that the Christian " sinneth
not " and " cannot sin " (I. iii. 6, 9). The verbal
contradiction is removed by attention to the two
distinct meanings of the verb to sin. All Christians
commit sinful acts, but they do not possess a sinful
character. The Christian life and habitual sinfulness
are absolute contraries ; in this sense the Christian
does not commit sin, and, indeed, cannot do so, since
if he did he would not be a Christian at all. But
just as little can he claim exemption from sinful im-

138 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
pulses and acts. Just as the main direction of the
river, notwithstanding its eddies and backcurrents, is
ever toward the sea, so the central current of the
Christian's life is set toward God, despite the hinder
ing powers of evil which still check its progress and
mar its perfection.
The way in which John speaks of sin as a power or
principle clearly implies that he regards all men as
naturally sinful and in need of redemption. It is
" the sin of the world " (i. 29) which Christ comes to
take away. One of the functions of the Spirit is to
" convict the world in respect of sin " (xvi. 8, 9), that
is, to make the world conscious of its sinfulness as
evidenced by its unwillingness to receive Christ.
Christians who have passed " into life " are conscious
that they were naturally in a state of death (I. iii. 14).
The love of God which was manifested toward the
world in the sending of the Son aimed to secure the
result that, through faith in him, men should not
perish (iii. 16), as, apart from this work of love, they
were in peril of doing. Hence the frequent emphasis
upon the saving work of Christ (iv. 22, 42 ; v. 34 ;
xii. 47; I. iv. 14). The world, apart from redemp
tion, is a realm of moral darkness and death (i. 5 ; iii.
19 ; xii. 46 ; I. ii. 8 ; iii. 14), and is exposed, by reason
of its sinfulness, to God's holy displeasure (iii. 16) ;
in short, "the whole world lieth in the evil one"
(I. v. 19).
Another set of expressions connects sin with
demoniacal agencies, When the Jews charged Jesus

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 139
with falsehood and blasphemous pretension they em
bodied their accusation in the statement : " Thou
hast a demon " (Saifidvtov) (vii. 20 ; viii. 48, 52 ; x.
20). In the Synoptic Gospels demoniacal " posses
sion " is commonly associated with some physical and
mental malady, especially with the more violent forms
of mania. In the Fourth Gospel " possession " by
evil spirits is referred to only in connection with, the
charges which the multitude made against Jesus, and
seems to have been conceived of as a species of mad
ness (vii. 20 ; x. 20) ; in viii. 48, the accusation
" Thou hast a demon " is coupled with the charge,
," Thou art a Samaritan," and appears to involve
special bitterness of feeling against Jesus on the part
of his accusers, and may imply the charge of wicked
ness as well as of madness. With this passage may be
compared the Lord's reference to the character of his
betrayer, Judas, in the words : " Did not I choose you
the twelve, and one of you is a devil ? " (6"ta'/3o\o?, vi. 70)
— a strong expression to denote the source and base
wickedness of his antagonism to his Master.
These passages lead us on to other representations
in which human sinfulness is directly ascribed to the
agency of the devil (6 Sta/3o\o?) or Satan. The devil
is said to have put the suggestion or impulse to betray
Jesus into the heart of Judas (xiii. 2). The Jews
who opposed and accused Jesus claimed God as their
father. Jesus denies that they are true children of
God, and says to them: " Ye are of your father the
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to

140 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
do " (viii. 44). It is, of course, a moral kinship
which is here under consideration. They are neither
sons of Abraham nor sons of God, since they are not
akin to either in the spirit of their action ; on the
contrary, they are, by reason of their falseness and
murderous hate, akin to the devil. This idea of the
sonship of wicked men to the devil — which is pre
sented only in this one passage in the Gospel — ap
pears also in the First Epistle : " He that doeth sin
(6 irottov tt)v dpapTiav) is of the devil (etc tov SiafidXov) ;
... In this the children of God are manifest, and
the children of the devil " (to, tckvu tov SiafidXov)
(I. iii. 8, 10). As those who are of faith are the sons
of Abraham (cf. Gal. iii. 9, 29), and those who do
God's will a,re sons of God, so those who habitually
work iniquity are morally kindred to the devil in so
far as they imitate his wickedness and embody his
spirit. Here arises the difficult inquiry, What concep
tion of the origin and nature of Satan underlies the
references to his agency in John's writings ? Two
passages, especially, give rise to this question : " He
(the devil) was a murderer from the beginning (air
a/3%»)?), and stood not in the truth (iv Ty aXrjdeia ovk
eo-TrjKev),1 because there is no truth in him. When
1 Some editors punctuate this word earr/Kev (so Tischendorf,
Meyer, Weiss). The former reading (imperfect of o-ttjkciv)
would mean stood firm or steadfast; the latter (perfect of lo-Tr/pi
with force of present) would express the permanent character
istic of the subject, and would mean that truth is an element
foreign to his life,

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 141
he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own : for he
is a liar, and the father thereof " (6 irarrjp avrov)
(viii. 44) ; " He that doeth sin is from the devil ; for
the devil sinneth from the beginning" (air' apx^)
(I. iii. 8). We must first consider the force of the
phrase air apx^. In the first passage the interpre
tation of air apx?!? will be influenced by the view
which is taken of the reference in the word " mur
derer." Many exegetes hold that when the devil is
said to have been a murderer the allusion is to his
agency in inciting Cain to slay his brother.1 This
explanation would determine the meaning of the
passage to be : He was a murderer from the time
when the race was in its infancy. Since, however,
the act of Cain is not, in the Old Testament (Gen.
iv. 3 sq.), referred to the instigation of Satan, it is
more probable that the passage alludes to the tempta
tion whereby Satan, represented under the figure of a
serpent (Gen. iii. 1 sq. ; cf. Rev.,xx. 2), occasioned the
fall of man. In this view the phrase air apx^ would
most naturally mean : from the beginning of the
human race.2 This interpretation seems to accord
best with the natural force of our second passage
(I. iii. 8), the purport of which is that there has
never been a time in the history of the race when
men have not been subject to the assaults of Satan.
The connection shows that the sphere of human sin
and salvation is that in which the sinning of Satan is
1 So Nitzsch, Liicke, De Wette, Reuss.
' So Godet, Meyer, Muller, Weiss.

142 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
conceived of as taking place. Other interpretations
seem less plausible. Especially objectionable is the
view that air' apxy? is to be taken absolutely, which
would imply either that God has created an evil be
ing, or that Satan was eternal.1 Many have taken
the phrase as meaning : from the devil's own begin
ning as such ; that is, since by a fall from a previous
state of holiness he became Satan.2 This explana
tion, however, is unnatural in view of the reference in
the word " murderer " and in view of the context of
the passage from the Epistle. These considerations
render it very improbable that in using the phrase
air apxfj'i the apostle's thoughts went back to any
time or event anterior to the beginning of human
history and experience.
It may be well to point out, in this connection, how
slight is the support in the New Testament for the
idea of a fall of Satan. There are but two passages
(2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude 6) which can, with any degree of
probability, be construed as alluding to it ; and since
between 2 Peter and Jude there is certainly some
kind of literary dependence, these two really count as
one. The passages read : " For if God spared not
angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell
[Tartarus], and committed them to pits of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment," etc. (2 Pet. ii. 4) ;
" And angels which kept not their own principality,
1 So Hilgenfeld, Frommann, Reuss.
2 So Augustine, Martensen, Delitzsch, and most Roman
Catholic theologians.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 143
but left their proper habitation, he hath kept in ever
lasting bonds under darkness unto the judgment of
the great day " (Jude 6). No mention is here made
of Satan. The passage in Jude (which is probably
the original) so closely resembles certain passages in
the Book of Enoch1 which is explicitly referred to
and quoted a little further on (Jude 14 sq.) that little
room is left for doubt that we have here an allusion
to the popular Jewish doctrine of the fall of a heavenly
host from their prior dominion (apxv) to a state of
bondage and punishment. If it is said that Satan
must be regarded as included in this host, it is still to
be remembered that the deutero-canonical character
of the books in which these references occur, together
with the certain dependence of these descriptions
upon apocryphal sources such as the Book of Enoch,
makes the derivation of a doctrine from the passages
quite precarious. It is probable that the description
in Gen. vi. 2 of the "sons of God" (angels) taking
as wives the " daughters of men " lies at the root of
the popular tradition which is found in the Book of
Enoch. When the sources and affinities of the pas-
1 " Announce to the watchers of the heaven, who have aban
doned the high heaven, and the holy, eternal place, and have
defiled themselves with women," etc. (xii. 4) ; "Wherefore have
ye left the high, holy, eternal heaven?" etc. (xv. 3); "I heard
the voice of the angel saying : ' These are the angels who
descended to the earth, and revealed what was hidden to the
children of men, and seduced the children of men into com
mitting sin ' " (lxiv. 2). From the translation by R. H. Charles,
Oxford, 1893.

144 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sages in question are considered, it is quite evident
that they can have no direct reference to the fall of
Satan. Other passages which are often quoted in
connection with the subject in question are quite
inapplicable, as, for example, 1 Tim. iii. 6 : " Lest
being puffed up he fall into the condemnation \_Kpi/j.a,
judgment] of the devil." It is certainly difficult to
determine the exact sense of this passage, but in any
case no reference to the fall of Satan can be found in
it. Still less can such a reference be found in Luke x.
18 : "I beheld Satan falling as lightning from heaven."
It is necessary for our purpose to distinguish be
tween the rational grounds of the doctrine of the fall
of Satan and the supposed Scriptural grounds. On no
other supposition can the Biblical references to Satan
be so naturally explained. It enables us to avoid the
idea of an eternal dualism of good and evil, and the
equally intolerable conception that God could create
a being essentially evil. In no other way can these
conclusions be escaped on the supposition of Satan's
personal existence. If no one of the theories just
alluded to be adopted, no course is left but to deny,
as Frommann does, the personality of Satan, and to
understand the Scriptural representations as popular
descriptions of the operation of sinful principles or
tendencies in the world. Frommann seeks to reduce
the idea of Satan in John to that of an " evil world-
principle," a " carnal tendency," the sum of the " tem
poral and perishable in contrast to God." ] This view,
i Der Johann. Lehrbegriff, pp. 336, 367.

THE DOCTRINE 'OF SIN 145
taken in connection with the author's interpretation of
air' dpxv? in the absolute sense, approximates the
Gnostic conception of the essential evil of matter and
of an original dualism in the universe. One must go
behind the text, and behind any results which legiti
mate exegesis can yield, if he will make the name
Satan a symbol of the " sensuous principle " or an
" evil tendency." In his whole discussion of this
subject Frommann is really dealing with the thought
of Paul more than with that of John, and proceeds,
moreover, upon important misapprehensions of the
teaching of the former.
So far as the Johannine writings bear upon the idea
of the nature and origin of the devil we may sum the
matter up by saying that all the passages assume the
personality of Satan, but do not state or imply any
thing as to his origin. Speculation on this point,
however, seems to be shut up to a single path. It
can rest in no idea except that of a fall without giving
place to conceptions which are inconsistent with the
absoluteness, or subversive of the goodness of God.
Two ideas in John — scarcely less difficult than
that which we have just been considering ^remain to
be examined, that of " antichrist " (I. ii. 18, 22 ; iv.
3 ; II. 7), and that of " sin unto death" (I. v. 16, 17).
A clue, however, is afforded us for the understanding
of the former term in the connection. In I. ii. 22, we
are told that the antichrist is " he that denieth the
Father and the Son ; " in I. iv. 3 that " every spirit
that confesseth not Jesus " is " the spirit of the anti-
10

146 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
christ," and in II. 7 that he who confesses not Jesus
Christ as coming in the flesh J is " the deceiver and
the antichrist," The distinguishing peculiarity of the
sin which the term " antichrist " comprehends is the
denial of the incarnation or messiahship of Jesus.
This is a feature of the Gnostical tendency to which
the Epistles so often refer. According to this doc
trine the world is essentially evil, and nothing divine
can abide in contact with it. The heavenly Christ
could not really inhabit a material body, hence the
denial of the incarnation ; just as little could he sub
mit to suffering, hence the denial that he came both
" by water and blood " (I. v. 6). Against this denial
John asserts that Clirist was not only incarnate at his
baptism (" came by water," Si i/Saro?) but at his cruci
fixion (" came by blood," Si a'tpaTos). The antichrist-
ian spirit consists, then, in the denial of the Son's
incarnation and passion which springs from a false
notion of the divine transcendence, and from a corre
sponding error concerning the world and human
nature in their relation to God.
The question remains, however, whether in speak
ing of antichrist John had in mind a person, or a
tendency, or both. The prevailing view in the Church
has been that " antichrist " designates a person. This
view rests, however, upon the supposition of a close
correspondence, or even identity, of the antichrist of
1 The Greek is 'irjarovv Xpiarov epxdpevov ev crap/el. Neither of
our English versions seems quite to reproduce the idea of the
text.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 147
John's Epistles, the " man of sin " in the Pauline
Apocalypse (2 Thess. ii. 3) and "the beast" in the
Book of Revelation (Rev. xiii. 1 sq.). But this sup
position is unwarranted. " The beast " of the Johan
nine Apocalypse is a symbol for the Roman Empire
or for the Emperor Nero personally. The " man of
sin " in 2 Thessalonians is a term for a false Mes
siah who was to arise with blasphemous pretensions,
and who should represent forces of evil in the Jewish
world which the Roman power (" that which restrain
ed," " the restrainer " ii. 6, 7) should hold in check
for a time ; then, when the pressure of restraint was
taken away, the " mystery of iniquity " (Jewish hos
tility to the Messiah) which was working in secret
should break forth into manifestation, and Christ should
come and bring it to naught. The terms " beast," in
Revelation, " man of sin" in Paul, and "antichrist"
in John have widely different associations, and refer
to manifestations of hostility to the gospel in widely
different fields. " The beast " symbolizes Roman
persecution ; " the man of sin," fanatical Jewish oppo
sition and pretence ; " antichrist," a Gnostical subver
sion of the gospel. If the terms " beast " and " man
of sin " are meant to indicate that the evil tendencies
under consideration are embodied in a person, as is
probably the case, it does not necessarily follow that
the term " antichrist " is also a personal designation.
The question can only be decided, if at all, by the
passages in which the term appears.
The first of the four passages in which antichrist is

148 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
mentioned (I. ii. 18) seems to favor the view that the
term designates a person. Prophecy concerning his
appearing is alluded to, and the mention of " many
antichrists," which appear to be distinguished from
antichrist himself, seems to imply that many persons
have arisen who embody the antichristian spirit, but
that this spirit is to have its full and final incarnation
in a person yet to appear. In the three other passages,
however, the word is used in nearly the same sense as
in the phrase " many antichrists " already noted, to
mean persons who deny the true messiahship and
incarnation of Jesus. The " whosoever " of ii. 23,
shows that the name is applied to any person who
makes the denial referred to. Still less in iv. 3 does
" antichrist " appear to be a name for some one par
ticular person. There prophecy concerning the coming
of " the spirit of the antichrist " is alluded to, and this
spirit is said to be in the world already. This verse
seems to be the equivalent of ii. 18, and here it is
quite certain that " the antichrist " is conceived of as
a principle or spirit of denial, rather than as an indi
vidual. Finally, in II. 7, " the antichrist " is " the
deceiver" who confesses not Jesus as coming in the
flesh. We see, then, that in John's usage 6 avTixpio-Tos
is a title which he applies to many persons who have
already appeared, — applies, in fact, to any one who
denies the real coming of the Son of God into humanity.
We further observe that the antichrist that is to come
is synonymous with the spirit of the antichrist which
is to come, but which is also already here. It appears

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 149
to me, therefore, that the term is used to designate
either a tendency, principle, or spirit, or to describe
the men who embody that temper of denial which the
apostle describes in the connection. If we reason
from analogy it is certainly natural, in view of the
references which are found in both canonical and non-
canonical literature to persons who should embody
special forms of wickedness, to think that John may
have expected that some man was to appear who
would be " the antichrist " by eminence. His refer
ences to the subject, however, do not warrant this
conclusion, although they do not exclude it. It is
better to abide by the actual indications of his lan
guage than to adopt the more uncertain course of
reading him in the light of representations which, at
most, are only analogous to his own. The discussion
of the term " antichrist " in our sources has been too
much complicated with the consideration of the terms
of Paul and of the Apocalypse. The subject has been
commonly treated as a general doctrinal topic, instead
of a question of exegesis. Two of the most competent
Kecent interpreters,1 regarding solely the natural force
of the passages where the term occurs in the First
Epistle, pronounce in favor of the interpretation for
which we have expressed a preference.
One further theme remains to be discussed, — sin
unto death. The one passage which brings this topic
before us is I. v. 16, 17 : " If any man see his brother
1 Holtzmann, Hand-Commentai; in loco, and Westcott, The
Epistles of St. John, in loco.

150 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God
will give him life for them that sin not unto death.
There is a sin unto death (apapTia irpbs OdvaTov) : not
concerning this do I say that he should make request.
All unrighteousness is sin : and there is a sin not unto
death." It is obvious that the writer means here to
distinguish differing degrees of wickedness in sin.
But this is almost the only assertion which can be
made with certainty respecting the passage. Passing
by minor points which do not essentially affect the
ipeaning of the phrase dpapTia irpbs ddvarov, we need,
if possible, to answer two questions : (1) Is a particu
lar act of sin, or a certain kind of sin, here referred to ?
— that is, is dpapTia best rendered as in our English
versions, " a sin," or as in the margin of the R. V.
" sin " ? (2) In either case, what is the force of irpbs
QdvaTovl What distinguishes this sin, or this kind
of sin, from all others ?
Respecting the first question I think, with Westcott
and a majority of modern interpreters, that the trans
lation " a sin " is too definite. If the apostle had in
mind some particular act of sin, such as the denial of
the Messiahship of Jesus (so Ebrard and Diister-
dieck), or envy (so Augustine) it seems likely that
he would have specified it, or that he would, at
least, have written d/iapTia rt? or p,ia. Nor may we,
on the other hand, make the expression so vague and
general as to interpret it to mean a state of extreme
moral obduracy (so Bengel). We should rather
understand by dpapTia here a certain type of sin, a

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 151
kind of sinning which might find expression in many
different specific acts, all of which would, however,
spring from one certain spirit or disposition. We
think it probable that some particular attitude or
habit of mind must have been in the apostle's thoughts
in using this term. The question what this sinful
disposition was is dependent upon the view which is
taken of our second inquiry.
Several points connected with the passage as a
whole require to be taken into account in estimating
the force of dpapTia irpbs ddvaTov. From the very
terms of the passage it appears that the apostle, in
the case which he supposes, is thinking of this sin as
the act of a Christian, or at least of a professing
Christian : " If any man see his brother sinning," etc.
It would seem from this that the sin in question is
something which is in a special manner the negation of
the Christian profession. It seems also probable that
other descriptions in the Epistle of specially heinous
sins or sin would throw some light upon the meaning
of this sin. Bearing in mind these two general con
siderations, let us briefly pass in review the leading
theories respecting " sin unto death " in our passage.1
It is well known that this passage is one of the sup
ports of the distinctions made by Roman Catholic
theologians between venial and mortal sins. The latter
are such as destroy the friendship of God and cause
the death of the soul. They are seven in number:
1 For an account of the patristic comments ou the passage,
see Westcott, Epistles of St. John, pp. 210-214.

152 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and
, sloth. But even if a valid distinction could be made
between these particular sins and all others, no possi
ble ground for it could be found in our passage, since
in no case can dpapTia be made to include a list of
seven sins. Many earlier interpreters (as Calvin and
Beza) identify " sin unto death " with the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost spoken of in the Synoptic
Gospels (Matt. xii. 31 sq. ; Mark. iii. 22 sq. ; Luke
xii. 10). There must unquestionably be a certain
kinship between the thoughts expressed by the two
phrases, but they cannot be strictly identical, because
the "blasphemy" of which the Pharisees stood in
danger consisted in ascribing the gracious works of
Jesus to demoniacal sources, and involved an utter
perversion of the moral nature, while the " sin " of our
passage denotes some course of action in a professed
Christian by which he cuts himself off from eternal life.
To substantially the same opinion as that given above
come the interpretations of Liicke, Huther, DeWette,
and Haupt,1 who agree in explaining the expression as
denoting forfeiture of spiritual life through a wilful
apostasy from Christ which involves a crisis of the
soul, — a deliberate attitude of enmity to him taken
from pure love of sinning. On this view " sin unto
death" would simply be a name for consummate
wickedness as shown by hostility to Christ. If John
had in mind precisely this moral obduracy, by the
very nature of which the subject is already excluded
1 Commentaries, in loco.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 153
from salvation, it seems strange that he should speak
of it as the sin of a " brother " and should put his
counsel regarding prayer for it in a negative and
guarded form.
Bishop Westcott has advanced the view that " sin
unto death " is sin " which in its very nature ex
cludes from fellowship with Christians." ! He thinks
examples would be : hatred of the brethren, selfishness,
and faithlessness. He defines dpapTia trpin OdvaTov as
sin " tending to death, and not necessarily involving
death. Death is, so to speak, its natural consequence
if it continue, and not its inevitable issue as a matter
of fact." It appears to me that this interpretation does
not really distinguish " sin unto death " from any
other sin. All sin tends to death if it continue, and
even if some sins, such as those named, had a special
effect to exclude the doer of them from Christian
society, it would not thereby be proved that they were
inherently worse than other sins. On Dr. Westcott's
view it is difficult to find any reason for the apostle's
hesitation in encouraging his readers to pray for the
forgiveness of those who should sin unto death.
Those interpreters 2 seem to me to follow the indica
tions of the Epistle who hold that sin unto death is
the disposition or temper which expresses itself in
the denial of Christ's incarnation, Messiahship, and
saving work. This view sets our passage in close
relation with the passages concerning antichrist, and
1 The Epistles of St. John, p. 209.
2 See, for example, Ebrard, Commentary, in loco.

154 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
proceeds, we believe, in the right direction. The un
derlying thought in respect to the antichristian spirit
and in respect to sin unto death is probably the same.
But the latter idea need not be made so definite as to
mean a specific act of denial, but may most natur
ally be held to designate, as the term " antichrist "
does, a temper of denial, a renunciation, on the part of
one who has professed discipleship to Christ, of the
saving significance of his person and work. We there
fore hold that sin unto death is here equivalent in
principle to the spirit of antichrist, and consists in
apostasy or desertion of Christ.1 With the authors
just cited we hold that the New Testament passages
outside our Epistle which are most closely analo
gous to that under review are Hebrews vi. 4-8 and
x. 26-31, in which apostasy from Christ and its con
sequences are depicted. In these passages the thought
probably is, If a man deserts Christ he will find no
other Saviour ; there is no sacrifice for sins (Heb. x.
26) which can avail for him except that which Christ
has made. Thus the impossibility of renewal which is
asserted in case of any who have fallen away (Heb.
vi. 6) is not absolute, but relative ; it is an impossi
bility which lies within the limits of the supposition
which is made in the immediate connection. In the
case of one who turns away from Christ, and so long
1 So Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, in loco; Weiss, BM.
Theol, ii. § 151 c. note 10 (in the original of the 5th ed., note
8), and Dwight, in his notes appended to Huther's Commentary
on the Catholic Epistles (in the Meyer-series), page 817.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 155
as such apostasy lasts (note the present participles
avaaTavpovvTa'i and irapa8eiy/j,aTi£ovTa<;), there is no
possibility of renewal.1 This view alone accords with
the drift and purpose of the Epistle as a whole, as
the view which makes " antichrist " and " sin unto
death " in 1 John refer to renunciation of Christ
accords with the aim of that letter. The passages in
Hebrews do not exclude the possibility of renewal
in case the course of apostasy is repented of and for
saken ; nor do the passages in 1 John pronounce
this penalty of death upon any who turn away
from the path of denial into which they have been
beguiled. The idea which underlies both sets of pas
sages is that the way of apostasy is the road to
death ; that renunciation of Christ is the renuncia
tion of God's saving mercy, which will not be found
elsewhere. This fearful goal, to which the repudia
tion of Christ will inevitably lead those who persist
in it, is pointed out in the most solemn manner by
both writers in order that their readers may be
warned of the danger to which they are exposed in
giving heed to the representatives of a fanatical and
narrow Judaism, on the one hand, or to those of a
proud and superficial Gnosticism, on the other.
1 Cf. Dwight's notes on the passage in Liinemann's Commen
tary (Meyer-series), p. 551, and Farrar on Hebrews, in loco, in
the Cambridge Greek Testament.

CHAPTER VII
THE WORK OF SALVATION
Literature. — Weiss: Der Johann. Lehrb., Die Errettung
der Welt, 157-164, and Bibl. Theol, The Salvation in Christ, ii.
347-362 (orig. pp. 614-626 ) ; Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol., Of the
Influence of the Word upon the World, ii. 429-445 (orig. pp.
479-498) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol., Die Heilsstiftung, i.
261-277, Das Heilswerk, ii. 436-446 ; Wendt : Teaching of Jesus,
Significance of the death of Jesus according to the Johannine
discourses, ii. 251-262 (orig. pp. 530-539); Sears, The Heart
of Christ, The Johannean Atonement, 501-511 ; Frommann :
Johann. Lehrb. , Jesus ist als der Christ der Heiland der Welt,
418-480 ; Kostlin : Der Lehrbegriff, u. s. w., Das Werk Jesu im
Besondern, 160-209 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol, Die Lehre von der
Erlosung, 368-389; Dale: The Atonement, The Testimony of
St. John, 151-172.
A review of the references in the writings of John
to the redemptive work of Christ may well begin with
the claim which he makes for himself as the dis
penser of life and as the bread of life in the fifth and
sixth chapters of the Gospel. The way in which
Jesus is led to assert his prerogative as the giver of
life (v. 19 sq.) is significant. He had healed a man
on the Sabbath. The Jews accused him of profaning
the sacred day. He replied that in doing good on
the Sabbath he was acting in accord with the unceas-

THE WORK OF SALVATION 157
ing beneficence of his Father. They then accused him
of " making himself equal with God " (v. 18). This
accusation called out an explanation of his mis
sion. He does nothing, he says, independently of the
Father's will and purpose (verse 19) ; he does the
same things as the Father (verse 20), "For as the
Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth (^woiroiel)
them, even so the Son also quickeneth whom he will "
(verse 21). These words should probably be under
stood in an ethical sense, since in the connection he
says : " He that heareth my word, and believeth him
that sent me, hath eternal life," etc. (verse 24), and
again : " The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead
shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and they that
hear shall live " (verse 26). A present bestowment of
spiritual life, on condition of faith, appears to be meant.
In immediate connection with this right to bestow life
stands its counterpart, the right to pronounce judg
ment (verses 22, 23). Those who do not honor the
Son, and receive the message which the Father sends
to them through him, are inevitably exposed to that
process of judgment which, though not the immediate
object of his coming into the world (viii. 15 ; xii. 47),
is inseparable from his Messianic work. The Father
has made him the bearer of life to the world, and
through his incarnation and oneness with humanity,
— which are the essential conditions of his achieving
man's redemption, — has associated with this saving
work, as its reverse side, the execution of judgment
(verses 26, 27). At this point a transition seems to

158 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
occur in the thought, which now passes over into the
future and dwells for a moment upon the consumma
tion of the life-giving process : " Marvel not at this :
for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the
tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth," etc.
(verse 28). This resurrection, which is defined as a
resurrection " of life " or " of judgment," according to
its basis (so Weiss) or issue (so Meyer), can only be
that which is conceived of as taking place at the end
of the current age. While these expressions are very
explicit in ascribing the work of salvation, both in
its present realization and its future completion, to
Christ, they are too general to indicate clearly by what
means he effects this salvation.
After the miracle of the loaves (vi. 1-14) many
followed Jesus in hope of securing further supply
(vi. 26). He urges them to seek from him rather
that spiritual food which he has come to provide for
them (verse 27). To this they reply : What would
you have us do ? What do you hold that God re
quires of us ? Jesus answers : He requires no deeds
whereby you may win his favor ; he requires only that
you receive and obey me (verses 28, 29). To the Jew
ish mind the question at once presents itself : By
what miracle do you sustain your claim to be a mes
senger of God and the bearer of life to the world ?
(verse 30.) Moses attested his" mission by giving the
people manna : " what workest thou ? " (verses 30, 31.)
Such were the preliminary circumstances which
occasioned the discourse ou the bread of life. The

THE WORK OF SALVATION 159
reference to the manna which supplied only the tem
porary physical need of the passing hour affords Jesus
an opportunity to set in contrast with it the spiritual
nourishment which he gives for the permanent satis
faction of the soul. He tells them that the manna
which Moses gave them was not the true, ideal bread
of God (tov dpTov tov aXnOivdv) ; this genuine bread
from heaven God is now giving (SlSaso-iv) them (verse
32) ; it is himself (verse 35). The saying gives great
offence (verse 41), but Jesus reasserts, in other terms,
his claim as the bearer of spiritual life. He is the
way to the Father ; he is the giver of the resurrection-
life (verse 44) ; those who really hear God's voice
recognize his message as divine ; faith in him is the
condition of eternal life (verses 45, 47). This stage
of the discourse reaches its culmination in the repeated
assertion that he is the living bread from heaven, and,
especially, in the more specific statement that the life-
giving bread is his flesh, which he will give for the
life of the world (verse 51).
The final paragraph of the discourse presents the
thought that spiritual life is secured by eating the
flesh of the Son of man and drinking his blood
(verse 53). What is its import ? One answer is that
reference is here made to the Lord's supper. This
was the prevailing interpretation among the Latin and
later Greek Church fathers, and is adopted by Roman
Catholic writers and by several modern Protestant
scholars.1 But the exegetical difficulties connected
1 E. g., by Pfleiderer, Harnack, H. Holtzmann, and, in a
modified form, by Plummer.

160 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
with this view are very great. Jesus speaks of a
present and continuous eating and drinking (verses
54, 56) ; moreover, it is difficult to conceive of Jesus
as referring to the last supper in an argument with the
Jews at a time so far in advance of its establishment,
and especially in terms so mystical and so widely dif
ferent from those actually used at the institution of
that sacrament. If the words as they stand are re
ferred to the eucharist, the conclusion can hardly be
avoided that this application of them is due to the
writer of the Gospel, — a conclusion of which those
who deny its genuineness have naturally availed
themselves. Westcott justly criticises this interpre
tation as follows : " To attempt to transfer the words
of the discourse with their consequences to the sacra
ment is not only to involve the history in hopeless
confusion, but to introduce overwhelming difficulties
into their interpretation, which can only be removed
by the arbitrary and untenable interpolation of quali
fying sentences." J
The prevailing interpretation among Protestants
refers the words to the propitiatory death of Christ.
This was the opinion of Augustine and of the Re
formers, and is presented in the commentaries of
Lange, Godet and Meyer. It is favored by the follow
ing considerations : (a) The term I will give (Smato,
verse 51) points to a future saving act ; (b) the ex-
1 Commentary, in loco. For a detailed refutation of the in
terpretation just stated above in the text, see also Meyer, in
loco.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 161
pression, to drink his blood, necessarily refers to his
death; (c) passages like i. 29, iii. 14, and I. iv. 10
confirm this explanation. All three of these points,
however, are of doubtful validity. It is improbable
that a reference to the death of Christ can be legiti
mately derived from the term I will give (Swao)),
either on account of the tense or on account of the
significance of the word itself. The future may refer
to a continuous giving of himself for the life of the
world, as well as to one definite act, and the con
nection seems to show that the verb StSdvai is used
throughout, not in the sense of giving himself up to
God in sacrifice, but in that of giving himself as food
for man's nourishment (of. verses 31-34).
The reference to the drinking of the blood of the
Son of man (verse 53) may be regarded as parallel
to that which is made to the eating of his flesh. If
the latter does not necessarily refer to his expiatory
death, it cannot be convincingly shown that the
former does so. Certainly the fact that Christ is else
where spoken of as the Lamb of God (i. 29) and as a
propitiation for our sins (I. iv. 10), does not of itself
prove that he is presented in the same light in the
discourse under consideration. It is almost as diffi
cult to suppose that in this address to hostile Jews
Jesus meant to dwell on the necessity of his sacrificial
death as it is to suppose that his words had reference
to the significance of the last supper. It would seem
that his meaning must have been, in that case, al
together incomprehensible to his hearers.
ii

162 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
The difficulties attending these interpretations have
led many to adopt a third view which has, indeed,
been held in varying forms. In this third theory the
terms flesh and blood are understood in an ethical or
mystical sense, and the eating and drinking spoken
of are supposed to include the entire appropriation of
Christ and his saving work. In this view the benefits
of his death would be logically included, though not
primarily or directly referred to in the terms flesh
and blood. These words are regarded as symbols of
his life or person. Westcott understands by the flesh
"the virtue of Christ's humanity as living for us,"
and by the blood " the virtue of his humanity as sub
ject to death." 1 For Weiss the flesh and blood to
gether symbolize the weakness and finitude of human
nature in contrast to the celestial glory of the spirit
ual nature. The eating and drinking therefore refer
to the believing reception of Jesus' human appearance
in his lowly form.2 Taking a similar view of its
terms, Wendt holds that the discourse is intended to
confute the idea of the Jews that, because of his
well-known human origin (verse 41 sq.), Jesus could
not be the medium of eternal life to mankind. Thus
the discussion " serves for the confirmation and ex
planation of the thought which he elsewhere briefly
expresses by his self-designation as ' the Son of
1 Commentary, in loco.
2 Life of Christ, iii. 7. Weiss adds that the evangelist sees
in these words intimations of Jesus' violent death, — an idea
which is not involved in their original meaning.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 163
Others do not attempt to assign distinct
senses to the words flesh and blood or to find in the
statements concerning them any specific reference to
Jesus' lowly human form, but understand that to eat
his flesh and drink his blood is to make Christ wholly
ours, to participate spiritually in his life.
Dr. John Lightfoot confirms this view by citations
from Talmudic sources. In connection with them he
says : " There is nothing more common in the schools
of the Jews than the phrases of ' eating and drinking '
in a metaphorical sense." " Bread is very frequently
used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when
Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint
to them that he would feed his followers not only with
his doctrines, but with himself too." One Rabbi
speaks of " eating the years of the Messiah ; " another
of " devouring " him. Lightfoot concludes : " To par
take of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his
pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit ; and to live
and grow and receive nourishment from that partici
pation of him, — things which the Jewish schools
heard little of, did not believe, did not think ; but
things which our blessed Saviour expresseth lively
and comprehensively enough, by that of eating his
flesh and drinking his blood." 2
It appears to me probable that this third interpre
tation corresponds best with the primary import of
the discourse. It is not impossible, however, that, as
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 182 (orig. p. 475).
4 Horm Hebraicce, in loco, Oxford trans., iii. 307-309.

164 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Weiss suggests, the writer, in reproducing the sub
stance of the discourse in the light of subsequent
events, thought of them as fulfilled in a special manner
in Jesus' giving up his body to death, and even as
directly referring to this event. But the discourse as
a whole does not seem to warrant the supposition of
a primary and direct reference to his atoning death,
and in seeking an answer to the question, how,
according to the Johannine writings, Jesus effects
man's salvation, we are not carried by this discourse
beyond the general truth that he does this by giving
himself to men as spiritual food, or, dropping the fig
ure, by offering himself as the object of faith and
by entering into loving fellowship with men. More
specific references to the work of salvation must be
sought elsewhere.
In several places Christ is said to have come to
save men. " God sent not the Son into the world to
judge the world ; but that the world should be saved
(iva aoody 6 Koo-fio<;) through him " (iii. 17; cf. xii. 47).
The connection shows that " the world " designates
mankind in general, and that men are regarded as
exposed — apart from his saving work — to condemna
tion or destruction (cf. verse 16), but the manner in
which the salvation is effected is not intimated. Faith
in himself and appropriation of the light which he has
brought to men are spoken of (verses 18-21) as the
conditions of the divine approval, but no ground of for
giveness in his death or sacrifice is alluded to. Else
where, in defending himself against the criticisms of

THE WORK OF SALVATION 165
the Jews, he affirms that although the testimony of
the Baptist, which the Jews had sought, was favor
able to him, he does not himself appeal to it for his
own advantage, since his claims bear the direct au
thentication of God, and adds : " I say these things "
(concerning John's testimony) " that ye may be
saved " ('iva vp,el<s awdrjTe, v. 34) ; it is for your sake,
not for mine, that I refer to John's " witness," in the
hope that you may heed it and believe on me. Here
also we find only an implied reference to the believ
ing acceptance of his Messiahship as the condition of
salvation. The passage in the allegory of the Door of the
Sheepfold : " I am the door : by me if any man enter
in, he shall be saved (aoiO^aerai), and shall go in and
go out, and shall find pasture " (x. 9), is figurative,
and contains only the general idea of security through
Christ from harm or danger. When we are told that
" the salvation " (r/ awTvpia) — that is, the promised,
long-expected Messianic salvation — " is from the
Jews " (iv. 22), it is, no doubt, implied that Jesus is
the Saviour who brings this salvation ; but no sugges
tion of the way or means of accomplishing it is made.
After the conversation with the Samaritan woman, in
which the foregoing expression occurs, her country
men declare that they are convinced by what they
have heard from Jesus himself that he " is indeed the
Saviour of the world " (iv. 42). In one other passage
only is he designated as the Saviour (I. iv. 14) but the
means by which he becomes such are not specified —

166 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
beyond the mention of confessing him and abiding in
him as necessary (verses 13, 15). From this group
of passages we may indeed infer the sinfulness of
mankind; salvation is from sin and its consequences,
but whether by an atonement for sin or not, we have as
yet no indication. Thus far the whole soteriology of
our sources may be summed up in the words : life-
fellowship with Christ.
There are two passages, standing in close connec
tion in the First Epistle, in which reference is made
to the cleansing (KaOapC^eiv) of men from sin (i. 7, 9).
The apostle had declared that the substance of the
gospel message is that God is light (verse 5) ; it fol
lows that Christians must walk in the light (verse 6) ;
in so doing they have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus cleanses them from all sin
(verse 7). The thought, then, is that the saving effi
cacy of Christ's blood is experienced only by those
who walk in the light, that is, those who desire and
strive to be pure and Godlike. The author now ad
vances to the necessity of confession ; if Christians
confess their sins God's faithfulness to his promises
and to his very nature is the guaranty of their for
giveness and cleansing (verses 8, 9). It will be
noticed that in both these passages it is the cleansing
of the Christian from the sin that still clings to him
that is spoken of, and that in one case (verse 9) this
cleansing is predicated of God, in the other (verse 7),
of the blood of Jesus, his Son. From these passages
we derive the same general conception as from those

THE WORK OF SALVATION 167
which speak of saving men ; namely, that Jesus Christ
wrought a deliverance for man from sin ; and also
the additional idea that this deliverance stands in
some way connected with his death, since his blood is
said to be the means of cleansing. It is further evi
dent that the* apostle speaks here, not of a juridical
deliverance or acquittal, but of an actual moral puri
fication.1 It seems to be clearly implied in the first
of these passages (verse 7) that the shedding of
Christ's blood is the culminating act in his saving
work. This is the only passage in John's writings
where cleansing from sin is explicitly attributed to
his blood or death. It remains to be seen whether
this idea is clearly implied in other passages.
Closely resembling the passages just noticed are
two others in which the taking away (aipeiv) of sin is
ascribed to Jesus. In I. iii. 5 it is stated that " he was
manifested to take away sins " (iva to,? dp,apTia<; dprj),
or more exactly, " the sins," the sins of mankind. The
other passage contains the exclamation of the Bap
tist when he saw Jesus approaching : " Behold, the
Lamb of God, which taketh away (6 a'tpmv) the sin
of the world ! " (i. 29.) Some interpreters have taken
aipeiv in the first passage in the sense of to bear as
a sacrifice, in order to procure forgiveness,2 and this
meaning has been still more commonly given to the
word in the second passage. But while aipeiv in
1 So Liicke, Huther, Haupt ; per contra, Weiss, Bibl. Theol.
§ 148, b. 3.
2 So, e. g., Liicke and De Wette.

168 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
itself might in these passages mean to bear, the
Johannine usage strongly favors another signification.
The word is uniformly used by John in the sense of
to take away (cf. xi. 48 ; xv. 2 ; xvii. 15 ; xix. 31, 38).
Moreover, the Septuagint employs <frepeiv to denote
the bearing of sin, while it uses aipeiv to express the
idea of taking away. The context seems clearly to
require the meaning to take away for dpg in I. iii. 5,
since the point of the argument lies in the antagonism
between the Christian life and sin, as shown by the
purpose of Christ's manifestation, namely, to take away
sins. If this view of I. iii. 5 be adopted, the presump
tion that d aipcov means " who takes away " is greatly
strengthened.1 In that case, the idea expressed in
aipeiv is substantially the same as that which we
found in Kadapi^etv. Especially close would be the
connection between I. i. 7 and i. 29, since the " blood "
in the one passage corresponds with the " Lamb " in
the other, and each term suggests the idea of a sacri
ficial victim.
On the interpretation of 6 aipcov in i. 29 which we
think to be best supported, the question whether the
sacrificial idea is found in the passage, will turn
chiefly on the meaning of the phrase : " the Lamb
of God." The sense in which we have taken aipeiv is
not prejudicial to this idea in the passage, since it
may appear that the sin of the world is conceived of
as taken away only through the expiation of it in the
1 Among the interpreters who render 6 aipcov "who takes
away," are Meyer, Westcott, Weiss, Godet, and Plummer.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 169
sufferings and death of Christ. The grammatical
force of the phrase, as determined by the article and
the genitive, seems clearly to be : the expected Lamb
which God has furnished or appointed, that is, the
Lamb which God has set apart to a special function,
and of which prophecy speaks. In the view of many
the reference of the term is to the paschal lamb.
This lamb was the symbol of Israel's deliverance
from bondage, and Jesus may be regarded as the
antitypical passover Lamb inasmuch as. he accom
plishes for men their deliverance from sin. It seems
unnatural, however, to suppose that the Baptist
should, at this time, have regarded Jesus in this spec
ial character ; and this impression is somewhat
strengthened if the view be taken that in the quota
tion in xix. 36 : "A bone of him shall not be broken,"
the reference is not to the paschal lamb (Ex. xii.
46 ; Num. ix. 12), but to the description of Jehovah's
protection of the righteous man in Ps. xxxiv. 20. But
even if the apostle John does identify Jesus, after his
death, with the paschal lamb (as Paul clearly does,
1 Cor. v. 7), a similar reference in our passage would
not thereby be rendered especially probable, except
on the view that this conception was imported into
the Baptist's words by the evangelist ex eventu.
It seems, on all accounts, more natural to suppose
that the phrase " the Lamb of God " is a reminis
cence of Isaiah liii. 7, where the meekness of the
suffering Servant of Jehovah is depicted by saying :
" As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a

170 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sheep that before her shearers is dumb ; yea, he
opened not his mouth." Some interpreters, connect
ing our passage with Isaiah liii. 7, and regarding the
latter only as a figurative description of the inno
cence and patience of the Servant, conclude that the
phrase " the Lamb of God " does not carry with it
the sacrificial idea, but merely characterizes Jesus as
the meek and gentle sufferer. But the sacrificial
import of the passage Isaiah liii., taken as a whole,
and especially of verses 10-12, renders this view im
probable. Moreover, the recognition of a connection
between our passage and Isaiah liii. 7 does not war
rant the conclusion that the phrase under review is
strictly limited in its meaning by the latter. The
phrase "Lamb of God" is most naturally taken as
an Old Testament symbol of a sacrificial victim,
through the offering of which sin is done away.
Similar allusions to Christ as the Lamb who dies in
sacrifice for men are found in 1 Pet. i. 19, and in
numerous passages in the Apocalypse (e. g., v. 12 ;
vii. 14). To me it appears highly probable that we
have in our passage a symbolical expression, drawn
from the Old Testament, for the sacrificial expiation
of sin. If so, we. must regard this idea as an element
of the Johannine soteriology. But the justice of this
conclusion will be found to be mainly dependent upon
considerations connected with other passages yet to
be examined.
In one passage (I. ii. 1) Christ is called a irapd-
kXtjto<; with or before the Father (irpb<; tov iraTepa) :

THE WORK OF SALVATION 171
" If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the
Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." The word
irapdKXTjTos designates Christ as one who is sum
moned to our aid and who represents us in relation
to (irpd<;) the Father. This passage does not, how
ever, aid us in defining specifically the way in which
Christ effects man's salvation. It bears mainly upon
the mediation of Christ in securing forgiveness to the
Christian man who falls into sin (dpdprg, note the
aorist). The thought is : If the Christian commits
sin (in contrast to living in an habitual state of sin,
I. iii. 6-9) he has as his Advocate before the " right
eous Father " (xvii. 25) the sinless One who, having
himself perfectly fulfilled his moral destiny in his
human life, enters into perfect sympathy with those
who are passing through the same process of trial.
The passage bears, not upon the cause or ground of
salvation, but upon its completion in the Christian
man. There are several passages in which some act of
Christ, usually his death, is said to have been on
behalf of (virep) men. The first of these, " The bread
which I will give is my flesh, for (virep) the life of the
world " (vi. 51), we have already noticed incidentally
in our review of the discourse on the bread of life.
On the interpretation of that discourse which I have
adopted, a reference in these words to the death of
Jesus for men cannot be confidently affirmed. For
our present purpose this passage may be passed over,
both because of the uncertainty of its meaning and

172 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
because other passages are unambiguous upon the
point in question. In the allegory of the Good Shep
herd, Jesus, describing himself as " the good shep
herd " says that he " lays down his life for (virep) the
sheep " (x. 11, 15). It is a question how far, in view
of the figurative language of this whole description,
we can draw doctrinal inferences respecting the sig
nificance of Christ's death from these words. If we
consult the analogy made use of here we should say,
the shepherd can only lay down his life in the protection
of the sheep from danger ; the parable does not carry
us beyond the thought of the most self-denying sacri
fice on the part of Christ for those whom he loves.
Some interpreters, however (e.g., Meyer, in loco), find
the expiatory idea here in the verb (Tidno-iv) which is
used. It is claimed that the phrase nOe'vai tt;v yjrvxrfv
means to pay down one's life as a ransom, in accord
ance with a frequent classical usage, and on the anal
ogy of the expression to give one's life (SiSdvai tt)v
yfrvxriv, Matt. xx. 28 ; cf . 1 Tim. ii. 6). In these pas
sages the idea of a ransom is plainly expressed, and
the force of the phrase nOevai ttjv tyvxrjv cannot
fairly be determined by simple comparison with them.
The phrase in question is used in the New Testament
only by John (x. 11, 15, 17, 18 ; xiii. 37, 38 ; xv. 13 ;
I. iii. 16). This writer elsewhere employs the verb
nOevai chiefly in the sense of to lay away (xi. 34;
xix. 41 ; xx. 2, 13, 15), or to lay aside (xiii. 4).
Westcott thinks that " the usage of St. John rather
suggests the idea of putting off and laying aside as a

THE WORK OF SALVATION 173
robe," than the laying down of a ransom price. It is
certain that the passages outside of this parable where
our phrase is used do not support the idea of paying
a ransom, e. g., xiii. 37 where Peter says : " I will lay
down my life for thee " (rr\v ^vxr\v huov virep crov O-qcrco).
When in xv. 13 Jesus alludes to his death he does so
under terms of friendship which do not suggest the
ransom-idea : " Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends " (iva Tt?
ttjv tyvxyv avrov dfj virep t&v cbiXwv avTOv). In the
remaining passage (I. iii. 16) the apostle makes the
laying down of Christ's life for men parallel to that
laying down of life for one another which is the duty of
Christians, and expresses both acts in the same terms :
" He laid down his life for us (e'/cewo? virep fjpcav Tr)v
yjrvxrjv avrov edrjKev), and we ought to lay down our
lives for the brethren " (virep tosv aSeXcbiov Ta? yjrvxas
Oelvai). Surely no payment of life as a ransom-price
can be thought of in the mutual laying down of life
for one another among Christians ; if not, it is un
warranted to derive this idea from the parallel
phrase. The opinion of Meyer does not seem to be war
ranted by the facts of the case. The substitutionary
idea can be derived from the references to the giv
ing of his life by the good shepherd only in case the
preposition virep can be shown to involve this idea.
This preposition strictly means on behalf of, for the
benefit of, and not instead of (civti). It is more gen
eric than civti, and might comprehend its idea if the

174 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
connection required. One might die for the benefit of
another by dying in that other's stead, but he might
do so in other ways also. In the present instance
the figure of the good shepherd in his relation to his
sheep, warrants us in saying that Jesus, according to
the parable, held his life at the service of men, and
when the occasion arose laid down his life that they
might live. As the faithful shepherd dies in protect
ing his sheep from wild beasts or robbers, so Jesus
dies to save men from sin and death. The analogy
would suggest that this death is experienced in the
course of an effort to save men by other means ; that
it represents the culmination of effort to secure that
end, but it would be unwarranted thus to limit the
thought by the terms of the allegorical form. We
think that the passages under review, fairly interpreted,
teach that the death of Jesus is a means to man's
rescue from sin and its consequences. This conclu
sion, however, we should regard as somewhat doubtful
did these passages stand alone. It may be escaped
by separating these clauses in which virep occurs from
others found elsewhere, and by adhering strictly to the
limits of the parabolic analogy. In any case our
passages do not, on our interpretation, indicate in
what way or on what ground the death of Christ avails
for man's salvation. Respecting the two passages
just passed in review (vi. 51 ; x. 11), we must agree
with Weiss in saying : " In both images there is noth
ing said of any bearing of punishment, but of a ser
vice of love, which Jesus discharges to the world by

THE WORK OF SALVATION. 175
giving his life, in that he thereby delivers it from death
and keeps it in life." 1
The next passage in which the relation of the death
of Christ to men is denoted by virep is that where the
high priest Caiaphas is said to have uttered an un
conscious prophecy of the necessity and purport of
Christ's death (xi. 47-53). The passage presents
considerable critical difficulties, but the meaning
which appears on the face of the narrative is as fol
lows : In a meeting of the Sanhedrin the Pharisees
express their concern because so many of their fellow-
countrymen have believed on Jesus. They argue :
If he is permitted to go on winning adherents thus
without interruption, the attention of our Roman
rulers will surely become directed to the matter.
They will regard the excitement attending adherence
to this pretended Messiah and King as a sign of pos
sible sedition, and they will promptly destroy forever
the remnant of independence which is now ours ; they
will annihilate our holy city and completely extin
guish our national life (xi. 47, 48). To this argument
Caiaphas, who was high priest during that fateful year,
answered : You Pharisees are altogether lacking in
shrewdness. We can turn this whole situation to our
advantage. By sacrificing Jesus we can show our
loyalty to Rome, and thus avert all possible suspicion
from ourselves. Thus he, not the Jewish people, will
perish. Let the penal stroke, which you so much
fear, descend upon him, instead of us.
1 Bibl. Theol. § 148, c.

176 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY .
It is clear that the suggestion of Caiaphas was dic
tated by selfish policy. It is through wick'ed enmity
to Jesus, and cruel betrayal of him, that the advantage
of his death is to be secured to the people. They are
to shield themselves by turning base injustice to
Jesus into a semblance of devotion to Rome (verses
49, 50 ; cf. xviii. 14). On this counsel of Caiaphas
the evangelist now makes a comment based upon the
Old Testament idea of the high priest as the recipient
of oracular communications from Jehovah (Ex. xxviii.
30 ; Num. xxvii. 21). He says that the very words
which Caiaphas . uttered in a worldly and wicked
spirit contained, despite his purpose, a great divine
truth ; he, in virtue of his sacred office, was made the
organ of a word of God of which he was all uncon
scious. His words — little as he meant them so —
express the great truth that Jesus was to die for
(virep) the Jewish nation, and not only that, but that
by his death he was to gather together into a spiritual
unity all those in every nation who are true, obedient
sons of God (verses 51, 52). Whatever view we may
take of ^John's assertion of a divine determination con
trolling the words of Caiaphas and directing them to
the expression of truth wholly foreign to the mind of
the speaker, it is evident that the whole narrative
assumes it to be a great central truth of Christianity
that Jesus died to save the Jewish nation, and to
constitute all the children of God into one family.
Moreover, as in I. i. 7 fellowship among Christians
and their cleansing from all sin by the blood of

THE WORK OF SALVATION 177
Christ were placed side by side, so here we have a
correlation of the idea of salvation and of Christian
unity as together representing the object of Christ's
death. For our purpose the main point to be noted
is the way in which the whole narrative assumes
the centrality of the truth that Christ's death was
the means of effecting the Messianic salvation for the
Jewish nation, and of constituting the one communion
of true believers. But in what sense, in the light of
our passage, does Christ die for (virep) men ? We
certainly cannot carry the idea of a divine overruling
of Caiaphas' words so far as to find in them the true
conception of Jesus' vicarious death. To the high
priest's mind his death would be the result of crafty
policy, whereby suspicion of political treachery should
be averted from the Jewish people. He did not con
nect the death of Christ with God's order, or contem
plate it as subserving moral and spiritual ends. Our
passage, then, does not involve more than the asser
tion which the evangelist held to be fundamental and
axiomatic, that Christ secured the salvation of men
by his death ; but to the questions, why, or in what
way, our author gives us, as yet, no answer.
In xv. 13 Jesus refers to his laying down his life
as a proof of his great love : " Greater love hath no
man than this, that a man lay down life for (virep)
his friends." It accords with the purpose of the dis
course in which this passage occurs that Jesus should
speak of his death here as being experienced for the
benefit of his immediate disciples, without thereby
12

178 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
justifying any limitation of its intended benefits. But
the passage does not carry us beyond those previ
ously cited in respect to the way in which his death
secures the benefits to which the preposition points.
The same may be said of the kindred passage I. iii.
16 : " Hereby know we love, because he laid down
his life for (virep) us: and we ought- to lay'down our
lives for (inrep) the brethren." In this case, how
ever, if we are to press the parallelism, we should
have to conclude that the death of Jesus is for the
benefit of men only in the sense in which self-sacri
ficing suffering on the part of men is for the benefit
of its objects. The context shows that in this pas
sage the death of Jesus stands as a symbol of self-
sacrificing love which men are to share and illustrate.
That this is, in general, its entire significance in
John, would be, however, an unwarranted conclusion.
The words " For their sakes (virep avTiov) I sanc
tify (dyidfa) myself, that they themselves also may
be sanctified in truth " (xvii. 19) are understood by
most interpreters ' in a sacrificial sense, and dyid&iv
is taken as equivalent to irpoacbepeiv dvaiav (Chrysos
tom, cf. Eph. v. 2). On this view the meaning would
be : For the salvation of my disciples I consecrate
myself, through death, as a sacrifice unto God. This
explanation is sustained by Septuagint examples of
the use of dyid&tv in the sense of consecration to death
in sacrifice (Ex. xiii. 2 ; Deut. xv. 19, etc.). Consider
ations drawn from the connection in which our pas-
1 So, e. g., Lucke, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 179
sage stands, however, render this view, to say the
least, very doubtful. Jesus prays for the consecra
tion of his disciples (xvii. 17), and adds that he conse
crates himself for them that they themselves also (koX
avTol) may be consecrated in truth (xvii. 19). It seems
incredible that dyid^eiv as applied to the disciples
should refer to their consecration to death as martyrs
(so Chrysostom), and, if it did, the usage would not
be parallel to that in which it applies to Jesus, who,
according to the supposition, dies, not as a martyr,
but as a sacrifice. The language of verse 19 most
naturally " implies two consecrations of a homogene
ous character " (Godet). It seems unnatural to attrib
ute, as Weiss does, a double sense to dyid^eiv in the
passage. It appears to me preferable to understand
the words comprehensively of Christ's whole devotion
of himself to his appointed work, which would include
his life as well as his death. The thought is unduly
narrowed by Neander, who defines Christ's self-con
secration as " the realization of the ideal of holi
ness." r The phrase more naturally denotes that
whole self-giving of Jesus to men by which he be
comes the author and finisher of their salvation.2
Jesus implies the necessity of his death for the real
ization of his saving work in the statement, " Verily,
verily, I say unto you, except a grain of wheat fall
into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone ; but
if it die, it beareth much fruit " (xii. 24). But neither
1 Planting and Training, ii. 39 (Bohn ed.).
2 So, substantially, Godet and Westcott.

180 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the figure in which the principle of sacrifice is pre
sented, nor the context of the passage, suggests the
idea of vicarious or sacrificial death. The principle
is directly applied to the life of the disciples, who are
not to " love " their lives, but to " hate " them (xii. 25),
that is, not to withhold from others their interest, sym
pathy, and efforts, but freely to give them. To follow
Christ in a life of service and self-giving is the prac
tical thought of the passage, " If any man serve me,
let him follow me " (xii. 26).
The necessity of Jesus' death is, however, presented
in other terms : " As Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up (vifrcoBrjvai Sel) : that whosoever believeth may in
him have eternal life " (iii. 14, 15 ; cf. xii. 34). The
comparison here made involves (a) that as the brazen
serpent was lifted up on a pole (Num. xxi. 8 sq.), so
Jesus must be lifted up on the cross (cf., especially,
viii. 28) ; and (b) that, as looking upon the serpent se
cured healing, so belief on the crucified One secures
eternal life. This passage and those in which Jesus
is described as the Lamb of God (i. 29, 36) it is par
ticularly important to bear in mind in seeking to
determine the idea which underlies the assertions of
his voluntary devotion of his life for the good of men.
Again, Jesus says : " And I, if I be lifted up from
the earth, will draw all men unto myself " (xii. 32),
which the evangelist explains by saying : " This he
said, signifying by what manner of death he should
die " (xii. 33). Here the cross seems to be thought of,

THE WORK OF SALVATION 181
not only as the symbol of death, but of exaltation above
and beyond the earth (e'« t?j? 77}?). The combination
of ideas is similar to that which is presented by Paul
in Phil. ii. 8, 9, where the humiliation to the death of
the cross is presented as the ground of the exalta
tion. Since the heavenly reign and kingly authority
of Jesus were attained on the path of suffering, the
cross may fitly stand, not only as the symbol of the
suffering, but of its result also. In asserting that in
consequence of being lifted up on the cross he would
exert his great attractive power upon mankind, Jesus
seems not only to have signified, as John affirms, the
manner of his death, but also to have proclaimed the
ground of his exaltation and the impelling motive of
his matchless influence in the world.
The two most important passages, in their bearing
on the Johannine idea of atonement, are found in
the Firsi Epistle : " He is the propitiation (iXao~p,d<;)
for (irepi) our sins," etc. (ii. 2), and, " Herein is love,
not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation (lXao-fi,d<;) for (irepi) our
sins " (iv. 10). These are the only passages in which
any of the technical terms which express the ideas of
atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation (KaTaXXda-
aeiv, KaTaXXayr), IXdcrKeaOai, iXao-Tr]piov, k. t. X.)
occur in the Johannine writings ; they are also
the only passages in which the word iXaarpck, on
which their meaning chiefly turns, is found in the
New Testament.
In order rightly to estimate the force of these pas-

182 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
sages it is necessary to give a brief account of the
Biblical use of iXdo-Ketr6ai and its kindred forms.1 In
the Septuagint the two principal uses of iXacrpck (and
of its strengthened form e'ftAaer/nd?) are, (a) as the
equivalent of onaa, " coverings " [of sin by sacrifice] ,
meaning atonement or expiation (e.g., Lev. xxv. 9;
Num. v. 8) ; (b) as a translation of nKBn, sin offer
ing (Ezek. xliv. 27 ; xiv. 19) ; and' (c) in the sense of
nrrSp, forgiveness (Ps. cxxx. 4; Dan. ix. 9). The verb
iXdo-Keo-dai and its compound igiXdo-Keo-Oai are chiefly
used to translate 193, to cover, that is, to atone for,
sin. The subject of the action, expressed or implied,
is, in this usage, God or some human agent ; the object
is the sins expiated, expressed in the accusative (Ps.
lxv. 4), dative (Ps. lxxviii. 38), or after irepi (Lev.
v. 18) or virep (Ezek. xiv. 17) ; the verb is also used
to translate nSo, to forgive, and in the passive signi
fies to be merciful (as in Luke xviii. 13). This verb is
found but twice in the New Testament, in both in
stances in accord with Septuagint usage. In Luke
xviii. 13, IXdaOrjTi pioi tco dg.apTO)XS) means, be propi
tious, etc., as in 2 Kings v. 18, IXdo-eTai tS> SovXcp ; cf.
Ps. xxv. 11 ; lxxix. 9. In Hebrews ii. 17 the phrase
et? to iXdaKecrdai ra? dju-aprta? tou Xaov corresponds
to the prevailing Septuagint usage, and means, "in
1 For a full exhibition of the Septuagint usage I woidd refer
to Westcott's note on the subject in his Epistles of St. John, pp.
85-87. The Biblical use of this and other terms bearing upon
the doctrine of atonement is fully discussed in Cremer's
Bibl-Theol. Lexicon; sub voce, and in Trench's New Testament
Synonyms.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 183
order (as high priest) to expiate by sacrifice the sins
of the people."
Attention has often been called — and justly — to
the difference between the classical and the Bibli
cal use of this class of words. In Homer and most
ancient authors iXda-Ketrdai means to render the gods
favorable by sacrifices or prayers, — the assumption
being that they are not, apart from these appeasing
acts, disposed to be favorable to men. In Biblical
Greek the conception is quite different ; only in
Zech. vii. 2, do we find any expression which seems
to answer to the idea of IXdaKeo-Oai tov Oedv. There
the phrase is, i^iXdo-au6ai tov Kvpiov, which, as the
context and the Hebrew show,1 is not used in a sac
rificial sense, but means to implore or " intreat the
favor of the Lord " (R. V.). We have therefore no
example of a phrase meaning " to propitiate God."
Biblical language avoids the expression of the idea
that God is, in his disposition or feeling, averse to
forgiveness. He does not have to be made willing
by expiations to forgive sin. He is, and always has
been, willing. The Biblical idea is that the obstacle
to forgiveness lies in his essential righteousness which
so conditions his grace that without its satisfac
tion God cannot, in self-consistency, forgive. In the
heathen view expiation renders the gods willing to
forgive ; in the Biblical view expiation enables God,
i The Hebrew is, Hin; 'Jfl-n* nibn1?, literally, to smooth
or stroke the face of Jehovah. The verb is frequently used of
imploring the favor of men (Job. xi. 19 ; Prov. xix. 6).

184 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
consistently with his holiness, actually to do what he
was never unwilling to do. In the former view sac
rifice changes the sentiment of the gods toward men ;
in the latter it affects the consistency of his proced
ure in relation to sin. The divine character is in
no way changed. In the expiation (which God him
self provides)- is fulfilled a condition of the operation
of that grace in which the whole work of salvation
has its origin and ground. In heathenism men win
the favor of the gods ; in Biblical religion God's
favor is sovereign and free, but it manifests itself in
accord with the whole nature of God ; its operation
in the forgiveness of sin is conditioned upon the
manifestation, at the same time, of the divine dis
pleasure at sin and the assertion of its desert of pun
ishment. God cannot forgive as if he were mere good
nature. He can forgive only in accordance with his
changeless, essential righteousness, which must be vin
dicated and satisfied. To effect this vindication and
satisfaction is the function of sacrifice or expiation in
the Bible.
In the light of the foregoing considerations there
can hardly be a doubt that when Christ is said to be
an iXacpbs irepi to>v dpLapncbv rjptov (I. ii. 2 ; iv. 10)
the meaning is that he accomplishes for us a recon
ciliation with God on account of our sins by himself
atoning for them. He is the means of rendering God
favorable in so far as by his sacrificial death he has
accomplished, on our behalf, the ends of punishment,
and is thus in respect to our sins a means of reconcil
iation with God.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 185
It is frequently asserted that in John's writings we
have no trace of an objective atonement for sin, or of
those legal conceptions of God's character or govern
ment which are the presuppositions of the sacrificial
idea.1 It is true that John has not developed the
idea of expiation for sin by the suffering and death
of Christ, but it is none the less true that he several
times alludes to it in such a way as to show that it
was an underlying assumption of his teaching. After
making the fullest allowances for the doubtful pas
sages, there remain several references to the sacri
ficial idea of Christ's work which no unprejudiced
exegesis can set aside. Such are the description of
Jesus as " the Lamb of God" (i. 29, 36) ; the desig
nation of him as our Advocate, in respect to sin,
before the Father (I. ii. 1) ; the statement that he
died for (virep) men (xi. 51 ; xv. 13 ; I. iii. 16) ; the
allusion to the necessity of his death (iii. 14), and
the presentation of it as the condition of founding
his kingdom (xii. 32) ; and the assertion that he is
the propitiation or reconciliation in respect to the
sins of the world (I. ii. 2 ; iv. 10). To these may be
1 "We have not been able to discover anywhere in the
writings of the apostle John any trace whatever of a vicari
ous satisfaction,'' etc. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol. ii. 443 (orig.
ii. 496).
" The atonement (according to John) ... is the believer him
self brought into harmony with the divine mind, purpose, and
will, through the Mediator ; and it involves a knowledge of the
love of Christ, and its exceeding and abounding peace." —
Sears : The Heart of Christ, p. 501.

186 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
added the reference in I. ii. 12 to the forgiveness of
sins " for his name's sake " (Sia, rb Svopa avrov).
We have seen that several expressions which have
been thought to illustrate the sacrificial conception of
Christ's saving work are, at least, of doubtful appli
cation to it. We may summarize a part of the fore
going discussion by quoting the following as the
principal examples: cleansing from sin (I. i. 7, 9),
probably refers, not to satisfaction for the guilt of
sin by atonement, but to actual deliverance from the
power and defilement of the sin itself ; 6 aipcov (i. 29)
probably refers to the taking away of sin, that is,
the abolition of it, and not to the penal endurance of
its guilt ; the giving of his flesh, etc. (vi. 51), is probably
a symbolic expression for Christ's self-communica
tion to the believer, rather than an assertion respect
ing his sacrificial death ; I incline to a similar
explanation of xvii. 19 : " For their sakes I sanctify
myself;" and when in xii. 32 the drawing of all
men to Christ is conditioned upon his being lifted up
from the earth, this last expression seems to include
not only his death, but his resurrection and ascension.
In that case the passage bears, indeed, upon the
saving significance of Christ's death, but less directly
and exclusively than it would do if the lifting up
referred only to the cross, as in iii. 14 and viii. 28.
There is no doubt that John dwells less than most
of the New Testament writers upon the legal aspects
of the divine nature, but there are not wanting evi
dences that the conception of the divine love which

THE WORK OF SALVATION 187
underlies all his religious ideas includes the notion
of righteousness, that self-respecting attribute of God
which occasions his holy displeasure at sin and re
quires to be expressed and vindicated while sin is
forgiven. It accords with John's mystical type of
mind to dwell more upon the union of the believer
with Christ than upon the ground of forgiveness
which is laid by Christ's redemptive work. The
apostle is fond of leaving behind " the first principles
of Christ " and of pressing on unto " perfection "
(Heb. vi. 1) or maturity. He is less concerned with
the method in which salvation has been provided
than with the actual realization of that salvation in
its fulness of blessedness and peace. He thinks and
speaks less of the provision for forgiveness than he
does of the life of fellowship with Christ and of like
ness to God ; in a word, he is less concerned for
theology than for religion.
John wrote after the great conflicts with Judaism
in the Church, which were at their height about the
middle of the first century, had ceased to stimulate
and shape the thought of Christian teachers. Except
in certain allusions in the First Epistle, his writings
(leaving aside for our purpose the Apocalypse) are
not controversial. He undertook to interpret to his
readers, in a constructive spirit, the gospel of Christ.
He wrote after many years of Christian experience
and reflection. He had little or no occasion to use
the weapons of a distinctively Jewish logic, or to
run his thoughts into Jewish legal forms. He did

188 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
not, it would seem, feel called upon to argue the case
for the various doctrines of Christianity at all. He
simply set forth characteristic facts of Christ's mani
festation as they had taken shape in his memory,
emphasized the essential principles of his teaching,
and pointed out the bearing of these principles upon
life. Hence we do not find subjects analyzed and rea
soned out by John. His mode of thought is synthetic,
and the particulars of a subject are generally touched
only by suggestion. It need not surprise us, there
fore, that we find no developed doctrine of redemp
tion in John. The circumstances of the case explain
why few Jewish sacrificial forms of thought appear.
All that we should expect is to find certain sugges
tions and allusions, quite incidentally introduced,
which enable us to judge whether or not John as
sumed that the death of Christ was sacrificial in its
significance and saving in its effect. We have al
ready indicated the answer which we think must be
given to this question.

CHAPTER VIII
THE DOCTRINE OP THE HOLY SPIRIT
Literature. — Weiss : Bibl. Theol, The Paraclete, ii. 405-
410; Johann. Lehrb., Der Paraklet, 280-285; Reuss: Hist.
Christ. Theol, Of the Spirit, ii. 469-481 (orig. 524-538) ; Kost-
lin: Johann. Lehrb., Geschaft des Geistes, u. s. w., 196-209;
Messner : Lehre d. Aposlel, Der Geist, pp. 343-345 ; Beyschlag :
Neutest. Theol, Die Heilswirksamkeit des erhbhten Christus, ii.
444-446 ; Bernard : The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ (John
xiii.-xvii.), passim ; Dods : The Gospel of St. John, The Spirit
Christ's Witness, ii. 205-225 ; Ewald : Old and New Test.
Theol, The Power of the Holy Spirit, pp. 324-340; Baur:
Neutest. Theol, Die Mittheilung des Geistes, pp. 384-386 ;
Maurice : The Gospel of St. John, The Comforter and his Test
iinony, pp. 396-410 ; Hare : The Mission of the Comforter.
The teaching concerning the nature and office of
the Holy Spirit is found chiefly in chapters xiv.-xvi.
of the Gospel. This teaching is the leading theme of
those farewell discourses which appear to have been
spoken in connection with the last supper. It was
called out by the wonder and grief of the disciples at
the Lord's approaching departure. Its primary object
seems to have been to assure the disciples that, al
though he was soon to be no more with them in visible
form, a substitute for his bodily presence would be
given them in the indwelling Spirit. The work of

190 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the Spirit, therefore, is the final subject of his instruc
tion, and stands connected with the completion of his
own mission.
Let us first pass in review the principal designations
of the Spirit, from which we shall naturally be led to
consider the questions concerning his .personality and
work. Besides the term to irvevpa, or to irvevp.a to
ciyiov, the Spirit is designated as 6 irapaKXr)To<;, the
Paraclete, in four passages : " And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter
(dXXov irapaKXvTov), that he may abide with you for
ever " (xiv. 16) ; " But the Comforter (6 irapdKXvTos),
even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name," etc (xiv. 26) ; " But when the Comforter
(6 irapdKXvTO'i) is come, whom I will send unto you
from the Father," etc. (xv. 26) ; " If I go not away,
the Comforter (6 irapdKXvTo<s) will not come unto
you," etc. (xvi. 7).
The rendering " the Comforter," for 6 irapaKX~)To<;,
dates from Wicklif's translation, and has been per
petuated in almost all later English Bibles, including
our Revised Version. It is formed from the Latin con
and fortis, confortare, and means one who strengthens.
While in these various English translations, from Wick
lif's onward, irapdKXrjTos is rendered Comforter in the
Gospel, it is translated Advocate in the First Epistle
(ii. 1), — a fact which is probably due to a similar
variation in the rendering in several ancient versions.
Although the word " Comforter " conveys very well
the practical import of the Spirit's work, it cannot be

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 191
defended as an accurate translation of irapaKXwTos.
It will not serve as a rendering in I. ii. 1, where Christ
is called our irapdKXr)TO<; irpbs tov iraTepa ; nor does it
bring out the passive force of the word irapdicXnTo^.
In the passage just referred to it is evident that
irapaKXijTO<; means advocate or intercessor. Now
since in xiv. 16 the Holy Spirit is designated as attos
irapdKXnTo<;, — that is, since the Holy Spirit, is a Para
clete as really as Christ is, — it is evident that some
uniform translation of irapaKXvTO'i should be adopted.
The passage applies by clear implication the same
designation to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, and ap
plies it in the same sense. The word should, there
fore, be rendered, in both applications of it, in the
same way. Furthermore, the word irapdicXnTo<; is
passive in termination ; it means one who is called in
to the side of another, and, in usage, one who is called
to counsel or help. In its classic use it is applied to
an advocate in a case at law, especially to the advo
cate for the defence.1 From these considerations it is
evident that the term is best translated Advocate or
Helper (margin, R. V.). This translation, no less than
the other, implies the positive, active work of the
Spirit, since it portrays him as One who pleads the
Christian's cause, instructs him in the truth of Christ,
and accuses and convicts the world of sin.
Another kindred designation for the Spirit is " the
Spirit of truth " (to irvevp.a rr)? a.Xr]8eia<;) (xiv. 17 ; xv.
1 Cf. the Commentaries of Westcott and Lange, on John
xiv. 16.

192 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
26 ; xvi. 13 ; cf. I. iv. 6 ; v. 7). The phrase denotes
the Spirit who belongs to the truth in such a sense
that he is its possessor, bearer, and mediator. The
passages just cited set its meaning in clear light. As
" the Spirit of truth " the evil world does not receive
or know him (xiv. 17), because it has no spiritual
affinity for " the truth " which Jesus has revealed, and
which the Spirit seeks to make effective in human
life. Again, he is " the Spirit of truth " because he
bears witness of Christ to the disciples, that is, inter
prets and enforces the teaching of Jesus, and fosters
in them the life which corresponds to it (xv. 26).
Even more explicitly is the function of the Spirit of
truth defined in xvi. 13 sq., where it is said that he
shall guide the disciples " into all the truth " (et? ttjv
aXrjOeiav irdcrav), that is, into the knowledge and ex
perience of that specific truth which Jesus reveals and
embodies in his own person (cf. xiv. 6). The truth as
Jesus proclaimed and illustrated it, the truth as
matter not of knowledge only, but of conduct and life
(iii. 21 ; II. 4), is the sphere of the Spirit's work. His
work is, therefore, set in the closest connection with
the work of Christ in the world, since in unseen but
effective ways he continues to interpret and apply his
truth, and to make men feel the need and the blessing
of its possession.
Of the two terms descriptive of the Spirit which we
have reviewed, the former is more general, designating
him as our Helper, but not describing the nature or
method of his help ; the latter is more specific, and

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 193
indicates the means by which his work for men is
accomplished. " Paraclete " is a legal term, and the
relations which it implies need to be understood in
the light of what is said of the Spirit of truth and of
the relation in which his ministry stands to the work
of Christ. But before entering further, upon this
topic, it is necessary to discuss the question whether
the Spirit in John designates an impersonal principle
or a distinct personality.
Many scholars have called in question the current
view that by the Holy Spirit in our sources is meant
a self distinct from Christ, and have asserted that
under this term we must understand Christ himself
glorified into a spirit, or the spiritual presence and
manifestation of Christ to his disciples after his
departure from earth.1 The principal exegetical con
siderations which are urged in support of this view
are the following : In close connection with the prom
ise of the Spirit's coming, and as apparently identical
with it, Jesus mentions his own coming to his disci
ples, " I will not leave you desolate (dpcbavofc) : I
come to you " (xiv. 18). This promise, it is said,
must refer to his own spiritual presence with his
followers to the end of time ; " it follows that these
are not two distinct and different manifestations, but
that what is said of the Paraclete is a theological for
mula by which the idea of the relation between Christ
and the believer is analyzed and changed into a hypos-
1 So Tholuck, Commentary on John, ad loc. xiv. 16 ; Reuss,
Hist. Christ. Theol., ii. 469 sq. (orig. ii. 524 sq.).

194 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
tasis " (Reuss). To the same purport is the assur
ance that they shall soon see him again (xiv. 19 ; xvi.
16). Moreover, after his resurrection, Jesus, on one
occasion, breathed on his disciples and said : Receive
ye the Holy Spirit (xx. 22). This, it is said, was a
symbolic act in which Jesus conferred on them a
power from himself, a principle of spiritual life which
was derived from his own invisible presence with
them. The Spirit is identical with himself. Appeal
is also made to I. ii. 27, 28, where " the anointing "
(to ^;/3to-/ta), that is, the bestowment of the Spirit, is
closely associated with Christ's own promised manifest
ation. Before discussing the bearing of these pas
sages upon our subject, let us review the exegetical
arguments which are presented in support of the view
that the Spirit is conceived of in the discourses of chap
ters xiv.-xvi. as a personality distinct from Christ.
We direct attention, first, to those passages in
which the Holy Spirit is expressly distinguished
from Christ. He is described as a\\o? irapdKXvTo<;,
"another Advocate" (xiv. 16). Christ was an Advo
cate ; the Holy Spirit will be another, distinct from
Christ and supplying his place, as the term aXXo?,
which designates a distinction of persons, necessarily
implies. Again, it is said that the Father will send
the Holy Spirit in Christ's name, and that he will
bring to the remembrance of the disciples what Christ
has taught (xiv. 26). Here the Spirit is clearly dis
tinguished from Christ. Similarly in xv. 26 Jesus
says that he will send the Paraclete from the Father,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 195
and adds : " He shall bear witness of me " (irepi ifiov).
To the same effect is the repeated assertion that the
Spirit shall take of that which is Christ's — that is,
his truth — and shall declare it unto the disciples
(xvi. 14, 15). How could the distinction of personal
ities be more clearly marked than by the juxtaposition
of the two emphatic pronouns which we observe in
this passage : e/cetw? ig,e Sogdcrei, " Me shall he (the
Spirit) glorify " (xvi. 14). Even more explicitly, if
possible, does Jesus distinguish the Spirit from him
self in the words, " It is expedient for you that I go
away : for if I go not away, the Paraclete will not
come unto you ; but if I go, I will send him unto
you " (xvi. 7).
Let us next observe the use of pronouns in connec
tion with the passages just noticed. Since the word
irvevpa is grammatically neuter, all pronominal desig
nations of the Spirit which have irvevpa for their
immediate antecedent must, of course, be neuter.
These words obviously have no bearing upon the
question of the personality of the Spirit.1 That which
is of especial importance in this connection is that as
soon as irvevg-a ceases to be the immediate antecedent
of pronouns designating the Spirit, masculine forms
1 The neuter relative o, which occurs three times with irvevpa
for its antecedent (xiv. 17, 26 ; xv. 26), is rendered "whom " in
both our versions except in the last instance (xv. 26), where it
is rendered " which," no doubt to distinguish it from the imme
diately preceding ov, which has 6 trapaKKr^Toi for its antecedent.
Similarly is atr6 rendered "him" in xiv. 17 where it occurs
twice, referring to rrveipa.

196 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
are employed. In xiv. 26, for example, we read : to
irvevpa to cvyiov o irep-^rei 6 iraTrjp iv to> 6vd/j.aTi /jlov,
iiceZvos w/ia? SiSd^ei irdvra, k. t. X. The force of the
change of pronouns may be exhibited in English thus :
" the Holy Spirit which (S) the Father will send in
my name, he (eKeivo<;) shall teach you all things," etc.
The same usage is observed in xv. 26 : to irvevfia
tj}? aXrj&eias 8 irapa, tov 7rar/3o? iKiropeverai, e/eetvo?
Haptvprjo-ei irepi ipov, which we may render thus :
"the Spirit of truth, which (o) proceedeth from the
Father, he (iKelvo?) shall bear witness of me." It is
obvious that, in John's usage, as soon as the necessity
of referring to the Spirit by neuter pronouns which
arises ffom the immediate antecedence of to irvevfia, is
removed, he instinctively adopts masculine designa
tions. Accordingly in all the passages where the
neuter word irvevfia is not used, we find the masculine
pronouns avTtk and e/cetvo? employed (xvi. 7, 8, 13, 14).
In the first of these passages (xvi. 7, 8) the pronouns
avrov and eKelvos (irefL-tya avrov 7T/30? ty-ia?. Kal 'iXdcov
ewetvo? iXey%ei, k. t. X.) have, indeed, the noun irapd-
k\t?to? for their antecedent, but in neither of the other
passages is the form of the pronoun influenced by a
masculine antecedent, and in one of them (xvi. 13)
iKelvo<; is used notwithstanding the apposition to it
of to irvevpa (otuv Se eXdrj ewetvo?, to irvevpa t?)?
aXr)0eia<}). It thus appears that John, when not pre
vented from so doing by the grammatical gender of
irvevfia, uniformly designates the Spirit by masculine
pronouns implying personality.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 197
What, now, does John predicate of the Spirit to
whom he thus refers in personal terms ? To the
Spirit is ascribed speaking (XaXrjcrei, xvi. 13), teach
ing (SiSdget, xiv. 26), the announcing of future events
and the proclamation of the truth of Christ (avay-
yeXei, xvi. 13, 14), the guiding of the disciples into all
the truth (of Christ) (bSvyrfo-ei vpas et? Tr)V aXr\Qeiav
irao-av, xvi. 13), the bringing of the teachings of
Jesus to the recollection of the disciples (virofiv^aei,
k. t. X., xiv. 26), the glorification of Christ (eVeti/o?
eg,e Sogdaei, xvi. 14), the bearing of testimony con
cerning Christ (fiapTvprjaei irepi ipov, xv. 26) which is
likened, by implication, to the testimony which his
disciples bear concerning him (xv. 27), and the con
viction of the world concerning sin, righteousness, and
judgment (iXeyljei, k. f. X., xvi. 8). To this series of
personal actions which are ascribed to the Spirit may
be added the references to his always being in fellow
ship with the disciples (iva r) ped' vpcov et? tov alcova,
xiv. 16), and to his abiding at their side for succor
(irap' vp.lv pevei), and within them (/cat iv vplv icrTiv
xiv. 17) as a power and inspiration. We summarize,
then, the considerations which have been adduced in
proof of the personality of the Spirit : (1) the Spirit
is expressly distinguished from Christ ; (2) he is de
scribed by personal designations ; and (3) to him is
ascribed a series of personal activities. We regard
these considerations as decisive upon the point now
at issue. Even Reuss admits that exegesis alone sus
tains this conclusion. He thinks it inconsistent with

198 THE JOHANNLNE THEOLOGY
"practical logic," and therefore deems it necessary
to seek some explanation of the way in which John
was led into this inconsistency. He declares that
" the solution of the problem (as to the personality
of the Spirit) does not belong to exegesis." 1 As we
are here concerned primarily with the exegesis of the
text, while Reuss is chiefly concerned with an effort
to explain the alleged misconceptions which the text
presents, we may decline to follow this author on his
a priori road. He finds, however, in the text itself,
as we indicated on an earlier page (p. 193), traces of
the true, rational idea that the Spirit is " a power, a
manifestation, a quality." There are thus, in his
view, two inconsistent representations respecting the
nature of the Spirit. One of these accords with prac
tical logic; the other is a speculative idea whose
motive is to be accounted for. Let us turn again to
the principal passages which present, in the judgment
of Reuss, the tenable view that the Spirit is an im
personal force, and test their alleged inconsistency
with those which so clearly describe the Spirit as
personal. We think there can be no doubt that the passages
which presuppose the distinct personality of the Spirit
are much more explicit than those which have been
supposed to imply the opposite idea. We might
therefore justly appeal to these clearer and more
numerous passages as furnishing the norm for the
interpretation of those which are more vague and
1 Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 472 (orig. ii. 527).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 199
indefinite. Let us, however, review the latter set of
passages, and see what is the nature of the alleged
inconsistency between them and those which we have
just examined. One of the most important of these
is xiv. 18, 19 : "I will not leave you desolate : I
come unto you. Yet a little while, and the world be-
holdeth me no more ; but ye behold me," etc. Inter
preters are divided on the question, To what event
do the coming and beholding here spoken of refer ?
Some (as Augustine and Hofmann) suppose that the
parousia is meant ; others (as Weiss and Holtzmann)
find here a reference to the appearance of Jesus after
the resurrection. On neither of these views can the
passage come into any possible conflict with those
which describe the personality of the Spirit, since no
reference to the Spirit is made. The more common
and, I think, the preferable view, however, is that
the coming spoken of is the coming of Christ to his
disciples through the Spirit, and that the beholding
is the spiritual vision of Christ which is involved in
their communion with him through the operation of
the Spirit (so Liicke, Tholuck, Meyer, Godet, Plum-
mer). Many interpreters have attempted a combina
tion of these last two views (as DeWette, Lange,
Ebrard, Westcott), — an effort which leads, I think,
to no clear and satisfactory result.
Assuming, then, the correctness of the third inter
pretation, does it involve any inconsistency between
this passage and the idea of the personality of the
Spirit ? Since the Spirit comes, as we have seen, as

200 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the continuator of Christ's work in the world, and
has it for his mission to interpret and apply Christ's
truth and to quicken and foster in men the life which
corresponds to that truth, Christ himself may fitly be
said to come to his disciples, only in another form
of manifestation, in the coming of the Spirit. His
promise to come to them (in the Spirit) is made in
contrast to the idea entertained by them that, in with
drawing his bodily presence, he might abandon them
altogether. In saying : " I come unto you " the em
phasis does not lie upon the strict identity in respect
to the form of manifestation of the " I " who is com
ing and the " I " who is speaking, but, as the paral
lelism shows, upon the certainty that they will not be
deserted by him when he withdraws from their sight.
" I come to you " is the positive equivalent of the
negative : " I will not leave you desolate." The em
phasis lies, therefore, upon the certainty that he will
be with them still, and not upon any assertion that he
will be with them in the same manner or form as he
has been. It is only by a misplaced emphasis that
the passage can be made inconsistent with the idea of
a distinction between Christ and the Spirit. The
same remarks, substantially, apply to xvi. 16: "A
little while, and ye behold me no more ; and again a
little while and ye shall see me," and to xvi. 22:
" But I will see you again, and your heart shall
rejoice," etc., provided they be interpreted as refer
ring to the mission of the Paraclete. The interpre-

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 201
tation of xiv. 18 is, of course, determining for these

verses

1

Whatever view be taken of the meaning in detail
of the passage which describes Jesus as breathing on
his disciples and saying, " Receive ye the Holy
Spirit " (xx. 22), and of its relation to the scene at Pen
tecost, it furnishes no just objection to the view that
between Christ and the Holy Spirit a distinction is
implied. Even if, as Reuss supposes,2 the scene pre
sents a parallel to the narrative in Genesis (ii. 7)
which describes Jehovah as breathing into the nos
trils of man the breath of life, it would by no means
necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit designates here
Christ's own spirit, subjectively considered, and is
undistinguishable from his own person. If the dis
tinction is well founded upon other clear passages, it is
applicable here without violence to the passage.
1 There is almost as much variation of opinion respecting
the coming referred to in xiv. 3, " I come again, and will re
ceive you unto myself," as in respect to the coming spoken of in
the later verses which we have just reviewed. Some refer it to
his spiritual personal presence (De Wette, Scholten, Keim) ;
some to the coming of the Paraclete (Liicke, Olshausen,
Neander, Godet) ; others to the coming of Christ at the death
of his disciples (Reuss, Tholuck, Lange, Holtzmann) ; and still
others to the personal second advent of Christ (Frommann,
Hofmann, Lechler, Meyer, Weiss). This last interpretation
harmonizes best with the immediate context, which speaks of
Christ's going away to prepare a place for his disciples, and of
his taking them unto himself at his coming; only upon the
second of the views above mentioned could the passage have
any direct bearing upon our subject.
a Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 480 (orig. ii. 537).

202 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Concerning the last of the passages which we shall
examine in this connection (I. ii. 27, 28) Reuss says :
" See, again, the passage which says distinctly : ' The
anointing which ye received ' (that is to say, the
Spirit, or the Paraclete) ' teacheth you concerning all
things. And now abide in him, that if he shall be
be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be
ashamed before him at his coming.' Evidently here,
he whose coming was expected and the Paraclete are
one and the same person. If this be so, it is natural
that the action of the Paraclete should be represented
sometimes as personal, sometimes as impersonal ; and
in the former case, sometimes as distinct from that of
Christ, sometimes as one with it." 1 This does not
seem to me to be an accurate statement. In the
first place, the abbreviation of the passage by
Reuss brings the idea of the anointing and that of
Christ's appearing into closer proximity than that in
which they actually stand in the passage. Again, in
the context of our passage the " anointing " is clearly
distinguished from Christ from whom it comes : " And
ye have an anointing (xpicr/ia) from the Holy One "
(curb tov dyiov), (I. ii. 20), provided, as seems almost
certain, " the Holy One " be understood to refer to
Christ. (So Rothe, Haupt, Huther, Westcott, Plum-
mer and Holtzmann, vs. Neander and Weiss, who
refer the words to God.) The language of the verses
in question is in no respect unfavorable to the same
distinction. It is true that the anointing, the gift or
1 Op. cit. ii. 479, 480 (orig. ii. 536, 537).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 203
grace of the Spirit, is closely associated in idea with
abiding in Christ, and with preparedness for his
parousia, but it is also to be noticed that the chrism
is said to have been received from Christ, and is not
identified with him. There is throughout the pas
sage, as so commonly in the Epistle (cf., e. g., iii. 2, 3),
a use of pronouns which is grammatically ambiguous,
and an abrupt transition from one subject to another,
but there is no confusion of the Spirit with Christ.
Even if to xplvpa (personified) be regarded as the
subject of iSiSa^ev, there can be no doubt that the
following ev avTa> refers to Christ, and that he is the
subject of all that is said in the following verse (28).
We conclude that the close association of the gift and
work of the Spirit with the ideas of abiding in Christ
and of readiness for Christ's coming, can give no
ground whatever for denying or doubting the distinc
tion between Christ and the Spirit which is elsewhere
so explicitly affirmed. Reuss, indeed, candidly admits
that " literal exegesis pleads for the distinction of per
sons," and that " speculative reason admits and sanc
tions it; but (he adds) practical logic demurs."1 We
are here concerned with exegesis, and it is no pre
sumption to maintain that the results of exegesis
must be abandoned, and an a priori method of dealing
with the subject must be adopted by him who would
call in question the personality of the Spirit.
Let us now turn from the question of the nature to
that of the mission and work of the Holy Spirit. For
1 Op. cit. ii. 478 (orig. ii. 534).

204 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
this purpose we must review several of the passages
already examined, but from a different point of view.
Three points require to be considered : (1) the rela
tion of the Spirit to the historical work of Christ;
(2) the work of the Spirit in believers; and (3) his
work in the unbelieving world.
Under the first head we notice that God sends the
Spirit, in Christ's name (iv tco dvd/iaTi pov, xiv. 26).
The force of the expression will be appreciated by recall
ing the significance of the " name " in the Hebrew mode
of thought. The name is the symbol of the nature,
essence, and import of the thing or person which it
represents. The name of Christ, therefore, stands
for that which Christ is; it is the symbol of his saving
life and power. When, then, the Spirit is said to be
sent in Christ's name, the meaning is that the sphere
of the Spirit's working is the same as that of Christ ;
that the mission of the Spirit is a part of the redemp
tive economy in which lie the whole purpose and
meaning of Christ's work. The work of the Spirit is
therefore inseparably linked to God's historic ac
tion in the redemption of mankind through Christ.
" Christ's 'name ' — all, that is, which can be defined
as to his nature and his work — is the sphere in which
the Spirit acts ; and so little by little through the long
life of the Church the meaning of the primitive con
fession ' Jesus is Lord ' (Rom. x. 9 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3)
is made more fully known." J " God sends the Spirit
in the name of Jesus, that is, so that what the name
: Westcott, Commentary, in loco.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 205
of Christ comprises in itself forms the sphere in
which the divine thought, counsel, and will lives."
It is "this name the complete saving knowledge of
which, its confession, influence, glorification, etc., is
to be brought about and advanced through the mission
of the Spirit, as, in general, all that God has done in
the carrying out of his redemptive counsel he has
done iv Xpio-Tco (Eph. i. 3 sq.)." J
Of kindred significance are the assertions that the
Spirit shall bring to the remembrance of believers all
that Jesus had said to them (xiv. 26), that he shall
bear witness of the Saviour (xv. 26), guide the dis
ciples into all the truth (xvi. 13) and glorify Christ by
taking of his and declaring it unto them (xvi. 14, 15).
The operation of the Spirit is wholly in the line of
Christ's work on earth ; it belongs to the same sphere,
and contemplates the same ends. It represents a
stage of the redemptive process which lies beyond the
historic work of Christ ; it is the continued operation
of God's saving, redeeming love, interpreting, apply
ing, and perfecting the work of the Saviour. The
Spirit's work is the invisible operation of those forces
and influences of divine grace which were revealed in
visible manifestation in the earthly life of Jesus. This
work, therefore, represents a carrying forward and
completion of God's redemptive purpose. Hence the
historic action of God in the work of Christ on earth
must come to its close and find its fulfilment in this.
final stage of the great saving process. Such seems
1 Meyer, Commentary, in loco.

206 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
to be the import of the Saviour's words : " It is ex
pedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away,
the Paraclete will not come unto you ; but if I go, I
will send him unto you" (xvi. 7).
The same general conception of the Spirit's relation
to the work of Jesus which meets us in these dis
courses, is found in the First Epistle. In contrast to
the " antichrists " (ii. 18) who deny the Messiahship
and incarnation of Jesus, and who have gone forth out
of the Church, the true and faithful Christians are
said to " have an anointing from the Holy One " and
to " know all things " (ii. 20). The " all things " of
this verse is synonymous with " the truth " which
they are said in the next verse (21) to know, and with
" all the truth " (xvi. 13), into which Jesus had said
that the Spirit should guide the disciples. " The
truth" is the specific truth which he came to pro
claim and to embody in his own person. He not only
declares the truth, but he is the truth (xiv. 6). The
truth is the true life of fellowship with God and of
likeness to him. Of this life Jesus presents the per
fect type. The work of the Spirit is to teach men all
things that pertain to that life, and to lead them on in a
more and more perfect experience and realization of
it. Since the Spirit thus continues and completes the
work of Christ, it is natural that the operation of the
Spirit should be in the closest manner associated with
abiding in Christ : " The anointing which ye received
of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one
teach you ; but as his anointing teacheth you con-

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 207
cerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even
as it taught you, ye abide in him " (I. ii. 27).
These passages which connect the Spirit's work
with that of Christ involve to some extent the second
topic to be considered, — the work of the Spirit in
believers. This work is to foster the Christian life
in those who receive Christ. The principal terms
in which it is 'defined are teaching (xiv. 26 ; I. ii. 27),
guiding into all the truth (xvi. 13), and bearing witness
of Christ (xv. 26; I. v. 7). The faith of the first
believers was largely due to the visible presence of
Jesus with them. Because they saw and heard him
and witnessed his miracles, they were led to trust in
him. It was the purpose of Jesus that men should
be brought more and more to ground their faith, not
upon signs or miracles or the impression made by his
visible presence, but upon that which he taught and
was. Those who believed on him because they beheld
the signs which he did, Jesus himself did not confi
dently trust (ii. 23-25). It was necessary that the
faith of men be founded upon deeper and more endur
ing reasons. Only the experience of the joy and rich
ness of the new spiritual life, only the certainty
which the living fellowship with God imparts, can
supply an immovable foundation for faith. Hence
Jesus said to Thomas : " Because thou hast seen me
thou hast believed : blessed are they that have not
seen, and yet have believed " (xx. 29).
We are to read the statements concerning the work
of the Spirit in the light of these ideas. Certain

208 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
defects in the faith of the disciples were connected
with their inborn prejudices and misunderstandings,
and even with their attachment to his own person.
Faith must become larger, deeper, more spiritual.
It must rest upon more adequate grounds. It must
be fortified by richer experience. It must penetrate
beneath the surface of Christ's person, to his very
heart, and must draw its life from his own inmost,
divine life. This could only happen by his departing
from them. For this reason, he said, his departure
was expedient, for if he went not away the Paraclete
would not come to them (xvi. 7). He seems to mean
that while he is present with them, a veil of sense
hangs before their eyes and prevents them from seeing
the deepest things of his gospel.1 Only under the
guidance of the Spirit can they live their way into an
appreciation of these. Under this guidance his truth
shall open to them its hidden depths ; it shall disclose
its inner meanings ; it shall assert in their lives its
inherent power. Their traditional prejudices shall
gradually give way ; their failures to comprehend his
mission and to learn the nature of his kingdom shall
be overcome ; they shall cease to know Christ after
the flesh. The narrow limitations which their Jewish
training led them to set to his work shall be broken
1 " So long as he continued with them, they lived by sight,
rather than by faith ; and sight disturbs faith, and shakes it,
and weakens it. Sight, as belonging to the world of sense, par
takes its frailties and imperfections. To put forth all its power,
faith must be purely and wholly faith." — Hare : The Mission
of the Comforter, p. 140.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 209
down and the world-wide significance of his mission
and kingdom shall appear.
The whole history of the apostolic age is an illus
tration and fulfilment of the promise of Jesus con
cerning the work of the Spirit. The slow but certain
process by which his truth and kingdom burst the
bonds of Jewish particularism and asserted their
universal significance and destination ; the gradual
enlightenment of the minds of the apostles whereby
they were led to see that God is no respecter of per
sons ; the providential opening of the door of faith to
the Gentiles ; and the matchless missionary career of
that champion of a universal gospel, the apostle Paul,
— are proofs of the Spirit's presence and power in
guiding the disciples into all Christ's truth and in
revealing to them its true import for themselves
and for the world.
No less marked was the work of the Spirit in deep
ening the personal lives of those men. How many
illustrations do the gospels give us of the utter failure
and inability of the first disciples to understand their
Master's words. " Are ye so without understanding
also?" (Mark vii. 18) was his sorrowful rejoinder to
them when they asked the meaning of one of his
plainest lessons. When he portrayed the nature of
his kingship John tells us that his disciples did not
understand his meaning (xii. 16), and he himself
asserted that he had many things to tell them which
as yet they could not bear (xvi. 12). The author of
the writings which we are studying is a striking
14

210 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
illustration of the Spirit's influence in deepening the
first disciples' understanding of the person and truth
of Jesus. Like the others he at first looked for an
earthly kingdom, to be founded and extended by force
(Luke ix. 54) ; his views of the aim of the gospel
were as inadequate as those of his associates ; his
appreciation of his Master's spiritual truth .was as
defective. Yet it was he who gave us that interpre
tation of the gospel which has been aptly called " the
heart of Christ." No other mind has risen to con
ceptions so broad, so lofty, and so purely spiritual
concerning the great themes of religion. His con
ception of God's nature is the sublimest which the
New Testament anywhere presents ; his insight into
the depths of Jesus' person and teaching is the pro-
foundest ; and to his thought the gospel is as wide
and all-embracing as the needs of man and as the
love of God which gave it birth. It is utter folly to
attempt to explain the matchless splendor of these
conceptions apart from the working of that promised
Spirit which unsealed the heavenly secrets of Christ
to the mind of his beloved disciple.1
Our third and final topic is the relation of the Holy
Spirit to the unbelieving world. This relation is most
fully set forth in xvi. 8-11 : " And he (the Paraclete),
when he is come, will convict the world in respect of
1 Fitly, therefore, did the mediaeval church, in its effort to
express this heavenward flight of the apostle's spirit, adopt as
his symbol the eagle soaring against the sun. This conception
finds expression in the noble hymn, commonly attributed to

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 211
sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment : of sin,
because -they believe not on me; of - righteousness,
because I go to the Father, and ye behold me no
more ; of judgment, because the prince of this world
hath been judged." Several particular points con
nected with the passage require brief mention before
its import as a whole is considered. The word eXeyljei
should be rendered will convince or convict (R. V.),
instead of will reprove (A. V.), which is too weak a
translation. The term is a legal one. The Spirit is
represented as having a controversy, so to speak, with
the world respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment ;
and the Spirit asserts and maintains his true view
as against the world's false view. The Spirit sets
the world clearly in the wrong, that is, convinces it
in respect to the matters of difference, and pronounces
the world's guilt in consequence, that is, convicts it.
Both the ideas of convincing and convicting are, no
doubt, involved in iXeygei, but I am of opinion that
the condemnatory idea expressed by convict is rather
secondary than primary, and that will convince is the
best available English translation.
The rendering of the preposition irepi by " of "
Adam of St. Victor, a stanza of which we here quote in the
original and in Dr. Washburn's translation : —
Volat avis sina meta Bird of God ! with boundless flight
Quo nee vates nee propheta Soaring far beyond the height
Evolavit altius ; Of the bard or prophet old ;
Tam implenda, tam impleta, Truth fulfilled, and truth to be, —
Nunquam vidit tot secreta Never purer mystery
Purus homo purius. Did a purer tongue unfold.

212 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
in the A. V. did much to obscure the sense of the
passage. The meaning is not merely that the Spirit
will, in general, convince the world of its sin, of the
true righteousness, etc., but that in respect to the
matter of sin, etc., the Spirit will work a certain spe
cial conviction by certain special means. The oti
clauses of verses 9-11 explain the special manner or
means of the convincing in respect to sin, righteous
ness, and judgment. Some interpreters assign to on in
these clauses a simple causal meaning, and connect
them with the verb eXeyj-ei, and thus the sense would
be (to take one example) : He will convince the
world concerning sin because of its unbelief. Others
make oti mean so far as, and treat the oti clauses
as more exact definitions of the preceding nouns
(dpapTia<;, k. t. X.) ; for example : He will convince
the world concerning sin in so far as they do not
believe on me. The former is simpler and more nat
ural, and I shall proceed upon that view of their force.
While there are scarcely any generic differences
among critical interpreters in regard to the meaning
of this passage, there are considerable variations in
respect to emphasis and to the scope of its terms.
Speaking very generally we may say that there is a
narrower, and a broader view of its meaning. The
narrower view holds the terms of the passage in close
relation to the person of Jesus. It is the specific
sin of rejecting him of which the Spirit convinces
the world ; it is his personal righteousness which the
Spirit vindicates ; it is as the enemy of his work and

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 213
kingdom that the Spirit proves Satan to have been
judged. This mode of treating the passage, which
limits the terms more closely, is illustrated in the
comments of Meyer and Weiss. This view of the
passage is certainly just as against those loose and
vague interpretations which explain " sin," " right
eousness " and " judgment " almost without reference
to the special explanatory statements of verses 9-11.
The older theologians, for example, explained " sin "
as sin in general as a condition of condemnation,
and " righteousness," as justification by faith, or even
as imputed righteousness ., But without falling into
these inaccuracies, many interpreters, like Godet and
Westcott, assign a larger sense to the terms than that
which we have just described. My judgment is that
strict exegesis requires us to adhere to the more
specific reference of the words, but we do not thereby
limit the wider ranges of truth which they suggest
and involve.1 The meaning of the passage, taking its
three subjects in order, se,ems to be : The sinful world
rejects Christ ; in this it is contrary to truth and right.
The Spirit in his work will take up the cause of truth
and right, and set the world clearly in the wrong in
this matter of refusing to believe on Christ. The
Spirit will prove the world to be in the wrong in this
matter, just because it is in the wrong ; that is, the
Spirit will take the world in its wrong attitude
1 The larger bearings of the passage, without carelessness
of exegesis, are admirably set forth in Hare's Mission of the
Comforter.

214 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
toward Christ and show it that it is wrong ; the Spirit
will disclose to the world the real nature of its oppo
sition to Christ as sin. The passage treats, in this
part of it, primarily and directly of the sin of reject
ing Christ and his mission, and of the fact that the
Spirit will convince the world that in so rejecting
him it was in the wrong, and will convict it of its
guilt in consequence. By analogy, however, the pas
sage may be applied to the relation of unbelief to sin
in general, as by Westcott : " The want of belief in
Christ, when he is made known, lies at the root of all
sin, and reveals its nature. . . . The Spirit therefore
starts from the fact of unbelief in the Son of Man, and
through that lays open what sin is." x
The second proposition of the passage is more diffi
cult : The Spirit will convince the world concerning
righteousness, because Jesus is going to the Father,
and the disciples will see him no more. If the sin
which the previous indictment contemplates is pri
marily the sin of rejecting Christ, the righteousness in
question here is probably the righteousness of Christ.
The world has deemed him unrighteous, and has put
him to death as such. The Spirit will prove that he
was righteous, and will put the world in the wrong.
This the Spirit will do by appeal to Christ's ascension
and glorification. The withdrawal of his visible pres
ence from them is the condition of the Spirit's com
ing and work (xvi. 7), and the ascension to heaven
is the perfect vindication of his mission. These
1 Commentary, in loco.

THE DOCTRINE' OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 215
facts the Spirit can, as we may say, urge against
the world's view of Christ's character. When the
Father takes him to his side, and when the hindrances
— such as prejudice, disappointment, and personal
antipathy — to a just appreciation of him which have
been incidental to his visible presence among them
are withdrawn, then it will appear that the world
misjudged him. If the strict demands of exegesis
yield this more limited sense of the words, it is not
thereby denied that they suggest, and are legitimately
applied to, the true idea of righteousness as repre
sented in the life of Jesus. This application of them
is made by President Dwight : " The Spirit, while
laying hold upon and pressing the fact that Christ
goes away to the Father, so that he is seen no more,
— that is, the great consummation of his work in the
ascension to heaven, — will convince the world of his
idea of righteousness: that righteousness consists in
the union of the heart with God, the entrance to
which is through faith." 1
The third element in the conviction of the world
by the Spirit is in respect to judgment. The Spirit
will prove to the world that its prince stands con
demned (KeKpiTai). This result is viewed as already
accomplished when Jesus spoke. The work of Jesus
is the victory over Satan. " Now," he says as he
contemplates its completion, "now is the judgment
of this world : now shall the prince of this world be
1 Notes added to the American edition of Godet's Commen
tary, ii. 514.

216 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
cast out " (xii. 31). The finished work of Jesus in
volves the final sentence of him in whom the spirit of
opposition to himself is concentrated ; the Spirit will
affirm and justify that sentence and so in the matter
of judgment convince the world.
In what manner is this work of the Spirit effected ?
Is it by his direct operation upon the hearts of un
believing men, or indirectly, through the testimony
and teaching of believers ? The indications point to
the latter as the method which the passage contem
plates. The work of the Spirit in question is de
scribed in immediate connection with the statement
that he will be sent to the disciples (irpbs vpas,
verse 7). The phrase: " When he is come " (eX0cov)
in verse 8 clearly refers back to the coming to the
disciples (iXevaeTai) spoken of in verse 7. The
specific conviction of the world which our passage
describes is wrought through the instrumentality of
the disciples in whom the Spirit dwells. The illus
tration or proof of it which lies nearest at hand is
found in the successful preaching of the apostles.
Nothing is here said as to how far the world will
acknowledge itself to be in the wrong respecting sin,
righteousness, and judgment. According as it does or
does not acknowledge the truth of the Spirit's indict
ment against it, is the way open to faith and conver
sion, or to increased unbelief and moral hardening.
In understanding, with most interpreters, that the
conviction of the world in question is conceived of as
wrought mediately through believers, we in no way

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 217
call in question the universal operation of the Holy
Spirit upon mankind ; especially is this the case if the
more specific interpretation of the Spirit's e\ey£t? be
adopted. The considerations which favor the view
of the Spirit's work here described, as mediated
through believers, are favorable to the more specific
reference of the passage as a whole.

CHAPTER IX
THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION
Literature. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol, Of Faith, ii. 455-
468 (orig. ii. 508-524); Weiss: Johann. Lehrb., Der Begriff des
Glaubens, pp. 18-28, and Bibl. Theol, Faith and Fellowship
with Christ, ii. 363-370 (orig. 626-632); Wendt: Teaching of
Jesus, Faith in Jesus according to the Johannine Discourses,
ii. 329-339 (orig. 595-602) ; Frommann : Johann. Lehrb., Aneig-
nung des Heils, u. s. w., p. 548 sq., especially pp. 551-563;
Beyschlag: Neutest. Theol, Der Glaube, u. s. w., ii. 447-452;
Neander : Planting and Training, Faith as the Principle of a
New Life, ii. 41-47 (Bohn ed.).
Salvation is appropriated by faith. We accordingly
turn to a study of its nature and contents. The word
faith (7rto-Tt?) does not occur in the Fourth Gospel,
and is found only once in the Epistles (I. v. 4). The
verb to believe (iriaTevetv) is, however, one of the com
monest words in our sources, occurring more than
one hundred times. There is no lack of emphasis,
therefore, upon the idea of faith in John's writings.
We shall soon see that the conception of faith is
not so uniform and definite in John as in Paul and
the Epistle to the Hebrews. I do not think that any
definition of faith could be framed which would ade
quately cover all the shades of meaning and variety

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 219
of emphasis in which John employs the word. It
naturally results from this variation in usage that
interpreters differ considerably in their judgment as
to the central and characteristic idea in John's doc
trine of faith. It will be our first task to illustrate
this variety by studying the uses of the terms in
question. There are numerous passages in which iriaTeveiv is
used in the sense of believing that a thing is true.
It is assent to a proposition, a Fiirwahrhalten. Thus
the apostle states that his aim in writing the Gospel
was that his readers might " believe that Jesus was
the Christ, the Son of God," although he immediately
carries us beyond the idea of mere theoretic assent
by adding : " and that believing ye may have life in
his name " ( xx. 31). In the First Epistle, where the
writer is refuting and condemning that false gnosis '
which denied the true incarnation and saving work
of the Son of God, he represents faith as the oppo
site of this denial : " Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God" (I. v. 1).
This belief is the " confession " (ii. 22 ; iv. 15) of
Jesus as the Son of God in contrast to the anti
christian spirit of denial. In this connection, there
fore, faith is an affirmation. Similarly in xi. 27
Martha asserts her faith in the words : " I have be
lieved that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even
he that cometh into the world ; " and in his high-
priestly prayer Jesus asks that his disciples may be
one, in order that the world may believe that the

220 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Father sent him (xvii. 21). We can only justly esti
mate the full religious significance and contents of
this assent to Jesus' sonship to God and mission to
the world after we have passed in review other classes
of passages.
In several places to believe means to credit some
word or assertion or to accept the testimony of some
person. After the resurrection, the disciples are said
to have remembered the saying of Jesus, " Destroy
this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," " and
they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus
had said" (ii. 22). Jesus declares to the Jews: "If
ye believed Moses, ye would believe me ; for he wrote
of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall
ye believe my words ? " (v. 46, 47). Again, he accuses
the Jews of not believing him just because he speaks
to them the truth (viii. 45, 46) ; and elsewhere he tells
them that even if they give no credence to him they
should " believe the works," that is, should admit the
truth of the testimony which is contained in his mir
acles (x. 37, 38). It is obvious that in all the pas
sages thus far cited, the intellectual aspect of faith is
placed in the foreground. Whatever more may be
fairly implied in consequence of the nature of the
truths believed in, these passages speak of an assent
of the mind to certain statements or testimony.
To believe — in the sense of these passages — is to
hold for true the statement that Jesus is the Son of
God, or to cherish the conviction that his teaching
is true.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 221
In close connection with this set of passages should
be placed another, in which Jesus distinctly recognizes
a gradation in faith as respects its religious signifi
cance and value. Some reason will be found for the
view that faith is conceived of in the Fourth Gospel
as a development having its incipient and defective
stages, when it reposes upon inadequate grounds, and
advancing toward perfection as it comes to rest more
completely upon the best and deepest reasons. An
illustration is found in the conversation between
Jesus and Nathanael (i. 47-51). The latter is aston
ished at Jesus' supernatural knowledge of himself,
and at once confesses him as the Son of God and
King of Israel. " Jesus answered and said unto him,
Because I said unto thee, I saw thee underneath the
fig tree, believest thou ? thou shalt see greater things
than these." The meaning is, that his penetration
into Nathanael's thoughts is a slender basis for faith
in himself, and that a faith so supported must be cor
respondingly deficient. More adequate grounds for
his faith will be disclosed as time goes on, when he
shall see how Jesus lives in constant intercourse with
God his Father, — symbolically described under the
figure of angels ascending from him into the open
heavens, and descending thence upon him in minis
tries of comfort. Another illustration is found in the
fact that many Jews in Jerusalem at the passover
" believed on his name (iiricrTevaav et? to ovopa avTov),
beholding his signs which he did." " But," adds the
apostle, " Jesus did not trust himself unto them," —

222 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
did not yield his confidence to them (avrbs Se 'l-qaovs
ovk iirio-Tevev avrov avTols, ii. 23, 24). Why ? Because
the greatest element of their belief was mere wonder
at his miracles. Their faith was based upon no
proper appreciation of his person and work. It was
wanting, therefore, in real spiritual power ; it rested
upon deficient grounds, and was itself correspondingly
defective. The point which the apostle emphasizes
by the play on the word iricrTeveiv may be partially
brought out by rendering : They believed on him, but
he did not believe in them, for he knew the real super -
ficiality of their professed faith.
A gradation in the quality of faith corresponding
to the character of its grounds, is recognized in the
narrative concerning the belief of the Samaritan
woman and her neighbors (iv. 39-42). Many of her
acquaintances " believed on him " on the basis of her
statement respecting the supernatural knowledge of
her life which he had shown. But when they after
wards, during two days, heard Jesus himself, they
said to the woman, " No longer (ovk4ti) do we believe
because of thy speaking (XaXid) : for we have our
selves heard, and know that this is indeed the Saviour
of the world" (iv. 42). The difference between a
confidence which rested upon the testimony of another
and a faith which was won from personal contact
with Jesus, is here sharply emphasized. Nor would
it be merely prophetic or supernatural knowledge
which those with whom he abode two days would find
in him. This association would inevitably give them

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 223
some larger idea of his work and mission, some fuller
appreciation of his personality and spirit.
A striking illustration of the fact that John pre
supposes a development of faith which proceeds in
proportion as faith finds its truest and deepest grounds,
is seen where Jesus explains to the Jews his mission
and work, and chides them for their hostility to him
self (viii. 12-30). " As he spake these things," says
the apostle, " many believed on him " (viii. 30). But
what was the nature of this faith ? The following
verses make the answer clear : " Jesus therefore said
to those Jews which had believed him, If ye abide in
my word , then are ye truly my disciples ; and ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free "
(viii. 31, 32). Theirs certainly was a faith which was
but superficial and rudimentary ; it was the result of
a passing impression and interest. It was scarcely
more than a germ of real, enduring, saving faith.
Jesus did not therefore regard it as truly making them
his disciples, nor as yet involving the knowledge of
the truth and securing the freedom which the truth
bestows ; this it could do only if it was completed by
a continuance in his word, that is, by a thorough
going reception of his truth, and by a life which
answered to its demands.
From those in whom the capacity for this higher
and completer faith is wanting, Jesus seeks to call
forth the lower kind of faith, for the lower contains
the germ of the higher, and is capable of ripening into
it. The expectation of the Jewish people that a very

224 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
prominent part of the Messiah's work should be to do
" signs and wonders " made them more susceptible to
the evidence of miracles than to any other proof which
Jesus gave of his divine commission. Jesus welcomed
a confidence in himself which was based only upon his
works, not so much for its own immediate religious
value as because it might conduct in those whom it
attached to himself to a true personal trust, which
should be based upon adequate reasons. But he dis
tinctly asserted the inferiority of such belief. He
distinguished between believing him and believing
his works (x. 38). He says, in effect, to his disciples,
in allusion to their partial and defective faith : Be
lieve on me for such reasons as you can appreciate ;
believe on me for what I am, if you can, but if mir
acles alone seem to you to be plain proof of divinity,
believe me on account of them (xiv. 11). A faith
which is based upon external evidences of his divine
power is better than none, because it may ripen and
deepen into a faith which grasps the divinity which
speaks in his whole life and spirit, and which meets
and satisfies the spiritual longings and wants of the
soul ; but such a faith is wanting in vitality and spir
itual power, because it does not spring from what is
deepest in man, or lay hold upon what is deepest in
Christ. A concrete example which illustrates a similar dis
tinction is found in the narrative concerning the
transition of Thomas from doubt to belief in regard to
the reality of the Lord's appearance after the resur-

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 225
rection (xx. 24-29). Thomas demanded tangible
evidence before he would believe. Jesus made this
demand the occasion of laying down the great general
truth, " Because thou hast seen me thou hast be
lieved: blessed are they that have not seen and yet
have believed " (verse 29). This is the beatitude of
those who have never seen Christ in the flesh. A
special blessing is pronounced for those who believe,
though not having seen, because their faith must rest
upon deeper reasons than any which can offer them
selves to the senses. Such faith springs from a sense
of spiritual need and from the recognition of the
adaptation of Christ to satisfy it. It rests, therefore,
upon grounds which lie deep in human nature, and
has its motive in the clear recognition of Christ as
the bread of life to the soul. A true faith thus finds
itself embracing more and more that which is central
in the life and person of Jesus, and depending less
and less upon whatever is incidental or extraneous.
Such faith rises into the heavens and finds its home
in the very heart of Christ. Its true sphere is the
sphere of the spirit. Though it may once have known
Christ after the flesh, yet as it grows and deepens, it
at last knows him so no more (2 Cor. v. 16) }
i The distinction which we are tracing in the Fourth Gospel
between outer and inner, or sensuous and spiritual, aids to faith,
Mr. Whittier has beautifully illustrated in his poem Palestine,
the closing stanzas of which I quote : —
" And what if my feet may not tread where He stood,
Nor my ears hear the dashing of Galilee's flood,
15

226 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
To these illustrations of the gradual enlarging and
deepening of faith may be added, in conclusion, an
example which is presented quite incidentally. At
the miracle in Cana of Galilee in which Jesus " mani
fested his glory," it is said that " his disciples believed
on him " (ii. 11), — that is, entered upon a new stage
of faith as they gained new assurance of his divine
power and glory.
A common construction with iriareveiv is the prepo
sition et? followed by the object of faith, God, Christ,
or the name of Christ. Thus in xiv. 1: " Ye believe
in God (et? tov deov), believe also in me" (et? ifie).
The preposition designates the act and disposition
denoted by iriareveiv as terminating upon its object
(i. 12; iii. 16, 18, 36; vi. 40; xii. 44). We shall
have occasion later to discuss the question, what is
the nature of the relation expressed by the phrase
irio-Teveiv et?. Meantime let us note in passing the
connections in which several of these passages stand.
In i. 12 those who " received (eXa/3ov) him " (the
Word) or " believe on his name " are they to whom the
Nor my eyes see the cross which He bowed him to bear,
Nor my knees press Gethsemane's garden of prayer ?
" Yet, Loved of the Father, thy Spirit is near
To the meek, and the lowly, and penitent here ;
And the voice of thy love is the same even now
As at Bethany's tomb or on Olivet's brow.
" O, the outward hath gone ! — but in glory and power,
The Spirit surviveth the things of an hour ;
Unchanged, undecaying, its Pentecost flame
On the heart's secret altar is burning the same ! "

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 227
right (igovcria) has been given " to become children of
God." Here, evidently, faith in Christ, or the recep
tion of him, and sonship to God are involved in
each other. In iii. 36 the result of believing on the
Son is declared to be eternal life, and it is im
plied that faith involves obedience, since the contrast
to " He that believeth " is " He that obeyeth not."
In the discourse on the Bread of Life faith is several
times referred to, as in vi. 35 : " Jesus said unto them,
I am the bread of life : he that cometh to me shall
not hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never
thirst." Here, believing on him and coming to him
are identical, and both phrases are equivalent to the
eating of the bread of life, as both the context (cf.
verses 33, 50, 51) and the use of the figurative terms
" hunger " and " thirst " in the verse itself show. In
verse 40 believing on the Son is associated with be
holding him, and its result is declared to be eternal
life ; while in verse 47 believing is clearly equivalent
to coming to him (cf. verse 45), and is said to be the
result of having heard and learned from the Father. In
xii. 44-46 belief on Christ is affirmed to involve belief
on God. This faith in him who is " come a light into
the world " secures for its possessor the result that he
does not walk in darkness. It will be necessary to
recur to these ideas with which faith is associated, in a
closer consideration of the nature of faith, to which
our review of passages will conduct us.
In several passages irio-Teveiv stands without an
object and without any expressed or implied explana-

228 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
tion (e. g.'i.l; iii. 12). In these cases it is obvious
that it denotes the right religious attitude or disposi
tion of the soul toward Christ. Eternal life is said
to be its consequence : " He that believeth hath eter
nal life " (vi. 47, cf. iii. 15). This believing is con
ceived of as identical with that possession of Christ
which is mentioned in the First Epistle, whose result
is also "the life" (?? £t»»j), that is, the true, eternal
life : " He that hath the Son hath the life ; he that
hath not the Son of God hath not the life" (I. v. 12).
The fact, too, that the consequence of faith is the
present possession of eternal life — " hath (e%et) eter
nal life " — is not to be overlooked in considering the
nature of faith. In John's view faith- is certainly
used in a sense sufficiently comprehensive to include
all that man can do, or is required to do, in appro
priating the salvation which is offered in Christ.
When, therefore, the disciples asked Jesus what they
must do that they might work the works of God, his
answer was : " This is the work of God," — the sum
of God's requirement, — " that ye believe " (note the
present, 'iva irio-TevnTe, " continue to believe ; " cf.
the aorist, 'iva irtaTevo-qTe, xiii. 19) " on him whom
he hath sent" (vi. 28,29).
Our review of the principal passages which bear
upon the subject gives rise to the general inquiry as
to the nature and contents of Christian faith as pre
sented in our sources. The opinion of Weiss on this
question is that faith in John's writings is the per
suasion that Jesus is what he claims to be, the con-

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 229
fession that he is the Clirist or the Son of God. This
author rejects the view that the notion of mystical
union with Christ is any part of the Johannine idea
of faith. " The confident persuasion that Jesus is the
Son of God" is faith.1 The result is that faith is
regarded as a stage of knowledge, and we have al
ready seen (pp. 66, 67) that Weiss seeks to exclude
from the knowledge of God and of Christ every
touch of mysticism. Our author, therefore, makes
a sharp distinction between faith in Christ and being
in Christ. " Abiding in Christ is not faith, but it
presupposes faith. This abiding is the personal sur
render to him in which the new relation to Christ
which faith has brought about is continually com
pleted anew with conscious self-determination." 2 It
is obvious that faith is thus conceived as the subjec
tive condition of abiding in Christ, or the condition
precedent of the religious life, rather than as the
actual entrance into that spiritual relation to the
Redeemer. Union with Christ is a result of faith,
quite distinct from it and following upon it both
logically and chronologically. Faith is an intellec
tual assent to the claims of Jesus, a mental affirma
tion of the proposition : He is the Messiah or the
Son of God.
It is a matter of some interest that on this point
Weiss coincides with the school of Ritschl, to whose
opinions in general he is so strenuously opposed.
1 Bibl. Theol, § 149 a, note 2. Cf. Johann. Lehrbegriff, p. 19 sq.
s Bibl. Theol, § 149 c.

230 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Both are at one in eliminating from faith the mys
tical element. This disposition may be illustrated,
on the side of the school of Ritschl, by the following
citations from Wendt : " In these Johannine dis
courses the disposition designated as that which
should -be shown toward the person of Jesus is, ac
cording to its peculiar nature, regarded as the right
disposition toward his teaching (Verkiindigung), and
the faith which is required in him consists in nothing
else than in the trustful and obedient recognition,
reception, and following of that teaching, which re
vealed God, showed the right, and effected salvation,
and which constitutes his Messianic calling." 1 This
author, however, carries his exclusion of mysticism
much farther than Weiss, and goes so far as to deny
that the allegory of the Vine and the Branches (xv.
1 sq.), the discourse on the Bread of Life (vi. 32
sq.), and. other passages which describe the abiding
of his disciples in Christ, imply anything of the
nature of " a mystical union of the disciples with his
glorified heavenly nature. They are rather the ener
getic declaration of the fact that Jesus based his
saving significance entirely upon the word of teach
ing which he, as man, exercised upon earth, and
that he regarded the necessary disposition of other
men towards him as consisting in the inward recep
tion of his teaching exercised by him on earth as
man." 2 In this view the idea of union with Christ is
1 Teaching of Jesus, ii. 331 (orig. p. 597).
2 Ibid., ii. 335 (orig. pp. 599, 600).

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 231
not only excluded from faith, but it is banished alto
gether from Christianity ; it does not even remain as
a result of faith, distinct and generically different
from it, as in the opinion of Weiss.
For purposes of comparison let us now set beside
these anti-mystical expositions of faith in John, some
examples of another mode of view. For Neander,
faith is, with John as with Paul, self-surrender to
Christ and entrance into communion with him. " By
this faith entrance is made into fellowship with the
Redeemer, and at the same time a participation
obtained in his divine life. . . . According to
John's conception, it is impossible to separate either
faith or knowledge from the life." : The definition
of Frommann is of similar import : " Faith presup
poses the knowledge of Christ, and is a necessary con
sequence of it. But according to its inner nature
faith is an inward, humble trust in the saving love of
God which is revealed in Christ, and must accord
ingly express itself in a trustful obedience to the
Redeemer, and in the life and conduct of men." 2
Beyschlag has taken up this question with special
reference to the opinions of Weiss.3 He maintains
that in the Johannine applications of the idea of faith
the two sides, conviction and confidence or trust, are
separably bound together, and that the recent opin
ion as held by Weiss (" If I rightly understand him,"
1 Planting and Training, ii. 42, 43 (Bohn ed.).
3 Johann. Lehrbegriff, p. 557.
8 Neutest. Theol, ii. 447-449.

232 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
adds Beyschlag in a note) that in distinction from
Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, John means by
faith only the conviction of the truth of the fact that
Jesus is the Christ, but not trust (das Vertrauen)
in God's love in Christ, is as incorrect as possible
(moglichst verfehlt). "The full Johannine idea of
faith is, the laying hold and appropriation of eternal
life, which God offers in Jesus." 1
Our review of the leading passages which speak of
faith in the writings of John has already shown to
which of these expositions we must give our adher
ence. The opinion of Weiss may be maintained in
its application to some passages, but it cannot be
made to square with others. When in the First
Epistle John is contrasting faith with the spirit of
antichristian denial, it is no doubt assent to the Mes
siahship and divine sonship of Jesus which he means
by faith, although it can be shown that, in the nature
of the case, faith, in that connection, also involves
much besides. But to make the passages which
speak of faith in (irio-reveiv et?) Christ or in his name,
and especially when they are associated with the idea
of receiving him, appropriating him as the heavenly
bread, or as involving the present possession of
eternal life, — to make these passages, I say, refer only
to a conviction of Jesus' sonship to God, is little less
than preposterous. Who can believe that when Jesus
said, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me " (xiv. 1)
he meant, " You believe that God exists, believe also
1 Neutest. Theol, ii. 449.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 233
that I am the Christ " ? To believe is to have the
Son (I. v. 12) ; it is to receive Jesus Christ (i. 12, 13) ;
it is to come to the Son (vi. 35) ; it is to enter into
the possession of eternal life (vi. 47). It is im
possible that such functions and effects should be
ascribed to any faith which is not in its very nature
a trustful surrender of the soul to Christ, a self-re
nouncing acceptance of his person, and an entrance
into life-fellowship with him.
It is true, as our examination of the passages has
shown, that there is recognized in John an incipient
or rudimentary faith which, in certain specified cases,
amounted to little more than an intellectual convic
tion. Such was the " faith " of those who were won
by miracles only, to whom Jesus would not trust
himself (ii. 23, 24) ; such was the " faith " of the
Samaritans, who believed from hearsay that Jesus
had supernatural knowledge (iv. 39). But it is easy
to see that this sort of " faith " is represented in the
gospel as inadequate. Eternal life is never said to
be the effect or reward of such faith. True faith, the
believing reception of Christ as Saviour, is clearly dis
tinguished from this mere belief or opinion. Where
the true nature of faith is set forth, it is seen to in
volve the constitution of a new spiritual relation to
Christ. If the question be considered abstractly rather than
exegetically, the view of Weiss does not commend
itself. There lies in the very nature of the objects of
faith a reason for maintaining that faith is no mere

234 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
conviction, opinion, or holding for true, but also, and
much more, a personal relation of sympathy and fel
lowship. Take, for example, the faith which is repre
sented in the First Epistle as the confession that
Jesus is the Son of God, or that he is come in the
flesh (iv. 2, 15 ; v. 5). This confession is not a mere
theoretic assent. It is also described as a confession
of the Son involving the possession of the Father
(ii. 22), as a receiving of the witness of God (v. 9),
as a possession of the Son and an obtaining of life in
consequence (v. 12), and as believing on the name of
the Son of God. The apostle is clearly speaking of a
faith which is the condition of the new spiritual birth,
and which is the secret of the Christian's victory over
the world (v. 4). As well might one maintain that
to Paul's mind the earliest Christian confession of
faith, " Jesus is Lord " (1 Cor. xii. 3), excludes the
idea that faith in the Pauline epistles means a per
sonal trust in Jesus Christ and an entrance into fel
lowship with him, as to hold that John's Christian
confession, which he is upholding against those who
deny it, is in any way inconsistent with the so-called
mystical element in faith. Less clearly and explic
itly, but not less really, than Paul, does John repre
sent faith as the subjective principle of the new life.
It stands organically related to the abiding fellowship
with Christ, which constitutes the Christian life. It
is the initial act, on man's part, by which he enters
into that relation with Christ in which eternal life
has its cause and ground.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 235
Faith in Christ, as commonly represented in out
sources, is related to abiding in Christ as the begin
ning is related to the continuance of any process or
relation. They may be distinguished, but they can
not be separated. Faith is not a mere condition of
indwelling in Christ, distinct in nature from it. It is
the act of entering upon that relation whose contin
uance is designated in John as abiding in Christ.
There is a life of faith as well as an act of faith ; in
other words, faith designates a permanent charac
teristic of the Christian life, that is, self-renouncing
trust, although its significance as the initiatory act of
the Christian life is that which is brought more prom
inently forward. Faith is commonly presented in
John as the appropriation of salvation, while abid
ing in Christ is the realization of salvation in its
development and effects. We, accordingly, distinguish
these for convenience, and devote a chapter to each ;
but we cannot distinguish them in such a way as to
imply that the believer ever passes beyond faith and
leaves it behind. As truly as the Christian life is
with Paul a matter of faith all the way through (Rom.
i. 17), so truly is it with John a life of love and obedi
ence, divinely implanted in man, and a constant moral
victory over the world through faith (I. v. 1-4).
It remains to define more particularly the various
grounds of testimony or evidence upon which Christ
ian faith is represented in the Johannine writings as
resting. Three sources of testimony are recognized
which are adapted to awaken faith. The first is the

236 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
word of human witnesses. John the Baptist is said
to have come " for witness, that he might bear witness
of the light, that all might believe through him "
(i. 7), — that is, through John's testimony. Here the
believing reception of the light of the Logos is re
garded as mediated through the witness-bearing of
John. This testimony consisted in John's asserting
the pre-eminence and pre-existence of Jesus (i. 15),
and the fact of the Spirit's descent upon him at his
baptism (i. 32), which he witnessed, and on the basis
of which he declares that Jesus is the Son of God
(i. 34).
The second source of evidence is Jesus' own testi
mony concerning himself. His teaching springs from
his direct, intimate knowledge of the things of God,
and bears in itself the marks of a divine origin for
those who can perceive its true meaning and charac
ter (iii. 11, cf. verses 20, 21). The Son penetrates the
depths of the Father's will and working, and his whole
mission of teaching and labor is a revelation of the
Father's nature (v. 19-21). Only the Son who is in
the bosom of the Father can adequately reveal him
(i. 18; vi. 46), and this revelation carries its own
attestation ; those who have an affinity of mind for
divine things believingly accept it and come to Christ
(vi. 45).
But chief emphasis is laid on the testimony of God
to the truth of the claims made by Jesus. Of him
self, that is, apart from God, Jesus does nothing.
His witness of himself is not an isolated self-witness.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 237
The evidence which attests his claims is primarily
divine. John, indeed, testified to his Messiahship, but
he does not rest his case upon human testimony.
His miracles also attest his divine mission, but only
because they are the works which the Father gave
him to accomplish. All testimony is secondary to
that which God himself gives. Human attestation,
his own self-witness, and the evidence of miracles are
all grounded in the fact that God has set his seal
upon him as the true Messiah and Saviour. Other
testimony is valuable only as it accords with and
reflects the direct testimony given by the Father.
This testimony God has already given in the Old
Testament, and the force of it appears to all who can
discern the true import of Sacred Scripture in the
correspondence between the person and work of Jesus
and the prophetic Messianic ideal. The Jews fail to
appreciate and receive this testimony because they
search the Scriptures to so little purpose. Their
spiritual blindness, their selfish wilfulness, their lack
of love to God, their vainglorious spirit, — these are
the reasons why they do not receive God's testimony
concerning the Messiah and accept him (v. 30-47 ;
cf. xii. 41-43).
Jesus makes his appeal to the minds and hearts
of men on the ground that the Father dwells in him
and speaks through him (xiv. 9, 10). He offers him
self to men on the assumption that those who have
the capacity and disposition to perceive God revealing
himself in him will do so, and will take a practical

238 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
attitude towards him which corresponds to this per
ception. He is, indeed, attested by works which none
who came not from God could do. This species of
testimony John sums up in the First Epistle in stating
the three-fold witness which God has borne to Jesus :
"There are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood : and the three agree in one "
(I. v. 8). The bestowment of the Spirit, his Messi
anic consecration at his baptism, and his redemptive
sufferings and death, sum up into themselves the tes
timony by which his mission is attested. They stand
out as prominent and significant features of the incar
nation. The work of the Saviour is authenticated not
only by the significance and attending circumstances
of his baptism, which proved him to be the true
Messiah and the incarnate Son of God (as the Docetic
errorists whom the apostle is confuting would them
selves admit), but also by his sacrificial death, and by
the pouring out of the Spirit upon the early Church,
both of which bear the evidence in themselves of
divine saving deeds.1 In close connection with this
1 I have given what seems to me to be the probable meaning
of this passage. There are, however, many differing interpreta
tions. By some " the Spirit " is understood to mean the Spirit
which descended upon him at his baptism, and by others is in
terpreted subjectively of Christ's own spirit. " Water and
blood " are sometimes referred to the water and blood which
issued from Christ's side at the crucifixion (xix. 34), but are
more commonly supposed to designate the sacraments. A ma
jority of interpreters could probably be cited for the view which
I have embodied in the text.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 239
objective testimony on which faith is founded, is the
inner experience which corresponds to it. The ex
ternal becomes internal, so that " he that believeth on
the Son of God hath the witness in him," " and the
witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son" (I. v. 10, 11).
Faith rests upon objective grounds ; it appeals to
historic facts for its justification. But it is not mere
opinion respecting these facts. John never conceives
of faith as consisting in a mere intellectual possession
of the truths of the gospel. The whole nature em
braces them, or, more exactly, faith embraces him in
whom all these truths centre. Faith is neither a sub
jective play of feeling nor a speculative conviction or
assent ; it is a personal relation. It carries man out
of himself, and commits him to another. It is self-
renouncing trust, repose of soul in Jesus Christ. It
involves, therefore, an experience which tests and
proves the external grounds on which it reposes, and
which gives to the soul an assured certainty of their
validity. Thus faith and knowledge are seen to be,
to John's mind, essentially one. Either may be
called the condition of salvation (I. iv. 16 ; vi. 47 ; xvii.
3). The true knowledge of divine things is an eth
ical and spiritual knowledge ; it is the certitude which
faith begets. The mysticism of John, then, for which
we contend, is not a subjective mysticism which ab
sorbs the soul in self-contemplations and revery, but
an objective and rational mysticism which lives in a
world of realities, apprehends divinely revealed truth,

240 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
and bases its experience upon it. It is a mysticism
which feeds not upon its own feelings and fancies, but
upon Christ. It involves an acceptance of him and a
life of obedience to him. Its motto is : abiding in
Clirist.

CHAPTER X
THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE
Literature. — Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Christus das Leben, und
das Leben in Christo, pp. 29-41, Das Sein in Christo, u. s. w.,
pp. 68-85, and Die Geburt aus Gott, u. s. w., pp. 86-100 ; Bibl.
Theol, Fellowship with God and Sonship with God, ii. 371-376
(orig. 633-637) ; Westcott : The Epistles of St. John, Divine
Fellowship, pp. 174, 175 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol, Die Lehre und
die Reden Jesu, u. s. w. (chs. v., vi.), pp. 372-378 ; Wendt : Teach
ing of Jesus, The Life-bringing Message, etc., ii. 203-211
(orig. pp. 492-498) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol, Das Leben in
Gott ; die Gotteskindschaft, ii. 452-455 ; Lechler : Apostolic
and Post-Apostolic Times, Fellowship with the Father and with
the Son, ii. 201-207 (orig. pp. 473-479) ; Van Oosterzee, Theol.
of the New Test., The Son of God in relation to the World,
pp. 93-100 (Pt. ii. ch. ii. § 20); Schmid; Bibl. Theol. of the
New Test., Fellowship with Christ, etc., pp. 540-548.
In the present chapter I wish to collate the principal
materials for the study of John's conception of the
nature and sources of the religious life and character.
We have considered faith as the act by which a new
relation to God is constituted. It is the subjective
condition of the realization of salvation. Correspond
ing to faith as initiating the work of salvation from
the human side, is the impartation of life from God,
or the birth from above, which expresses the objective
16

242 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
or divine side of the sinner's change of relation. Fol
lowing the spiritual birth comes the spiritual life, which
is described under various terms, such as fellowship
with God, abiding in Christ, partaking of his body and
blood, and so forth. The subject of this chapter, then,
is, John's conception of this life of religion which is
begotten of God in the soul. The theme stands in
close connection with the idea of faith which we have
already examined, and certain special sides or aspects
of it will come into view in the subsequent study of
the doctrines of love, prayer, and eternal life. Our
present inquiry is particularly directed to ascertaining
the import of such terms as, begotten from God, son-
ship to God, abiding in Christ, and feeding upon him.
We begin with an examination of the phrase
"born" or " begotten from God," or "from above"
(yevvnOrjvai e« deov, e« tov deov, dvcodev), which occurs
eight times in our sources (counting the whole passage
iii. 3-8, and verses in which the word is repeated, as
furnishing single instances of its use). The first ex
ample of the employment of the phrase meets us in
the prologue (i. 13) where a contrast is drawn between
the natural and the spiritual birth. The thought is :
The Word came to the Jewish people, who of right
belonged to him by reason of their privileges and
training, but they rejected him (verse 11). He then
offered himself to any and all who would accept him,
and opened to them the privilege of sonship to God
(verse 12). This he did on conditions which were
purely spiritual, and irrespective of natural birthright

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 243
or inheritance. Not descent from the theocratic peo
ple, but acceptance of a new life from God, was his
requirement. The nature of this divine impartation
of life is not defined, except so far as a definition of
it is implied in its contrast to natural birth or descent,
and in its co-ordination with receiving Christ and
believing on his name (verse 12).
Attention may here be called to the fact that the
phrase in question is best rendered " begotten " rather
than "born of God" except in the passage iii. 3-8,
where the thought is slightly different. The A. V.
rendered " born " in all cases except in I. v. 1, and 18.
In the first of these passages the active participle
(yevvrjo-avTa) occurs, which can only be translated
" begat ; " but notwithstanding this, the passive forms
(yeyevvvjai, yeyevvn fievov) were rendered in one case
" born," and in the other " begotten." In verse 18 two
passive participles occur (yeyevvnfievo<; and yevvndefc),
and the same inconsistency is observed in the render
ing of the A. V., where no apparent reason diverted
the translators from their favorite rendering (" born "),
as was the case in verse 1. The R. V. has correctly
translated the terms by " begotten " in all cases in the
First Epistle, but in i. 13 has rendered " born " (" be
gotten " in the margin), probably in view of the
passage iii. 3-8. The correct translation here (i. 13)
is " begotten," since the thought relates primarily to
the first origin of life, and not to a change in the sphere
or mode of life. The phrase yevvwdfjvai e/c deov in this
passage, and uniformly in the First Epistle, refers to

244 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the initiation of spiritual life from God, to a divine
begetting or impartation of life. The force of the
phrase is amply illustrated in the First Epistle.
In I. ii. 29, the habitual doing of righteousness is
said to be the test which determines whether or not
one is begotten of God : " If ye know that he [God] is
righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth right
eousness (6 iroicov Trjv SiKaioavvrjv) hath been begotten
of him " (ef ai/Tov yeyevvnrai). Likeness of character
to God is the mark of those to whom God has imparted
his own life, so that they become and remain his sons
(note the force of the perfect tense).1 The thought is
similar in I. iii. 9 : " Every one that has been begotten
of God [and that remains his child — yeyevvvpevos]
does not do sin (dpapriav ov iroiei), because his seed
abideth in him," — the new germ of life which God
has imparted to him remains as a transforming power
in his life, — " and he cannot sin," that is, cannot live
the sinful life, cannot habitually sin (dfiapTaveiv is
here equivalent to iroielv dfiapriav), " because he has
been begotten of God " (e'« tov deov yeyevvvTai). As
in the two passages just noticed, the doing of righteous
ness and the not doing of sin are given as the tests of
having been begotten from God, so in iv. 7 love is pre-
1 I have rendered the Greek perfect tense in all cases by our
English perfect, instead of by the present, " is begotten " (R. V.) .
This tense expresses a permanent relation begun in the past and
continued in the present. The present tense in English re
produces only the second element in this two-fold force, which
our perfect, no doubt, fails in part to represent.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 245
sented in the same relation : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God ; and every one that
loveth hath been begotten (yeyevvnrai) of God, and
knoweth God." It is obvious that righteousness and
love are regarded as tests of the divine impartation of
life because they are its consequences. The divine
begetting is the logical prius of the spiritual life and
of all its fruits. This relation of the thoughts is made
clear in I. iii. 9, and is particularly emphasized in the
conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (iii. 3-8).
Still another test of the divine begetting is faith :
" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ hath
been begotten of God : and whosoever loveth him that
begat (tov yevvrjcravTa, that is, God) loveth him also
that hath been begotten of him (God) " (I. v. 1) : He
that loves God who bestows spiritual life, loves also
the child of God upon whom he has bestowed it ; love
to God involves love of the brethren. Nothing is here
intimated as to the logical or chronological relation
of faith to the divine begetting ; it is only said that
every one who believes in Jesus as the Christ has
been begotten from God and is a child of his. Such
faith is the unfailing mark of sonship to God. An
effect of the possession of divine life is stated, in an
abstract form, in I. v. 4 : " Whatsoever hath been be
gotten of God overcometh the world." This reminds
one of the statement in I. iii. 9 that the divine life-
principle brings about a moral impossibility of sinning.
How closely the begetting from God and faith — the
divine and human factors in salvation — are co-ordi-

246 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
nated by John is apparent from the parallelism of
this verse (I. v. 4), where to the statement that what
is born of God overcomes the world, he adds that faith
is the power that overcomes the world.
The final passage in the Epistle (v. 18) resembles
in general iii. 9. It reads : " We- know that whoso
ever hath been begotten of God (6 yeyewnpevos itc tov
deov) sinneth not ; but he that was begotten of God
(6 yevvndeh m tov deov) keepeth him Qrnpel avTov)
and the evil one toucheth him not." Considerable
difficulty besets the phrase o yevvndeh e/c tow deov Tvpel
avrov (or eavTov). Most modern editors (Treg., Tisch.,
Alf., W. & H., R. V.) adopt the reading avrdv (so A1
B Vulg.). Some, however, support the reading of the
Textus Receptus, eavrdv (so X A2 K L). If eavrdv
be read, the meaning is plain : He that was born of
God keeps himself, that is, maintains his proper char
acter, as a Christian (cf. iii. 3; 1 Tim. v. 22; Jas. i.
27). The great majority of interpreters favor this
view of the text and meaning, notwithstanding the
contrary verdict of the textual critics.1 Other exe-
getes, however, adopt the reading avrdv.2 In that
case, 6 yewndek is most naturally referred, so far as
grammatical considerations are concerned, to Christ.
Westcott and Plummer adopt this supposition, and
regard it .as explaining the change from the perfect
1 See, for example, the Commentaries of Liicke, Huther,
Haupt, Weiss, and Holtzmann. The same view of the meaning
is presented in our King James's version.
2 So Alford, Westcott, Plummer,

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 247
participle (uniformly used by John in application to
the believer) to the aorist. The theory is that
yevvndek refers to a past fact, or a "timeless rela.
tion " (Plummer). But the fact that John never
elsewhere applies the verb yevvndfjvai to Christ pre
sents a great difficulty for this interpretation. Alford,
therefore, though adopting the reading airrdv, holds
that 6 yewndek refers to the same person as 6 76761/-
vvfievoi, and supposes that the construction is broken
after the word yevvndek, and that the immediate sub
ject of T7?pet is the idea or fact of the divine begetting
which is implied in 6 yevvwdefc. To bring out this
interpretation the sentence may be rendered : " But
he that was born of God, — the divine begetting
keeps him." Weiss says that if airrdv is read, this is
the correct interpretation of the sentence.1 On this
view the change to the aorist participle is explained
as marking his divine birth as a past fact which sev
ered his connection with the prince of the world and
with evil (Alford). This explanation avoids the diffi
culties which beset that of Westcott, but, in point of
grammar, is very harsh and arbitrary. All things
considered, the interpretation seems preferable which
rests upon the reading eavTov, and which translates :
" He that was begotten from God [the Christian]
keeps himself," — with which should be compared
the words of this same Epistle : " Every one that
hath this hope [of seeing Christ as he is] set on
1 The Vulgate embodies this explanation : sed generatio Dei
conservat eum.

248 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
him [Christ] purifieth (dyvi^ei eavTov), even as he
[Christ] is pure " (I. iii. 3). But whichever reading
and interpretation be adopted, the main thought is
that it is against the nature of the new life to con
tinue in sin, and that the Christian is to be kept free
from Satan's power.
The final example of the form of thought under
consideration is found in the conversation of Jesus
with Nicodemus (iii. 3-8). Here, as we have before
intimated, the form of thought seems to be that of
birth rather than of begetting. Jesus speaks rather
of a transformation than of an origination of life.
" Except a man be born anew (dvcodev), he cannot
see the kingdom of God " (iii. 3). For our purpose it
makes no essential difference whether avcodev be ren
dered "again" (A. V.), "anew" (R. V.), or "from
above" (so most commentators). In any case the
meaning is that a spiritual renewal, wrought by God,
is necessary for participation in the divine kingdom.
After the incredulous question of Nicodemus as to
the possibility of a birth in addition to that by which
we enter the world, Jesus repeats the thought in
somewhat different terms : " Except a man be born
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
anew " (verses 5-7). Nicodemus had spoken of natural
birth as the only one that was conceivable. Jesus re
plies that man is related to two spheres, the natural

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 249
and the spiritual ; that as physical birth marks the
beginning of his personal natural life, so a spiritual
birth marks the beginning of the higher life of the
spirit. He implies that as great a change in man's
disposition and character is involved in his entering
the divine kingdom as took place in his natural life at
his birth. The new birth is a spiritual transforma
tion ; it is an entrance into a new world of motives,
interests, and hopes. This spiritual process is, he
adds, an inscrutable mystery, like the movement of the
wind, whose sound is heard, but whose nature and
sources none can trace.
Such is the general import of the conversation.
The principal exegetical difficulty appears in connec
tion with the phrase (verse 5), " born of water and the
Spirit " (ef vSaTos Kal irvev/jiaTos). Most commen
tators, ancient and modern, hold that there is in the
word " water " some kind of a reference to baptism.
This supposition is considerably strengthened by the
passage, " There are three who bear witness, — the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and the three
agree in one " (1. v. 8), where " the water" is most nat
urally taken as referring to Christ's baptism. Weiss
is the only modern interpreter among those whom I
have consulted, who supposes that " water " is here con
templated only symbolically as the purifying element
which takes away sin. He does not make " water "
and " spirit " mean the same thing (as Calvin and
Grotius had done, on the supposition of a hendiadys),
but regards the effective, life-giving power of the

250 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Spirit as the positive counterpart and completion of the
cleansing symbolized by " water." But if a reference
to baptism be assumed, is it primarily and directly to
Christian baptism (so De Wette, Meyer, Holtzmann),
or to the baptism of John ? Many scholars adopt the
latter view (Tholuck, Alford, Westcott, Plummer,
Godet), but generally hold that an indirect or pro
phetic reference to Christian baptism is also veiled in
the word. Liicke finds the force of the thought in the
phrase ef i/SaTo?, not in the outward rite of baptism,
but in its idea and significance. This seems to me to
be a helpful suggestion, but it should not be pushed
so far as to exclude the objective import of the rite.
Baptism expresses not only the repentance of the re
cipient, but also God's promise and pledge of forgive
ness. Bearing this in mind, I think it most natural
to suppose that in speaking of " water " and " Spirit,"
Jesus is thinking primarily of the repentance-baptism
(fSdirTio-fia peTavoias, Mk. i. 4) of John, and of the
spiritual cleansing which he himself effects. The two
aspects of thought expressed in " water" and " Spirit "
correspond to the distinction made by John the Bap
tist between his preparatory work and the positive
renewal of men which Christ should accomplish : " I
baptized you with water (vSan) ; but he shall baptize
you with the Holy Spirit " (irvevfiaTi dyltg, Mk. i. 8).
" Water " expresses rather the preparatory or nega
tive aspect of the renewal, corresponding to baptism,
which is a sign of repentance of sin and of divine for
giveness ; " Spirit " expresses the positive bestowment

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 251
of a new life. There is thus a natural progress of
thought in passing from the idea of birth by water to
that of birth by Spirit. Although in speaking to
Nicodemus Jesus would hardly think directly of
Christian baptism, the distinct and yet complementary
significance of vScop and irvevfia is in principle equally
applicable to it. We think, then, that the sense is,
substantially, this: Repentance and forgiveness (ex
pressed in baptism) and the bestowment of a new
life from God are essential to participation in his
kingdom. Those who have been begotten from God, or born
anew, are children of God. That to believe, to be
begotten of God, and to be a child of God, are kin
dred and inseparable ideas is clearly shown by the
passage, " As many as received him, to them gave
he the right (i%ovtrlav) to become children of God,
even to them that believe on his name ; which were
born (or begotten), not of blood, nor of the will of
the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God " (i. 12,
13). The complete co-ordination of receiving Christ,
believing on Christ, and being begotten of God shows
that faith is not here contemplated merely as a con
dition precedent of becoming a son of God (as Weiss
insists). To believe, and to be begotten of God are
two inseparable aspects of the same event or process
(I. v. 1), and in being begotten of God one becomes
a child of God; equally, therefore, does he become
such in the very act of believing. Faith, therefore,
does not merely make sonship to God possible ; it is

252 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY.
the actual entrance into the relation of sonship so
far as man has to do with constituting that relation.
Weiss stands alone, so far as I know, among critical
interpreters in sharply separating off from one another
the various phases and stages of the work of salva
tion which John designates by the different words
or phrases which we have quoted. His version of
the passage just cited is : "To those who accept him
by faith, Christ has given not sonship itself, but the
power to become the sons of God ; the last and high
est realization of this ideal, a realization for the
present fathomless, lies only in the future consum
mation." x But the word i^ovo-ia here is best taken,
not as referring to a mere future possibility which
faith opens, but as emphasizing the loftiness of the
privilege of becoming sons of God which is accorded to
believers.2 The arbitrary analysis of Weiss involves
his whole discussion of this and allied subjects in a
maze of refinements, which illustrate, not the apostle's
method of religious thought, but an over-subtle .qual
ity of some modern minds which the Germans them
selves aptly designate as " Spitzfindigkeit."
It may be well to notice here again what we have
observed in another connection, that John always
speaks of TeKva tov deov, not of utot toO deov. Weiss
suggests that John may have chosen the word reKva
" so as not to seem to approach too near " (in the lan
guage which he applies to Christians) "the peerless
i Bibl Theol. § 150, d.
2 So Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol, ii. 453.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 253
position of the only begotten Son of God." 1 A more
satisfactory motive for the choice of this word may
be found in John's mode of religious thought. The
term rmvov suggests the personal and intimate rela
tions which are involved in sonship rather than the
legal standing and privileges which Paul's favorite
word vldt expresses. The force of t4kvov, as used by
the apostle, and the distinction between it and vto'?,
are thus stated by Bishop Westcott : " The idea of
t4kvov, as it is thus presented by St. John, includes
the two notions of the presence of the divine prin
ciple and the action of human growth. The child is
made to share in his Father's nature, and he uses
in progressive advance the powers' which he has
received. It is therefore easily intelligible why St.
John never uses the title uto'?, the name of definite
dignity and privilege, to describe the relation of
Christians to God. He regards their position not
as the result of an ' adoption ' (vlodecria), but as the
result of a new life which advances from the vital
germ to full maturity." 2
The way in which John associates the idea of child-
ship with relations of loving fellowship between man
and God may be easily seen from the First Epistle.
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath be
stowed upon us, that we should be called children of
God" (iva TeKva deov KXvdiopev — should bear a title
i Bibl. Theol. § 150, d.
2 The Epistles of St. John, additional note on I. iii. 1, pp.
123, 124.

254 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
of such honor and dignity) : " and such we are " («at
ia/ie'v): We not only bear the name of children of
God, but we are in reality that which the name im
ports. " Beloved, now are we children of God," etc.
(I, iii. 1, 2). It is the purpose (iva) of God's love
to secure to us the high privilege of sonship, and
this privilege is not a mere possibility or prospect,
but a present possession: Kal eo-fiev vvv Tmva deov
iafiev. Not only is a loving relation to God involved in
childship to him ; loving fellowship among men is
equally involved in it. The test of childship to God
is the doing of righteousness and the loving of one's
brother, that is, fellow-Christian (I. iii. 10). Both
the relations of love which we have just mentioned —
that to God and. that to man — are emphasized to
gether in I. v. 1, 2 : " Whosoever believeth that Jesus
is the Christ is begotten of God : and whosoever
loveth him that begat [God] loveth him also that is
begotten of him [the Christian brother]. Hereby we
know that we love the children of God, when we love
God, and do his commandments." These examples
show that with John sonship to God is a personal
relation of obedience and love, involving mutual
devotion among all who share this relation. They
illustrate his spiritual mode of viewing the nature
and obligations of religion. These relations are
viewed quite simply, and are described under natural
analogies which widely remove them from all sug
gestions of legal processes or of an extended ordo sa-

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 255
lutis. It may be observed in passing that they also
confirm the view taken in an earlier chapter in re
gard to the question whether or not in John all
men are regarded as sons of God (pp. 70-73).
A passage of great interest in its bearing upon"^
our theme is found in the speech of Caiaphas before
the Sanhedrin (xi. 49-52). He declared that it was
expedient that Jesus should die, not for the (Jewish)
nation only, but " that he might also gather together
into one the children of God that are scattered
abroad " (verse 52). The contrast between Ta Twva
tov deov and " the [Jewish] nation " shows that by
the former certain Gentiles are meant. It must not
be forgotten that it is here the high priest, and not
the evangelist, who is speaking and giving his phil
osophy of vicarious sacrifice, — in certain respects a
false and perverse one. Still, the apostle gives the
opinion of Caiaphas as expressing certain truths
which lay beneath the speaker's immediate, conscious
meaning. We may then regard the idea that there
were " children of God " outside Judaism as true to
John's mind, especially if it be involved in other
passages. The question arises, How are we to con
ceive and define this idea ? Hilgenfeld understands
the words to refer, in a dualistic sense, to a natural
sonship of some men to God, in contrast to others
who are children of the devil.1 This opinion is
connected with the theory of the Tubingen school
respecting the origin and character of the Fourth
1 Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannes, p. 297 sq.

256 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Gospel as a specimen of Gnostic speculation applied
to Christianity. Most interpreters hold either that
some Gentiles are spoken of as " children of God "
by anticipation, as being such in the purpose of God
(Calvin, Luther, Meyer, Holtzmann), or that they are
so described because they have an incipient faith,
a susceptibility or predisposition, which would lead
them to accept the truth and work of Christ when
the knowledge of it should be brought to them (so,
substantially, Liicke, Weiss, Godet, Westcott). This
is the preferable view. These scattered believers
among the heathen are already children of God, not,
indeed, naturally, but by the grace of God which
manifests itself wherever there is a receptivity for it.
Jesus recognizes in men different degrees of recep-
tiveness for his truth. He says to a certain company
of Jews : " He that is of God " — he that has the dis
position and desire of obedience — " heareth the words
of God : for this cause ye hear them not, because ye
are not of God " (viii. 47). We hold, therefore, that
these Gentile " children of God " are the " other
sheep (dXXa irpofSara) which are not derived from
(eY) this [Jewish] fold " which he would bring l (aya-
yelv), that all his sheep may together constitute one
flock under the one Shepherd (x. 16). It does not
1 Many interpreters (as Meyer, Weiss, Westcott, Plummer)
render ayayelv to lead, and do not find the idea of bringing to
gether the scattered sheep, either to himself or into one flock,
contained in our passage (per contra, Tholuck, Luthardt,
Godet). This question does not essentially concern our pres
ent use of the passage.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 257
seem natural (with Meyer and others) to take the
words " Other sheep I have " as prophetic, espe
cially in view of the statements of the prologue that
the life of the Logos " was the light of men " (i. 4),
"the true light which lighteth every man, coming
into the world " (o cpcori^ei irdvra dvdpcoirov epxdfievov
et? tov Koo-fiov, i. 9). Whichever of three possible"
constructions 1 be adopted for the participle ipxdpevov
here, the passage asserts the universality of revela
tion through the Logos ; nor does it merely assert
that the Logos enlightens all men in general (iravras
avdpcoirovs), but that he lighteth every individual man
(irdvTa dvdpcoirov). If God reveals himself to each
man in some way and measure and touches men uni
versally with the influences of his grace, it is cer
tainly conceivable that there should be at all times
and in all nations those who — notwithstanding the
limitations of their light and knowledge — may, by
reason of their disposition and susceptibility, be truly
called " children of God " and members of Christ's
true flock. In this view sonship to God does not rest
1 'Epxbpevov may be construed (1) with ?jv at the beginning
of the sentence, making a periphrastic form : The true light
which lighteth every man was coming (or came) into the world
(so Lucke, De Wette, Weiss, Godet, Westcott, Rev. Vers.) ; or
(2) with the relative o : There was the true light which, by (or
on) coming into the world, lighteth every man (so Luther's
first ed., " durch seine Zukunft,'' u. s. w.) ; or (3) with avdpamov :
which lighteth every man that cometh (or as he cometh) into
the world (so most of the Fathers and Reformers, Vulg., A. V.,
Meyer, Plummer, Dwight). A majority of modern exegetes
adopt the first construction. 17

258 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
upon a basis of nature or of desert: it rests upon
divine grace alone, but upon a grace which is not
restricted, but world-wide in its operation.
The nature of the Christian life is further exhibited
by the use of a considerable variety of descriptive
phrases, the most important of which are, abiding or
being in Clirist (or in God), the dwelling of Christ
(or of God) in the believer, — both forms of expres
sion are sometimes combined, — fellowship with Christ
(or with God), and eating the flesh of the Son of
Man and drinking his blood.1 What the significance
and consequences of this "abiding" are may best be
determined by a careful observation of the connec
tions of thought in which the expression occurs. The
test of abiding in Christ is said to be obedience to
his commandments and the following of his example :
" Hereby know we that we are in him : he that saith
he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as
he (Christ) walked " (I. ii. 5, 6). Again, the holding
fast of the truths which were first taught his Christ
ian readers is urged by the apostle as the condition
of abiding in the Son and in the Father (I. ii. 24).
This verse has been paraphrased thus : " Let the
truths which were first taught you have a home in
your hearts : if these have a home in you, ye also
shall have a home in the Son and in the Father"
(Plummer). In verses 27 and 28 the abiding of the
believer in Christ is closely associated (not strictly
1 The passages are tabulated in Westcott's Epistles of St.
John, pp. 174, 175.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 259
identified) with the " anointing " (xplo-fia) which the
Christian has received, that is, with the gift of the
Holy Spirit. This chrism is personified and repre
sented as abiding in the Christian and teaching him,
— a work which seems to be thought of as a condi
tion or preparation for his abiding in Christ. These
verses appear to be explained by I. iv. 13 : " Hereby
know we that we abide in him, and he in us, because
he hath given us of his Spirit." Another clear note
respecting the meaning of abiding in Christ is struck
in I. iii. 6 : " Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not
(olx dfiapTavei — does not live the sinful life) : whoso
ever sinneth (7m? 0 dpapTavcov — every one who lives
the life of habitual sin) hath not seen him, neither
knoweth him."
From these passages it appears that to abide in
Christ (or in God) is to forsake the sinful life, to
keep his words and to exemplify his spirit. In short,
it is to live the life of love : " God is love ; and he
that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth
in him " (I. iv. 16). But the further question arises,
whether a personal, mystical relation is also involved
in this and kindred expressions. It seems difficult to
doubt that this is the case when one reads the alle
gory of the Vine and the Branches (xv. 1-6). Even
Weiss, who seeks to exclude all mysticism from the
Johannine idea of faith, admits that " abiding " in
Christ implies a " mystical union, a oneness of person
with him." 1 The allegory depicts the necessity of
1 Bibl. Theol. § 149, d, note 12.

260 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
an organic and vital union between the believer and
Christ. To abide in him (verse 4) is equivalent to
bearing a relation to him analogous to that of the
branch to the vine (verse 2) from which it draws its
life. Such a union is the condition of all fruitfulness
(verses 4, 5). Apart from him the disciple can do
nothing, that is, can bear no fruit of Christlike love
and service. It is noticeable that the thought passes
directly from the figure of the vine to that of loving
fellowship between him and his disciples : " Even as
the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you :
abide ye in my love " (verse 9). The fundamental
idea of the . allegory is that of the close, constant,
loving fellowship of life between the believer and his
Lord. This fellowship of the believer with Christ involves
fellowship with the Father and the indwelling of Christ
and of God in the Christian man. " Our fellowship
is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ "
(I. i. 3). He who keeps God's commandments abides
in God, and God in him (I. iii. 24). God abides in
those who love one another (I. iv. 12). A reciprocal
abiding of the believer in Christ, and of Christ in him,
is more than once mentioned (xiv. 20 ; xv. 5) ; and the
possible closeness of this union is emphasized by its
being compared to that which subsists between the
Son and the Father : " And the glory which thou
hast given me I have given, unto them ; that they
may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and thou
in me, that they may be perfected into one ; that the

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 261
world may know that thou didst send me, and lovedst
them, even as thou lovedst me " (xvii. 22, 23).
We have already had occasion, in treating of the
Johannine doctrine of salvation, to consider the three
principal interpretations of the expressions eating the
flesh, and drinking the blood of the Son of man
(vi. 52-59 ; see pp. 159-164). In the view which we
adopted these phrases are descriptive of the living
appropriation of Christ to the heart. "Flesh" and
" blood " stand as symbols of his very self. To par
take of these is spiritually to appropriate Christ by
an intimate life-union with him. This conception of
his meaning is the most comprehensive one. It does
not wholly exclude the ideas which are derived from
them by other explanations, but, in a measure, includes
them. The appropriation of Christ, in the fullest
sense of the word, includes the believing acceptance
of the benefits of his sacrificial work which are per
petually symbolized and attested in the Lord's sup
per. Christ is himself, in his whole person, work,
and spirit, the bread of life ; and to eat his flesh and
drink his blood is the same as to feed upon that living
bread of God which came down out of heaven (verses
57, 58) ; it is to live " because of him ; " it is to strike
the roots of one's life into Christ.
This review of the passages which illustrate the
nature of the relation which the Christian sustains to
the source of his spiritual life, may fitly close with a
notice of a passage which is a complex of the religious
ideas found in the writings of John : " Yet a little

262 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
while, and the world beholdeth me no more ; but ye
behold me: because I live, ye shall live also.1 In
that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and
ye in me, and I in you" (xiv. 19, 20). Jesus had
just been speaking of his coming to them through the
presence of the Spirit (verse 18), and now adds that
soon his bodily form — which is all that the world
can see of him — will be withdrawn from human
sight ; the literal, physical beholding of him will be
no longer possible, but his disciples will continue to
behold him with the eye of the spirit; he will still
seem real and present to them through the spiritual
perception which they have of him. When the senses
can no longer discern him he will still disclose him
self to the mystic vision of the soul. To this concep
tion is added that of living through his life. Re
moved though he will be from the world's natural
sight, his life will not be quenched. He will live on
and work on in unseen, unknown ways in the world
of the Spirit. Because his life and power are change
less and eternal he will continue to be the source of
spiritual life to all who look to him. Such words
carry the mind beyond the realm of time and sense
1 Many scholars (so Meyer and Weiss ; per contra, Godet and
Westcott) would translate the latter part of this verse thus:
"but ye behold me because I live and (because) ye shall
live," making the two assertions "I live " and "ye shall live "
assign the reason for the statement " ye behold me," instead of
treating them as together constituting an independent proposi
tion. The rendering of our English versions appears to me to
give the more forcible sense.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 263
into the world of eternal reality. To this world
Christ belongs, — in it he lives and works ; into that
world the eye of faith pierces, and up to its heavenly
heights of holy peace and calm he lifts those who join
their lives to him.
But even in this region of transcendent mystery
the mind is not " in wandering mazes lost." Thought
is still held captive by the sense of those personal
relations which lie at the basis of all religious life and
experience. " In that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you " (xiv.
20). The spiritual vision of Christ, and spiritual life
through his life, shall but make more clear and certain
his own perfect union with the Father, and the mutual
fellowship of his disciples and himself. And what
is the bond of this union? Love (verses 21, 22).
These high, mystic terms — beholding, living, indwell
ing — are at once translated into that practical but
all-embracing principle of love. He who loves and
obeys me, he it is to whom the vision of God comes.
Our passage, therefore, forms a fitting transition to
the special study of the idea of love in our sources.
But before passing on to the consideration of that
subject, let us cast a glance backward over the relig
ious conceptions which we have just reviewed, and
seek to make some practical estimate of their import.
In the first place, the ideas which we have been con
sidering illustrate what I may call an intensely religious
view of Christianity. I mean that they all rest upon
the supposition that God is very neai us, and that the

264 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
forces of the spiritual and eternal order constantly
penetrate our world. Religion is a very personal affair.
It is not depicted as consisting in the performance of
sacred rites, or even in the doing of specific duties. It
is rather a relation of fellowship with God as revealed
in Christ, and therefore a relation of likeness to him.
The religious life is not a play of feeling within our
selves ; it is not a mere collection of good deeds and
virtues which we have achieved ; it is a divine im
partation from God ; it is the response of the human
spirit to the life-giving touch of the Father of our
spirits. The descriptions of Christian life and expe
rience which we have studied assume that religion
is the divine life in man ; that the world of religious
thought and feeling is a world of realities, and not
of phantoms.
Again, the Johannine conception of religion is es
pecially favorable to devotion. It appeals powerfully
to the imagination and the heart ; it keeps alive the
sense of a real and present Saviour ; it fills life, not
merely with hopes of a future blessedness, but with
a present fulness of joy and richness of experience.
No New Testament writer has so vividly conceived
the powers of the heavenly world as operative here
and now, as the apostle John. If, as his legend de
scribes, he has soared into the sun, he has brought
down into our sinful world and common life some
thing of the warmth and glory of the everlasting
Light. Eternal life is already here; the world of
time and sense is swallowed up in the world of the

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 265
spirit; and life is transfigured by the presence and
the love of God.
Our author's religious ideas are also very practical.
Religion is character. " He that doeth righteousness
is righteous, even as he [Christ] is righteous " (I. iii.
7). Christ has interpreted the nature of God to man ;
his life is therefore the true norm of character.
Likeness to him is the all-comprehending require
ment of religion. To be like God in love, in sym
pathy, in helpfulness, is the sum of every Christian
obligation. All duties repose upon this deep founda
tion. This is the reason for living the Christian life
upon which all other reasons rest. Any conception
of religion must involve a high standard of character
which presents, as John's does, a pure and spiritual
idea of God, and then defines the religious life to be
a fellowship and affinity of spirit with him. We may
sum the matter up by saying that, while there is
little in the Gospel and First Epistle of John which
is adapted to promote the strifes of sect and the dis
putes of theological parties, these writings remain
what they have ever been since their composition
and will probably be to the end of time, — the two
incomparable manuals of religion, matchless por
trayals of the richness, beauty, and blessedness of
the spiritual life.

CHAPTER XI
THE DOCTRINE OP LOVE
Literature. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol, Of Love, ii. 482-491
(orig. ii. 538-549); Westcott: Epistles of St. John, The Idea of
Love, pp. 130-133; Beyschlag: Neutest. Theol, Die Liebe,
ii. 459-462 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol, Die Liebe des Vaters zum
Sohn und Gottes zur Welt, pp. 397-400 ; Wendt : Teaching of
Jesus, Admonition to love in the Johannine farewell discourse,
i. 357-362 (orig. pp. 287-292); Messner : Lehre der Apostel,
Die Liebe, pp. 351-354 ; W G. Ballentine : Art. " Lovest Thou
me ? " in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1889, pp. 524-542 ; E. A.
Park : Sermon on " God is love," in his Discourses, pp. 155-180.
The principal passages which illustrate the idea of
love as presented in our sources, are very familiar, and
to a considerable extent have been already quoted.
The passages have been fully tabulated by Westcott.1
It will be sufficient for our purpose to give a brief
rSsumS of his grouping. The passages are distributed
into classes with reference to two points . (1) the term
which is used to express the idea of love, and (2) the
subject and object of the love that is predicated.
Two verbs meaning to love are frequently used in
John's writings, ayairav and cbiXelv. The noun dydirn,
1 The Epistles of St. John, pp. 130-133.

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 267
corresponding to ayairav, also occurs frequently, but
cbiXia, which would correspond to cbiXelv, is not found.1
The proper difference between these two verbs has
been frequently defined by scholars with great care.
I can therefore do the reader no better service than
to quote two or three of these definitions. " 'Ayairav
properly denotes a love founded in admiration, vener
ation, esteem, like the Latin diligere, to be kindly dis
posed to one, to wish one well; but cbiXelv denotes an
inclination prompted by sense and emotion, Latin,
amare ; ut scires, eum a me non diligi solum, verum
etiam amari (Cicero)." 2
" <PiXelv denotes the love of natural inclination,
affection, — love, so to say, originally spontaneous,
involuntary ; ayairav, on the other hand, love as a
direction of the will. . . . The range of cbiXelv is wider
than that of ayairav, but ayairav stands all the higher
above cbiXelv on account of its moral import. It does
not in itself exclude affection, but it is always the
moral affection of conscious deliberate will which is
contained in it, not the natural impulse of immediate
feeling." 3
" <PiXelv (amare) denotes a passionate, emotional
warmth, which loves and does not care to ask why ;
the affection which is based on natural relationship, as
of parents, brothers, etc. 'Ayairav (diligere) denotes
1 This word occurs in the New Testament only once, — James
iv. 4, " the friendship (cpiKla) of the world."
2 Thayer's Lexicon, sub voce, cpi\£a>.
Cremer, Biblico-Theological Lexicon, sub voce, ayaTraa.

268 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
a calm, discriminating attachment, which loves be
cause of the excellence of the loved object ; the affec
tion which is based on esteem, as of friends. <3>t\eiz'
is the stronger, but less reasoning ; ayairav the more
earnest, but less intense."1
It is evident, if these definitions are correct, that
ayairav is the word of loftier meaning ; it is the word
which expresses the ideas of choice, esteem, reverence,
and the like, while cbiXelv designates rather those
natural or friendly relations which spring from the
affections. Accordingly, love to God is always denoted
in the New Testament by ayairav, and the noun for
love in the religious sense is always aydirv. Men are
commanded to love their enemies with the love of
benevolence or the love that seeks their true good
(ayairav), not with the love of complacency or per
sonal affection and attachment (cbiXelv). It would,
indeed, be incongruous to command love in the sense
of cbiXelv, but not in the sense of ayairav. From such
examples of the usage it appears that ayairav relates
rather to the judgment or the will ; cbiXelv rather to
the emotional or sensuous nature.
In general these distinctions seem applicable in
John. 'Ayairav is many times predicated of the love
of the Father to the Son, e. g., " The Father loveth
(ayaira) the Son, and hath given all things into his
hand" (iii. 35, cf. x. 17; xv. 9; xvii. 23-26). It is
once used of the love of God to the world : " God so
loved (riydirvo-ev) the world " etc. (iii. 16), and several
1 Plummer, Commentary, on xi. 5.

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 269
times of his love to men (xiv. 21, 23 ; xvii. 23 ; I. iv.
10, 11). Once cbiXelv is used to designate the love of
the Father to the Son: "For the Father loveth
(cbiXel) the Son, and showeth him all things that him
self doeth " (v. 20). If the accurate distinction of
the terms is here to be preserved, cbiXelv must, in this
case, refer to the intimate, personal relation of the
Father and the Son (so Meyer, Godet, Weiss, et al).
In one passage also (xvi. 27) the love of the Father for
the disciples of Christ is designated by cbiXelv : " For
the Father himself loveth (cbiXel) you," etc. Here, in
the judgment of most interpreters, the thought is, The
Father loves you as his children because of your love
to me (Christ), and therefore hears and grants your
requests. In these two cases where cbiXelv is used of
God's love to another it is not difficult to assign to it
an appropriate force as designating the close attach
ment of personal affection.
Again, John applies ayairav to the love of the
Son to the Father (xiv. 31), and to his love for his
disciples, either individually or generally (xi. 5; xiii.
1, 34 ; xiv. 21) ; while cbiXelv is also found to describe
the love of Jesus for a disciple or friend (xi. 3, 36 ;
xx. 2). The love of the Master for the "beloved
disciple " is four times designated by ayairav (xiii. 23 ;
xix. 26 ; xxi. 7, 20) and only once by cbiXelv (xx. 2).
This example of the use of cbiXelv seems to show
that John sometimes employs the words interchange
ably, although it does not necessarily prove that they
bear precisely the same shade of meaning. But in

270 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
such cases the proper distinction of the words must
not be overpressed. Another instance of an appar
ently interchangeable use of the words is found in
the narrative of Jesus' relations with the family at
Bethany. His love for Lazarus is designated by
cbiXelv (xi. 3, 36), while that for the three members
of the family, who are named in succession, is ex
pressed by ayairav (xi. 5). This usage is sometimes
explained by saying that in verses 3 and 36 the
sisters and the Jews, who speak of Jesus' love for
Lazarus, naturally use the more emotional word,
while the evangelist, who speaks in verse 5, uses the
loftier and less impulsive word (so Plummer and
Westcott). Others think that the higher word ayairav
(in xi. 5) is chosen with great delicacy by John be
cause the sisters, Martha and Mary, are also men
tioned (so Meyer and Weiss). H. Holtzmann regards
the two examples just cited (iii. 35, cf. v. 20 ; xi. 3,
36, cf. xi. 5) as proving that John uses the two verbs
promiscuously. The love of the disciples for Christ (viii. 42 ; xiv.
15 sq.) and for their brethren (xiii. 34 ; xv. 17 et al.)
is generally designated by ayairav, although cbiXelv is
also found (xvi. 27 ; xxi. 15 sq.). The passage last
cited is one of considerable interest and difficulty in
its bearing upon the usage of the words. Jesus twice
asks Peter : ayairds fie ; and Peter replies : cbiXco ere.
The third time the question is : cbiXel? fie ; and Peter
still answers : cbiXco ere. The almost universal opinion
of interpreters is that the change of words is inten-

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 271
tional, and that the point of the conversation is largely
lost by overlooking the distinction. The view gener
ally adopted is that Jesus uses the loftier word ex
pressing deliberate choice and devotion, and that
Peter hesitates to claim such a love, but affirms the
love of personal affection : cbiXco ae. Jesus then drops
to the level of Peter's own assertion, and says : Are
you sure that you love me even thus — <£i\et? pe; —
alluding, probably, to Peter's previous denial of him,
and, perhaps, asking the question three times be
cause of the three denials. To this question Peter
replies affirmatively, but without claiming more than
the affection denoted by cbiXelv. Some have called in
question the distinction upon which the foregoing
interpretation proceeds, on the ground of the seem
ingly interchangeable use of the terms which we
have already noticed. Even Weiss, who observes the
natural distinction of the words in the other cases,
thinks it doubtful whether it is applicable here. If
Jesus had throughout employed ayairav, while Peter
uniformly used cbiXelv, the recognition of the distinc
tion would be, in my judgment, more natural than it
now is. The supposition of an intentional change
from ayairav in the first two to cbiXelv in the third
question, is unnecessary to the sense and force of the
passage, and seems somewhat over-subtle. Moreover,
it must be remembered that this conversation, in all
probability, was held in Aramaic, in which no such
distinction as that between the two Greek verbs could
have been marked. To this difficulty it is replied that

272 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
we must deal with the Greek version of the event as
we have it, and that by some additional words or ges
tures the Lord may have made such a distinction as
the Greek has preserved.1
Whatever opinion be adopted respecting these few
doubtful cases which we have just mentioned, there
can, I think, be no reasonable doubt that the distinc
tion between ayairav and cbiXelv is, in general, appli
cable in the writings of John.2 Even in those few
instances where the two words appear to be used
synonymously there is a certain presumption that a
difference of meaning is really implied. In any case,
we have here to do with love in the distinctively
moral and religious sense, which is specially denoted
by ayairav and dydirv. It is necessary next to no
tice what is affirmed of the subjects and objects of
this love, and then to inquire into its nature and
significance. When God is the subject of this love there are
i So Schaff, in Lange on John, in loco.
2 Dr. W. G. Ballentine, in an elaborate article on the subject
(Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1889), not only denies that there is any
distinction between ayairav and cpiKelv in John xxi. 15 sq., but con
tends that the distinctions commonly made between them are
not applicable in the New Testament generally. His evidence
is drawn almost wholly from the Septuagint, where he shows
that the words are often used without discrimination. A
promiscuous use of the terms in the New Testament would not
necessarily follow from such a use in the Septuagint, nor would
a few cases in which the distinction between them is doubtful
suffice to prove that the New Testament writers in general
used the words synonymously.

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 273
three objects upon which it is said to terminate, the
Son (iii. 35 et al.), the world (iii. 16), and the disci
ples of Christ (xiv. 21, 23). In I. iv. 10, 11, John
speaks of the love which God has shown to his
readers in sending Christ as the propitiation for
their sins. This passage refers, therefore, to God's
love to them while they were yet sinners, and belongs,
practically, with iii. 16, which speaks of his love to
the world (6 Koapot). Of similar import is I. iii. 1, 16 :
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath be-
stowejd upon us," etc. While, therefore, the love of
God to the sinful world is not often explicitly men
tioned, it is several times referred to, and is assumed
in many passages besides those just cited. The Son
is said to love the Father (xiv. 31), and his disciples
(xiii. 1 ; xiv. 21). Christians are spoken of (I. v. 1,
2) in contrast to rion-Christians (v. 42; I. ii. 5), as
loving God, and still more frequently as loving Christ
(xiv. 21-28) and one another (xiii. 34, 35 ; I. iii. 10-
14). Over against this true religious love to God and
man stands the love of darkness (iii. 19), or of the
world (I. ii. 15).
It will be seen that the love which is so central in
John's conception of religion is a personal relation
between man and God, on the one hand, and among
men themselves, on the other. The apostle reaches
his highest point of contemplation in placing the seat
of love in the very nature of God himself. The duty
of men to love one another springs from the nature
and source of love. It is a divine principle, a
18

274 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
quality of God's own nature and action; nay, it is
a name for God's ethical nature itself. The life of
true love is therefore a divinely imparted life. It is
derived from God and involves fellowship with him.
Whence it follows : " He that loveth not knoweth not
God ; for God is love " (I. iv. 8). For the mind of
John the ethical nature of God determines the nature
and demands of the Christian life. To be like God
is the sum of all Christian obligations. " If we love
one another, God abideth in us, and his love is per
fected in us " (I. iv. 12). " God is love ; and^he that
abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in
him " (I. iv. 16).
It should not, of course, be supposed that in saying
" God is love " the apostle intended to construct a
scientific definition of the moral nature of God. In
the very nature of the case, love scarcely admits of
accurate and exhaustive definition. The analysis of
the divine attributes to which we in modern times are
accustomed did not engage the minds of the New
Testament writers, who spoke in popular language
and for practical religious ends. But while it is im
possible to maintain that John had ever proposed
to himself to construct a precise conception of love
which should answer the demands of scientific thought,
he has, nevertheless, given us a concise statement of
God's moral nature upon which theological thought
cannot improve. It is, at any rate, quite unjustifiable
to treat his statement as if it meant only that God,
as a matter of fact, has love for men, or that he has

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 275
chosen — though he might have done otherwise — to
love his creatures, on the theory that love is only a
subordinate attribute of God which it is optional with
him to exercise or not. Whatever be the scope or
content of love, as John uses the word, it certainly
represents to his mind an essential and constituent
element in the divine nature, and theology has never
been able to construct a better definition of the ethical
perfection of God than is contained in the apostle's
words : " God is love." 1
I am persuaded that no proposition could be more
directly contrary to the fundamental principles of
John's teaching than that which has been so com
monly affirmed in theology that justice is the central
and all-determining attribute of God, to which love is
only subordinate and secondary. This is the formula
i " The saying of the apostle, ' God is love,' is the best com
pendium of the Christian idea of God." — Van Oosterzee, Christ
ian Dogmatics, i. 269. " Love is the supreme, the only adequate
definition of the essence of God." — Dorner, System, i. 454. " God
himself is good only as he is love, and his holiness and right
eousness depend upon his love." — Miiller, The Christian Doctrine
of Sin, i. 113. "God is love, the perfect, the absolutely good
and only good Being, so that no attribute or activity can be as
cribed to him which cannot be derived from his love." — Nitzsch,
System, p. 145. " In the Old Testament love is an attribute
of God, one of many exercised in particular relations. In the
New Testament first love can be shown to be the very Being of
God as answering to the revelation in Christ ; and we may see
a certain fitness in the fact that this crowning truth is brought
out in the latest of the apostolic writings." — Westcott, The
Epistles of St. John, p. 168.

276 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
which a rigorous, formal logic has sought to apply in
theology, upon the assumption that God is a judge
rather than a Father, and that the world which he
has made is a legal rather than a moral world. Some
show of justification for this view may be found in
the legalism of the Old Testament, although an appeal
in support of it to the Talmud, which represents the
later religious thought of Judaism when juridical con
ceptions had wellnigh supplanted moral ones, would
be far better warranted. It may seem to be favored
by the survival in Paul of some traces of Pharisaic
thought, but with both the language, and spirit of
John it is in irreconcilable contradiction. This sub
ject will meet us again when we come to consider the
relation of love to righteousness.
John neither gives us a definition of love, nor fur
nishes the material for a formal definition. What his
conception of love is, we are left to infer from the
qualities which are ascribed to it and the actions
which flow from it. The more important of these we
will enumerate.
(1) Love is a personal relation of communion or
fellowship, or, at least, looks forward to the constitu
tion of such a relation. The intimate fellowship of
the Father and the Son illustrates the highest form of
love. It involves perfect fellowship of sympathy and
interest, and the perfect mutual delight of each sub
ject in the object of love. John presents this perfect
communion as the type of love among men : " Even
as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 277
you : abide ye in my love. . . . This is my command
ment, that ye love one another even as I have loved
you " (xv. 9, 12). Here the love of the Father for
the Son is the norm of the Son's love for his disciples,
and this love, in turn, is the type and measure of
all true love among brethren. Love is a personal
life-union involving reciprocal delight, interest, and
attachment. This relation is sometimes described as an indwell
ing, or abiding, of one person in another. This mode
of expression is doubtless chosen in order to empha
size the closeness of the relation. Love involves a
certain " oneness " of those whom it unites. Each is
at once the subject and the object of love. Love is
mutual, or, at least, naturally tends to become so. A
community of feeling, thought, and interest springs
up where love binds persons together. Jesus prays
that his disciples " may be one " even as he and the
Father are one, and explains in what follows that this
unity of which he speaks is a unity which is born of
love : " I in them, and thou in me, that they may be
perfected into one, that the world may know that
thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou
lovedst me " (xvii. 23).
Love is, therefore, the true unifying bond among
men. It is the principle which leads each to make
the interest of all his care. From this consideration
it appears, as John says, that " love is of God " (e«
tov deov, I. iv. 7) ; it is a principle essentially divine.
The capacity to love is implanted in man by him in

278 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
whose image he is made. As God is the ground of
all unity and harmony in the universe, so God-likeness
among men, that is, love, is the true bond of brother
hood. Selfishness is the principle of isolation; love
alone binds men together in helpful and happy rela
tions. All love among men is a reflection of the
divine nature in them, and a trace of the presence in
human life of him who is ever seeking to reconcile
men to himself, to one another, and to their true
destiny ; to solve the contradictions and abolish the
discords of life, and to unite men in the kingdom of
love and peace.1
(2) It follows from what has been said that love
is by its very nature a social virtue. Love carries us
out of ourselves. It is essentially inconsistent with
the indifferent temper. It is an active, forthputting
quality whose very nature is violated by the hermit-
spirit. Love implies mutual relations and common
interests. It is the social principle in man. Mutual
service and helpfulness, which spring out of love,
make social life possible. If these were, wholly want
ing, society would revert to barbarism, which is sim
ply extreme individualism involving utter disregard
of others or of the general weal. Love is therefore
the only principle on which a true civilization can
be built.
This idea is involved in the doctrine which John so
often presents, — that love is the true basis of union
1 For an ample discussion of "uniting love," see Sartorius
on The Doctrine of Divine Love, pp. 260-309.

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 279
in the kingdom of God. One brotherhood knit to
gether by love is the ideal society. The kingdom -of
God is realized among men in proportion as they live
the life of love, that is, in proportion as they love one
another as Christ has loved them. As the provisions
of redemption proceed from the divine love, so the
realization of its results in the life of the world must
be brought about by the reign of love in mankind.
The divine love is redeeming the world into itself.
Salvation springs from love and man is saved unto
love. This is but to say that God in redemption is
bringing men to himself,- and uniting them into a
brotherhood through their common likeness to him
self. Here again we see illustrated a peculiarity of
John's thought which we have more than once ob
served, — the tendency to ground the whole nature
and all the requirements of the religious life in the
being of God. Love must be the true principle of
fellowship in the divine kingdom and the law of
Christian duty, since God is love. Religion is man's
fellowship with God, and involves fellowship among
men, and neither is, in its best sense, possible except
upon the basis of ethical likeness to God.
(3) The possession of love is the guaranty of right
eous living. The life of love and the life of sin are
essentially incompatible. The apostle puts this prin
ciple forward in the sharpest possible form when he
says : " Whosoever is begotten of God " — that is,
has entered the life of love — " does not commit sin
(dfiapTiav oil iroiel), because his seed abideth in him :

280 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God "
(I. iii. 9). Love and sin are contrary, that is, love is
essentially righteous. Many other passages presup
pose this idea. Brotherly love is a quality of those
who abide in the light, that is, live the life of love in
fellowship with God, while hatred of one's brother is
a work of darkness, that is, a mark of the sinful life
(I. ii. 10, 11). Love of the world — supreme attach
ment to the pleasures and possessions of this outward,
passing order of things — is inconsistent with love to
the Father, which implies fellowship of life with God,
and moral likeness to him (I. ii. 15-17). Again, the
bestowment of the Father's love upon men, and the
answering love of the human heart makes men chil
dren of God, and as such the sinful world does not
know them. Their lives are ruled by love, and the
world has no just appreciation of that sort of life.
As the world in its selfish isolation from God does
not, in an ethical sense, know him, so does it not
know those who have entered into the divine life of
love, since love and sin are opposites (I. iii. 1). The
same thought is amplified in the verses which follow.
Childship to God involves the hope of increasing like
ness to him (or to Christ). " Every one that hath
this hope (of becoming like the divine ideal) set on
him (Christ), purifieth himself, even as he (Christ) is
pure" (I. iii. 2,3).
The centrality of love in the Christian life is ex
plained by the fact that the apostle has a comprehen
sive and profound view of the nature of love. It so

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 281
includes or involves all the moral perfections of God
that it can be made the law and measure of all his
commandments. Love is therefore central in religion
because it is central in God ; and as it is central in
his nature, so is it central in his action and require
ments. The limitation of the meaning of love by
which it is made a name for benevolence or good
nature, and is then set in sharp contrast to right
eousness and made secondary and inferior to it, is a
procedure in theology which can find no warrant in
John's conception of the subject. To his mind, love
and righteousness are inseparably intertwined ; in
fact, they are essentially one. Love is holy in its
very nature ; the life of love is the righteous life.
Over and over the apostle insists that the sinful acts
of men spring from lack of love. To do righteousness,
that is, to live the righteous life, and to love are syn
onymous (I. iii. 10). Cain's murder — a representa
tive sinful deed — illustrates the violation of the
principle of love which from the beginning of Christ's
teaching had been the substance of the gospel mes
sage (I. iii. 11, 12). The absence of love is moral
death ; the possession of love is eternal life (I. iii. 14).
Love to God begets pity and compassion. The
apostle contends that a man cannot be a Christian
and refrain from pitying and helping a brother in dis
tress (I. iii. 17) ; yet it is gravely argued in theology
that it is optional with God to withhold mercy or
grace from his creatures without the impairment of
his perfection. It would be denied by none that the

282 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
exercise of pity, compassion, or grace, is good. Yet
it is held to be optional with God whether to be good
to that extent, or not. It has been claimed that what
is false in philosophy may be true in theology. This
appears to be the only principle on which the theo
logical dictum to which we have just referred can be
justified. I have more than once referred to it in
order that it might be looked at from different sides
and tested by the various expressions of the apostle,
which illustrate his conception of love. If it is true
in dogmatic theology, it is certainly false in John's
whole philosophy of revelation and life. It affirms a
possible disposition or mode of action on God's part
which, according to John, would vitiate the character
of a Christian man. The argument which John's
writings furnish against the dictum in question might
be briefly summed up in saying: God is Christian;
that is, Christ is, in his character and commands,
the interpreter of the nature and action of God, and
the import of his message is that God is love, and
that love is in its very nature pitying, generous,
and forgiving.
At the risk of some possible repetition let us follow
out the conceptions of God as love and of the essen
tial unity of righteousness and love, which we find
in John. Love is essential and constituent in God's
nature. If God is love, he must act as love. A
quality or attribute without which God would not be
the perfect Being he is, cannot be merely subordinate
in his nature, and cannot be conceived of as merely

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 283
passive or quiescent. Love has been eternally opera
tive within the internal relations of the Deity. In
these relations it is not only constitutive but it operates
from an ethical necessity springing from the nature
of God. Let us apply the subject to created spirits
who have never sinned. If love moved God to create
them and to sustain them in life, is it rational to sup
pose that God can withhold his love from them, — that
in the case which we have supposed love is a purely
optional attribute ? To me this seems quite incon
ceivable, it being understood that the necessity to love
of which I speak is a purely moral necessity spring
ing, not from any source outside the Deity, but from
his own immanent perfections. If love is a quality
so essential in God that without it he would not be
God, it is surely no presumption to say that God must
love, at least, his sinless creatures, since love cannot
be essential and constituent in his nature and purely
optional as to its exercise.
It is needless to follow out in detail the application
of the dictum in question to the subject of redemption.
It is sufficient for our purpose to show that the theory
that retributive justice is superior to and independent
of love in God, and that there springs from his very
nature a necessity that he should be just, but no
necessity that he should be gracious or generous, is
incongruous with the teaching of the apostle John.
We may, however, add that since, as all admit, God
has always loved even sinners, it is probably according
to his nature to do so. If love were only secondary

284 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
and subordinate to justice, it would be unlikely that
the lower attribute would always prevail. If, as Cal-
vinistic theology has so urgently asserted, there is a
conflict in the Divine Being between love and justice,
it is certainly strange that the supreme attribute
whose exercise is absolutely necessary did not triumph
over the subordinate and optional quality, and exclude
the sinful world from salvation altogether. This
theology really lays no logical ground for a plan of
grace for sinners. It is inconceivable that a work of
gracious salvation could ever be begun if God were
what this theory defines him to be.
Respecting the attitude of God as love toward sinful
men, it is important not to confound two widely dif
ferent conceptions, that of any obligation on God's
part to love sinners as such, and that of his obligations
to himself as the perfect Being. There is nothing, of
course, in the sinful man as such which can make a
claim upon God's mercy or constitute a basis of obli
gation, but there is an obligation to show mercy
which is grounded in the Divine Being himself as
morally perfect, that is, as uniting in his own nature
all possible excellences. When it is argued that as
men must be righteous but may or may not be kind,
so God must be just, but may or may not be merciful,
the premises should be carefully tested. Suppose a
man chose not to be kind. Is he, in that case, the
sort of a man which he ought to be ? Is he as good,
as morally excellent, as he would be if he were kind ?
Certainly not, unless one denies that kindness is a

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 285
virtue. A man even is under obligation to be kind.
How preposterous to claim that God is less obligated
to perfection of life than man. His obligation to pos
sess and to exercise all virtuous attributes is absolute,
but it is founded in nothing above or outside himself,
but in his own eternally perfect ethical nature.
The view that love can be a passive, quiescent, or
potential quality only, is contrary to the very idea of
love. Love is an active power, an energizing affec
tion. To conceive of it as possibly quiescent or non-
operative in the perfect Being is to misconceive its
nature. Such a conception cannot be applied even in
human relations, to say nothing of its inapplicability
to God in his relations to his creatures. What would
be said of a man who maintained that he was at
liberty, at will, to love his fellow-men or not ? The
character of the strictly and merely just Shylock who
felt that it was optional with him whether he should
be kind or merciful, and who chose not to be so, has
not been generally admired. It is amazing that theo
logical speculation should ever have held that such a
disposition may be regarded as conceivable and possi
ble for the God of all grace.1
1 Cf. my review, in the New Englander for June, 1888, of Dr.
A. H. Strong's Philosophy and Religion, — a work in which it is
maintained that holiness and love are essentially different ; that
holiness is the fundamental and determining attribute of God,
and that justice, therefore, must be exercised, while benevolence
or love — the self -imparting impulse in God — may be exercised
or not. •' As we may be kind but must be righteous, so God,
in whose image we are made, may be merciful, but must be

286 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
(4) Love is presented in John as the giving im
pulse in God, the motive of his self-communication.
" God so loved the world that he gave " (iii. 16), is
the keynote of John's doctrine of love in this aspect
of it. The gift of the Son for the salvation of the
world is the supreme expression and proof of God's
love for the world. As this greatest of his gifts is
born of love, so also are all his benefactions and self-
impartations. It is the very nature of love to give
and to bless, and this giving is, in the last analysis,
self-giving. " Behold what manner of love the Father
hath given to us (SeScoKev rgiiv), that we should
be called children of God " (I. iii. 1), exclaims the
apostle. God bestows his life upon us ; he imparts
his own nature to us in making us his children. We
become children of God by a divine birth, by an im
partation from God himself. Thus he who is love
bestows his love upon us so that we abide in love,
that is, abide in God, and God in us (I. iv. 16). So
too the gift of Christ to the world is God's gift of
himself to us, since Christ shares eternally in the
Father's nature, and comes forth from the bosom of
holy. Mercy is optional with him " (page 196). The same view
underlies the whole soteriology of this author's Systematic The
ology, as it does that of Dr. Shedd's Dogmatic Theology. I ven
ture also to refer to my reviews of both these works in the New
Englander for January, 1887, and for February, 1889, respec
tively. See, also, Dr. E. A. Park's sermon (on the text : " God
is love ") : All the Moral Attributes of God are comprehended hi
his Love, in the volume entitled, Discourses on some Theological
Doctrines, etc., Andover, 1885.

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 287
the Father. Creation, redemption, and providence
are all grounded in the essential and eternal love of
God. Love is the bond of intercommunion in the
immanent and eternal relations which are involved
in the equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These eternal relations within the Deity ever give
scope to the exercise of love, so that, even apart from
creation, it is rightly defined as the transitive attri
bute of the divine nature. " Love can be described
as a need that can be satisfied only by giving. . . .
Love is no external attribute, needing created rela
tions in order to its exercise, for it was before crea
tion, and creation was through it; and it is no
attribute of pure immanence, for though it lives
within Deity, and has there the necessary conditions
of its life, yet it ever strives from within outwards, —
struggles, as it were, towards creation." 1
(5) Love is the motive of sacrifice and service.
" Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends " (xv. 13). A pas
sage in the First Epistle closely akin to this seems to
indicate the sense in which Jesus speaks of laying-
down his life : " Hereby know we love, because he
laid down his life for us : and we ought to lay down
our lives for the brethren" (I. iii. 16). We have
seen in an earlier chapter (pp. 172-175) that the laying
doivn of life here spoken of is not naturally understood,
as some scholars hold, to refer to the paying down of
life as a ransom-price. The term seems rather to
1 Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, p. 411.

288 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
bear a general ethical import. Christ's giving of his
life is here spoken of in the most comprehensive
possible sense. His whole work of self-giving, cul
minating in his death, is the product of love. The
expiatory idea is not necessarily excluded from such
expressions, but it is not directly signified. Such a
special idea is lost in the general conception. It is as
if John had said : The Saviour's labors and sufferings
on behalf of men, whatever their import, were the
language of love, and they teach us how Christian
love should express itself among brethren. The com
prehensiveness of the terms used is noticeable. The
giving of life seems to include much more than the
experience of death, since Christians are to give their
lives for one another as Christ gave his for them. All
the forms in which Christ gave himself in serving
love to men, seem fairly included in that laying down
of his life of which the apostle here speaks.
(6) Love involves faithful devotion to its object.
This thought is pictorially presented in the descrip
tion of the scene in the familiar home at Bethany
where Mary anoints the feet of Jesus with precious
spikenard and wipes them with her hair (xii. 3).
This is a picture of the grateful love of the disciple
for the Master. With equal vividness is the love of
the Lord for his disciples depicted on the occasion
when he takes a towel and girds himself, and, pouring
water into a basin, proceeds to wash the disciples'
feet (xiii. 3-5). The event has its permanent signifi
cance as a picture of devotion and of service. The

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 289
disposition which it illustrates is the offspring of love,
since it was the consciousness of divinity out of which
sprang the impulse and effort to bless and serve,
which the scene depicts. It was because Jesus knew
that he came forth from God and was going again to
God that he girded himself for this service (verse 3).
Here again we see how this devotion was grounded in
the very nature of that essential divinity whose moral
perfection consists in love. That love is the true
motive of personal devotion is assumed in the words
of Jesus : " If ye love me, ye will keep my command
ments " (xiv. 15, cf. verses 21, 24). The principle of
love is one that can be securely trusted. The posses
sion of true love is the best guaranty that the obliga
tions of the Christian life will be discharged. Love
is the germ which produces of its own nature the
fruits of Christian devotion and service.

19

CHAPTER XII
THE DOCTRINE OP PRAYER
Literature. — No writer on the Theology of John, so far as I
have observed, has discussed the doctrine of prayer as a dis
tinct subject ; but certainly the interest and importance of the
theme, and the special difficulties which are connected with the
references to it in John, entitle it to careful consideration.
For the discussion of the points involved, I must refer the student
to the critical commentaries on the passages to be reviewed.
The following references will be found useful in respect to cer
tain phases of the subject : Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Der erhohte
Christus, pp. 270-280, and Bibl Theol, The Church of the Dis
ciples, ii. 398-404 (orig. 654-658) ; Westcott : The Epistles of
St. John, The Divine Name, pp. 243-245 ; Ezra Abbot :
Critical Essays, The Distinction between ahia and iparram,
pp. 113-136 (reprinted from the North American Review, Jan.,
1872) ; Bernard : The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, pas
sim ; F. W. Robertson's sermon on Prayer (Am. ed. pp. 644-
651). The general subject is discussed in most treatises on
Doctrinal Theology and Christian Ethics.
The subject of prayer as presented in the Johan
nine writings may be naturally divided into four
sub-topics: (1) The words by which prayer is de
scribed; (2) The references which are made to the
prayers of Christ; (3) Indications respecting the
nature and spirit of prayer on the part of the disci-

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 291
pies ; and (4) assurances in regard to the answering
of prayer.
It is noticeable that John does not employ the
words Selcrdai and irpocrevxecrdai, which are so com
monly used in the New Testament in reference to
prayer. Instead of these he uses two words both of
which properly mean to ask : alrelv, to ask in the
sense of making a request, and ipcoTav, to ask in the
sense of interrogating. In the New Testament,
however, this latter word frequently bears the non-
classical meaning, to request or to beseech; and in
John it is several times applied to the making of
requests to God in prayer. This New Testament
sense of ipcordv is, no doubt, connected with the
Septuagint use of that verb as a translation for bvtf,
to ask, which often means to ask in the sense of
making a request.
The question as to the distinction between alrelv
and ipcoTav in John's usage, where the latter means
to request or beseech, has been much disputed among
scholars. It is observed that the word ipcordv is
regularly applied to the prayers of Jesus,1 while
alrelv is used in describing the prayers of his dis
ciples. A few typical examples may be given : " I
will pray (epcorrjo-co) the Father," etc. (xiv. 16); "I
pray (epcorSs) for them ; I pray (ipcoTio) not for the
1 In the judgment of some interpreters ipmrav is once applied
to the prayers of Christ's disciples : " In that day ye shall ask
(eparrijo-cre) me nothing" (xvi. 23). This point we shall con
sider later.

292 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
world, " etc. (xvii. 9) ; " Neither for these only do I
pray" (ipcoTco), etc. (xvii. 20). The usage of ahelv,
on the other hand, maybe illustrated thus: "And
whatsoever ye shall ask (afar/a-ere) in my name, that
will I do," etc. (xiv. 13); "If ye shall ask (atV^o-eTe)
anything of the Father, he will give it you in my
name" (xvi. 23) ; " And whatsoever we ask (aWcopev),
we receive of him," etc. (I. iii. 22).
It is certainly quite natural, in view of the pecul
iar uniformity with which John applies these two
words to the prayers of Jesus and to those of his dis
ciples respectively, to seek for the distinction be
tween the words in some difference between the rela
tion which Jesus bears to God and that which others
bear to him. Such an explanation was put forward
by Archbishop Trench x and has been accepted, appar
ently on his authority, by many other scholars.
He explains the difference between the words as
follows : —
" Aireo), the Latin peto, is more submissive and suppli
ant, indeed the constant word for the seeking of the in
ferior from the superior. . . . 'EpeoTaw, on the other hand,
is the Latin rogo ; or sometimes interrogo, its only mean
ing in classical Greek, where it never signifies to ask, but
only to interrogate, or to inquire. Like rogare, it implies
that he who asks stands on a certain footing of equality
with him from whom the boon is asked, as king with
1 New Testament Synonyms, § xl. Trench's explanation of
the distinction between the words has been more or less fully
adopted by Wordsworth, Lightfoot, Alford, and Westcott.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 293
king, or, if not of equality, on such a footing of familiarity
as lends authority to the request.
"Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the
singular accuracy in the employment of words, and in the
record of that employment, which prevails throughout
the New Testament, that our Lord never uses ah-uv or
ahela-Oai of himself, in respect of that which he seeks on
behalf of his disciples from God ; for his is not the peti
tion of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the
Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dig
nity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out
in this, that often as he asks, or declares that he will ask,
anything of the Father, it is always kparrw, ipwqo-ta, an ask
ing, that is, as upon equal terms, never alrew or amjo-co."
This theory of the distinction is certainly attrac
tive, and seems plausible in view of the fact which
we have observed, that in the usage of John ipcoTav
is applied to Christ's prayers and airelv to those of
his disciples. The assertions of Trench, however,
that ipcorav implies "a certain footing of equality"
between the one making the request and the object
of the request, and that alrelv is used " for the seek
ing of the inferior from the superior," rest on no
known etymological distinction between the terms,
and cannot be maintained unless supported by un
questionable usage. Dr. Ezra Abbot has shown
that the distinction breaks down utterly when this
test is applied.1 The student need only consult the
1 " The Distinction between ahea> and iparaw," North American
Review, January, 1872, reprinted in Critical Essays, pp. 113-
136.

294 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
passages reviewed by Dr. Abbot to be convinced
that Trench's distinction will hold neither in the
New Testament in general, nor even in John's
writings in particular. In order to show that no
"footing of equality" is necessarily implied in the
word ipcorciv , it is sufficient to point out that the
request of the Syrophcenician woman that Jesus
would cast the demon out of her daughter (Mark
vii. 26) is expressed by that verb. The centurion
also asked (ipcorcov) Jesus to heal his servant (Luke
vii. 3), and the Gerasenes besought (rfpcbrncrav) him
to depart from them (Luke viii. 37). In these
requests certainly there can be no tone of authority
or assumption of equality between the persons
concerned. If the uses of ipcordv in the Gospel of John (out
side of the passages where it is applied to the
prayers of Jesus) be carefully considered, it will be
found that they do not bear out the idea that ipcoTav
refers to an asking "upon equal terms." The dis
ciples besought (r)pc!)Tcov) Jesus to take food (iv. 31) ;
the Samaritans besought (rjpcoTcov) him to remain
with them (iv. 40), and the nobleman of Capernaum
besought (rjpcoTa) him to come and heal his son
(iv. 47). These are but a few of the instances in
which the definition of ipcoTav as denoting an asking
on equal terms, or with a tone of authority, is inap
plicable. It is also found that there are many cases
where alrelv cannot be shown to express "the seek
ing of the inferior from the superior, " such as Luke

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 295
i. 63, xii. 48 ; Acts xvi. 29 ; 1 Pet. iii. 15 ; and Deut.
x. 12 [Septuagint]: "What doth the Lord thy God
require (atVetTat) of thee ? "
Although Trench's theory of the distinction be
tween the words in question is certainly disproved,
it is still a noteworthy fact that the prayers of Jesus
are referred to in John by ipcoTav, and not by ahelv,1
and that, as Trench says, the former word "is in no
single instance used in the New Testament to express
the prayer of man to God, of the creature to the Crea
tor. " While the fact that in John ipcorav is fre
quently used of the petitions which various persons
addressed to Christ, is fatal to Trench's general
theory, it still seems to be a fact requiring explana
tion that this term alone is used of the prayers of
Jesus, and is not used of the prayers of men ad
dressed to God, while alrelv is frequently so used.
Dr. Abbot's explanation of the difference is as
follows : —
" The main distinction appears to be this : kh-iio is, in
general, to ask for something which one desires to receive,
something to be given, rarely for something to be done ;
it is therefore used when the object sought, rather than
the person of whom it is sought, is prominent in the mind
of the writer ; hence also it is very rarely employed in
exhortation. 'Epoyrdoi, on the other hand, is to request or
beseech a person to do something, rarely to give some-
1 In one passage (xi. 22) Martha uses aheiv of Jesus' prayers,
a fact to which Trench appeals as showing " her poor, unworthy
conception of his person."

296 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
thing ; it refers more directly to the person of whom the
favor is sought, and is therefore naturally used in exhort
ation and entreaty." 1
On this view of the difference between the words,
the application of ipcoTav to the prayers of Jesus
might, perhaps, be naturally explained by saying
that his perfect fellowship and trust, and his knowl
edge of the Father, gave his prayers more of a refer
ence to the Father's person and were more of a
committing of himself to the Father's will and
action than are the prayers of others, who ask rather
that specific things be given them. The prayers of
other men are more of the nature of petition, while
those of Jesus are more of the nature of resignation
and self-commitment to the Father. If this view be
taken, it is obvious that ipcoTav, as applied to prayer,
has a higher quality than a'lTelv. Cremer regards
the difference as formal rather than material, a'nelv
expressing the desire of the will and ipcoTav marking
the form of the request as a desire expressed to God
in prayer.2 Even in this view ipcordv would suggest
a certain closeness of fellowship and naturalness of
relation between the worshipper and God which
would not be associated with alrelv.
The distinction in usage which is observable in
John can scarcely be accidental. There seems to be
an element of truth in Trench's too broad and sweep
ing generalizations. Some higher import and asso-
1 Critical Essays, p. 127.
2 Bibl.-Theol. Lex., sub voce, alrea>.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 297
ciations appear to be implied in ipcordv than in alrelv,
although it is difficult confidently and sharply to
define the distinction. In I. v. 16 both verbs are
used of prayer to God : " If any man see his brother
sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask (atV^o-et)
and God will give him life for them that sin not unto
death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning
this do I say that he should make request " (epcoTr]a-g).
Here the two terms may be used synonymously, but
it seems to me likely that alrelv denotes the making
of a petition that something be granted, while ipcorav
is more general and refers rather to the appeal of the
subject in question to God's will and wisdom. As
Cremer suggests, ipcordv seems here merely to char
acterize the form of prayer more precisely and to
stand as the tenderest, finest expression for praying.
If this distinction is here legitimate, it evidently
accords with the view which we have taken of the
usage in the Fourth Gospel. A'nelv is the more
specific and more urgent word ; it suggests the idea
of petition for some definite gift; ipcordv is more
general, and is the higher and finer word, suggesting,
as it does, the reference of the matter in hand to
God's wisdom with the confidence of perfect trust.
The latter verb is, therefore, more naturally used of
the prayers of Jesus, while the former is applied to
the asking of gifts and favors from God by others.
1 would not claim that this distinction can always
be clearly and sharply made, but only that as applied
to prayer to God in John's writings it is at least
generally observable.

298 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Let us now turn to our second topic, — the refer
ences in the Fourth Gospel to the prayers of Christ.
The principal relevant passages are found in chap
ters xiv., xvi., and xvii. Jesus describes the sending
of the Holy Spirit as following upon his praying the
Father to send him (xiv. 16). He also speaks of a
time when he will tell them plainly of the Father,
and adds: "In that day ye shall ask in my name:
and I say not unto you that I will pray the Father
for you ; for the Father himself loveth you, because
ye have loved me, and have believed that I came
forth from the Father " (xvi. 26, 27). Jesus will pray,
on behalf of the disciples, that the Comforter be
sent to them ; when he is come he will, as it were,
take the place of Christ, continue his work, and
interpret his truth. The Comforter will come in
Christ's name (xiv. 26) ; that is, the sphere and aim
of Christ's work and those of the Comforter's work
will be the same. Now, in this day of the Spirit,
this time of fuller revelation, he will, through the
Spirit, speak to his disciples concerning God more
fully and frankly than he had done before. Previous
to this time of greater enlightenment they had asked
nothing in his name (xvi. 24) ; that is, the real
spiritual purport and aim of his work which the
"name" connotes had not been disclosed to them;
but when the Spirit comes he will come in Christ's
name, — that is to say, will disclose him more fully ;
and those who possess the Spirit will consequently
ask in that name, — that is, with the right spirit and

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 299
with adequate knowledge. The Spirit who repre
sents and interprets Christ will, so to speak, initiate
them into Christ, so that they will both ask and
receive from God in his name (xiv. 13; xvi. 23).
Through the possession of the Spirit, he says, my
intercession on your behalf will be rendered un
necessary ; you will come direct to God in the illum
ination which the Spirit will bestow, and asking
in my name, holding all your desires and requests
subject to the spirit and purpose of my work for you,
will receive from God the fullest answers to your
prayers. The question concerning the relation be
tween the statement (xvi. 26) " In that day ye shall
ask in my name " and the assertion in a preceding
verse (23), "In that day ye shall ask me nothing,"
will meet us at a later stage of our discussion. It
may here be noted that the idea which is presented
in the last half of verse 26, that Jesus has no need
to speak of his intercession for them in the dispensa
tion of the Spirit, may be adjusted to his assertion
in xiv. 16 and xvii. 9, that he prays for them, on the
view that these passages are general and refer to
the time prior to the gift of the Spirit, while the
prayer referred to in xvi. 26, which, it is said, will
be rendered unnecessary by the Spirit's illumina
tion, is specific intercession, the ends of which will
be accomplished by the Spirit's work in believers.
It remains to notice, under this head, the inter
cessory prayer of Jesus for his disciples in chapter
xvii. In that prayer he prays specifically for those

300 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
who have believed (xvii. 9), and for them who shall
believe through the word of those who are already
disciples (xvii. 20). He desires, hot that they
should be taken out of the evil world by death, as
he himself is soon to be, but that they may be kept
by the Father from the power of the evil one who is
the prince of this world. In the quality of their life
they are not akin to the evil world, as he himself is
not ; they share his own life and spirit. Jesus asks
that they may be set apart and kept in the power
and possession of the truth which they have received
from him. This truth of his, the truth which he
perfectly embodies and reveals, is their proper life-
element, as opposed to the false and sinful world.
When thus consecrated in and through the power of
the truth they will be fit media for conveying the
same truth to others and for communicating to them
the life which corresponds to truth. Hence Jesus
adds : " As thou didst send me into the world, even
so sent I them into the world" (xvii. 18.) The
same living truth which he has given to them, they
are to bear on to others. He has set himself apart
to this great work of bringing light and truth to men
in order that those who receive it should, in turn,
become bearers of light and channels of truth to
others. Consecration through the power of the
truth, the embodiment of the truth in life, and the
expression of it through personal example and influ
ence, — this is the first great desire for his disciples
which Jesus expresses in his intercessory prayer.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 301
He then prays for the unity of all believers:
"That they may all be one; even as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
us : that the world may believe that thou didst send
me" (xvii. 21). Perfect harmony and fellowship
among his disciples, like that which exists between
the Father and himself, would, he implies, be effect
ive in convincing the world of his divine mission.
If his spirit could heal the divisions and harmonize
the discords of earth, such a result would prove the
most convincing possible evidence of the divineness
of his work. He came to bring to the world the
true principle and bond of brotherhood among men,
— love. The work of love bears within itself its
own attestation. Wherever men make it the guiding
light of their lives, it commends itself to all with
irresistible power as divine in its source and as
divinely adapted to secure the best good for man.
From the idea of unity among men through his in
dwelling in them (xvii. 23) the thought ' of Jesus
mounts up to dwell upon their perfect union with
him and with the Father through love, reaching its
culmination in the words : " that the love wherewith
thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them "
(xvii. 26).
This intercession was special in its import and
purpose. It does not have in view the world in
general: "I pray not for the world, but for those
whom thou hast given me " (xvii. 9). He asks bless
ings for them which, in the nature of the case, could

302 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
not be received by the world. He commends his
disciples to God for special guidance and favor since
they have shown a disposition to receive the truth
and to live righteously. They have special needs,
special capacities, and special claims upon the pater
nal sympathy of God. The exclusion of the world
from this particular intercession has the effect to
emphasize the higher relation in which those who
have received the Son and his message stand to the
Father. It does not imply any limit in the love and
interest of Christ for the world. In the same prayer
he expresses the desire that through the consecration
and unity which he is now seeking for his disciples
the world may be led to believe (xvii. 21). Just as
earnestly as Jesus here seeks special grace for those
who had responded to his call, would he at other
times pray for the conversion of the world which he
had come to save (i. 29; iii. 16; iv. 42; xii. 47).
Our third theme is, the prayers of the disciples.
The first inquiry which arises is, What is meant by
prayer in Christ's name ? We have already observed
how Jesus said: "Hitherto," that is, previous to the
gift of the Spirit, "have ye asked nothing in my
name " (xvi. 24). He then proceeds to assure them
that in the dispensation of the Spirit they shall ask
in his name (xvi. 26). Clearly, therefore, prayer
"in his name" involves some higher element, and
this element is the result of the gift and illumina
tion of the Spirit. It is a part of that fuller bless
ing which the Spirit is to bring, and which makes it

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 303
expedient that Jesus should go away in order that
the Spirit may come to apply and perpetuate his
work (xvi. 7). The capacity to pray to the Father
in Christ's name results from that fuller enlighten
ment and more profound experience in Christian life
to which Jesus refers in saying that the Spirit will
bear witness of him, will guide the disciples into all
the truth, and will take of his and declare it unto
them (xv. 26 ; xvi. 13, 14). Further light is thrown
upon the expression in question by the statement
that (according to the best text) the Father gave to
Jesus his own " name" to make known to the world ;
" in thy name which thou hast given me " (iv ra 6vd-
pari crov a> Se'oWa? fioi, xvii. 11) ; " I made known
unto them thy name, and will make it known"
(xvii. 26, cf. 6). The "name" of God is, according
to a Hebrew method of thought, a symbol for God's
nature. The Father gives to the Son his name to
manifest to men in the sense that he commissions
the Son to reveal himself as he truly is, to disclose
his nature, thought, and feeling more adequately
than they had ever been disclosed. This manifesta
tion of God Christ makes to the world in his own
person. He reveals to men, through the whole power
and spirit of his life and work, the grace, the love,
and the fatherliness of God.
What, then, is the force of the sayings, " If ye
shall ask [me] anything in my name, that will I do "
(xiv. 14) ; " That whatsoever ye shall ask of the
Father in my name, he may give it you " (xv. 16) ?

304 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Place beside these assurances another in which dif
ferent terms are used : " If ye abide in me, and my
words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it
shall be done unto you " (xv. 7). To ask in Christ's
name must, therefore, be practically equivalent to
asking while abiding in him, and while his words
are abiding in the petitioner, that is, to ask in him,
in his spirit, in accord with the whole aim of his
work for and in the believer.1 It should be noted,
in addition to what has been said, that the Spirit
himself who, through his teaching and guidance,
leads believers into that experimental knowledge of
Christ and his work which enables them to pray in
his name, is said to be sent in his name (xiv. 26),
and also that God is said to answer prayer in
Christ's name : " If ye shall ask anything of the
Father, he will give it you in my name " (xvi. 23).
Thus it is seen that the phrase which we are consid
ering is very comprehensive. The Spirit is sent,
prayer is offered, and the answer is given in Christ's
name. The person and work of Christ sum up in
themselves the whole gracious purpose and proceed
ing of God for man's salvation and spiritual growth.
All that God does for us is held within the scope of
that revelation of God and communication of divine
life to men which Jesus accomplishes. The perpetu-
1 The import of the term " name " as a symbol in the Fourth
Gospel may be more fully tested by consulting the following
passages : i. 12 ; ii. 23 ; iii. 18 ; v. 43 ; x. 25 ; xii. 13 ; and
xx. 31.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 305
ation of the work of salvation in the world through
the ministry of the Spirit and the fostering and
strengthening of spiritual life through answers to
prayer, stand in direct connection with Christ's per
son and work. The significance and end of his work
are normative for all divine action in redemption
and sanctification. As applied to prayer, therefore,
the phrase " in his name," implies a right apprecia
tion of Christ as revealing God to man and as re
vealing man to himself, and a right relation to this
saving work. Bishop Westcott has this comment :
" The meaning of the phrase ' in my name ' is ' as
being one with me, even as I am revealed to you.'
Its two correlatives are in me (vi. 56 ; xiv. 20 ; xv.
4 sq. ; xvi. 33; cf. I. v. 20), and the Pauline in
Christ. . . . Augustine remarks that the prayer in
Christ's name must be consistent with Christ's char
acter, and that he fulfils it as Saviour, and therefore
just so far as it conduces to salvation." 1
The question now arises, How can we adjust the
statements that in the day of the Spirit the disciples
shall ask in his name (xvi. 26), and that if they shall
ask him anything in his name he will do it (xiv. 14),
with the assertion that in the day when he has de
parted and the Spirit is come they shall ask him
nothing (xvi. 23 a). It is noticeable that in this
last passage it is the verb ipcorav which is used to
describe the asking of the disciples. The Greek is :
Kai iv iKeivg Trj rffiepa e/ie ovk ipcorrjcreTe ovSev. The
1 Commentary, in loco, xiv. 13.
20

306 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
common view is that the word ipcoTav in this passage
has its proper classical signification (frequent also
in John and in the New Testament generally), to in
quire, to ask a question ; and that the meaning of the
statement is : In the time when you become enlightened
by the Spirit you will ask me no such questions as
you have been doing : " How know we the way ? " (xiv.
5.) " Whither goest thou ? " (xvi. 5.) " What is this
that he saith, A little while ? " (xvi. 18.) Others under
stand it to mean, to make request of me in prayer.
On the former view the statement stands directly con
nected with verse 19 : " Jesus perceived that they were
desirous to ask him (ijdeXov avrbv ipcoTav), and he
said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves con
cerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold
me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see
me?" With this meaning corresponds also the use
of ipcoTav in verse 30. This view avoids the diffi
culty of applying ipcoTav in this one passage to the
prayers of the disciples, whereas elsewhere in John it
is applied to the prayers of Jesus only. Another
consideration favoring the meaning inquire rather
than request in our passage is that otherwise the
statement here seems to clash with that found in
xiv. 14, especially in case the pronoun me (p,e) is
genuine, as it probably is. In the case just supposed
we should have in xvi. 23 the statement that in the
dispensation of the Spirit the disciples should address
no prayer to Jesus, while in xiv. 14 he says that if
they ask him anything in his name, he will do it.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 307
On the more common interpretation of epcoTrjcreTe
the meaning of verses 23, 24 is well given in
Godet's paraphrase : " You will no longer address
your questions to me, as when I was visibly with
you ; and in general I declare to you that, as to
what you may have need of, you will be able, be
cause of the communion established henceforth through
the Holy Spirit between yourselves and the Father,
to address yourselves directly to him." J
To this interpretation of ipcoT^creTe it is, however,
objected that it unduly separates the two parts of
verse 23. Trench, indeed, affirms that " every one
competent to judge is agreed that ' ye shall ask ' of
the first half of the verse has nothing to do with
' ye shall ask ' of the second." 2 But it is certainly
unusual for the two parts of a verse to " have nothing
to do with " each other, especially where a certain
definite subject is being consecutively presented.
Moreover, it is observed that in the sentence under
review the pronoun me (epe) is emphatic both in
form and by position. This emphasis seems to imply
that it stands in contrast with some other personal
term. What, then, is its correlative ? On the former
interpretation, which separates the two parts of the
verse, no antithesis is expressed. It may be supplied
in some such way as this : In the time of the Spirit
ye shall ask me no questions, but the Spirit will teach
you ; or, you shall, instead of asking me, have direct
1 Commentary, in loco, xvi. 23.
2 Synonyms of the New Testament, p. 143.

308 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
access to the Father in prayer. But it is urged that
by assigning to epcoTrjcreTe the meaning ye shall re
quest, the two parts of the verse are brought into
natural connection, and the correlative to the em
phatic pronoun me of 23 a is found in the Father of
23 b. In that case the verse would mean : In that
day you shall indeed make no requests of me, as you
have been doing during my visible presence with you,
but you may go direct to the Father, and he will
give you whatever you need in my name. Dr. Ezra
Abbot also raises, on behalf of this view, this ques
tion : Why should our Saviour say that when he was
gone from earth and the Spirit had come, they should
ask him no questions ? Why should he tell them that
they would not do what, in the nature of the case, was
impossible ? 1
These considerations seem to me to be overbalanced
by those which favor the former interpretation. It
might be said of the disciples that they would ask
him no such questions in that day as they had been
asking, if the meaning were that they would not
1 The student may be interested to see how modern com
mentators stand divided on the interpretation of ipatTrjo-ere. I
have accordingly made a list of representative scholars on
either side. In favor of the meaning ask no questions, are Tho
luck, Liicke, De Wette, Alford, Trench, Lange, Meyer, Godet,
Westcott, H. Holtzmann, and Plummer. Favoring the meaning
make request, are E. Abbot, Weizsacker, Weiss, O. Holtzmann.
The views of older interpreters and of lexicographers are given
in Dr. Ezra Abbot's article on " The distinction between alrta and
iparaa," in his Critical Essays.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 309
harbor them in their minds, or that they would not
bring them to him in prayer. Moreover, the emphasis
on the pronoun me may be naturally explained in the
words of President Dwight : " The real force of this
emphatic ip,e is this, that their permanent joy was to
be connected with a new intercourse with the Divine
Being, not that of questions presented to him, but of
prayers offered to God the Father in his name." ] If,
then, the meaning ask no questions (such as you have
been asking) be assigned to epcoTrjcreTe the passage
xvi. 23 a will furnish no special difficulty when set
alongside of the clear implication in xvi. 14 that,
after his departure from earth, his disciples will make
requests of him. It should also be noticed that the
word for " ask " in xvi. 23 6 is afaelv. This fact, I think,
lends probability to the view that in the first part of
the verse ipcorav has a sense specifically different
from aWelv in the second part. Otherwise the change
of verbs would have no apparent motive, while if
ipcordv in 23 a means to ask questions, the use of dif
ferent words in the two clauses is naturally explained.
On neither interpretation of ipcoT-qcreTe is there any
conflict with xvi. 26. If the asking in the two pas
sages is specifically different, there can be no conflict,
because there is no direct relation. If, on the other
hand, the asking is the same in kind in the two cases,
there is no inconsistency, because in xvi. 23 a an ask
ing from Christ (as contrasted with the Father) is
1 Notes appended to Godet's Commentary, in loco, xvi. 23.

310 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
denied, while in xvi. 26 an asking directly from the
Father is affirmed.
In conclusion, let us observe the terms of the
assurances which are given that prayer will be an
swered. The language in which these assurances are
expressed is very strong, and might seem, at first
sight, to imply that whatever is asked will be given.
But it is to be noticed that the asking is required to
be in Christ's name : " Whatsoever ye shall ask in my
name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified
in the Son. If ye shall ask me anything in my name,
that will I do" (xiv. 13, 14). Moreover, the answer
ing of prayer is also said to take place in Christ's
name : " If ye shall ask anything of the Father, he
will give it you in my name " (xvi. 23). It is quite
certain that in this passage the phrase " in my name "
should be connected with the phrase " he will give "
instead of with the phrase " if ye shall ask." The
other order, which is found in the Textus Receptus, is
opposed to the reading of the best manuscripts, and
is probably due to a tendency to conform this passage
to xiv. 13 and xv. 16. Prayer, then, is to be offered,
as it will be answered, in Christ's name. This phrase
involves certain conditions and limitations affecting
prayer. It implies that we are to ask in Christ's
spirit, — the spirit of submission and trust, — and in
accord with the nature and aim of Christ's work for
us. It excludes the idea that human desires can give
the law to the divine order and that the human will
can become determining for the divine. The import

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 311
of prayer in Christ's name is well indicated in such
passages as I. v. 14 : " If we ask anything according
to his will, he heareth us," and xv. 7 : "If ye abide in
me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye
will, and it shall be done unto you."
The assurances that whatsoever is asked shall be
given are conditioned upon abiding in Christ, that is,
upon the possession of a spirit in prayer like that
which characterized him. Prayer for him was sub
mission to God's will. " Not my will, but thine, be
done," is the epitome of all his requests. His was
the prayerful life, and to the test of that life we must
bring all our ideas on the subject. The promise that
God will give whatsoever we ask, is applicable within
the sphere of Christ's work for us. So far as prayer
is " in his name " it shall be answered ; so far as the
petitioner " abides " in Christ, he shall receive his
requests. The whole practical import of Jesus' teach
ing concerning prayer which John has preserved, is
well reflected in the words of the collect which asks
that the Lord will hear the prayers of his servants,
and adds : " and that they may obtain their petitions,
make them to ask such things as shall please thee."

CHAPTER XIII
THE DOCTRINE OP ETERNAL LIFE
Literature. — Wendt : Teaching of Jesus, Eternal life in
the Johannine discourses, i. 242-248 (orig. pp. 188-193) ;
Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Der Begriff des ewigen Lebens, pp. 1-
11, and Bibl. Theol, Christ the Life of the World, ii. 347-352
(orig. pp. 614-618) ; Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol, Of Life, ii.
492-505 (orig. ii. 549-564) ; Westcott : The Epistles of St.
John, The idea of Life, pp. 214-218 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol,
Das ewige Leben als Gegenwart und Zukunft, pp. 403, 404 ;
Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol, Himmelreich und ewiges Leben, i.
262-264. The passages and topics which are to be con
sidered under the heading " Eternal Life " are closely
akin to those which we have already studied under
the title, "The Origin and Nature of the Spiritual
Life " (chapter X). It has seemed to me, however,
that there was enough that was distinctive in the
teaching concerning eternal life to entitle it to a
separate treatment.
"Eternal life," or "life" in the absolute sense, is
a name for the heavenly good which Jesus brings to
men in the gospel; it is conferred upon men upon
condition of faith in him. It is noticeable that in
the Johannine writings it is usually described as a

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 313
present possession of believers. In the Synoptic
Gospels, in which the term is less frequently used,
it has a future reference, as in Mark x. 30, and the
parallel passage, Luke xviii. 30, where " eternal life"
stands in contrast to"" this time" : "He shall receive
a hundredfold now in this time, . . . and in the
world to come eternal life." In John, however,
emphasis is laid upon the view that the believer
already has eternal life, — an idea which, in other
forms, is abundantly recognized in the Synoptists.
We read, for example, in the Fourth Gospel : " He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life. Verily,
verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God ; and they that hear shall live " (v. 24, 25).
And again : " He that believeth hath eternal life "
(vi. 47) ; " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life ; and I will raise him up at
the last day " (vi. 54). From passages like this just
quoted, however, (cf. vi. 40) we see that eternal
life, though a present possession of the Christian,
looks forward to the " last day" for its completion ;
and thus we find in John a combination of pres
ent and future references which corresponds sub
stantially to the twofold representation by the
Synoptists of the kingdom of God as both present
and future.
What, now, is this great gift, this heavenly bene-

314 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
fit, which is called " eternal life " ? In the opinion
of many interpreters we find in xvii. 3 a description
of its nature: "And this is life eternal, that they
should know thee the only true God, and him whom
thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." Weiss says
that this passage states "wherein the essence of
eternal life consists," and Westcott affirms that
" the definition is of the essence of eternal life, " and
the same general position is taken by the great
majority of commentators. But those who hold that
we have here a definition of eternal life are not
wholly agreed as to what it is defined to be. One
point of difference concerns the force of 'iva, k. t. X.,
rendered, "that they should know," etc. The two
scholars just quoted take different views of this
phrase. Weiss argues that just because the clause
"that they should know," etc., describes the nature
of eternal life, it is impossible that the connective
(Iva) can have the telic force. The clause in ques
tion, he contends, states the content of eternal life,
and cannot, therefore, be a clause of purpose.
Westcott, however, ingeniously says: "Eternal life
lies not so much in the possession of a completed
knowledge as in the striving after a growing knowl
edge. The that (iva) expresses an aim, an end, and
not only a fact. So, too, the tense of the verb
(yivcoa-Kcocri) marks continuance, progress, and not a
perfect and past apprehension gained once for all. "
I cannot but regard this view of Westcott as over-
subtle, and, in general, on the force of 'iva in such

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 315
passages (cf. iv. 34 ; vi. 29, 39, 40 ; xv. 12 ; xviii. 39)
I prefer the view of Weiss.1
But apart from this point, and on the assumption
that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God
and of Christ, there is room for considerable differ
ence of view on the question, What is the nature of
this knowledge which is eternal life ? How much
does it include ? Is it to be understood as being
absolutely synonymous with eternal life, or as being
its root or subjective principle, as Liicke and Meyer
maintain ? This last mode of viewing the passage
is but a step removed from a second general method
of interpretation which sees in it, not a statement
of the nature of eternal life, but an assertion of the
condition on which eternal life is attained. We find
that John frequently represents Jesus as identify
ing a result with the means or agent by which it is
obtained. Accordingly, he is the resurrection and
the life (xi. 25), that is, the means whereby these
are secured to men. Similarly he is said to be the
way, the truth, and the life (xiv. 6), and his " words "
and " commandment " are said to be eternal life
(vi. 63; xii. 50), where the meaning must be that
they are the means or condition of securing eternal
life. In view of this Johannine "pregnant mode
of expression" Wendt infers that "Jesus is not
there (xvii. 3) stating wherein eternal life consists
> Cf. Burton, New Testament Moods and Tenses, § 213. The
views of Weiss and Westcott are quoted from their Commen
taries on xvii. 3.

316 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
as to its essence, but wherein lies the means of
obtaining it. " 1
A similar view of our passage is maintained by
Beyschlag, who holds that it would have been incon
gruous for Jesus to define the nature of eternal life
in his intercessory prayer, while the phrase is fre
quently used elsewhere in his teaching without
formal definition. He therefore holds that the
words, "that they may know thee," etc., are in
tended to indicate in what way and by what means
Jesus imparts eternal life, and that the phrase
" this is eternal life " is used in the sense of " there
upon rests," or "thereby is mediated eternal life."
He further holds that the nature of eternal life
required no formal definition, since it is made
sufficiently evident by its contrast with death (v. 24)
and destruction (iii. 16), and by the figures by
which its bestowment is described, such as "the
bread of life " and " living water " (vi. 35 ; iv. 10-
14; vii. 37), and concludes: "The life is just that
true, perfectly satisfying, blessed life which flows
into the soul of man from communion with God. " 2
1 Teaching of Jesus, i. 244 (orig. p. 190).
2 Neutest. Theol, i. 263, 264. In a note appended to the
passage summarized above, Beyschlag characterizes Weiss's
view, that in xvii. 3 the nature of eternal life is defined as con
sisting in the knowledge of God, thus : " An erroneous concep
tion, which is carried so far that he (Weiss) says (Bibl. Theol,
p. 663, Eng. tr. ii. 411), with reference to v. 26 and vi. 57 : ' As
the Father and the Son are one, because there is common to
them the life of the complete knowledge of God,'" etc.,  an
interpretation which, naturally enough, leads Beyschlag to
exclaim: "Die voile Gotteserkenntniss Gottes?"

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 317
While it seems to me improbable that Jesus in
tended, in the passage under review, to give a de
finition of the nature of eternal life, it is none the
less true, as Beyschlag affirms, that eternal life and
the knowledge of God are closely related concep
tions. If this knowledge is thought of as a condi
tion of possessing eternal life, it is still vitally and
essentially related to that life. It is necessary,
therefore, in seeking the meaning of " eternal life," to
determine as accurately as possible what this knowl
edge of God and of Christ fairly includes. The
question has already been touched upon in our dis
cussion of the idea of God and of the way in which
God is known (pp. 65-67).
It seems to me certain that by the knowledge in
question is meant a vital and practical apprehension
of God in his true character as he is revealed in
Christ. It is not a mere intellectual conviction, but
an appropriation of God to the heart and life by the
whole nature ; it is such a spiritual intuition of God,
such a laying hold upon the revelation of him as dis
closed in Christ, as makes him the supreme object
and determining power in life. In this view most
interpreters of John are substantially agreed; it
accords with a quality of John's thinking which we
noticed in our opening chapter, — that is, the ten
dency to contemplate all the powers of the indi
vidual in their unity, and so to regard the total man
as involved in all his acts and choices. Weiss
admits the view stated above, but stops short of con-

318 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
ceding Luther's claim that the idea of inward fellow
ship (innere Gemeinschaft) is involved in the term.1
This seems to be an effort to make a distinction
where there is no real difference. If, as Weiss says,
this knowledge is " a spiritual beholding, a sinking
of one's self into the highest object of knowledge by
means of which it is inwardly appropriated and
elevated so as to become the determining central
point of the whole spiritual life, " 2 it must involve
an inward fellowshi p with God. The simplest way
of testing the correctness of this opinion is to review
some of the more, important passages in John, where
he speaks of the knowledge of God or of Christ.
Let us first notice several passages in which the
possession of this knowledge is denied, and observe
the class of persons who are said not to have it, and
the grounds on which they are so described. The
"world" is said not to have known the true light
which was shining in its darkness, and this saying is
illustrated and enforced by reference to the rejection
of Christ by the Jews (i. 10, 11). Jesus tells the
hostile and wicked Jews that they have not known
God, and adds, " but I know him" (viii. 55). It is
obvious that as his is the knowledge of personal
intimacy or fellowship, so their lack of the knowl
edge of God is due to their moral unlikeness to God
and want of sympathy with his will. In xiv. 7
Jesus says to the disciples : " If ye had known me,
1 Commentary, in loco, note (p. 544).
2 Commentary, in loco.

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 319
ye would have known my Father also, " and the con
versation which ensued shows very clearly that it is
through the deeper apprehension of his person and
through closer unity with his life that they were to
know the Father. In this connection the Spirit is
promised, who shall unveil Christ and his truth to
them that they may thereby know God. But some,
he says, have no affinity for the Spirit. The world
cannot receive him, "for it beholdeth him not,
neither knoweth him : ye know him ; for he abideth
with you, and shall be in you " (xiv. 17). The Jews
will persecute the disciples, said Jesus, "and these
things will they do, because they have not known the
Father, nor me " (xvi. 3). The sinful world knew
not God, but Jesus knew him and made him known
to men, and will continue to make him known; and
what is the aim of that knowledge ? " That the
love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them,
and I in them " (xvii. 26). These passages show
how inseparable is the knowledge of God from the
life of love in fellowship with God. Several pas
sages in the First Epistle emphasize the same con
nection of ideas: "For this cause the world knoweth
us not, because it knew him not " (I. iii. 1). " He
that loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is love "
(I. iv. 8).
So far, therefore, as eternal life consists in, or is
dependent upon, a knowledge of God, there is in
volved in it a spiritual fellowship with God. It
makes little practical difference whether we regard

320 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
xvii. 3 as a formal definition of eternal life or as a
statement of the method of its attainment. The
conditions of entering the kingdom of God are also
conditions of continuing to participate in its bene
fits. Humility, meekness, hunger and thirst after
righteousness, and kindred qualities are as truly
characteristics of the member of the kingdom as
they are conditions of his becoming such. What,
then, is eternal life ? It is the fulfilment of man's
true destiny in fellowship with God as revealed in
Jesus Christ; it is life after the divine pattern, —
Christ-like life. It is the correspondence of man to
his true idea, the realization of that sort of charac
ter of which Christ is the type. After a careful
collation of all the passages in which John presents
the idea of life, Bishop Westcott sums up their sig
nificance in the following statement : —
' ' If now we endeavor to bring together the different
traits of ' the eternal life,' we see that it is a life which,
with all its fulness and all its potencies, is now; a life
which extends beyond the limits of the individual, and
preserves, completes, crowns individuality by placing the
part in connection with the whole ; a life which satisfies
while it quickens aspiration ; a life which is seen, as we
regard it patiently, to be capable of conquering, recon
ciling, uniting the rebellious, discordant, broken elements
of being on which we look and which we bear about with
us ; a life which gives unity to the constituent parts and
to the complex whole, which brings together heaven and
earth, which offers the sum of existence in one thought.
As we reach forth to grasp it, the revelation of God is

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 321
seen to have been unfolded in its parts in Creation; and
the parts are seen to have been brought together again
by the Incarnation." x
This general view of the nature of eternal life
may be further tested by reference to those dis
courses in chapters v. and vi. of the Gospel, to which
for another purpose we have already referred (pp. 156-
164). If the interpretation of these discourses which
we adopted be correct, we may find in them a strong
confirmation of the mystical conception of eternal
life. The moral blindness, pride, and obduracy of
the Jews are depicted as the reason why they will
not come to Christ that they may have life (v. 37-40).
Had they possessed a humble and teachable spirit,
had they penetrated to the real truth of the Scrip
tures and lived the life of obedience and fellowship
with God which corresponds to that truth, they
would have had eternal life.
Still more explicitly in the discourse on the bread
of life does Jesus represent eternal life as dependent
upon spiritual fellowship with himself. He is him
self the bread that possesses and gives life. This
bread must be eaten; that is, his own person, his
very spirit and life, must be appropriated in order
that eternal life may be secured. " He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day. He that
eateth me, he also shall live because of me "
(vi. 54, 57). There is a passage in the First Epistle
1 The Epistles of St. John, pp. 217, 218.
21

322 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
which, though not very plain in its grammatical
form, is clear in its bearing upon the nature of
eternal life: "And we know that the Son of God
is come, and hath given us an understanding, that
we know (iva yivcocricopev) him that is true [God], and
we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.
This one [God] is the true God, and eternal life "
(I. v. 20). The essential thought of the passage is
that Christ has disclosed God to men in his real
character so that they may truly know him, and they
do thus know him by being in him as they are in
Christ. Union with Christ involves union with
God, and this true God to whom we are united
through Christ becomes eternal life to us. In the
knowledge and fellowship of God we realize the true
life. This " knowledge rests on fellowship and issues
in fellowship " (Westcott).
Our inquiries have thus far led us to a generic
conception of " eternal life " in John's writings. It
remains, however, to examine more particularly the
force of the phrase so far as it is dependent upon the
word " eternal" (alwvm). The phrase " eternal life "
occurs seventeen times in the Gospel and six times
in the First Epistle. In none of these cases does
there appear to be any distinctive emphasis upon
the word eternal, and in but few instances is the
phrase so used as to throw any light upon the force
of tha,t word. There are five passages, however,
which should be noticed in this connection. In two
places eternal life is contrasted with perishing or

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 323
destruction (a7ra>\eta): "God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish (fir) dirdXnTai), but
have eternal life " (iii. 16) ; " And I give unto them
eternal life ; and they shall never perish " (oi prj
dirdXcovrai), etc. (x. 28). The idea contained in the
word perish is probably that of an ethical destruc
tion, the loss of man's true destiny as a child of
God; the opposite of this idea, "eternal life," would
not, in that case, emphasize primarily the continu
ance of existence, but the attainment of the true
goal of man's being in fellowship with God. It lies,
no doubt, in the very idea of this life that it is im
perishable or endless, but the stress of thought does
not lie upon its perpetuity, but upon its nature or
content. The same will be found to be the case
where eternal life is contrasted with death: "He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life " (v. 24). It
is quite certain that the death here spoken of is the
moral death of sin, the state from which it is the
mission of the Son to raise men (cf. verse 21). Here,
too, the spiritual life which is bestowed is eternal,
not primarily in the sense of being endless, but in
the sense of being akin to God, as the closing words
of the passage intimate: "He that heareth, etc., hath
passed out of the death [eV tou davdrov, the death
which is really such] into the life " [et? ttjv t,cor\v, the
life which is truly life].

324 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
In two other passages the certainty of resurrection
is affirmed in close connection with the promise of
eternal life : " This is the will of my Father, that
every one that beholdeth the Son, and believeth on
him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him
up at the last day" (vi. 40); "He that eateth my
flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ; and I
will raise him up at the last day " (vi. 54). In these
passages, however, the assurance of resurrection
does not appear to stand in special connection with
the word eternal, but with the whole idea which is
covered by the phrase "eternal life," which is de
clared to be spiritual fellowship with Christ. It is
apparent from the associations of the word eternal
in the phrase " eternal life" that it is a qualitative
rather than a quantitative term; it emphasizes the
source and nature of the life which it describes,
rather than its continuance. We cannot trace the
genesis or development of John's idea of the life that
is eternal, but it seems as if he had derived the con
tent of the ¦vord eternal from associating it with God
as the source and type of true life : " For as the
Father hath life in himself, even so gave he to the
Son also to have life in himself " (v. 26) ; therefore,
" as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth them,
even so the Son also quickeneth whom he will "
(verse 21). It is a reasonable conjecture that John's
conception of eternal life stands closely connected
with his idea of the nature of God. That idea is
qualitative or ethical. The apostle seems to carry

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 325
every truth of religion up beyond all associations of
time and space, and to ground it in the very essence
of God. Now, since it is not the perpetuity of God's
existence, but his moral perfection, which chiefly
constitutes his glory, it would follow that the dignity
of the life which springs from union with him is
found, not primarily in its continuance, but in its
Godlike quality.
I may, in passing, indicate the way in which the
Johannine teaching concerning eternal life may be
made to bear upon the doctrine of "conditional
immortality." If death or destruction, with which
eternal life is set in contrast, be understood, not
merely or chiefly in the ethical sense, but also in the
sense of cessation of existence, and if the emphasis
in the phrase " eternal life " be laid upon the idea
of continuance, it would follow that eternal life in
Christ involves immortality for those only who
believe on him. This life, we are told, is in his
Son (I. v. 11), and in iii. 15 the correct text most
naturally yields the translation found in the Revised
Version : " that whosoever believeth may in him have
eternal life " (so Meyer, Weiss, Westcott, and Plum
mer). Eternal life in Christ will therefore mean
immortality through union with Christ if the terms
are taken in what I have called a quantitative,
rather than a qualitative sense, — that is, as refer
ring to perpetuity, as contrasted with cessation of
being. It does not seem to me, however, that this
application of the passages in question is naturally

326 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
suggested by their language or context, or by the
apostle's methods of religious thought. Life seems
to denote, for his mind, fulness and richness of being,
the realization of man's true destiny through union
with God and likeness to Christ. Such a life is, of
course, by its very nature, imperishable. Death can
claim no dominion over it : " If a man keep my word,
he shall never taste of death" (viii. 52); that is,
he shall pass through physical death unharmed;
"though he die, yet shall he live" (xi. 25; cf. vi.
50, 51, 58). This last group of passages, which
assert continuance of life for the believer, may seem
to justify the inference that for unbelievers there is
no continuance of being. There is, however, no
indication that the apostle himself associated this
inference with his doctrine of life, and the actual
statements which he makes or reports seem to show
that for his mind the perpetuity of the true life is
incidental to its nature. The direct contrast to
eternal life, therefore, would not be extinction, but
depravation, loss, moral destruction.
But if persistence of being is not the primary idea
which John associates with life considered as eter
nal, how shall we define the notion which that word
adds to the noun which it qualifies ? I think no
better answer can be given than that of Bishop
Westcott: Eternal life "is not an endless duration
of being in time, but being of which time is not a
measure. We have indeed no powers to grasp the
idea except through forms and images of sense.

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 327
These must be used; but we must not transfer them
as realities to another order."1 Reuss sums up the
meaning of "eternal life" in three ideas: (1) "the
idea of a real existence, an existence such as is
proper to God and to the Word; an imperishable
existence, — that is to say, not subject to the vi
cissitudes and imperfections of the finite world ; "
(2) "the idea of power, an operation, a communica
tion, since this life no longer remains, so to speak,
latent or passive in God and in the Word, but through
them reaches the believer;" and (3) the idea "of
satisfaction and happiness, . . . direct results of
union with Christ."2
1 Epistles of St. John, p. 215.
2 Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 496 (orig. ii. 553, 554).

CHAPTER XIV
THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY
Literature. — Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Die Eschatologie, pp.
179-191, and Bibl. Theol, The Last Day, ii. 416-421 (orig. 667-
671) ; Wendt : Teaching of Jesus, Coming again to the disci
ples according to the Johannine discourses, ii. 294-303 (orig.
565-573); Reuss: Hist. Christ. Theol, Of Judgment, ii. 446-
454 (orig. ii. 498-508) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol, Das Welt-
gericht, Die Auferstehung und das ewige Leben, i. 287-293,
and Die letzten Dinge, ii. 464-466 ; Frommann : Johann. Lehrb.,
Das Gericht, u. s. w., pp. 660-701 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol, Die
Eschatologie, u. s. w., pp. 404-407 ; Neander : Planting and
Training, Resurrection and Judgment, etc., ii. 48-53 ; Messner :
Lehre der Apostel, Die Vollendung, pp. 357-360.
Those themes of religious thought which are
commonly comprehended under the term "escha
tology " are less prominent in John than in most of
the New Testament writers. This fact is naturally
explained by his tendency to contemplate religion
as a present possession and experience. We have
seen a conspicuous illustration of this tendency in
our study of his doctrine of eternal life. A mystical
theology like John's dwells with special fondness
upon such truths as union with Christ and spiritual
fellowship with God, — truths which are independent

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 329
of time, and which tend to make the mind which
is absorbed in them relatively indifferent to future
events and changes. In the judgment of some
scholars we find almost no eschatology at all, in the
ordinary sense, in John's writings. Reuss is one of
these. He says: "The current eschatological ideas
of primitive Christianity are not found in the Gospel
of John, or, at the most, if they are adverted to in
some popular forms of expression, they are so iso
lated that they in no way affect the system as a
whole. ... Of all the facts of eschatology, the
only one of which passing mention is made, is the
resurrection of the dead."1
These statements we shall have occasion to test in
the course of our inquiries. We will, however, fore
warn the reader that we shall often find in John a
close association of mystical ideas, such as that of
a spiritual coming of Christ and that of a spiritual
resurrection, with those of current eschatology, such
as the idea of a visible second advent and that of
a resurrection from the dead. This apparent com
mingling of two sets of notions will often make it
difficult, and, perhaps, sometimes impossible, to
draw a clear line of division between the literal and
the spiritual. There are three themes in connection
with which the eschatology of John can best be
studied. They are: (1) the second advent, (2) the
resurrection, and (3) the judgment.
The term advent or coming (irapovcria), which is
i Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 498, 499 (orig. ii. 556, 558).

330 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
so frequently used by Paul to denote the personal
return of Christ to raise the dead and judge the
world, is used but once in our sources: "And now,
my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall
be manifested, we may have boldness, and hot be
ashamed before him at his coming " (iv Ty irapovcria,
avrov, I. ii. 28). Reuss admits that this passage
expresses the expectation of the second coming, but
regards it as an illustration of the imperfectly
developed mysticism of the First Epistle, which
finds its completion only in the Fourth Gospel. The
Epistle, he maintains, differs widely in this respect
from the Gospel, "and makes use of many theses
borrowed from ordinary eschatology. " J
An obvious general allusion to the approaching
end of the age is found in the words, " It is the last
hour " (I. ii. 18). The bearing of I. iii. 2, 3 is not
quite certain. The statement in the first part of
verse 2, "It is not yet made manifest (ovirco icbav-
epcodn) what we shall be, " may be regarded as favor
ing the translation of the last part which is found
in the margin of the Revised Version: "We know
that, if it [that is, what we shall be] shall be mani
fested (eav cbavepcodg), we shall be like him," etc.
On this construction of verse 2 the "hope" which
is spoken of in verse 3, as set on God or Christ,
would refer directly to the expectation of being like
God or Christ. If, however, the subject of "shall
be manifested " (cbavepcodg) is supposed to be Christ
2 Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 503 (orig. ii. 561).

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 331
(so both our English versions), then the "hope" of
verse 3 would refer, at least indirectly, to the
anticipation of his advent. It is impossible to
decide confidently between these two possible ren
derings, but I think the balance of probability favors
the rendering found in our English versions. But
whatever view be taken of this doubtful passage, it
will be seen from the other two just quoted that the
idea of a literal second coming of Christ is not
absent from John's Catholic Epistle.
The passages of principal interest and difficulty,
however, which bear upon our topic, are found in
chapters xiv. and xvi. of the Gospel. I shall
examine these passages, and try to ascertain their
natural meaning by a study of the language and
context. The effort will be to interpret what our
author has written; the task of determining by
conjecture the precise words and meaning of Jesus
himself, in the utterance, sixty years or more before
they were written down, of those discourses which
John had reported, I shall not attempt.
The first passage which we have to consider is
xiv. 3: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I
come again (irdXiv epxofiai), and will receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
also." There are four interpretations of the words
" I come again " which deserve notice : (1) Some
refer them to the coming of Christ to the believer
at death, by which he is taken to the Saviour's
heavenly abode (so Tholuck, Lange, Reuss, H.

332 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
Holtzmann). (2) Many apply the words to a spirit
ual coming of Christ to his disciples, either spe
cifically, through the descent of the Paraclete (so
Neander, Liicke, Godet), or — in accordance with a
tendency to identify Christ and the Spirit — gener
ally, to Christ's own spiritual presence with his
disciples (so Wendt and Beyschlag). (3) Several
interpreters suppose that the words " I come again "
are to be taken in a pregnant or manifold sense.
This view is thus defined by Alford : " This ep%ofiai
is begun in his resurrection (verse 18), carried on
(verse 23) in the spiritual life (xvi. 22 sq. ), further
advanced when each is fetched away by death to be
with him (Phil. i. 23), fully completed at his coming
in glory. " The interpretation of Westcott is simi
lar : " Though the words refer to the last ' coming ' of
Christ, the promise must not be limited to that one
'coming ' which is the consummation of all 'comings. '
Nor again must it be confined to the ' coming ' to the
Church on the day of Pentecost, or to the 'coming'
to the individual either at conversion or at death,
though these 'comings' are included in the thought.
Christ is, in fact, from the moment of his resurrec
tion, ever coming to the world, and to the Church,
and to men as the risen Lord " (cf. i. 9). 1 This view
is shared by Stier, Lange, Reynolds, and Plummer.
(4) The language is regarded as referring to Christ's
second coming. This is the view of Hofmann,
Ewald, Meyer, Luthardt, and Weiss.
1 Commentaries, in loco.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 333
To review all these opinions in detail and give the
points which may be urged for and against each of
them, would unduly extend the limits of this chap
ter. The language of the verse and the context
most strongly favor, in my judgment, the last
opinion cited. Christ's coming again seems to be
set over against his going away to heaven and pre
paring a place for the disciples. To receive them
unto himself seems most naturally to mean to take
them to this heavenly abode ; and to these local con
ceptions the idea of his personal coming best corre
sponds. Nor is there any strong presumption
against this application of the words, in view of the
references to the " last day " (vi. 39, 40 ; xi. 24) and
to the advent (xxi. 22; I. ii. 28). The strongest
objection to this view is derived from the apparently
different meaning of the " comings " of Christ which
are spoken of in the following verses (xiv. 18, 23, 28)
of the same discourse. These verses may well make
us hesitate to decide by what sort of a " coming "
Jesus may originally have spoken of receiving his
disciples unto himself, but they do not avail to cast
doubt upon the meaning of the words of xiv. 3, as
they stand. If they are not referred to the parousia,
they should probably be understood as a figurative
method of describing the blissful death of believers.
We must now examine the later verses of the
chapter, which speak of a " coming " of Christ. In
verse 18 we read: "I will not leave you desolate
[orphans] : I come to you. " What " coming " is this?

334 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
The connection seems to me to make it practically
certain that this coming refers to the gift of the
Spirit. In the preceding verse (17) the abiding
presence of the Spirit is promised, and in the follow
ing (19) Jesus says : " Yet a little while, and the
world beholdeth me no more; but ye behold me:
because I live ye shall live also. " The world has
only physical sight, and when I am no longer pre
sent in bodily form, the world has no more knowl
edge of me ; but ye, through the Spirit's illumination
and teaching, continue, in a spiritual sense, to see
me. Our communion is a fellowship of life. I shall
still exist for you, my disciples ; I shall still come
to you and abide with you through the presence and
power of the Spirit. The great majority of recent
interpreters agree in referring this passage to the
coming of Christ in the Spirit.1 Others have re
ferred the words to Christ's appearances after his
resurrection ; 2 others to the parousia ; 3 and still
others have given to the words a double sense and
applied them both to his corporeal and to his spiritual
return.4 Westcott gives the words a continuous
sense: a I come, ever and at all times I am coming."
The application of the words to the Spirit is, how
ever, confirmed by the subsequent verses.
In xiv. 23 Jesus seems clearly to speak of a spirit-
1 So Lucke, Meyer, Godet, Reynolds, Plummer, Dwight.
2 So Ewald and Weiss.
3 So Hofmann and Luthardt.
4 So DeWette, Ebrard, Lange, H. Holtzmann.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 335
ual "coming" of both the Father and himself to
those who love him: "If a man love me he will keep
my word : and my Father will love him, and we will
come unto him, and make our abode with him ; " and
what he afterwards says in xiv. 28 can hardly be
meant in a sense specifically different: "Ye heard
how I said to you, I go away and I come again to
you. " Since his departure from earth and the send
ing of the Spirit are counterparts (xvi. 7), it would
follow that his " coming " to them after his departure
would be most naturally understood to refer to his
coming in the gift of the Paraclete.
In chapter xvi. Jesus speaks of his disciples and
himself as seeing each other after his departure : " A
little while, and ye behold me no more; and again
a little while, and ye shall see me " (verse 16). " Ye
therefore now have sorrow : but I will see you again,
and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one
taketh away from you " (verse 22). The interpreta
tion which is adopted for xiv. 18 will have consider
able influence in the effort to determine the meaning
of these passages. Some, however, who do not refer
xiv. 18 directly or solely to Christ's appearances
after his resurrection, understand the seeing, which
is here spoken of, as occurring in connection with
those appearances.1 While, as we intimated, the
spiritual sense of xiv. 18 would probably be found to
be supported by a majority of modern commentators,
the same cannot be said of xvi. 16, 22. These
1 So Lange and Ebrard.

336 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
verses have been more commonly referred to the
reunion of Christ with his disciples after his resur
rection.1 Some have applied them to the parousia,2
and still others have understood them to relate to
a process or series of " comings, " 3 in accordance
with the " perspective view " of such prophecies.
The choice seems clearly to lie between the refer
ence to the appearances after the resurrection and
that to the spiritual vision of Christ. The whole
context, especially verses 23, 25, and 26, seems to
me to speak strongly for the latter view. Spiritual
fellowship in the dispensation of the Spirit (" that
day," verses 23, 26), a completer apprehension and
appropriation of himself, is the theme of the dis
course. Jesus assures the disciples that, though he
will soon withdraw, his bodily presence from them,
he will, through the Spirit, even more fully disclose
himself to them, so that he and they shall spiritually
see and speak to one another. This interpretation
will be found in the writings of Liicke, Meyer, Reuss,
Godet, and Dwight.
One further passage remains to be considered.
After Jesus had given to Peter the charge, "Feed
my sheep " (xxi. 17), he speaks to him of the martyr
dom which awaits him in his old age, and then adds,
"Follow me " (verse 19). Peter thereupon sees the
beloved disciple John following, and at once inquires
1 So Luther, Hengstenberg, Ewald, Weiss.
2 So Augustine, Hofmann, Lechler.
3 So Alford and Westcott.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 337
in regard to his fate. To this Jesus replies : " If I
will that he tarry (fieveiv) till I come (&>? epxofiai),
what is that to thee ? Follow thou me " (verse 22).
This saying, adds the narrator, gave rise to the
report that John was not to die, — that is, that he
should survive till Jesus came. Interpreters have
found it no easy task to determine what " coming "
is here alluded to. Some have thought of Christ's
coining to John " in a gentle and natural death. " 1
It is held that this idea alone forms a natural anti
thesis to the martyrdom which Peter is to experi
ence ; but this view involves the implication that
Jesus comes at death only to those who die naturally
or without violence. This contrast would represent
him as coming to John in death, but not to Peter.
Others think the reference to be, primarily, to the
coining of Christ in the fall of Jerusalem, though
some of these writers regard this catastrophe as the
beginning of a series of " comings " which are implied
in the expression.2 This theory aims to escape the
difficulty that Jesus could have intimated the possi
bility of John's surviving his second advent, — a
thing which was, as a matter of fact, impossible.
Since all the disciples, however, thought of the
parousia as near, they would naturally interpret the
words of Jesus as alluding to it. This reference of
the words, however, seems far-fetched, and since
1 So Ewald, Olshausen, Lange.
2 So, with some variations, Luthardt, Godet, Alford, and
Westcott. 22

338 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
John outlived the destruction of Jerusalem by many
years, not much is gained by this view in the way
of harmonizing the possibility suggested with the
actual fact.
It seems, on the whole, preferable to refer the
words "till I come" to the parousia,1 and carefully
to observe the hypothetical -form in which they
are set. Peter is to suffer a violent death before
the parousia; he is actuated, perhaps by sympathy
(Weiss, Godet, Plummer), or possibly by curiosity
(Bengel, De Wette), or by jealousy (Liicke, Meyer), to
ask the fate of John. Jesus replies to Peter that he
need not concern himself about that; if it be his
will that John should live till his coming, that can
make no difference with his own divinely appointed
course. This hypothetical statement easily became
transformed into a categorical assertion, — though
without warrant ; for Jesus did not say : He shall
live till I come, but only : If I will that he do so,
that does not concern thee.2
It will be seen that, according to the interpreta-
1 So Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann.
2 Dr. A. P. Peabody, in his essay on the Fourth Gospel, re
ferred to in the Preface, presents the view that the words follow
and come in the conversation really related only to remarks
concerning local movements, which the disciples partially over
heard, and "not unnaturally connected with the profoundly
solemn subjects on which he had, no doubt, been talking with
them as with Peter, and they imagined that by ' staying till
I come back ' he meant ' living till my second coming. ' " See
p. Ill of the volume of essays entitled, The Fourth Gospel.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 339
tions which I have preferred, there are but four pas
sages in our sources which can be pointed to as
referring directly to the second coming of the Lord.
We have also to remember that many scholars dis
pute this reference in the case of three out of these
four passages. In the order of the certainty with
which they refer to the parousia, I should arrange
them as follows : I. ii. 28 ; xiv. 3 ; I. ii. 18 ; xxi. 22.
Cautious as one's conclusions must be in dealing
with passages of such peculiar difficulty as these and
others kindred to them, two or three results seem
clear: (1) The Johannine writings, as well as the
Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles, express the ex
pectation of the near parousia of the Lord. (2) The
expression i" come, I am coming, is not always used
in the same sense. Jesus is represented as predict
ing " comings " which cannot be identified with the
parousia. (3) We are thus led to observe a fact of
capital importance for the study of the New Testa
ment doctrine of the parousia in general. If Jesus
actually spoke of various "comings," some of which
were spiritual revelations or crises, may it not be
that he really referred to some such manifestations
of himself in his kingdom, where he is represented
in the Synoptists as predicting his coming (appar
ently conceived of by the writers as personal and
visible) in connection with such events as the mis
sion of the twelve (Matt. x. 23; cf. xxiv. 13, 14),
and the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 29 sq.
Mark xiii. 24; Luke xxi. 32), and that, too, during

340 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the lifetime of persons then living (Matt. xvi. 27,
28; xxvi. 64; Mark ix. 1; xiii. 20; Luke ix. 27;
xxi. 32)?
In close connection with the allusions to the
parousia, and as showing the association of the
resurrection and the judgment with it, stand certain
references to the " last day. " In the discourse on
the bread of life, the statement is four times re
peated that Christ will "raise up at the last day"
those who have been renewed through faith in him
and fellowship with his life (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). In
xi. 24 Martha speaks of the resurrection of her
brother " at the last day. " This " day " is, there
fore, the day of resurrection ; that it is also the day
of judgment is evident from xii. 48: "The word
which I spake, the same shall judge him in the last
day;" and I. iv. 17: "Herein is love made per
fect with us, that we may have boldness in the day
of judgment." Although the language in John is
less explicit than in the Synoptists and in Paul
respecting the relations of the parousia, resur
rection, and judgment, there can be no reasonable
doubt that they are conceived of as occurring in
close connection, in the order named, at the nearly
approaching end of the present age.
We turn next to John's teaching concerning the
resurrection. The passages which we have just
noticed (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54) in connection with the
expression "the last day," clearly assert a future
resurrection of the believer from the state of death,

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 341
though they do not define the nature of it. Reuss
regards the words "I will raise him up " as only a
popular form of saying that " to the believer there is
no death" (xi. 25). J But while there is a certain
kinship between these two ideas, the former is too
definitely expressed to permit of identification with
the latter. A passage of much interest and impor
tance for our present theme is v. 19-29. The idea
of resurrection is here three times presented, in
verses 21, 25, and 29, and is again indirectly referred
to in verse 24. Verse 21 reads : " For as the Father
raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the
Son also quickeneth whom he will." These words
were spoken just after the healing of the impotent
man at the pool of Bethesda. The Son, we are told,
has wrought this miracle on the Father's authority
and in accord with the Father's own beneficent
activity (verse 19), but the Son will do even greater
works than such miracles are (verse 20), for he will
raise the dead and quicken them (verse 21). What
sort of a resurrection is here meant ? Before at
tempting to decide, let us follow the discourse a few
steps farther. Jesus explains that judgment, as
well as resurrection, belongs to the Son, who is en
titled to equal honor with the Father (verses 22, 23)
and continues: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life. Verily,
1 Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 500 (orig. ii. 558).

342 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God ; and they that hear shall live " (verses 24, 25).
Then he speaks of the Father as the absolute source
of life, and the Son as the mediate source of life,
and the bearer of judgment, and continues : " Marvel
not at this : for the hour cometh in which all that
are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done ill,
unto the resurrection of judgment " (verses 28, 29).
Shall we regard this whole passage as literal
throughout, or as figurative throughout, or as partly
literal and partly figurative ? It has been inter
preted in all three ways ; I unhesitatingly follow the
great majority of modern interpreters in deciding
for the third view. In that case we may either
regard verse 21 as introducing the conception of
spiritual resurrection, which is found also in verses
24 and 25,1 or we may suppose that Jesus' life-
giving work in both its spiritual and its physical
aspects is presented, and that verses 24, 25, and
verses 28, 29, respectively, set forth these two sides
of his salvation.2 This is a minor point of differ
ence, and the language of verses 21-23 is not deci
sive. But since this language is very general and is
intended to describe the " greater works " (verse 20)
than miracles of healing which the Son shall do, it
1 So Liicke, De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, Plummer.
2 So Tholuck, Godet, Weiss, Westcott.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 343
seems to me most natural to take verses 21-23 as a
comprehensive description of Christ's life-bringing
and judicial mission, which is described in the
verses that follow both on its ethical or spiritual
(verses 24-27) and on its physical side (verses 28,
29). In any case, the language of verses 24, 25 can
not, without violence, be made to refer to anything
but a spiritual resurrection, and just as little can
that of verses 28, 29 refer to anything but a physical
resurrection. In the former passage Jesus is speak
ing of the believer as already possessing eternal life,
and declares that the hour when the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God is already present. A
spiritual quickening from moral death which is
already taking place must be meant. But in verses
28 and 29, the dead who are " in the tombs " are
spoken of, and they are described as coming forth
to a resurrection, either of life or of judgment, ac
cording as they have done good or ill. Here only
physical resurrection can be meant.
What we see, then, in this passage is not, as
Reuss says, a comparison between the spiritual
resurrection and the physical, with a declaration
of the superior importance of the former (cf. pet&va
epya, verse 20), ] but a juxtaposition of the two ideas
which, taken together, illustrate the greatness and
completeness of the Saviour's life-giving mission.
We must now look more closely at verses 28 and 29,
and place alongside of them the few other passages
» Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 499 (orig. ii. 558).

344 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
which illustrate the idea of physical resurrection in
John. In verse 29 it is said that they that have done
good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life
(et? avdo-Tacriv £a>»)?), and they that have done ill unto
the resurrection of judgment (et? avdaraatv Kpia-ecof).
The genitives " of life " and " of judgment " may be
understood as conveying the idea of belonging to, and
so may designate, respectively, a resurrection which
results in life in the Messiah's heavenly kingdom,
and a resurrection which issues in a condemnatory
judgment.1 These words are also taken as defining
and limiting the terms on which they depend, so that
the sense would be: a resurrection which results
from the possession of life, and a resurrection which
results from the judgment which is already outstand
ing against those who have rejected Christ (iii. 18). 2
I can see no reason why both ideas may not be in
volved. Those who possess the true life enter upon
its completion at the resurrection; those who, by
reason of sin and unbelief are already judged, find
that sentence confirmed and ratified in the final
assize. When it is said that unbelievers are judged
already, that believers do not come into judgment,
and that those who have done ill come forth to a
resurrection of judgment, the word " judgment " is
used in the sense of an unfavorable or condemnatory
judgment, so that the idea of a judgment for the
righteous in the sense of a favorable sentence pro-
1 So Liicke, Meyer, Godet.
2 So Luthardt, Weiss, H. Holtzmann.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 345
nouncing their acquittal and acceptance is not
excluded. It will be seen that our passage — in
contrast to Paul — explicitly asserts the resurrection
of all men ; but there is no hint of a separation in
time between the resurrection of life and the resur
rection of judgment (as Meyer holds). Only the
former resurrection, however, carries with it the
idea of the fulness of life and blessedness which
characterizes John's conception of salvation.
We find nothing further in John bearing directly
upon the resurrection, except the references to it in
connection with the death and raising of Lazarus.
When Jesus said to Martha : " Thy brother shall rise
again " (xi. 23), she replied : " I know that he shall
rise again in the resurrection at the last day " (verse
24) ; to which Jesus answered : " I am the resurrec
tion and the life: he that believeth on me, though
he die, yet shall be live : and whosoever liveth and
believeth on me shall never die " (verses 25, 26). It
is evident that Martha is here represented as cher
ishing a belief in a resurrection at the end of time.
Reuss says that, in his reply to her, Jesus does not
exactly negative this idea, but "deprived it of all
theological value, in comparison with that other
belief, that life and resurrection begin even now,
triumphing over death in him who receives both
directly from the Saviour."1 But the contrast
between the thought of Jesus and that of Martha is
not tho contrast between spiritual and physical resur-
1 Hist. Christ. Theol, ii. 500 (orig. ii. 558).

346 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
rection, but that between a far-off resurrection day
and the present power of resurrection which resides
in himself : " I am the resurrection and the life "
(xi. 25). Jesus would call her thoughts away from
the " last day " to himself, as the One who has abol
ished death for those who believe in him, and has
brought in eternal life. Resurrection is included
in the larger thought of life, which does not, indeed,
exclude physical dissolution, but which deprives it of
all power over the believer. Probably the saying, " I
am the resurrection," etc., was also intended to point
forward to the raising of Lazarus which followed.
In any case, Jesus wishes to direct Martha's thoughts
to himself, as a present life-giving power, and to indi
cate the wide scope of that life which he brings to men,
according to which it includes, rather than abrogates,
the idea of physical resurrection. It need only be
added that the raising of Lazarus (xii. 1, 9, 17) and
the resurrection of Jesus himself (xx. 1 sq. ), which
John narrates in detail, are quite inconsistent with
the views that the idea of corporeal resurrection is
only present by suggestion in John. Moreover, all
the references to the subject are in the Gospel.
There is not one in the Epistle, where, according to
Reuss's theory of the imperfect mysticism and cruder
eschatology of the Epistle, as compared with the
Gospel, they should be found.
We turn to the doctrine of the judgment. Just as
the life-giving work of the Son is presented chiefly in
its present aspect, so John emphasizes the process of

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 347
judgment which is continually taking place more than
he does the final judgment at the end of the present
world-period. And as the future resurrection seems
to be viewed as an element, and, in some sense, as
the consummation of the Son's bestowment of life
upon mankind, so the future judgment appears to be
regarded as the culmination of a process of judgment
which is inseparably, connected with the presence
and effect of divine light and truth in the world.
There are several distinctions which need to be
carefully kept in mind in seeking to construct from
the scattered notices in John a doctrine of the judg
ment. They are such as these: (1) the distinction
between judgment when it stands in contrast to sal
vation, and judgment in the sense of the moral test
ing of men according to their acceptance or rejection
of the truth; (2) the distinction between judgment
in the neutral and in the condemnatory sense; (3)
the contrast between present and future judgment,
and the relation of Christ to each.
I have already (pp. 63, 64) pointed out the solution
of the apparent contradiction between certain pas
sages which deny that Christ judges men and certain
others which represent him, not only as actually
judging them, but as coming into the world for that
purpose. I will briefly call attention to them again.
The principal passages are : " I judge no man "
(viii. 15); "And if any man hear my sayings and
keep them not, I judge him not : for I came not to
judge the world, but to save the world " (xii. 47) ;

348 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
" For God sent not the Son into the world to judge
the world; but that the world should be saved
through him " (iii. 17). Yet Jesus says in immediate
connection with the first of these passages : " Yea and
if I judge, my judgment is true " (viii. 16) ; and else
where: "As I hear, I judge: and my judgment is
righteous " (v. 30), and again : " I have many things
to speak and to judge concerning you " (viii. 26) ;
and even: "For judgment came I into this world"
(ix. 39). The doctrine which results from these
apparently inconsistent statements is, that the direct
and primary purpose of Jesus' mission was to save
and not to condemn the world, but that his revelation
of the truth to men inevitably tests them and sepa
rates them according to their acceptance or rejec
tion of it. This principle is stated in the passage:
" This is the judgment, that the light is come into
the world, and men loved the darkness rather than
the light ; for their works were evil " (iii. 19). Light
cannot but test those to whom it comes ; truth judges
by its very nature, and its discriminations are abso
lutely " true " and " righteous " (viii. 16 ; v. 30). In
this sense (not in the sense of condemnation) Jesus
says : " For judgment came I into this world " (ix.
39), that is, for the purpose of testing men and deter
mining what attitude they would take toward divine
truth, as he immediately proceeds to say : " That they
which see not [that is, those who are conscious of
their need of light and guidance ; cf. verse 41] may
see ; and that they which see [that is, those who, in

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 349
their spiritual pride, say 'we see,' verse 41] may
become blind."
Closely akin to these passages are others which
more directly describe a present process of judgment.
That process is the moral testing which is inseparably
connected with the revelation of God in Christ, and
in so far as the work of Christ secures the salvation
of the world, this judgment involves the condemna
tion and dethronement of the powers of evil : " Now
is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince
of this world be cast out " (xii. 31). The Son con
ducts this judgment: "For. neither doth the Father
judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto
the Son ; that all may honor the Son even as they
honor the Father " (v. 22, 23) ; " and he (the Father)
gave him (the Son) authority to execute judgment,
because he is the Son of man " (v. 27). But even
here the saying of Jesus that he judges no man, if
properly understood, is applicable. He does not
personally judge men ; his personal attitude toward
mankind is solely that of Saviour. It is rather his
work, his word, his truth, which is represented as
judging men in the sense of pronouncing condemna
tion against them both here and hereafter. The
judgment is that light is come; men's attitude
toward the light involves their judgment; the light
judges -them, or — if the statement will not be mis
understood — they judge themselves. " He that
believeth is not judged ; " his attitude toward the
truth carries in its very nature his acquittal ; he that

350 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
believeth not hath been judged already, because he
hath not believed on the name of the only begotten
Son of God" (iii. 18, 19); his judgment is involved
in his attitude toward the truth which Jesus embodies
and reveals. The Saviour does not come to judge him,
but to save him, but by his rejection of salvation he
turns the saving message itself into a judgment.
This distinction must, I think, be the key to the
understanding of a passage where Jesus disclaims
even the exercise of condemnatory judgment in the
last day upon those who reject him and receive not
his sayings : " If any man hear my sayings and keep
them not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge
the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth
me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that
judgeth him : the word that I spake, the same shall
judge him in the last day " (xii. 47, 48). Only the
two-fold distinction (1) between judgment as moral
testing and as condemnation, and (2) between Christ's
direct personal work (salvation) and the judicial
effect of his truth (if rejected), can enable us to
adjust this passage to those which describe Christ as
judging. He is not the judge in the sense that his
personal desire and the whole direct aim of his
mission contemplate salvation; yet he is the judge
in so far as his truth necessarily tests and separates
men, and pronounces condemnation against those
who reject it. His " word " shall judge men at the
last day, as it is constantly judging those to whom it
comes.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 351
Having seen in what sense Christ is both the pres
ent and future judge of men, we naturally ask,
What is the import of the saying that the Father
judges no man, but hath committed all judgment to
the Son, and especially of the further statement that
the Father has given the Son " authority to execute
judgment because he is the Son [or a son] of man "
(v. 22, 27) ? On this passage Beyschlag has this
suggestive comment: "The eternal love condemns
no one because he is a sinner ; as such it does not at
all condemn ; it leaves it to men to judge themselves,
through rejection of the Saviour who is presented to
them. ' The Son of man ' is the judge of the world
just because he presents the eternal life, the king
dom of heaven, to all,. and urges all to the eternal
decision, and thus urges those who continue unbeliev
ing to a continuing self- judgment. " x Much here turns
upon the saying that Jesus executes judgment
" because he is Son of man. " Many have supposed
this to mean that he does this as Messiah, since
judgment is a part of Messiah's work ; but in New
Testament usage both terms have the article where
the phrase " the Son of man " refers to Jesus as Mes
siah. It is noticeable that here the title is uto? dvdpcb-
irov. Meyer supposes the title to point specifically to
the incarnation. As incarnate Son he is judge,
because in the economy of redemption he was
appointed to do his work through becoming man.
This view seems to ground his judicial function too
much in an " economy " or decree, and too little in
1 Neutest. Theol, i. 290.

352 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
his nature as Son of man. Beyschlag thinks that
judgment is here attributed to the Son because he is
the ideal man, the true standard of humanity. To
me that view seems preferable- which finds a thought
here akin to that of Heb. ii. 17, 18 and iv. 15, which
speak of the necessity that Christ should share man's
nature and enter into his life and experience in
order to fulfil his work. Weiss expresses this idea
by saying that Christ judges " so far as he is a Son
of man, and can in human form bring near to men
the life-giving revelation of God."1 Westcott inter
prets thus: "The prerogative of judgment is con
nected with the true humanity of Christ (Son of
man), and not with the fact that he is the represen
tative of humanity (the Son. of man). The Judge,
even as the Advocate (Heb. ii. 18) must share the
nature of those who are brought before him. The
omission of the article concentrates attention upon
the nature and not upon the personality of Christ. " 2
The passage in which it is said that the Paraclete,
"when he is come, will convict the world ... of
judgment, because the prince of this world hath been
judged" (xvi. 8, 11) has already been considered in
its general import (pp. 210 sq. ). So far as it bears
upon our present inquiry it is closely akin to xii. 31 :
" Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the
prince of this world be cast out." These words
1 Johann. Lehrb., p. 224.
2 Commentary, in loco. This general view of the passage —
with variations — is illustrated in the expositions of Augustine,
Luther, Baur, Holtzmann, Plummer, and many others.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 353
express the sense of Christ's triumph in his redemp
tive work, the certainty of the overthrow — seen as
already accomplished -^ of Satan's kingdom. They
resemble the saying of Jesus upon hearing the report
of the successful work of the seventy disciples : " I
beheld Satan falling as lightning from heaven "
(Luke x. 18).
The passages which we have thus far examined
illustrate, almost exclusively, the idea of a process
of judgment going on continuously in this world,
and constituting the reverse side of the work of
redemption. Several of the terms, however, which
are used in connection with the teaching respecting
the resurrection, such as " resurrection of judgment "
and resurrection "at the last day," prepare us to
find that judgment is also represented as a future
event. Accordingly, we read not only of resurrec
tion but of judgment "in the last day" (xii. 48).
Thus the two events are coupled together. In like
manner, the parousia is associated with these events
where the apostle exhorts his readers to abide in
Christ, "that, if he shall be manifested, we may
have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his
coming " (I. ii. 28). That the prospect of judgment
is here associated with Christ's coming is evident
from the language of the passage, and is confirmed
by the kindred expression, "that we may have
boldness in the day of judgment" (I. iv. 17).
It will thus be seen that there are only a few
passages in John which directly speak of the future
23

354 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
judgment. There are as many more, however, which
clearly imply the idea of such a judgment. While,
therefore, it is impossible to maintain by legitimate
exegesis that the common eschatological conception
of the judgment is not present in John, it is equally
certain that the emphasis of the apostle's thought
rested rather upon that of a continuous process of
judgment coincident with the work of salvation.
The final judgment appears to be regarded as the
climax of the moral process of testing which goes on
through the operation of the truth upon the minds of
men. The idea of the judgment which the apostle
presents suggests the saying of Schiller : " The his
tory of the world is the judgment of the world. " !
The conceptions of a present and of a future judg
ment are not inconsistent. The latter presupposes
the former, and ratifies and completes it. It is
quite natural that John, according to his. mystical
method of thought, should lay chief emphasis upon
the moral process, since for him the whole work of
redemption, both in its direct and remote effect, is
viewed from the stand-point of inward experience and
moral development. He sees the future as already
implicit in the present; eternal life as already begun
here ; the physical resurrection as a part of the Son's
complete bestowment of life, which has already taken
place for the believer, and the future judgment as but
the crisis of a process which is going forward con
stantly in the life of every man.
1 " Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht. " — Resignation.

CHAPTER XV
THE THEOLOGY OP PAUL AND OP JOHN COMPARED
Literature. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol, Paul and John,
ii. 513-536 (orig. ii. 572-600) ; Lechler : Apostolic and Post-
Apostolic Times, John and Paul, ii. 250-259 (orig. pp. 516-524) ;
Lange : Das apostolische Zeitalter, Das Stadium und der Typus
der Lehre des Johannes, ii. 603-613 ; Frommann : Der Johann.
Lehrb., Verhiiltniss der johanneischen Christologie zu der ander-
weitigen neutestamentlichen Lehre, pp. 480-547 ; Messner :
Lehre d. Apostel, Vergleichung der apostolischen Lehrbegriffe,
pp. 381-421 ; Van Oosterzee : Bibl. Theol. of the New Test.,
The Harmony of the Apostles with each other, pp. 253-260 :
Baur : Neutest. Theol, Verhaltniss zum Paulinismus, pp. 393-
395 ; Schaff : Apostolic Christianity (vol. i. of his History of the
Christian Church), The Theology of the Apostolic Church, pp.
510-564 ; Murphy : The Scientific Bases of Faith, Paul and
John on the Person of Christ, pp. 391-418.
Paul and John represent the two most distinctive
types of apostolic doctrine. Their marked differ
ences in personality and in methods of thought make
a comparison of the types which they represent at
once a difficult and a fascinating task. Paul is the
representative Christian schoolman of his time; he
is practised in analysis and argument. John illus
trates rather the meditative and intuitive order of
mind. Paul is always seeking to argue out the

356 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
truth, and to prove it from the Old Testament and
from experience. John simply sees the truth and
declares it, as if confident that those who have an
eye for it will also see and accept it. Paul's method
is more inductive; John's more deductive. The
former is illustrated in the piling up of proofs of
the doctrine of justification by faith in Romans.
The undeniable corruption of the heathen world, the
equal depravity of the Jews, and the multiform tes
timony of the Old Testament, are proofs which com
bine to show that salvation can only be by grace,
never by merit. For John, however, the work of
salvation seems to flow naturally from the very
nature of God as love. Paul is more analytic, John
more synthetic. Although Paul's religious concep
tions are capable of combination and simplification,
the apostle has kept them to a great extent apart,
and has dealt with them separately. His doctrines
of faith, of works, of sin, and of the law, are suffi
cient illustrations. All John's religious ideas are,
on the contrary, comprehended in a few elementary
principles, which are never lost sight of. The whole
life of Christ flows out from his nature as the eter
nal Light of the world. The whole gospel, with all
its various duties and obligations, is grounded in
the nature of God as light and love. Sin is simply
darkness, or the absence and opposite of love. Sal
vation is not conceived of as a process by which,
upon certain terms, acquittal from a sentence of
condemnation is secured (as with Paul), but as a.

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 357
welcoming of the light, and walking in it, — in short,
as a life of fellowship with. God.
With these hints respecting certain generic differ
ences in the modes of religious thought which the
two apostles illustrate, let us briefly review the
principal doctrines which they have in common, and
note such points of difference and of likeness as may
present themselves.
1. The Idea of God. — Both apostles hav an
intense sense (characteristic of the Jewish mind) of
the direct efficiency of God in all things. For both,
the will of God is sovereign, and definite particular
events are regarded as necessarily happening in
order that specific Old Testament predictions may
be fulfilled. In both writers we observe the Jewish
mode of thought respecting God and the way in
which he makes known his will in the Old Testa
ment and accomplishes his purposes of mercy ; but in
Paul the Jewish type of thought is much more per
vading and determining. In him God is conceived
of in a more legal way than in John ; he is a judge
on the throne of the world. The problem of religion
is, how man may appear before him so as to be
accepted and acquitted. To John, God appears
rather as the Being in whom all perfections are
met. The problem of religion is, whether men will
desire and strive to be like him. For Paul, God is
certainly essentially gracious as well as essentially
just, yet he has nowhere comprehended the ethical
perfections of God in a single conception such as
John's,— "God is light," or, "God is love."

358 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
There is unquestionably a fundamental unity be
tween Paul's and John's doctrine of God. In the
teaching of both writers, creation, revelation, and
redemption are accordant with the divine nature and
flow out from it, but this conception is much more
explicitly presented in John than in Paul. When
the separate elements of Paul's doctrine are gathered
up and combined, it is obvious that holy love would
best define for him the moral nature of God; but,
owing to his more Jewish, legal method of thought,
he has less closely unified the divine attributes than
has John. Paul emphasizes more the will of God,
John more his nature. Paul thinks it enough to
ground events in the choices or acts of God; John
goes farther and grounds them in his essence. I
have no question that these standpoints ultimately
meet and blend. Paul's view, when carried back to
the farthest point to which thought can reach, con
ducts us to the conception of John. It is, however,
significant that Paul, with all his argument and
reasoning, only comes into a distant view of those
loftiest heights of contemplation concerning God,
where John habitually dwells as if they were the
natural home of his spirit. With keen and just
discrimination, therefore, did the ancient Church
accord to John the name theologian, since he, of all
early Christian teachers, penetrated most profoundly
into the depths of the divine nature.
2. The Person of Christ. — Both writers empha
size the pre-existence of Christ and his exaltation to
heavenly glory ; both emphasize his relation to the

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 359
universe at large in the work of revelation and re
demption; both ascribe creation mediately to him.
For Paul, all fulness of divine life and power dwell
in Christ, and the scope of his redeeming love is as
wide as the universe. But while this lofty character
and work are by Paul ascribed to Christ, it will be
noticed that he contemplates the Saviour chiefly in
his historic manifestation. He designates him gen
erally by titles which. refer to him as a historic per
son, such as "Christ." It remains for John to seek
out some term which shall designate his essential,
eternal nature. This term is the Logos, by which
the apostle would express the nature of One who sus
tains an inner, changeless relation to God which
underlies the incarnation and saving work of the
Redeemer. John seems to advance beyond the idea
of a voluntary humiliation of the Son of God for
man's salvation, and to conceive of the incarnation
as a certain special method of manifestation which
the Logos adopted quite in accordance with his
nature. He is the perpetual medium of revelation;
the bringer of life and light to men. It is true that
it is almost impossible to determine where the line
runs in the prologue between the acts of the Logos
before and after the incarnation. Probably the
apostle intended no such line to be sharply drawn;
he conceives the revelation of the Logos in humanity
merely as a historic illustration of his eternal nature
and action. The historic is set on the background
of the eternal, and after the description of the his-

360 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
toric manifestation of the Logos is clearly intro
duced, the thought still recurs, now and again, to
the universal truths which that manifestation illus
trates. In the opening verses (i. 1-4) the absolute
nature and action of the Logos are described, ending
with the statement, "and the life was the light of
men." Then the description enters the sphere of
history and the shining of the light of the Logos in
the world's darkness is depicted (verse 5), and then
comes John's witness in preparation for the coming
of the true Light (verses 6, 8). This Light now
appears, but the description of it uses the broadest
terms. He was coming into the world and lighting
every man ; he was from the beginning in the world
which he had made (verses 9-10). The Logos is for
John the universal principle and agent of revela
tion ; he has been perpetually operative in the world:
In every time he has touched the lives of men, and
his revelation of himself in the incarnation is
grounded in what he essentially is, and in those
relations which he has ever borne to the world which
he has made and in which he has dwelt. While,
therefore, both apostles have the same general con
ception of the exaltation of Christ's person, John
develops more distinctly than Paul the idea of the
eternal personal pre-existence of the Son, and of his
perpetual activity since the beginning of time in
revealing the divine light to men, and in blessing
and saving those who received it.
3. The Work of Christ. — Both apostles agree in

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 361
ascribing a sacrificial significance to the saving mis
sion of Christ. For Paul his death on the cross is
the central point of his work, and for John he is the
Lamb of God whose death takes away the world's
sin, and the propitiation for the sins of the world.
But John appears to conceive of the idea of sacrifice
more comprehensively than Paul. For Paul, Christ's
death is a ransom-price by which men are redeemed.
Some kind of equivalence is assumed to exist be
tween the Saviour's sufferings and the penalty due to
human sin. The sufferings of Christ in some way
meet the ends of the remitted punishment; they
vindicate God's holy displeasure against sin as fully
as the punishment of sin would do, and thus they
stand in stead of that punishment, and make it
morally possible for God to withhold the penalty of
sin from all who trust in the Redeemer.
This Pauline method of thought respecting re
demption clearly has its roots in the Old Testament
and in Jewish thought. As in the sacrificial system,
the animal which is slain in sacrifice is regarded as
a victim which suffers vicariously in the place of
the sinful man, so the Saviour is regarded as suffer
ing in the. sinner's stead, and as bearing in some
real sense the penal consequences of the world's sin.
Christ's, death is vicarious in the sense that his
sufferings are substituted for sin's punishment, and
they serve the ends of that punishment by vindicat
ing the righteousness of God as fully as the punish
ment of sin would have done.

362 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
While John is much less explicit than Paul in his
references to the method of redemption, he appears
to contemplate the Saviour's sacrificial work as an
example of the operation of a universal law. He
likens his death to the dying of the grain of wheat,
which must itself perish in order that the germ
within it may unfold and the larger product appear.
Men, too, are to give their lives for one another as
Christ gave his life for them. Such expressions of
John seem to rest upon the idea that the law of self-
giving, of dying in order to fuller life, is impressed
upon the whole universe, and is, perhaps, founded
in the very nature of God. " God so loved the world
that he gave," seems to be the key-note of this
Johannine conception of sacrifice. Love is essen
tially vicarious, and the universe is built on the
principle of sacrifice. Lower forms of life are per
petually giving themselves to sustain higher forms ;
they die and rise again in a larger and richer life.
John seems to conceive of Christ's giving of his life
not so much as an act of suffering and death as a
process of self-giving, and the appropriation of its
benefits is by him described as a partaking of
Christ's body and blood. John's expressions upon
the subject are mystical, and their precise meaning
difficult to grasp and define; but they illustrate a
mode of thought which it is extremely interesting to
follow out, and one which has fascinated many of
the profoundest minds of Christendom. The few
hints which he has given us in his writings form but

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 363
scanty material for a doctrine of the atonement, but
I am persuaded that his idea of vicariousness is
rooted in his idea of God as love. In love as the
giving, sympathizing, burden-bearing quality of
God's nature lies the starting-point of John's
thought respecting the method of redemption. The
idea of outward substitution and transfer, which is
still observed in Paul, is lost in John, because the
whole subject is carried to a higher standpoint and
seen in a higher light. The essential vicariousness
of love is the principle which, in John, carries the
notion of substitution up out of the sphere of out
ward, legal relations, and places it in the very bosom
of God. Satisfaction does not represent an act of
appeasing God's righteousness ab extra, but a process
within the divine perfection whereby love — which
is God's perfect moral nature — finds its satisfaction
in giving and suffering for others.
The standpoints of Paul and John are not really
inconsistent. The Johannine idea of God, if made
the premise of Paul's argument, would lead him
along the path which conducts to John's conception
of salvation. It is Paul's more legal method of
thought concerning God, and his less perfectly unified
conception of the divine nature, which makes him
seem to follow a different track of thought from
John. But in the last analysis the two types of
doctrine meet and blend. Paul teaches that in the
suffering and death of Christ God exhibited his
righteousness so that he might be just in justifying

364 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
the believer. But when we inquire, What is God's
righteousness, and how does God exhibit it ? we can
find no rational answer except that God's righteous
ness is the self-respect of perfect love,, and that all
the perfections of God are exhibited by their exer
cise. God satisfies his perfections only by reveal
ing them and by realizing in the universe the ends
which accord with them. If God is love, the doctrine
of Paul as well as of John carries us in all reflection
upon the atonement out of the realm of temporal
substitution and satisfaction into the realm of those
truths which are esssential and eternal in God.
4. The Doctrine of Sin. — In the main features of
this doctrine there is an obvious agreement between
Paul and John. Sin is for both universal and guilty.
Paul connects sin in its origin and diffusion with
the transgression of Adam, while John — so far as
he intimates any view of sin's origin — appears to .
ascribe its introduction into the world to Satan.
Both ideas rest upon the narrative of the fall in
Genesis, and coincide so far as the idea of the primal
source of temptation is concerned. The forms in
which the two writers speak of sin are, in some
cases, similar; in some, different. Both represent
sin as a bondage or slavery, in contrast to the true
freedom which is the boon of the Christian man;
both depict it as a state of moral death, — the oppo
site of the true life of the soul. But Paul's charac
teristic conception of sin is that of a world-ruling
power or personified principle which makes men its

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 365
captives, shuts them up in prison, and pronounces
condemnation upon them. John, in accordance
with a peculiar dualistic method of thought, is more
accustomed to speak of sin as darkness in contrast
to light, or as hate as contrasted with love. The
true life consists in walking in the light, while the
sinful life consists in walking in darkness. Light
is for John the symbol of goodness or God-like
ness; darkness the synonym of evil or unlikeness
to God.
The contrast between flesh and spirit which has so
important a connection with Paul's doctrine of sin
is quite incidentally presented in John, and does not
carry the same associations which it has in Paul.
In Paul's writings "the flesh " is the sphere of sin's
manifestation, and thus comes to be used in an ethical
sense and almost to be identified with sin itself.
"The spirit" in man is what we should call his
religious nature, in which he is allied to God, — the
highest element of his personality, which leads him
to aspire after holiness. Between the flesh and the
spirit there goes on in the natural man a constant
conflict, with the result that the flesh keeps its
supremacy. It is only when Christ is received in
faith that the victory of the spirit is achieved.
John has essentially the same doctrine, but he does
not develop it in this form. " Flesh " and " spirit "
represent for him two contrasted orders of being, —
the sphere of the lower or outward to which we are
related by our natural life, and the higher realm of

366 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
reason and spirit with which our begetting from God
sets us in relation.
5. The Method of Salvation. — In describing the
way of salvation Paul's great words are, justification,
and righteousness; John's are, birth from God, and
life. In no other particular are the characteristic
differences of the two apostles so clearly illustrated.
Paul, in accordance with his Jewish training and as
a result of his controversies with Pharisaic opponents,
wrought out the doctrine of salvation in juridical
forms. God is a judge whose sentence of condemna
tion is out against sinful man; Christ by his death
provides for the annulling of the sentence. Faith is
the condition on which this effect could be secured ;
that condition being met, the claim is cancelled and
a decree of acquittal is issued. Righteousness for
Paul is the status of a man so acquitted. The pro
cess by which the result is reached is called justifi
cation. Not that all this is conceived of by Paul as
a mere court-process. It has its ethical counterpart
in the spiritual transformation of the justified man,
but the legal idea determines the form of the doc
trine. With John the case is quite different; he
has relinquished the forms of Jewish legalism. No
controversy with Judaizing opponents requires him
to meet them upon the plane of their own concep
tions. Salvation is not thought of as the result of
a divine declaration, but as the result of a divine
impartation of life. It is not described as a legal
status, but as a condition or character.

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 367
But even here, sharp as the formal difference is,
there is an underlying unity; both apostles have
at the heart of their teaching the same profound
mysticism ; for both, the Christian life is realized in
union with Christ. To be in Christ, to abide in
him, to feed upon him, are terms which represent
equally the profoundest thoughts of both writers.
Both coincide perfectly in making the divine grace
the source of salvation, and a self-renouncing accept
ance of that grace the condition of appropriating it.
6. The Doctrine of Faith. — In this article the
apostles closely coincide. For both, faith is more
than mere belief; it involves personal relation and
fellowship. With Paul it is associated with such
ideas as are expressed in the phrases "in Christ,"
"dying with Christ," and "newness of life." With
John it is associated with "abiding in Christ,"
"living through Christ," and "eating the flesh and
drinking the blood of the Son of man." In both,
therefore, there is a pronounced mystical element.
Faith is life-union with Christ. It is no mere pos
session of truths which lie dead and cold in the
mind ; it is a vital alliance with Christ, the hiding
of our life with him in God. By both apostles
equally is faith regarded as the very opposite of a
meritorious achievement which saves by its inher
ent excellence; it is the correlative of grace, and
therefore involves the explicit renunciation of merit
before God. Faith has its power and value, not in
itself as an exercise of the human powers, but in its

368 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
object, Christ, to which it links us. The saving
power of faith lies in the fact that it joins our life
to Christ. It is, therefore, not so much an achieve
ment as an acceptance.
It does not follow, however, that faith is a mere
passive receptivity. The very nature of faith, as an
acceptance of a divine life, involves the possession of
a new moral energy. Faith works by love. In
faith a new life-force is received and new powers
stir within the Christian man. It would be equally
out of harmony with Paul and with John to regard
faith as a mere act standing at the beginning of the
religious life but isolated from it. Faith penetrates
the whole Christian life; it is an active, energetic
principle. If it carries us out of ourselves, it does
so in order that it may bring us under the power of
new spiritual forces which shall inspire and ennoble
our whole nature, and impart an unwonted energy
to our every faculty.
7. The Doctrine of Love. — Both apostles magnify
the idea of love and give it a central place in their
conceptions of religion. Although John is often,
and properly, called the apostle of love, there is no
passage in his writings which lays greater stress
upon the duty of love and upon its centrality in the
gospel than does that sublime "Psalm of Love," the
thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. It would be
an interesting and instructive study to compare this
chapter in detail with the First Epistle of John,
where his doctrine of love is most fully developed.

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 369
In both, love is made the sum of all goodness. For
Paul, love best summarizes " that which is perfect ; "
it best represents spiritual maturity in contrast to
all such partial gifts and graces as knowledge, or the
power to prophesy or to speak with tongues. Love
is the quality which gives unity and worth to all
other virtues; it is the very essence of goodness
without which all outward acts which are commonly
esteemed to be good are really without value in the
sight of God.
In like manner in John love is the "command
ment," at once old and new, which comprehends all
specific duties and obligations. But John also urges
that this principle is true both in Christ and in
his disciples (I. ii. 8), that is, it is the law of the
divine nature as well as of the human, — a universal
principle or law of being. Hence he urges that as
Christ out of love "laid down his life for us," so
" we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren "
(I. iii. 16). It follows from this conception that
"every one that loveth is begotten of God, and
knoweth God " (I. iv. 7) since " God is love " (verse 8).
In love we enter into fellowship with God and be
come like him, since his moral nature is itself love.
" God is love ; and he that abideth in love abideth in
God, and God abideth in him" (I. iv. 16).
It will thus be seen that John carries his doctrine
of love one step further than Paul, and that this
step is a most important and significant one. Paul
applies the principle of love to the mutual duties and
24

370 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY
relations of men, but he does not show, at least, not
explicitly, that the application of this principle
among men is grounded in the very nature of God.
This step is taken by John; or rather, it would be_
more exact to say that he starts from this conception
of God's nature and finds in it the divine law which
ruled in the life and work of Jesus, in which men
must also find the ideal for their own lives. In this
difference between the two ways in which the
apostles deal with the same great principle, we find
a conspicuous illustration of John's more abstract
and deductive method of thought, as contrasted with
Paul's more concrete and inductive method. It can
hardly be doubted that the statements of Paul respect
ing love in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians
would, if carried out, inevitably lead to the great
conclusion (which to John, however, was rather a
presupposition) that God's nature is essentially love,
and that love is the highest duty and the most com
prehensive virtue, because the ideal of all goodness
and the law of all duty must always lie in the very
being of God.
It appears to me, therefore, that the two apostles,
notwithstanding the formal differences in the devel
opment and application of their ideas of love, are
essentially one, and that if we should carry up the
law of love which Paul so eloquently describes as
the sum of virtue, we could find no other source or seat
for it — no other ground for its authority and value
— than that to which John refers it when he says :

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 371
" Let us love one another : for love is of God "
(I. iv. 7).
From the brief comparative sketch which we have
given of the teachings of Paul and of John, it will
be evident that the latter furnishes us to a much
smaller degree than the former with the elements of
a system of thought. Paul has to a great extent put
together for us the various elements of his teaching
so as to give them a certain completeness of form.
John has given us only single truths, a series of
glimpses into great depths which he has made no
effort to explore in detail. We can hardly speak of
a Johannine system at all, and we are left to corre
late as best we can the disjecta membra of doctrine
which John has left us in his writings. The two
great Christian teachers, however, in many ways sup
plement each other, and both illustrate and enforce
with peculiar power the great truths of God's love
and grace which constitute the changeless substance
of the gospel of Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY1

I. Treatises on the Johannine Theology.
B. Weiss, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinen Grundzugen
untersucht. Berlin, 1862.
K. Frommann, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinem Verhdltnisse
zur gesammlen biblisch-christlichen Lehre. Leipzig, 1839.
K. R. Kostlin, Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Brief e
Johannes, u. s. w. Berlin, 1843.
A. Hilgenfeld, Das Evangelium und die Brief e Johannes nach
ihrem Lehrbegriffe dargestellt. Braunschweig, 1849.
E. H. Sears, The Fourth Gospel the Heart of Christ. Boston,
1872.
J. J. Lias, The Doctrinal System of St. John considered as evidence
for the date of the Gospel. London, 1875.
O. Holtzmann, Das Johannesevangelium untersucht und erklart.
Darmstadt, 1887.
E. Hatjpt, Der erste Brief des Johannes, ein Beilrag zur bib-
lischen Theolngie. Colberg, 1870. English translation. Edin
burgh, 1879.
1 New Testament Introductions, Commentaries on the writings of
John, and treatises on the literary and historical questions connected
with these writings (with the exception of two or three such works
which are largely Biblico-theological in method), are omicted from this
list, since they do not strictly belong to the subject of the Johannine
Theology. Ample references to these branches of literature may be
found in Gloag's Introduction to the Johannine Writings (London, 1891 ),
in Schaff's History of the Christian Church, Vol. I. (New York, 1882),
and in Watkins's Bampton Lectures for 1890 on Modern Criticism con
sidered in its relation to the Fourth Gospel (London, 1890).

374 BIBLIOGRAPHY
W. W. Peyton, The Memorabilia of Jesus, commonly called the
Gospel of St. John. London and Edinburgh, 1892.
J. H. Scholten, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Translated
from Dutch into German. Berlin, 1867.
F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of St. John, a Series of Discourses ;
also The Epistles of St. John, a Series of Lectures on Christ
ian Ethics. London and New York, 1893.
II. Works on more Comprehensive Subjects, which
include a Treatment of the Johannine Theology.
B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testa
ments. 5 Aufl. Berlin, 1888. Translation from the third
edition. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1882-83.
H. H. Wendt, Der Inhait der Lehre Jesu, Gottingen, 1890.
English translation under the title, The Teaching of Jesus.
2 vols. Edinburgh and New York, 1892.
E. Reuss, Histoire de la Theologie chretienne au Steele aposto-
lique. 2 vols. Strasbourg and Paris, 1864. English trans
lation. 2 vols. London, 1872.
W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie. 2 vols. Halle,
1891 ; also Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin,
1866.
W. F. Adeney, The- Theology of the New Testament. New
York, 1894.
C. F. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5 Aufl.
1886. Translation from the fourth edition. Edinburgh,
1877.
H. Ewald, Revelation ; Its Nature and Method. Edinburgh,
1884. Old and New Testament Theology. Edinburgh, 1888.
These volumes are translations of parts of the work, Die
Lehre der Bibel von Gott, u. s. w. 4 vols. Leipzig, 1871-76.
F. C. Baur, Vorlesungen uber neutestamentliche Theologie. Leip
zig, 1864.
H. Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel. Leipzig, 1856.
J. P. Thompson, The Theology of Christ from his own Words.
New York, 1870.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 375
J. J. Van Oosterzee, The Theology of the New Testament.
Translated from the Dutch by M. J. Evans. London, 1870;
also by G. E. Day. New Haven, 1871.
A. Immer, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bern, 1877.
A. Neander, History of the Planting and Training of the Christ
ian Church, etc. English translation. 2 vols. London
(Bohn ed.). Revised translation by E. G. Robinson. New
York, 1869.
J. P. Lange, Das apostolische Zeitalter, Braunschweig, 1853-54.
G. V. Lechler, Das apostolische und das nachaposlolische Zeitalter.
3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1885. English translation. 2 vols. Edin
burgh, 1886.
C. Weizsacker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche.
2 Aufl. Freiburg, i. B., 1890. English translation. 2 vols.
New York, 1894.
O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, seine Schriften und Lehren,
in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang . Berlin, 1887.
F. W. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity. Various edi
tions. London and New York.
P. Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church. New York, 1853.
History of the Christian Church. Vol. I. New York, 1882.
P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Johannine Writings. London,
1891.
O. Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, a Study of
the Teaching of Jesus and its Doctrinal Transformations in the
New Testament. New York, 1893.

III. Treatises or Essays on Special Topics.
A. H. Franke, Das alte. Testament bei Johannes, ein Beitrag zur
Erkldrung und Beurtheilung der Johanneischen Schriften. Got-
tingen, 1885.
T. D. Bernard, The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, a Study
and Exposition of the Five Chapters of the Gospel according to
St. John, XIII to XVII inclusive. London and New York,
1892.

376 BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. C Hare, The Mission of the Comforter. Boston, 1854 ; also,
London and New York.
B. F. Westcott, The Revelation of the Father, short lectures on
the titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St. John. London and
New York.
H. Kohler, Von der Welt zum Himmelreich, oder die Johanneische
Darstellung des Werkes Jesu Christi synoptisch gepriifl und
ergdnzt. Halle, 1892.
T. Haring, Gedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johan-
nesbriefes, in Theologische Abhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker
gewidmet. Freiburg, i. B., 1892.
A. Harnack, Ueber das Verhaltniss des Prologs des vierten
Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk, in the Zeitschrift fur Theologie
und Kirche, 1892, pp. 189-231.
H. Holtzmann, Der Logos und der eingeborene Gottessohn im
vierten Evangelium in the Zeitschrift fur wissenschqftliche The
ologie, 1893, pp. 385-407.

INDEX OF TEXTS

TESTAMENT BOOKS.

Gen. ii. 7
iii. 1 sq.
iii. 8 .
iv. 3 sq.
vi. 2 .
xv. 1-6
Ex. xii. 46 .
xiii. 2 .
xxii. 28
xxviii. 30
xliv. 27
xiv. 19 .
Num. v. 8 .
ix. 42
xxi. 8.
xxvii. 21
Lev. v. 18 .
xxv. 9
Deut. x. 12 .
xv. 19
xvii. 6
xviii. 15
xix. 15
2 Sam. vii. 14
1 Kings viii. 27
2 Kings v. 18
Job xi. 19 .
xxviii. passim
. xxii. 18 .
xxv. 11 .
xxxiii. 4
xxxiii. 6, 9
xxxiv. 20
xiv. 6 .
lxv. t .
Ixix. 4
Ixix. 9 .
lxxviii. 38
lxxix. 9 .
lxxxii. 6
xc. 2 .
cxix. 89 .
cxxx. 4 .
cxlvii. 15
'Prov. viii. 1-4
viii. 22-30
viii. 32-36
xix. 6 .

Pa.

Page
. 201
. 141
. 83
. 141
. 143
. 32
27, 109
. 178
. 34
. 176
. 182
. 182
. 182
27, 169
25, 180 176182182
295178 3331
33
105 4S
182
183 7827
182 7877
27, 109 34
182 2633
182182 34
8978
1S2 77
79797!)
183

Isa. ii. 1 . .
vi. 9, 10
xliv. 3 .
liii. 1 .
liii. 7 .
liii. 10-12
liv. 13 .
lv. 1. .
lv. 10, 11
Iviii. 11 .
Jer. xxiii. 29
Ezek. xiv. 17
Dan. ix. 9
Hos. vi. 2
xi. 1
Zech. vii. 2 .
xii. 10

87
. 26
. 26
. 26
169, 170
. 170
. 25
26
. 7726
78
182
182 4<>
. 105
. 183
. 28

GOSPEL OF JOHN.
1 ... 88, 90, 91-93
1-10 .... 360
1-18 . . . 88 sq.
2  88
3 ... 89, 93
4 3, 15, 61, 99, 128, 257

94
15, 99, 128, 131, 138
... 94
. . 99, 228, 236
. 15, 61, 99, 257, 332
. 15, 66, 93, 94, 134
.318
. 24, 94, 131, 24:

4,55 6-9
7.9 1010,11
11 12 107, 226, 242, 243, 304
12, 13, . 71, 94, 233, 251
13 . . . 242,243
14 . . . 95, 103, 106
14-18 . . . . 95
15  96, 236
16  96
17  23
18 48,49,70, 90,103,106,
107, 108, 236
29 136,138,161,167,
.168, 180, 185, 186, 302
32  236
34  236
36 ... . 180, 185

. 47-51
i. 11 ,
i. 16 .
i. 17 .
i. 19 .
i. 21 .
i. 22
i. 23 .
:. 23, 24
. 23-25
i. 3 .
1. 3-8 242,
i. 5
1. 6 11

221 22<i 33
33
40
38 sq.
220 304
233 207 46

, 243, 245, 248 s
14, 249
129
. 236
12 .... 228
. 13 . . . . 108, 117
14 25, 161, 180, 185, 186
15 . . . 180, 228. 325
16 57, 103, 110,' 113,
138, 164, 226, 268, 273
302, 316, 323
17 . 63, 113, 164, 348 •
18 . 103, 110, 226, 304,
344,350
18-21 ... .164
19 133, 138, 273, 348, 350
19-21 64, 99, 131, 132
20, 21 . . . 236
21  10
31 . . . 109, 117
35 55, 70, 103, 109, 268,
270, 273 226
316

i. 36 .
¦ 10-14
•. 20-24
¦. 22 .
¦. 23 .
-.24 .
'. 31 .
-.34 .
'. 39 .
-. 39-42
'. 40 .
'.42 .
'.44 .
'.47 .
, 2-20
. 16, 17
.17 .

24,

42,43
36, 138, 165
47,70 46
294315233 222
294
165, 302 138 294 62 3755

378

INDEX OF TEXTS

Page

Page

 70

vii. 20 .
vii. 22

... 139
... 33

v. 18, 19

 110

v. 19 .

. . 38, 114, 157

vii. 37 .

... 316

v. 19-21

 235

vii. 38 .

... 25

v. 19-27

. . .GO, 150 sq.

viii. 12 . £

1, 99, 128, 132

v. 19-29

.... 341 sq.

viii. 12-30

... 223

v. 20 .

55, 111, 157

viii. 15

63, 157, 347

v. 21

111, 157, 269, 270,

viii. 16 .

. . 64, 348

323, 324
viii. 17 .
. . 33, 35
v.22 .
111, 157, 349, 351
viii. 21 .
... 136
v. 23 .
. . 64, 157, 349
viii. 23 .
... 134
v. 24 .
. . 157,316,323
viii. 24
... 136
v. 24, 25
 313
viii. 26 .
... 348
v. 26 .
. 59, 157, 316, 324
viii. 28 .
. . 180, 186
v. 27 .
. 64, 157, 349, 351
viii. 30-32
... 223
v. 28 .
. . . Ill, 158
viii. 32 .
... 135
v. 30
. . . . 64, 348
viii. 33-36
viii. 34 .
... 135
... 130
v. 30-47
 237
v. 34 .
. . . 138, 165
viii. 42 .
. . 8, 270
v. 35
 36
viii. 43 .
viii. 44
viii. 45, 46
... 8
. . 140, 141
... 220
v. 37 sq
. . . . 31, 50
v. 37--40
 321
v. 38^0
.... 43, 44
viii. 47 .
. . 8, 256
v.42 .
... 273
viii. 48 .
... 139
v. 43
.... 304
viii. 52 .
viii. 63 .
viii. 55
viii. 56
. . 139, 326
... 121
. 66, 31S
. . 32, 121
v. 44
 51
v. 45
 36
v. 45-47
... 30, 31
v. 46
. . 31
viii. 58 89
113, 117, 120-
v. 46, 47
. . 220
122
vi. 1-14
. . . . 158 sq.
ix. 2, 3 .
... 137
vi. 22-65
. . . Ill, 112
ix. 5 . .
... 99
vi. 26-31
 158
ix. 39 . . (
3, 64, 135, 348
vi'28, 29
. . 228
ix. 41 . .
. . 64, 348
vi. 29 .
 315
x. 8 . .
. . . . 36
vi. 31-34
. 161
x. 9
. ... 165
vi. 32 .
. . . 159.x. 11 . .
. . . 172, 174
vi. 32 sq.
230 !x. 15 . .
. . 24, 172
vi. 33 .
. . . . 227!x. 16 . .
.156
vi. 35 .
159, 227, 233, 316 x. 17 . .
. 56, 172, 268
vi. 38 .
. . . . 117 x. 18 . .
. ... 172
vi. 39 .
315, 333, 340
x. 20 . .
. ... 139
vi. 40
226, 227, 313, 315,
x. 25
304
324, 333, 340
x. 28 .
. . : . 323
vi. 41
159, 162
x. 30 . .
. 4, 103, 114
vi. 44 .
. . 159, 340
x. 34 . .
... 35
vi. 45 .
. 25, 159, 227, 236
x. 34-36 .
. . . . 34
vi. 46 .
. . 103, 112, 236
x. 37, 38 .
... 220
vi. 47 .
159, 227, 228, 233,
x. 38
. . 115, 224
239, 313
xi. 3 . .
. . 269, 270
vi. 50 .
. . . 227, 326
xi. 5 .
. . 268-270
vi. 51
159, 160,171,174,
xi. 22
. . . 295
186,227, 326
xi. 23-26
. . 345, 346
vi. 52-59
 261
xi. 24 . .
. . 333, 340
vi. 53 .
. . . 159, 161
xi. 25 . .
. 315,326,341
vi. 54 .
159, 313, 324, 340
xi. 27 . .
. . 133, 219
vi. 56 .
. 159, 305
xi. 34
. ... 172
vi. 57 .
. . 60, 114, 316
xi. 36 . .
. . . 209, 270
vi. 58 .
 326
xi. 47-53
. . 175 sq.
vi. 62 .
.... 117
xi. 48 . .
. . . 1C8
vi. 63 .
. . . 130, 315
xi. 49-52
. . 255, 256
vi. 70 .
 139
xi. 51 . .
... 186
vii. 19
 36
xii. 1 . .
... 346
134, 216,180
132
xii. 3 .
xii. 9 .
xii. 13
xii. 16
xii. 17
xii. 24
xii. 25
xii. 26
xii. 31
xii. 32
xii. 33
xii. 34
xii. 35
xii. 36
xii. 38-41
xii. 41-43 .
xii. 44 . .
xii. 44-46- .
xii. 46 99,128
xii. 47 63, 133,
164, 302
xii. 48 . . 340
xii. 50
xiii. 1 .
xiii. 2 .
xiii. 3 .
xiii. 3-5
xiii. 4 .
xiii. 10
xiii. 19
xiii. 23
xiii. 34
xiii. 34, 35
xiii. 37
xiii. 37, 38
xiv. 1 .
xiv. 3 .
xiv. 5 .
xiv. 6 .
xiv. 7 .
xiv. 9 .
xiv. 9, 10
xiv. 11
xiv. 13
xiv. 14
xiv. 15
xiv. 15 sq
xiv. 16
Page
. 304
. 209
. 346
. 179
. 180
. 180
349, 352
185, 186
. ISO
. 180
128, 132
99, 132
. 26
. 237
. 226
. 227
_, 133, 138
138, 157,
' 347,350350, 353
. 315
269, 273
. 139
15,289 . 288
xiv. 17
xiv. 18
xiv. 19
xiv. 20
xiv. 21
xiv. 21,
. 172
. 13
. 228
. 209
269, 270
. 273
. 173
. 172
226, 232
331 sq., 339
... 306
192, 2C0, 315
. . 318
4, 49, 114
... 237
103, 114, 224
. 292, 299, 310
303, 305, 306, 310
... 263
. 270
190, 191, 194,
291,298, 299
134,191,195,319, 334
193, 199, 2C2, 333, 335
194, 199, 2C2, 334
260, 262, 263, 305
. . 219, 273, 269263
xiv. 21-23 . . . 68,273
xiv. 21-28 .... 273
xiv. 23 . 58, 269, 333. 334
xiv. 24 . . . . 289
xiv. 26 190,194,196,204,205, 207, 298, 304
INDEX OF TEXTS

379

Page
xiv. 28 . . 110, 333-335
xiv. 30  134
xiv. 31 . . . 209, 273
xv. 1 sq. . . 230, 259, 260
xv. 2  168
xv. 4 sq  305
xv. 5  260
xv. 7  304, 311
xv. 9 . . 56, 268, 277
xv. 12 .... 277, 315
xv. 13 172, 173, 177, 185, 287
xv. 16 . . 70, 303, 310
xv. 17  270
xv. 18, 19 . . 135
xv. 19  115
xv. 24  27
xv. 25 .... 24, 35
xv. 26 190, 191, 192, 194,
195, 196, 197, 205,
207, 303
xv. 27  197
xvi. 3  319
xvi. 5 '  306
xvi. 7 190, 195, 196, 206,
208, 214, 303, 335
xvi. 8 . 196, 197, 216, 352
xvi. 8,9 . . . .135,138
xvi. 8-11 . . 210 sq.
xvi. 11 . . . . 352
xvi. 12  209
xvi. 13 196, 197, 205, 206, 207-
xvi. 13 sq. . . . 192, 303
xvi. 14 ... . 195-197
xvi. 14, 15 . . . 195, 205
xvi. 16 194, 197, 200, 335
xvi. 17 . . . .195,197
xvi. 18  306
xvi. 19  306
xvi. 22 . ... 335
xvi. 22 sq. . . . 332, 336
xvi. 23 70,291,292,299, 304, 305-310
xvi. 23, 24 .... 307
xvi. 24 ... .298,302
xvi. 26 195,197,298,299, 302, 305, 310
68, 269, 270, 298

xvii. 20
xvii. 21
xvii. 22
xvii. 23

xvi. 27
xvi. 28

115

58.

xvii. 23-26
xvii. 24 .
xvii. 25
xvii. 26
xviii. 14
xviii. 18
xviii. 36
xviii. 37
xviii. 39
xix. 24
xix. 26
xix. 31
xix. 36
xix. 37
xix. 38
xix. 41
xx. 1 sq
2 .
xx. 13
xx 15
xx. 22
xx. 23
xx. 24-29
xx. 29
xx. 31
xxi. 7
xxi. 15 sq.
xxi. 17
xxi. 19
xxi. 20
xxi. 22

Page
. 292, 300
., 220, 301, 302
116, 261
,261,269,277, 301
. 268
55, 90, 116, 133
63, 134, 171
301, 303, 319
. . 176
. . 300
. . 134
. . 10
. . 315
. . 27
. . 269
. . 168
. 27, 169
. 28
. . 168
. . 172
. . 346
. 172, 269
. . 172
. . 172
. 194, 201
. . 136
. . 225
. . 207
', 105, 219, 304
. . 269
. 270-272
. . 336
. . 336
. . 269
333, 337, 339

ii. 8-10
ii. 10, 11
ii. 12 .
ii. 13, 14
ii. 15 .
ii. 15, 16
ii. 15-17
ii. 16 .
ii. 18 145.
ii. 20 . '
ii. 21 .
ii. 22 .
ii. 23 .
ii. 24 .
ii. 27 .
ii. 27, 28
ii. 28
ii. 29 1

FIRST EPISTLE OF
JOHN.

i. 1 .
i. 1, 2
i. 1-4
i. 2
i. 3
i. 5
i. 5 sq.

. . 89, 100, 122
 99
 61
. . . . 3, 67, 123
 67, 260
3, 5, 47, 60, 61, 100, 132
 5
10, 128, 132

116,117, 133, i. 6
xvi. 30 . ". . . . 306 i. 7 100,132,166-168,176.
xvi. 33  305j 186
51, 66, 239, 315! i. 8  166
90,107,113,116,4.8-10  13
117, 119, 120, 133 i. 9 64, 65, 136, 137, 166, 186
 303 i. 10  137
. . 292, 299, 300 ii. 1 . . 70, 170, 185, 192
.... 63, 303 ii. 2 . . 181,184,185
xvii. 12  24 ii. 4  10
xvii. 14 ..... 134 ii. 5  273
xvii. 15  168 ii. 5, 6  258
xvii. 17  179 ii. 7-11 
xvii. 19 . . 178, 179, 186iii. 8 . . . 108, 128,

xvii. 3
xvii. 5
xvii. 6
xvii. 9
xvii. 11

2 .
2,3
iii. 3 .
4 .
iii. 5 ,
iii. 6 .
iii. 6-9
7 .
iii. 8 .
9 13,
iii. 9, 10
iii. 10
iii. 10-14
iii. 11, 12
iii. 14
iii. 16
iii. 17 .
iii. 19 .
iii. 19, 20
iii. 21
iii. 22 .
iii. 24 .
iii. 28 .
iv. 2 .
iv. 3 .
iv. 4 .
iv. 5 .
iv. 6 .
iv. 7 52
iv. 7, 8
iv. 7-21
iv. 8

iv. 9 .
iv. 9-11
iv. 10
iv. 11 .
iv. 12 .
iv. 13 .
iv. 14 .
iv. 15 .

Page
100, 132
. 280
. 186
. 123
. 273
8, 134
. 280
. 130
148, 206, 330, 339
22, 206
10, 206
145, 219, 234
. 148
. 258
. 207
194, 202, 258
333, 339, 353
12, 64, 65, 244
57,70,71,254,273, 280, 286, 319
. . 254, 280
203, 330, 331
... 280
. . 127, 136
. . 167, 168
13, 137, 259
... 171
10, 13, 65, 265
8, 136, 140, 141
136, 137, 244, 280
.... 71
8, 140, 254, 281
... 273
.281
. . . 138, 281
172, 173, 178, 185,
273, 286, 287, 369
. 281
. 8, 10
68-70
. 192
. 292
. 260
. 203
95,234
145, 148
8, 116
8, 116
8, 192
67, 244, 277, 371
. . 6, 66, 369
. . . . 5
47, 52, 64, 274 sq., 319
. 103
. 57
161, 181, 184, 185,
269, 273
. . 269, 273
49, 260, 274
. .166, 259
. . 138, 165
166, 219, 234

380

INDEX OF TEXTS

Page

*

Page

Page
iv. 16 62,55, 239,259, 274
Matt. xii. 31 sq.
. . 152
Phil. i. 23 .... 332
sq., 286, 369
xvi. 16 .
105
ii. 8, 9 ... 181
iv. 17 .
. . 340, 353
xvi. 27, 28 . . 340
Col. i. 16, 17 . . . 93
iv. 19 .
.58
xx. 28
. . 172
2 Thess. ii. 3, 6, 7 . 147
v. 1 .
219, 243, 245, 251
xxiv. 13,
14 339
1 Tim. ii. 6 . . . 172
v. 1,2
. . .254, 273
xxiv. 29 sq. . 339
1 Tim. iii. 6 ... 144
v. 1-4 .
. .... 235
xxv. 34
. 119
v. 22 ... 246
v. 4 .
. 218, 234, 245
xxvi. 61
. . 40
Heb. i. 2, 3 . . . 93
v. 5 .
, . 234
xxvi. 63
. . 105
ii. 2 .... 85
v. 6 .
. . . .146
xxvi. 64
. . 340
ii. 17 . .
. 182
v. 7 .
. . . 192, 207
Mark i. 4
. . 250
ii. 17, 18 .
. 352
v. 8 .
. . . 238, 249
i. 8 .
. . 250
iv. 15 . .
. 352
v. 9 .
. . 234
iii. 22 sq.
. . 152
vi. 1 . .
. 187
v. 10, 11
.... 239
vii. 18
209
vi. 4-8
. 154
v. 11 .
.325
vii. 26
294
x. 26-31
. 154
v. 12 .
. . 228,233,234
ix. 1 .
. 340
James i. 27 . .
. 246
v. 14 .
.... 311
x. 30 .
. 313
iv. 4
. 267
v. 16 .
.... 297
xiii. 20 .
. 340
1 Pet. i. 19
. 170
v. 16, 17
136, 145, 149 sq.
xiii. 24
. . 339
iii. 15
. 295
v. 18 .
. . . 243, 246
xiv. 58 .
. 40
2 Pet, ii. 4
. 142
v. 19 .
. . .134, 138
Luke i. 63 . .
295
Jude 4
142, 143
v. 20 .
. 51, 305, 322
vii. 3 . .
viii. 37
294
294
14 sq.
Rev. v. 12
. 143
. 170
ix. 27
340
vii. 14
. 170
SECOND
EPISTLE OF
ix. 54
. . 210
xiii. 1 sq.
. 147
IOHN.
x. 18 . .
. 144, 353
xx. 2 . .
. 141
2 . .
.... 95
x. 22
xii, 10 .
112
. 152
3, 4
.... 70
4 . . .
... 10, 192
xii. 48 .
. . 295
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS.
7 . .
. 145, 146, 148
xviii. 13
182
xviii. 30
. . 313
Wisdom of Solomon vi. 22,
xxi. 32 .
. 339, 340
81
THIRD
EPISTLE OF
Acts
vi. 13, 14 .
41
vii. 21 . . 81
IOHN.
vii. 35
. 85
vii. 24 . . 81
xxi. 29 .
. . 295
vii. 25-29 . . 82
3, 4 . .
.... 10
Rom
i. 17
235
viii. 4 . .81, 82
x. 9 . .
204
Ecclus. i. 1, 4, 9, 20 . 80
1 Cor. v. 7 .
. 169
xxiv. 3-10 80, 81
OTHER
NEW TESTA-
xii. 3
. 204, 234
Fourth Esdras vii. 28 sq. 105
MEN
T BOOKS.
2 Cor. v. 16
. . 225
xiii. 37 sq. 105
Gal.
iii. 9
140
xiv. 9 . 105
Matt. v. 1'
! . . . 118, 119
iii. 19 . .
. . 85
Enoch xii. 4 ... 143
vi. 2
0 ... 118
iii. 29 . .
. . 140
xv. 3 ... 143
x. 2
! .... 339
Eph.
i. 3 sq.
. . 205
lxiv. 2 . .143
xi. 2
7 ... 112
v. 2 . .
. . 178
cv. 2
. 105
GENERAL INDEX

Abbot, E., cited, viii, 108, 290; on
the words for prayer in John, 293,
296, 308.
Abiding in Christ, 258 sq.
Adam of St. Victor, hymn com
monly attributed to, cited, 211.
Adeney, W. F., cited, 374.
Alexandrian Philosophy, see Philo.
Alford, H., cited, 246, 250, 292, 308,
332, 336, 337.
Antichrist, doctrine of, in John,
145 sq.
Augustine, cited, 150, 160, 199, 336,
352.

Ballentine, W. G., cited, 266; on
the words meaning to love in John,
272.
Baur, F. C, cited, 46, 74, 75, 127,
156, 189, 241, 266, 312, 328, 352,
355, 374.
"Beast," the, in Eevelation, how
different from "Antichrist" in
John, 147.
Begetting, the divine, 242 sq. ; bom
of water and Spirit, 249 sq.
Benevolence, its relation to justice in
God, 53, 54.
Bengel, cited, 150.
Bernard, T. D., cited, 189; 290, 375.
Beyschlag, W., cited. 1, 22, 46, 76,
90, 92, 102, 104, 127, 133, 156, 189,
218; on the doctrine of faith in
John, 231, 232; cited, 242, 252, 266,
312, 316, 328, 332; on the judg
ment, 351, 352, 374.
Beza, cited, 152.

Bibliography, 373; cf. Preface, p. xi.
Birth from above or from God, see
Begetting.
Blood, of Christ, theories respecting
the meaning of, in ch. vi., 159-164.
Burton, E. D., cited, 315.

Caiaphas, his view of Jesus' death,
175, 176, 255.
Calvin, cited, 152, 249, 256.
Charles, R. H., his edition of the
Book of Enoch, cited, 143.
Children of God, outside Judaism,
255.
Childship to God,251-255.
Christ, his work grounded by John
in his person, 3, 4 ; God's love for,
55-57 ; the doctrine of his person in
the prologue of John's Gospel,
88 sq. ; creation ascribed to, 93;
incarnation of, 95 ; his union with
the Father, 102 sq. ; meaning of
the title Son of God as applied to,
102 sq. ; meaning of " only-begot
ten Son," 106 sq. ; his pre-exist
ence, 115-122; charged with using
demoniacal power by the Pharisees,
139; as the giver of life, 156 sq. ;
as the Lamb of God, 168-170; his
death on behalf of men, 171-177;
"sanctifies himself " for men, 178,
179; his lifting up from the cross,
180, 181; as a propitiation for sin,
181-188; sends the Holy Spirit,
190 sq. ; abiding in, 258 sq.; eating
the flesh of, &c, 261; fellowship
with, 262 sq. ; the prayers of,

382

GENERAL INDEX

298 sq. ; eternal life derived from,
314 sq. ; his "coming," 331 sq. ;
his function of judgment, 346 sq.
Cone, 0., cited, viii, 1, 175.
Comforter, see Spirit.
Cremer, H., on the sonship of Christ,
126, 182: cited, 267; on the differ
ence between alTelv and iparav, 296.
Cross, Christ lifted up upon the, 180,
181.

" Day, the last," 340.
Davidson, S., cited, viii.
Death, of Christ, on behalf of men,
171-179.
Demoniacal Possession, in John and
in the Synoptics, 139.
De Wette, cited, 69, 91, 1 52, 167, 178,
201, 250, 257, 308, 334, 338, 342.
Dods, M., cited, 189.
Dorner, I. A., on the theological sig
nificance of the idea of love, 275.
Drummond, J. cited, 75.
Dualism, in John, the nature of,
129 sq. ; supposed bearing of, upon
the authorship of the Fourth Gos
pel, 132,-133.
Dusterdieck, F., cited, 150.
D wight, T., cited, ix, 70, 154, 155;
on the conviction concerning sin
wrought by the Spirit, 215 ; cited,
257 ; on the meaning of xvi. 23,
309 ; cited, 334.

Ebrard, J. H. A., cited, 69, 150,
153, 199, 335.
Ecclesiasticus, doctrine of wisdom in,
80 sq.
Enoch, Book of, its bearing upon
the doctrine of the fall of Satan,
143 sq.
Eschatology, the Johannine, 328 sq.
"Eternal," meaning of the term in
John, 322 sq. See Life.
Ewalti, H., cited, 189, 332, 334, 336,
337, 374.

Fairbairn, A. M., on the theological
significance of the idea of love,
287.
Faith, Doctrine of, in John, 218; in
the sense of believing that a thing
is true, 219, 220 ; gradation in, 221-
226; constructions which express
the idea, 226-228 ; various opinions
respecting the nature of, 228-235;
its grounds, 235-238; doctrine of,
in Paul and in John, compared,
367 sq.
Fall of Satan, whether taught in New
Test., 142 sq.
Farrar, F. W~., cited, 1, 155.
Fellowship with Christ, 260 sq.
Flesh, contrasted with Spirit, in
John, 129 sq. ; " flesh and blood,"
of Christ, to be eaten and drunken,
158-164, 261.
Franke, A, H., cited, 22, 375.
Frommann, K., cited, 74, 102, 127 ;
on John's doctrine of Satan, 144,
145,156,201,218; on faith in John,
231; cited, 328, 355, 373.

Gess, W. F., cited, 107.
God, his ethical nature, 5 ; meaning
of the phrase, "to be of God," 8;
idea of, in John's writings, 46 sq. ;
as spirit, 46-48; as invisible, 48-
50; "the true," 50, 51; as love,
52-55 ; his love for the Son, 55-57 ;
for the world, 57, 58; for believ
ers, 58, 59; as the giver of life to
men, 59, 60; as light, 60-62; as
righteous, 63; his retributive jus
tice, 63-65; knowledge of, how
attained, 65-68 ; the representation
of him in I. iii. 19, 20, 68-70; his
Fatherhood, 70-73 ; idea of, in Paul
and in John, compared, 357 sq.
Godet, F., cited, 22, 75, 76, 91, 160,
168, 179, 199, 201, 250, 256, 257,
262, 269, 307, 308, 332, 334, 337,
342, 344.
Gloag, P. J., cited, 1, 74.

GENERAL INDEX

383

Haring, T., cited, 376.
Hare, J. C, cited, 189; on the rela
tion of the Spirit's work to faith in
Christ, 208; cited, 213, 376.
Harnack, A., cited, 76; on the rela
tion of the prologue to the Fourth
Gospel as a whole, 101, 159, 376.
Haupt, E., cited, 1; on John's con
ception of history, 11; on God as
light and as love, 60 ; cited, 67, 69,
70, 152, 167, 246, 373.
Heinze, M., cited, 75.
Hengstenberg, cited, 336.
Hilgenfeld, A., cited, 255, 373.
Hofmann, J. C. K., cited, 199, 332,
334, 336.
Holtzmann, H. J., cited, viii, 67,
149, 154, 159, 178, 199, 201, 246,
250, 256, 270, 308, 332, 334, 338,
344, 352.
Holtzmann, O., cited, 22; on the
Logos doctrine of John, 99, 100;
cited, 308, 373.
Horton, R. F., cited, 1.
Huther, J. E., cited, 67, 69, 70, 152,
167, 246.
Hutton, R. H., cited, ix.

Jews, their relation to the Messianic
salvation, 24; their view of the
Sabbath law, 37, 38; their real
ignorance of Scripture, 43 sq.
John, the theology of, its peculiari
ties, 1 sq. ; its tendency to group its
thoughts around central truths, 2
sq. ; regards man as a unit, 8 sq. ;
the breadth of its ideas, 9 sq. ; its
realism, 11; its antitheses, 12; its
idea of religion, 12 sq. ; on the rela
tion of the temporal and the eternal,
13, 14; its spiritual character, 14,
15; compared with Paul's theology,
16 sq. ; its bearing on the union of
doctrine and life, 18 sq. ; its bear
ing on Christian unity, 20, 21 ; his
view of the Old Test., 22 sq. ; his
doctrine of God, 46 sq. ; his doc

trine of the Logos, 74 sq. ; his teach
ing respecting the relation of the
Son to the Father, 102 sq. ; his
doctrine of Christ's pre-existence,
115 sq. ; his doctrine of sin, 127 sq. ;
his "dualism," 129 sq. ; his doc
trine of salvation, 156 sq. ; his
teaching concerning the Holy
Spirit, 189 sq. ; his symbol the
eagle, 210 •, his doctrine of faith,
218 sq. ; his doctrine of the spirit
ual life, 241 sq. ; his practical re
ligious conceptions, 263-265; his
doctrine of prayer, 290 sq. ; his
idea of "eternal life,",«312 sq. ;
his eschatology, 328 sq. ; his doc
trine of the "coming" of Christ,
331 sq. ; of the resurrection, 340 sq. ;
of the judgment, 346 sq. ; his the
ology and Paul's compared, 355 sq.
Judgment, the, doctrine of, in John,
346 sq.

Keil and Delitzsch, cited, 28,
Keim, T., cited, viii, 201.
Knowledge of God and of Christ, as
connected with "eternal life,"
314 sq.
Kohler, H., cited, 376.
Kostlin, K. R., cited, 1, 46, 156, 189,
373.

Lamb of God, meaning of, iu John,
, 168 sq.
Lange, J. P., cited, 160, 190, 199,
201, 308, 331, 332, 334, 335, 337,
355, 375.
Lechler, G. V., cited, 46, 127, 201,
241, 336, 355, 375.
Lias, J. J., cited, 46, 74, 873.
Liddon, H. P., cited, 74, 76, 102.
Life, God the giver of, 59, 60; laying
down of, by Christ, formen, 171 sq. ;
the spiritual, 241 sq. ; "eternal,"
doctrine of, 312 sq.
Light, its meaning m John, 6; as a

384

GENERAL INDEX

name for God's nature, 60-62; con
trasted with darkness in John,
128 sq.
Lightfoot, J., on the meaning of
" eating the flesh and drinking the
blood of the Son of man," 163.
Lightfoot, J. B., cited, viii, 292.
Lipsius, R. A., cited, 74.
Logos, John's doctrine of the, 74 sq. ;
Jewish or Alexandrian in origin,
76 sq. ; roots of, in the 0. T., 77-
79; in Apocryphal books, 79 sq. ;
doctrine of, in the Targums, 82,
83; in Philo, 83 sq. ; John's and
Philo's doctrine of, compared, 96
sq. ; purpose of, in John, historical
and practical, 100 sq.
Love, its place in John's teaching,
4, 5; synonymous with light, 5;
considered as the ethical nature of
God, 52-55; John's doctrine of,
266 sq. ; words denoting, 266-272;
subjects and objects of, 272-274;
as the ethical nature of God, 274 sq. ;
characteristics of. 276 sq. ; whether
a subordinate attribute of God and
optional as to its exercise, 282-287 ;
doctrine of, in Paul and in John,
compared, 368 sq.
Lucke, F., cited, 67, 69, 74-76, 91,
92, 152, 167, 178, 199, 201,256, 257,
308, 332, 334, 338, 342, 344.
Luthardt, C. E., cited, 76, 107, 256,
332, 334, 337, 344.
Luther, cited, 256, 336, 352.

Man, a unit in all his powers, 8, 9;
" man of sin " in Paul, how differ
ent from "antichrist," in John,
147.
Maurice, F. D., on the true basis of
Christian fellowship, 21 ; cited, 189,
374.
Memra, the doctrine of, in the Tar
gums, 82, 83.
Mercy, the divine, its relation to jus
tice, 53, 54.

Messner, H., cited, 34, 127, 189,
266, 328, 355, 374.
Meyer, H. A. W-, on John ii. 21,
38 sq. ; cited, 75, 76, 90, 107, 114,
140, 160, 168, 172, 173, 178, 199,
201, 205, 250, 256, 257, 262, 269,
270, 308, 325, 332, 334, 338, 342,
344, 345, 351.
Muller, J., on the nature of love,
275.
Murphy, J. J., cited, 355.
Name, prayer in Christ's, 298, 302-
305.
Neander, A., cited, 1, 69," 179, 201,
218; his view of faith in John,
231; cited, 328,332, 375.
Nitzsch, K. I:, on the doctrine of
love, 275.
Old Testament, John's teaching con
cerning, 22 sq. ; preparatory to the
Gospel, 22, 23 ; the necessity that
its prophecies be fulfilled, 24-29;
its unity and inspiration, 25 ; John's
method of interpreting it, 29, 30;
its Messianic import, 30 sq. ; John's
alleged hostility to, 34 sq. ; con
trast, according to John, between
Jesus' views of, and the popular
opinions, 37, 38; the Jews' real
ignorance of, 43, 44; Jesus, the
fulfilment of, 44, 45; basis of the
Logos-doctrine in, 77-79.
Olshausen, H., cited, 201, 337, 342.
Paraclete, Christ represented as, 170,
171 , see also Spirit.
Park, E. A., cited, 266, 280.
Parousia, doctrine of, in John, 329 sq.
Patton, F. L., on the relation of
justice and benevolence in God, 53.
Paul, his legalism compared with
John's type of thought, 15 sq. ; his
theology and that of John com
pared, 355 sq.

GENERAL INDEX

385

Pauline Apocalypse, the (2 Thess. ii.
1-12), 147.
Peabody, A. P., cited, viii; on the
meaning of xxi. 17 sq., 338.
Peyton, W. W., cited, 374.
Pfleiderer, O., cited, 75, 159, 375.
Philo, his philosophy, 76, 77 ; his
doctrine of the Logos, 83 sq.
Plummer, A., cited, 67, 76, 86, 127,
159, 168, 199, 246, 250, 256, 257,
268, 270, 308, 325, 332, 334, 342,
352.
Prayer, the doctrine of, 290 sq. ;
words used by John to express idea
of, 291 sq. ; the prayers of Christ,
298 sq. ; of the disciples, 302 sq. ;
assurances of answer to, 310, 311.
Pre-existence, of Christ, doctrine of,
in John, 89 sq., 115 sq.
Prologue, of John's Gospel, doctrine
of the Logos in, 88 sq.
Prophecy, as viewed in John, 24, 26-
29; necessary to distinguish its
original sense from its applications,
29, 30 ; its Messianic element per
vading in the O. T., 30-32; Jesus'
appeal to, 32 sq.
Propitiation, doctrine of, in John,
181-188.

Religion, its nature and demands, 6,
10, 12; its inward spiritual char
acter, 14, 15; its relation to the
ology, 18, 19; the Christian, in
relation to the O. T., 22 ; its con
nection with Jewish history, 24;
John's practical conceptions of,
262-265.
Resurrection, doctrine of, in John,
310 sq.
Rkuss, E., cited, 1, 46, 74, 76, 89,
127, 133, 156; on John's doctrine
of atonement, 185; cited, 189; on
John's doctrine of the Spirit, 193,
197, 198, 201-203 ; cited, 218, 266,
312; on the meaning of "eternal
life," 327; cited, 328; on John's

eschatology, 329 sq. ; cited, 331 ; on
the resurrection, 341, 343, 345;
cited, 355.
Reynolds, H. R., cited, 332, 334.
Righteousness, doctrine of, in John,
10; of God, 63-65.
Ritschl, A., cited, 92.
Robertson, F. W"., cited, 290.
Rothe, R. cited, 67.

Salmond, S. D. F., cited, 76.
Salvation, the work of, according
to John, 156 sq. ; doctrine of, in
chs. v. and vi., 156-164; the use of
terms denoting, 164-167; repre
sented as cleansing from sin, 166,
167; represented as the taking
away of sin, 167 sq. ; appropria
tion of, according to John, 218 sq. ;
doctrine of, in Paul and in John,
compared, 360 sq.
Sanday, W., cited, viii, 74.
Sartorius, E., on the divine love,
57 ; cited, 278.
Satan, reference of sin to agency of,
in John, 139 sq. ; in what sense
sinned "from the beginning," 140
sq. ; supposed doctrine of the fall
of, in the New Test., 142 sq.
Schaff, P., cited, 272, 355, '373.
Schiller, cited, 354.
Schmid, C. F., cited, 241, 374.
Scholten, J. H., cited, 201, 374.
Schurer, E., cited, viii, 74.
Sears, E. H., cited, 1 ; on Christian
unity, 20, 21 ; on John's idea of
atonement, 185; cited, 373.
Shedd, W. G. T., on the divine
mercjr, 53, 54; on the nature of
justice and of mercy, 285, 286.
Sheep, other, " not of this [Jewish]
fold." 266, 267.
Siegfried, C, cited, 74, 99.
Sin, incompatibility of, with Chris
tian life, 13; John's doctrine of,
127 sq. ; definition of, 127; repre
sented as darkness, 129; how re-

386

GENERAL INDEX

Iated to "the world," 133 sq. ;
considered as bondage, 135 sq. ;
usage .of the words denoting, 136
sq. ; sense in which all Christians
do sin, and yet "cannot sin," 137
sq. ; its relation to demoniacal
agencies, 138 sq. ; referred to Sa
tan's agency, 139 sq. ; represented
as "antichrist," 145 sq. ; "sin
unto death," meaning of, 149 sq. ;
salvation from, 156 sq. ; the cleans
ing from, etc., 166 sq. ; doctrine of,
in Paul and in John, compared,
364 sq.
Son of God, see Christ.
Spirit, contrasted with flesh in John,
129 sq. ; the Holy, doctrine of,
189 sq. ; designations of, in John,
190-193; whether distinct from
Christ, 193 sq. ; whether or not, a
person, 195 sq. ; his mission and
work, 203 sq. ; is sent " in Christ's
name," 204 sq. ; his work in the
apostolic age, 209; his relation to
unbelievers, 210 sq.
Stier, R., cited, 332.
Strong, A. H., on the divine love
and justice, 53, 285, 286.

Targums, doctrine of the Word in,
82, 83.
Temple, meaning of reference to in
the words, " Destroy this temple,"
&c, 38-42.
Thayer's Lexicon, cited, 267.
Theology, John's contribution to,
15 sq. ; its relation to religion, 18,
19 ; of Paul and John, compared,
355.
Theology, Biblical, its aim and
method, 1, 2.
Tholuck, A., cited, 108, 193, 199,
201, 250, 256, 308, 331, 342.
Thompson, J. P., cited, 376.
Tischendorf, C, cited, 140, 246,
Toy, C. H , cited, 28.
Tbeqelles, S. P., cited, 246.

Trench, R. C, on the words mean
ing to pray in John, 292 sq. ; cited,
307, 308.

Unity, Christian, bearing of John's
teaching upon, 20, 21.

Van Oosterzee, J. J., cited, 241;
on the significance of " God is
love," 275; cited, 355, 375.

Washburn, E. A., his translation of
Adam of St. Victor's hymn to John,
cited, 211.
Watkins, H. W., cited, viii, 373.
Weber, F., cited, 82.
Weiss, B., cited, 1, 22; on John ii.
21, 41; cited, 46; on the knowl
edge of God, 66; cited, 74, 76, 88,
90, 102; on the meaning of Son of
God in John, 103 sq. ; cited, 107,
127, 140, 154, 156; on the meaning
of Christ's flesh and blood in ch. vi.
162; cited, 167, 168, 173, 178, 189,
199, 201, 218 ; his view of John's
doctrine of faith, 228 sq. ; cited,
241, 246; on faith, 252, 253; cited,
256, 257, 259, 262, 269-271, 290,
308, 312, 316, 318, 325, 328, 332,
334, 336, 338, 342, 344, 352, 373.
Wendt, H. H., cited, 22, 32; on
John x. 8, 36; on John ii. 21, 41;
cited, 46, 72, 102, 104; on the pre-
existence and sonship of Christ,
115-122; cited, 127; cited, 156; on
the meaning of Christ's flesh and
blood in ch. vi., 162; cited, 218;
his view of John's doctrine of faith,
230; cited, 241, 266, 312, 316, 328,
332, 374.
Weizsacker, K., cited, 76, 88, 99,
308.
Westcott, B. F., cited, 1, 22, 46
67,69, 70, 75, 91, 108, 127, 149, 151;
on "Sin unto death," 150 sq.; on

GENERAL INDEX

387

the meaning of Christ's flesh and
blood in ch. vi., 162 ; cited, 168, 179,
182, 190, 199, 204 ; on the convic
tion of the world by the Spirit, 214;
cited, 241, 246, 250; on childship in
John, 253; cited, 256, 257, 262, 266,
270; on the doctrine of love, 275;
cited, 290, 292, 308, 312; on the
meaning of "eternal life," 320;
cited, 325; on the parousia, 332;
cited, 336, 337, 342; on the judg
ment, 352; cited, 376.

Westcott and Hort, cited, 108,
246.
Whither, J. G., his poem Palestine,
cited, 225, 226.
Wisdom, Book of, doctrine of wis
dom in, 81 sq.
Word, see Logos.
Wordsworth, C, cited, 292.
World, John's doctrine of the, 133 so.

Zeller, E., cited, 75.

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES AND
HOMILETICS.

MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. By Prof. GEORGE
PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical
History in Yale College. 16mo, 75 cents.
The aim of the book is to present the Evidences of Christianity in
a concise, lucid form, for the benefit of those who have not the leisure
to study extended treatises on the subject. It is intended both for
private reading and for the use of classes in public institutions. Al
though brief, it includes a distinct statement of both the internal and
external proofs. The arguments are shaped to meet objections and
difficulties which are felt at the present time, and the historic evidence
is carefully confined to the present state of scholarship and learning.
THE EXAMINER.— "It Is worth its weight in gold. It is by all oddB the best
treatise on the Evidences of Christianity for general nse that we know. It Is
sound, judicious, clear, and scholarly."
THE N. Y. SUN.— "Compact, thorough, and learned, Its simplicity of style
and brevity onght to commend It to a wide circle of readers."
THE GROUNDS OF THEISTIC AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. By
Prof. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D,, LL.D. Crown 8vo, $2.50.
FROM THE PREFACE.—" This volume embraces a discussion of the evidences
of both natural and revealed religion. Prominence Is given to topics having
special Interest at present from their connection with modern theories and diffi
culties. The argument of design, and the bearing of evolutionary doctrines on
Its validity, are fully considered."
JULIUS H. SEELYE, PresiOent of Amherst College.— "1 find It as I should
expect It to be, wise and candid, and convincing to an honest mind."
PROF. JAMES O. MURRAY, of Princeton College.—" It Is eminently fitted to
meet the honest donbts of some of onr best young men. Its fairness and candor,
Its learning and ability In argument, Its thorough handling of modern objections
—all these qualities fit It for such a service, and a great service It Is."
ESSAYS ON THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN
ITY. By Prof. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D. 8vo,
new and enlarged edition, $2.50.
THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.— "His volume evlncesrare versatility of Intellect,
with a scholarship no less sound and judicious in Its tone and extensive In Its
attainments than It Is modest In Its pretensions."
THE BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW.— "We know not where the student will
find a more satisfactory guide In relation to the great questions which have grown
np between the friends of the Christian revelation and the most able of Its assail
ants, within the memory of the present generation."

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS'

THE PHILOSOPHIC BASIS OF THEISM. An Examination of the
Personality of Man, to Ascertain his Capacity to Know and
Serve God, and the Validity of the Principle Underlying the
Defence of Theism. By SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., LL.D., Pro
fessor of Systematic Theology in Yale College. 8vo, $3.50.
Dr. Harris embodies in his work the results of his long meditation
on the highest themes, and his long discussion and presentation of
these truths in the class-room. His fundamental positions are thor
oughly in harmony with soundest modern thought and most trust
worthy modern knowledge.
THE INDEPENDENT.— "It Is rare that a work, which Ifl of necessity, bo
severely metaphysical in both topics and treatment, Is so enlivened by the
varied contributions of a widely cultivated mind from a liberal course of
reading. His passionate and candid argument cannot fail to command the
respect of any antagonist of the Atheistic or Agnostic schools, who will take
the pains to read his criticisms or to review his argument. In respect to coolness
and dignity and self-possession, his work Is an excellent model for scientists,
metaphysicians, and theologians of every complexion."
THE HARTFORD COURANT.— "Professor Harris' horizon-lines are nncon-
tracted. His survey of the entire realm he traverses is accurate, patient, and
considerate. No objections are evaded. No conclusions are reached by saltatory
movements. The utmost fairness and candor characterize his discussions. No
more thoroughly scientific work in plan or method or spirit has been done in onr
time. On almost every page one meets with evidences of a wide and reflec
tive reading, not only of philosophy, but of poetry and fiction as well, which
enriches and illumines the whole course of thought."
THE SELF-REVELATION OF GOD. By SAMUEL HARRIS,
D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Yale Col
lege. 8vo, $3.50.
In this volume Dr. Harris presents a statement of the evidence of
the existence of God, and of the reality of His revelation of Himself
in the experience or consciousness of men, and the verification of the
same by His further revelation of Himself in the constitution and
ongoing of the universe, and in Christ.
PROF. WM. G. T. SHEDD, D.D., in The Presbyterian Review— "Such a
work Is not brought out In a day, but is the growth of years of professional study
and reflection. Few books on apologetics have been recently produced that will
be more influential and formative upon the mind of the theological or philosophi
cal stndent, or more useful. It is calculated to influence opinions, and to influence
them truthfully, seriously, and strongly."
BISHOP HURST, in The Northwestern Christian Advocate.— •• We do not know
a better work among recent publications than this one for building up old hopes
and giving a new strength to one's faith. The book is thoroughly evangelic,
fresh, and well wrought out. It is a valuable contribution to our American
meology."

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

THE THEORY OF PREACHING; or, Lectures on Homiletics.
By Professor AUSTIN PHELPS. 8vo, $2.50.
This work is the growth of more than thirty years' practical ex
perience in teaching. The writings of a master of style, of broad and
catholic mind are always fascinating ; in the present case the wealth
of appropriate and pointed illustration renders this doubly the case.
THE NEW YORK CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.— "Ministers of all denominations
and of all degrees of experience will rejoice in it as a veritable mine of wisdom."
THE INDEPENDENT.—" The volume is to be commended to young men as a
superb example of the art in which it aims to Instruct them."
THE WATCHMAN.— "The reading of it is a mental tonic. The preacher
cannot but feel often his heart burning within him under its influence. We could
wish It might be in the hands of every theological student and of every pastor."
MEN AND BOOKS; OR, STUDIES IN HOMILETICS. Lectures
Introductory to the "Theory of Preaching." By Professor
AUSTIN PHELPS, D.D. Crown 8vo, $2.00.
Professor Phelps' second volume of lectures is devoted to a dis
cussion of the sources of culture and power in the profession of the
pulpit, its power to absorb and appropriate to its own uses the world
of real life in the present, and the world of the past, as it lives in
books. PROFESSOR George p. fisher.— "It is a live book, animated as well as
sound and Instructive, in which conventionalities are brushed aside, and the
author goes straight to the marrow of the subject. No minister can read It
without being waked up to a higher conception of the possibilities of his calling."
BOSTON WATCHMAN.—" We are sure that no minister or candidate for the
ministry can read it without profit. It is a tonic for one's mind to read a book so
laden with thought and suggestion, and written in a style so fresh, strong, and
bracing." A TREATISE ON HOMILETICS AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY.
By W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D. Crown 8vo, $2.50.
In this work, treating of the main points of Homiletics and Pastoral
Theology, the author handles his subject in a masterly manner, and
displays much original and highly suggestive thought. The Homileti-
cal part is especially valuable to ministers aud those in training for the
ministry. Dr. Shedd's style is a model of purity, simplicity and
strength. THE NEW YORK EVANGELIST.— "We cannot but regard it as, on the whole,
the very best production of the kind with which we are acquainted. The topics
discussed are of the first importance to every minister of Christ engaged In active
service, and their discussion is conducted by earnestness as well as ability, and in
a style which for clear, vigorous, and unexceptionable English, is Itself a model."
THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— "The ablest book on the subject wbJoh
the generation has produced."

CHURCH HISTORY.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. With a View of tho
State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ. By
GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church
History in Yale College. 8vo, $2.50.
THE BOSTON ADVERTISER.— " Prof. Fisher has displayed In this, as in his
previous published writings, that catholicity and that calm judicial quality ol
mind which are so indispensable to a true historical critic."
THE EXAMINER  "The volume is not a dry repetition of wejl-known facta.
It bears the marks of original research. Every page glows with freshness of
material and choiceness of diction."
THE EVANGELIST.— "The volume contains an amount of information that
makes it one of the most useful of treatises for a student in philosophy and
theology, and must secure for it a place in his library as a standard authority."
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. By GEORGE P.
FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in
Yale University. 8vo, with numerous maps, $3,50.
This work is in several respects notable. It gives an able presenta
tion of the subject in a single volume, thus supplying the need of a
complete and at the same time condensed survey of Church History.
It will also be found much broader and more comprehensive than other
books of the kind.
HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.— "I have to tell you of the pride and delight
with which I have examined your rich and most instructive volume. As an
American, let me thank yon for producing a work bo honorable to the country."
REV. R. S. STORRS, D.D  "I am surprised that the author has been able to
put such multitudes of facts, with analysis of opinions, definitions of tendencies,
and concise personal sketches, into a narrative at once so graceful, graphic, and
compact." PROF. ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, Episcopal Divinity School, Cambrictge,
Mass.— "It has the merit of being eminently readable, its conclusions rest on the
widest research and the latest and best scholarship, it keeps a just sense of pro
portion in the treatment of topics, tt is written in the interest of Christianity as a
whole and not of any sect or church, it is so entirely impartial that it is not easy
to discern the author's sympathies or his denominational attitude, and it has the
great advantage of dwelling at due length upon English and American Churca
history. In short, it is a work which no one but a long and successful teacher oi
Church History could Lave produced."

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. By PHILIP SCHAFF,
D.D. New Edition, re-written and enlarged. Vol. I.- Apos
tolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100. Vol. II— Ante-Nicene Chris
tianity, A.D. 100—325. Vol. Ill— Nicene and Post-Nicene
Christianity, A.D. 311-600. Vol. IV— Mediaeval Christianity,
A.D. 590— 1073. Vol. VI— Modern Christianity. The German
Reformation, A.D. 1517—1530. 8vo, price per vol., $4.00.
This work is extremely comprehensive. All subjects that properly
belong to a complete sketch are treated, including the history of Chris
tian art, hymnology, accounts of the lives and chief works of the
Fathers of the Church, etc. The great theological, christological, and
anthropological controversies of the period are duly sketched ; and in
all the details of history the organizing hand of a master is distinctly
seen, shaping the mass of materials into order and system.
PROF. GEO. P. FISHER, of Tale College.— " Dr. Schaff has thoroughly and
successfully accomphshed his task. The volumes are replete with evidences of a
careful study of the original sources and of an extraordinary and, we might say,
unsurpassed acquaintance with the modern literature — German, French, and
English— In the department of ecclesiastical history. They are equally marked by
a fair-minded, conscientious Bplrit, as well as by a lucid, animated mode of
presentation." PROF. ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK, D.D  "In no other single work of
its kind with which I am acquainted will students and general readers find so
much to instruct and interest them."
DR. JUL. MULLER, of Halle.— " It is the only history of the first six cen
turies which truly satisfies the wants of the present age. It is rich in results of
original investigation."
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, IN CHRONOLOGI
CAL TABLES. A Synchronistic View of the Events, Charac
teristics, and Culture of each period, including the History of
Polity, Worship, Literature, and Doctrines, together with two
Supplementary Tables upon the Church in America; and an
Appendix, containing the series of Councils, Popes, Patri
archs, and other Bishops, and a full Index. By the late
HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., Professor in the Union Theologi
cal Seminary of the City of New York. Folio, $5.00.
REV. DR. W. G. T. SHEDD.— " Prof. Smith's Historical Tables are the best
that I know of In any language. In preparing such a work, with so much care and
research, Prof. Smith has furnished to the student an apparatus that will be of
Ufe-Iong service to him"
REV. DR. WILLIAM ADAMS.— "The labor expended upon such a work Is
immense, and its accuracy and completeness do honor to the research and
scholarship of its author, and are an invaluable acquisition to our literature."

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS'

LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. By
ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. With Maps and Plans.
New Edition from New Plates, with the author's latest revis
ion. Part I— From Abraham to Samuel. Part II— From
Samuel to the Captivity. Part lll.-From the Captivity to
the Christian Era. Three vols., 12mo (sold separately), each
$2.00.
The same— Westminster Edition. Three vols., 8vo (sold in sets
only), per set, $9.00.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.
With an introduction on the Study of Ecclesiastical History.
By ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. New Edition from
New Plates. 12mo, $2.00.
LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOT
LAND. By ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. 8vo, $1.50.
In all that concerns the external characteristics of the scenes and
persons described, Dr. Stanley is entirely at home. TTih books are not
dry records of historic events, but animated pictures of historic scenes
and of the actors in them, while the human motives and aspects of
events are brought out in bold and full relief.
THE LONDON CRITIC— "Earnest, eloquent, learned, with a style that Is
never monotonous, bnt Inring through its eloquence, the lectures will maintain
his fame as anthor, scholar, and divine. We could point out many passages that
glow with a true poetic fire, but there are hundreds pictorially rich and poetically
true. The reader experiences no weariness, for in every page and paragraph
there Ib something to engage the mind and refresh the soul."
THE NEW ENGLANDER.—" We have first to express our admiration of the
grace and graphic beauty of his style. The felicitous discrimination in the use
of language which appears on every page is especially required on these topics,
where the author's position might so easily be mistaken through an unguarded
3tatement. Dr. Stanley is possessed of the prime quality of an historical student
md writer— namely, the historical feeling, or sense, by which conditions of life
ind types of character, remote from our present experience, are vividly con
ceived of and truly appreciated."
THE N. Y. TIMES.— "The Old Testament History is here presented as it
never was presented before ; with so much clearness, elegance of style, and his
toric and literary Illustration, not to speak of learning and calmness of judgment,
that not theologians alone, but also cultivated readers generally, are drawn to its
pages. In point of style it takes rank with Macaulay's History alii the beat
ehapters of Froude."

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

LECTURES ON MEDIEVAL CHURCH HISTORY. By RICHARD
C. TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 8vo, $3.00.
In this work the author discusses the more important epochs of
Church History, tracing the origin and growth of various sects and
sketching the careers of the great Schoolmen and Reformers. Intro
ducing his subject with a general consideration of the study of Church
History, he devotes his early chapters to the beginning of the Middle
Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, the conversion of England and Ger
many, Monasticism and the Crusades, with accounts of the Mendicant
Orders and the Waldenses. His later chapters treat of the great coun
cils of the West, Wiclif, Hus, and their followers, with a view of
Christian art, life, and work down to the eve of the Reformation.
THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIANITY WITH HEATHENISM. By
Dr. GERHARD UHLHORN. Translatedlby Prof. Egbert C.
Smyth and Rev. C. J. H. Ropes. Crown 8vo, $2.50.
This volume describes with extraordinary vividness and spirit the
religious and moral condition of the Pagan world, the rise and spread
of Christianity, its conflict with heathenism, and its final victory.
THE BOSTON ADVERTISER.— "It is easy to see why this volume IB so highly
esteemed. It is systematic, thorough, and concise. But its power is in the wide
mental vision and well-balanced imagination of the author, which enable him to
re-construct the scenes of ancient history. An exceptional clearness and force
mark his style."
THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL TIMES.— "One might read many books without
obtaining more than a fraction of the profitable information here conveyed, and
he might search a long time before finding one which would so thoroughly fix
his attention and command his Interest "
A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By W. G. T. SHEDD,
Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological
Seminary. 2 vols., 8vo, $5.00.
The work is divided into seven books : 1. — The Influence of Philo
sophical Systems ; 2.— History of Apologies; 3.— History of Theology;
4.— History of Anthropology ; 5.— Of Soteriology; 6.— Of Eschatol
ogy ; 7. —Of Symbols. The style is lucid and penetrating, the dis
cussions move onward according to the law of the subjects themselves,
as evoked in history ; and new light is thrown on past thought by
pertinent illustration from subsequent times.
THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.— "Dr. Shedd has furnished an important
contribution to the study of Church history. It is eminently a readable book, and
will, no doubt, be extensively read beyond the circle of his own profession by
intelligent laymen in all walks of life."
THEN. Y. EVENING POST.— " A body of theological history which is In form
as perfect as It is in substance excellent."

BIBLICAL STUDY.

BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and History. By
CHARLES A. BRICGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and
Cognate Languages in Union Theological Seminary. Crown
8vo, $2.50.
The author has aimed to present a guide to Biblical Study for the
intelligent layman as well as the theological student and minister of
the Gospel. At the same time a sketch of the entire history of each
department of Biblical Study has been given, the stages of its develop
ment are traced, the normal is discriminated from the abnormal, and
the whole is rooted in the methods of Christ and His Apostles.
the boston advertiser.— ¦¦ The principles, methods, and history of
Biblical study are very f nlly considered, and it is one of the best works of its kind
in the language, if not the only book wherein the modern methods of the study
of the Bible are entered into, apart from direct theological teaching."
THE LONDON SPECTATOR.— "Dr. Briggs' book is one of much value, not the
less to be esteemed because of the moderate compass Into which its mass of in
formation has been compressed."
MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Prediction of the Fulfilment of
Redemption through the Messiah. A Critical Study of the
Messianic Passages of the Old Testament in the Order of
their Development. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Pro
fessor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary. Crown 8vo, $2.50.
In this work the author develops and traces "the prediction of
the fulfilment of redemption through the Messiah" through the whole
series of Messianic passages and prophecies in the Old Testament.
Beginning with the first vague intimations of the great central thought
of redemption he arrays one prophecy after another ; indicating clearly
the general condition, mental and spiritual, out of which each prophecy
arises ; noting the gradual widening, deepening, and clarification of
the prophecy as it is developed from one prophet to another to the
end of the Old Testament canon.
THE LONDON ACADEMY.— "His new book on Messianic Prophecy is a
worthy companion to his indispensable text-book on Biblical study. He has pro
duced the first English text-book on the subject of Messianic Prophecy which a
modern teacher can nse."
THE EVANGELIST.— "Messianic Prophecy is a subject of no common inter
est, and this book is no ordinary book. It is, on the contrary, a work of the very
first order ; the ripe prodnct of years of study upon the highest themes. It is
exegesis in a master-hand."

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

THE BEGINNINGS OF HISTORY. According to the Bible and
the Traditions of the Oriental Peoples. From the Creation
of Man to the Deluge. By FRANCOIS LENORMANT, Pro
fessor of Archaeology at the National Library of France, etc.
(Translated from the Second French Edition). With an in
troduction by Francis Brown, Associate Professor in Biblical
Philology, Union Theological Seminary. 12mo, $2.50.
THE NEW ENGLANDER.— "Mr. Lenormant is not only a believer in reve
lation, but a devout confessor of what came by Moses ; as well as of what came
by Christ. In this explanation of Chaldean, Babylonian, Assyrian and Pheniclan
tradition, he discloses a prodigality of thought and skill allied to great variety of
pursuit, and diligent manipulation of what he has secured."
THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.— "The work is one that deserves to be studied
by all students of ancient history, and in particular by ministers of the Gospel,
whose office requires them to interpret the Scriptures, and who ought not to be
Ignorant of the latest and most Interesting contribution of science to the elucida
tion of the sacred volume."
QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. By C. H. TOY,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 8vo, $3.50.
THE CONGREGATION ALIST.—" Textual points are considered carefully, and
ample and accurate indexes complete the work. The minute and patient
thoroughness of his examination of passages and the clear and compact arrange
ment of his views render his book remarkable. The difficulties of his task were
great and he has shown rare skill and has attained noteworthy success in meeting
them." THE CHRISTIAN E V A NGELIST.— " Prof . Toy's collection and comparison of
the passages quoted in the New and Old TeBtament is a fine, scholarly piece of
work. It surpasses anything that has been done by European scholarship in this
field." THE CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF GENESIS. By GEORGE
SMITH, of the Department of Oriental Antiquities, British
Museum. A New Edition, revised and corrected (with addi
tions), by A. H. Sayce. 8vo, $3.00.
THE N. Y. GUARDIAN.— "It is impossible in few words to give any adequate
Impression of the exceeding value of this work. This volume is sure to find its
way into the public libraries of the country, and the Important facts which it
contains should be scattered everywhere among the people."
THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— "The accomplished Assyriologist Prof.
Sayce has gone over the whole with the advantage of a large number of additional
texte, and has carefully brought the book up to the level of the present knowl
edge of the subject. The book as it stands is a very important veriflcaUon of
the early Hebrew records."

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS'

THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. A Critical, His
torical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature
of the Old and New Testaments. By GEORGE T. LADD,
D.D., Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Yale
College. 2 vols., 8vo, $7.00.
J. henry thayer, D.D.— "It is the most elaborate, erudite, judicionB dis
cussion of the doctrine of Scripture, in its various aspects, with which I am
acquainted. I have no hesitation in saying that, for enabling a young minister
to present views alike wise and reverent respecting the nature and nse oi
Sacred Scripture, nay, for giving bim in general a Biblical outlook upon Chris
tian theology, both in its theoretical and its practical relations, the faithful study
of this thorough, candid, scholarly work will be worth to him as much as half
the studies of his seminary course."
george P. fisher, D.D., LL.D.— "Professor Ladd's work is from the pen of
an able and trained scholar, candid in spirit and thorough in his researches. It
Is so comprehensive in its plan, so complete in the presentation of facts, and so
closely related to ' the burning questions ' of the day, that it cannot fail to enlist
the attention of all earnest students of theology."
WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. By MARVIN R,
VINCENT, D.D. Vol. I.-The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the
Apostles, and the Epistles of Peter, James and Jude. Vol.
II.— The Writings of John— The Gospel, the Epistles, the
Apocalypse. 8vo, per vol., $4.00. Vol. III. ready.
The purpose of the author is to enable the English reader and
student to get at the original force, meaning, and color of the signifi
cant words and phrases as used by the different writers. An introduc
tion to the comments upon each book sets forth in compact form what
is known about the author — how, where, with what object, and
with what peculiarities of style he wrote. Dr. Vincent has gathered
from all sources and put in an easily comprehended form a great quan
tity of information of much value to the critical expert as well as to
the studious layman who wishes to get at the real spirit of the Greek
text. rev. dr. HOWARD CROSBY.— "Dr. Vincent's 'Word Studies in the New
Testament ' is a dehcious book. As a Greek scholar, a clear thinker, a logical
reasoner, a master In English, and a devout sympathizer with the truths of reve
lation. Dr. Vincent is just the man to interest and edify the Church with such a
work as this. There are few scholars who, to such a degree as Dr. Vincent,
mingle scholarly attainment with aptness to impart knowledge In attractive form.
All Bible-readers should enjoy and profit by these delightful ¦ Word Studies.' "
DR. THEO. L. CUYLER, in The K T. Evangelist.— "The very things which
a young minister — and many an older one also— ought to know about the chief
words in his New Testament he will be able to learn in this affluent volume.
Years of close study by one of our brightest Greek scholars, have been condensed
Into its pages."

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. By CHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,
late of Princeton Theological Seminary. New Edition, com*
plete in three volumes, including index. 8vo, $12.00.
In these volumes are comprised the results of the life-long labors
and investigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the day.
The work covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic
Theology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the subject :
Vol. I.— Theology ; Vol.11. — Anthropology; Vol. Ill— Soteriology
and Eschatology. The Introduction is devoted to the consideration of
method, or the principles which should guide the student of theology,
and the different theories as to the source and standard of our knowl
edge of divine things, Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman Catholic doc
trine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on that subject.
The plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of
the Bible, and to examine the antagonistic doctrines of different classes
of theologians. The various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical
and logical power, combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and
strength of style which have already given Dr. Hodge a world-wide
reputation as a controversialist and writer, and as an investigator of
the great theological problems of the day.
THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL times.— "It is perhaps not too much to say of it,
that this Is the most important contribution to the literature of theology made
since the days of Jonathan Edwards. The reputation of Dr. Hodge in this depart
ment, by reason of his life-long associations and his eminent abilities, is such as
to command for him, as a recognized authority, respectful hearing In all the
churches." THE NEW YORK CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.— "This volume is a monument
of thonght and Christian scholarship, and will be welcomed and studied by
Intelligent minds in all the Christian denominations."
QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT OF THE SYSTEMATIC THEOL
OGY of Dr. Charles Hodge, together with an exhibition of
various schemes illustrating the principles of theological
construction. By A. A. HODGE, late Professor in Princeton
Theological Seminary. 8vo, paper, $1.00 net.
The questions contained in this volume are designed to assist the
student in the analysis of the text, and in fixing the points to be
grasped by his understanding and retained in his memory, and further
for* the use of the professor during review and examination.

CHARLES SCRIBNEES SONS'

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D,
Professor of Systematic Theology. 2 vols., 8vo, $7.00.
CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.—" The publication of a System of Theology by
Prof. Shedd marks an epoch In scientific religious thought. His training has
been such as to fit him exceptionally for this culminating work. A great charm
in these bulky volumes is the beautifully clear, precise, and simple style in which
they are written. The layman can read them with as much ease and interest as
the professional theologian."
JOHN DE WITT, in Presbyterian Review.— "It is didactic rather than
polemic. He states, expounds, and defends what he believes to be the true view,
and spends little time in expounding and opposing heresies. The discussions are
compact. The style is absolutely clear."
NEW YORK EXAMINER.— "The two volumes are the result of eighteen years
of special study and of forty years' labor In theological research. The treatment
is such as might be expected of Dr. Shedd: scholarly, devont, profound,
thorough." PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. A Manual for Theological Students.
By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D., Professor of Theology
in the University of Utrecht. Translated and adapted to
the use of English readers by Maurice J. Evans. 8vo, $3.50,
rhis is the result of instruction in practical theology, given by the
author during a period of fifteen years at the University of Utrecht,
but its original form has been modified or supplemented to adapt ii
more completely for use as a text-book. As an additional feature of
interest the historic portion of the work contains such brief notices of
our leading Anglo-Saxon preachers, Christian poets, and catechists, as
seemed necessary to furnish the connecting link in English Church
History between the movements of the Reformation age and those of
our own day, and to make evident the unbroken continuity of the
Church's life amidst the constant variation of outward forms.
CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. A Text-book for Academical Instruc
tion and Private Study. By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht. Trans
lated by John W. Watson, B.A., and Maurice J. Evans, B.A.
Two vols., 8vo, $5.00.
the Presbyterian BANNER.— "The volumes before ns are a rich mine
for the student and the theologian. The arrangement Is good, the style clear,
and the spirit evidently evangelical. The study of these volumes will stimulate
thought, enlarge the vision, and strengthen faith, while they will supply rich
material for all whose calling it is to preach the gospel."
THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— "Dr. Van Oosterzee Is undoubtedly a
ripe and distinguished scholar, and the work before us is his greatest and most suc
cessful effort. It has already received high commendation from some of the
ablest English scholars,. and is certified to byDrs. Smith and Schaff as giving
' the mature results of long-continued, earnest, and devont study of the article*
of our Christian faith ; ' who also add that ' it will prove a safe and useful guide
to students in our institutions of learning.' "