FORC^GM •

5€RJ£5<

THe GOSPEL OF ST, JOHN
7KN D
me SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

%k

:&,

'¦I give tAffi„J3aoM.
\ for the fauttdmg if a College m tHii Crcoiy"

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

Foreign Religious Series

Edited by
R. J. COOKE, D. D.

First Series. i6mo, cloth. Each 40 cents, net.

THE VIRGIN BIRTH
By Professor Richard H. Griitzmacher, of the
University of Rostock

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
By Professor Eduard Riggenbach, of the University
of Basle

THE SINLESSNESS OF JESUS
By Professor Max Meyer, Lie. Theol., Gottberg,
Germany

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS
By Professor Karl Beth, of the University
of Berlin

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN AND THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
By Professor Fritz Barth, of the University
of Bern

NEW TESTAMENT PARALLELS IN
BUDDHISTIC LITERATURE
By Professor Karl Von Hase, of the University
of Breslau

The Gospel of St. John
AND THE
Synoptic Gospels

By
FRITZ BARTH
Professor of Theology in the University of Bern

NEW YORKr EATON- & MAINS
CINCINNATI : JENNINGS & GRAHAM

INTRODUCTION
Whoever undertakes nowadays to advo
cate the genuineness and credibility of the
Gospel of John, must be prepared beforehand
for some prominent representatives of theo
logical science and several among theiri
pupils and adherents to say with indignation
or pitiful smile: "Lost effort! It is the:
surest of the sure, that the fourth Gospel as
an historical source for the life of Jesus is
no more to be taken into account. Who
still considers it as such is under the spell
of church-tradition; custom goes ahead of
truth; he has no idea particularly of the
religio-historical method; science will take
precedence over him in the order of the day,
as over everything reactionary."
This sounds very suspicious, and whoever
wishes to have his scientific character attest
ed by authorities, will hesitate to invite such
powerful opposition and anathema against
himself. Nevertheless, when I commit this
folly, it is because I have become convinced
during the many years of my study of the

6 Introduction
Gospel of John, that the opinions and
prejudices of modern times have exercised
a tyrannical power against this very book,
the power of a theological school-tradition
which can just as easily mislead the inquirer
as the ecclesiastical tradition, so that one
overlooks that which is nearest and an
nounces the most improbable as a result. I
turn to all those of whatever disposition they
may be, for whom the mark of true scientific
method consists not in vast conclusions and
vindications, but in continuous, penetrative
work on the problems of life.
The Johannean question belongs to the
problems of life, as well as to the school of
history and of literature. The Gospel of
John is not one of thosebubbles of the book
market which for a few seconds change
from one color to another, and then explode.
It has established a power of life from one
century to another, and has led many to God.
A multitude of the most touching and beau
tiful facts of Church history are connected
with passages from this book; and to this
very day, even the most zealous opponent
of its authenticity cannot but refer to some
of its words. Its "religious importance" is

Introduction 7
not questioned ; and now it is of the greatest
importance whether these powerful effects
proceeded from a book which is connected
with original Christianity in only an ideal,
derivative relation, which would refute
Schleiermacher's word, that every historical
whole can only continue through the same
forces by which it is originated — or,
whether, in the Gospel of John, we have to
deal with the historical Jesus whose real
life is the ground of our faith, in a real world
and history, and whether a trustworthy man
speaks to us, whose book and manner of
spirit stand in inner relation to Jesus of
Nazareth. That such questions touching the founda
tions of our Christian faith are discussed
today more than ever, and even interest
larger circles, I consider not as a misfortune
but as an altogether serious call of God to
the Christian Church to turn from all sec
ondary things to Christ. The Church and its
theology have been used too long to establish
an artificial foundation for the certainty of
faith, strangely composed of Christian-
sounding truths founded on reason, of bib
lical authority and ecclesiastical usage. This

8 Introduction
image with the golden head and feet of iron
and clay has not proved itself to be durable.
At the present time Christendom, in view of
the questions of doubt which are raised on
all sides, sees itself obliged to recollect its
true, simple, God-given foundation, and to
put its trust no longer in this and that — of
which we may read in the Bible and else
where — but in Christ, the living Lord, the
center and soul of the Bible. By this con
centration we rather gain than lose. Faith
in God, the Father of Jesus Christ, will in
the future shine clearer than ever before, and
bring salvation to many who now despise it ;
that they may no more be offended at Chris
tians and their peculiarities, no more doubt-
ingly and scoldingly insist on the short
comings of the Church, but look up to Jesus,
and in imitation of him find the purpose of
their life. But, for this very thing, the Gos
pel of John offers the best help; this very
book drives us from all externality and im
perfection in the one thing which is of im
portance, and with quiet spiritual power,
brings before us the question : "What have
you in Christ?" "What has he of thee?"
Now concerning this Gospel which no think-

Introduction 9
ing man could pass by indifferently, this
"most wonderful of all religious books," as
Beidermann called it, the first question is,
"Is it credible?" That is, Is this Gospel ac
cording to John to be accepted as historical
fact? To this we may now direct our
attention.

THE SELF-TESTIMONY OF THE
GOSPEL OF JOHN
The fourth Gospel claims to have been
written by an eye-witness of the life of Jesus,
whereas, Luke in the introduction to his
Gospel clearly distinguishes himself from the
eye-witnesses who told him of Jesus. The
fourth evangelist writes just as distinctly:
"We beheld his glory" (i. 14), and whoever
would refer to this as a mere mental seeing
is opposed by the beginning of the first
Epistle of John, betraying the same author
as to language and contents, where we read :
"That which we have heard, which we have
seen, with our eyes, which we have looked
upon and our hands have handled . . .
declare we unto you." With special refer
ence to the events immediately after the
death of Jesus it is said : "And he that saw
it bare record, and his record is true, and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might
believe" (John 19. 35). Here speaks none
other than the evangelist himself who, ac-

12 The Gospel of St. John.
cording to his custom retained throughout,
determines not to emerge with his "I." In
the most unmistakable manner he goes to
ocular evidence for the statement; and it is
not an ordinary disciple who speaks here,
but one who indicates that he was especially
near to Jesus. Frequently a disciple is men
tioned "whom Jesus loved"; at the Last
Supper the same was leaning on Jesus's
bosom and asks him about the betrayer (13.
23 seq.) ; with the women he stands by the
cross of Jesus, and to him Jesus gives his
mother (19. 26 seq.). On Easter morning he
hastens to the sepulchre and convinces him
self that the body has not been stolen (20. 2
seq. ) . At the Lake of Gennesaret, he is the
first to see the Lord and receives the much-
talked of promise that he may perhaps live
to see the coming of Christ (21. 7, 20 seq.).
The same personality is probably meant by
the anonymous disciple who, with Andrew,
first finds Jesus by the Jordan (1. 35 seq.)'
and follows Jesus into the palace of the high
priest, in whose house he was known (18. 15
seq.). This "disciple whom Jesus loved," is
expressly designated at the close of the book
(21. 24) as the author of the book: "This;

The Self-Testimony 13
is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things; and we know that
his testimony is true." The "we," who
speaks here, can only be the disciples and
friends of the author who transmitted his
work to the congregations for use; they did
not deem the note superfluous that the book
deserved to be believed as the testimony of a
friend of Jesus. It is also significant how,
throughout, the same person appears to
gether with Peter, the best known in the
apostolic circle. Peter asks him to find out
the name of the betrayer; Peter goes with
him into the court of the high priest, and
afterward to the sepulchre; Peter swims to
the shore after the other has seen the Lord
and afterward asks, displeased: "Lord, and
what shall this man do?" Peter becomes
only a disciple of Jesus after the other, and
denies the Lord, whereas, of all the disciples
this other is alone by the cross. This inti
mates that the author must be sought in the
closest company of Jesus. This elect circle,
however, consisted, according to the tradi
tion known to every Christian, of Peter and
the two sons of Zebedee, James and John.
Which of these two besides Peter could be

14 The Gospel of St. John
taken into account — was also to be learned
from the history of the beginnings, which
on sundry occasions makes Peter and John
work together as at the healing of the lame
man, at the first examination before the
council, and at the preaching in Samaria
(Acts 3. 1 seq. ; 4. 19 seq. ; 8. 14 seq. ; comp.
Luke 22. 8).
These facts bring us before the dilemma —
either the author of the fourth Gospel is
really an eye-witness (and indeed most
probably John, the son of Zebedee), or he
abrogated to himself in an extremely cun
ning manner by mysteriously veiling hints
the part of an eye-witness, and carried this
through over against Peter with a certain
malevolence; and that he also found good
friends who were ready to put their seal on
this fraud (for it would mean nothing else),
by declaring his testimony to be true, know
ing it to be false.
For the first there is not only our immedi
ate impression of the person of the author,
but also many other reasons. The Gospel
contains many individual traits which are
entirely unessential for the course of history,
but which explain themselves without say-

The Self-Testimony 15
ing as the recollections of an eye-witness.
What does it matter that the first two dis
ciples come to Jesus at four o'clock ? (John
1. 39) ; that just six waterpots of stone were
at the marriage in Cana? (2. 6) ; that Jesus
spoke of himself as the Light of the world
in the Treasury? (8. 20.) But the lively
recollection of a narrator who really experi
enced something, asks not which is impor
tant or unimportant, he simply reproduces
the recollection-picture also in its secondary
traits. These very things give to many
descriptions of the fourth Gospel a great dis
tinctness. Narratives like those of the Sa
maritan woman, of the man born blind, of
the resurrection of Lazarus, of Mary Mag
dalene at the sepulchre, consummate them
selves in tangible reality before our eyes,
and will always set before the Christian the
highest tasks.
The^language of the Gospel points to__a
mernber of the primitive church; true it is.
written in Greek for Greek-speaking readers^
for whom Jewish words (1. 42, 43; 9. 7)
and customs (2. 6; 19. 31, 40) must be ex
plained; but its entire mode of expression
betrays Semitic thinking, especially thernany-

1 6 The Gospel of St. John
principal clauses connected by a mereJland."
tfie"Titeral repetition of things already said
(i. 2, 25, 51; 4. 24; 8. 24; 16. 16 seq.), the
tendency to parallel passages in which a
contrast is developed (3. 18, 36; 5. 43; 8.
23) ; the relatively small vocabulary in
which some leading ideas come out strongly.
The language of Job has its closest analogies
not in the writings of Hellenistic Judaism,
but in the literature of Palestinian scribism.
That the Jewish Christian who writes here,
as an eye-witness, knew what he was about,
can be seen from his free relation to the
three older Gospels, the Synoptists (Mat
thew, Mark and Luke) . He knows them, as
can be seen from many details of his narra
tive, and he presupposes that his readers
knew them. From them they know that
John baptized (1. 25, 31), and was cast
into prison (3. 24), that Jesus had twelve
disciples (6. 67, 70), and used to visit Mar
tha and Mary (11. 1). But he is very free
in his deviation from the synoptic state
ments. He not only omits the greatest part
of what they narrated and'puts in its place
other facts and discourses, but transfers also
the most of which he speaks not to Galilee

The Self-Testimony 17
but to the south, especially to Jerusalem;
and instead of one passover festival, which
the synoptists mention, he mentions three
(2. 13; 6. 4; 11. 55), so that according to
him the public ministry of Jesus must have
lasted from two to three years. The death
of Jesus, according to him, takes place on
the fourteenth of Nisan, the day on whose
evening the Jewish Passover was held (18.
28; 19. 14); whereas, the synoptists state
that on that evening, Jesus still ate the Pass
over with his disciples (Matt. 26. 17; Mark
14. 12; Luke 2.2.. 15), and was crucified on
the fifteenth of Nisan. And to this a num
ber of smaller differences with regard to the
time of the cleansing of the temple, the
anointing at Bethany, the crowning with
thorns ... in connection with which the
author himself occasionally presumes an in
timation that the synoptic account is inaccu
rate, or at least erroneous (John 3. 24; 4.
44). All these deviations from the current
tradition would necessarily cause so much
shaking of the head, and render the recep
tion of the Gospel in the congregations so
very difficult, that only another who as an
important eye-witness, was ceiKcl5uT~of^

1 8 The Gospel of St. John
knowing the true details, could nevertheless
dare to make them.
In reality an opposition to the genuineness
of the book attached itself to these deviations
in the second century. Certain Christians of
Asia Minor, to whom Epiphanius afterward
applied the foolish name "Alogoi," objected
that the order of events, especially in the
beginning and at the close differed consider
ably from the synoptic picture, and asserted
that the Gospel was written by the Gnostic
Cerinthus. Some leaders of the church at
that time showed some inclination to agree
with this statement, for the very people who
caused the church fathers the most perplexity
relied upon the Gospel of John. The Valen-
tinians, a sect of the Gnostics, expressed
their speculations on deity, world, soul and
redemption with preference for Johannean
formulas ; and the Montanists, who preached
the near coming of Christ, and in view of it
intended to collect a so-called spiritual
Church, asserted that the Comforter prom
ised in the Gospel of John spoke through
their founder, Montanus, and his female as
sociates. In the church of Asia Minor the
custom also prevailed of celebrating the

The Self-Testimony 19
Lord's Supper for the time being on the
fourteenth day of Nisan of the Jewish calen
dar in commemoration of the suffering and
death of the Lord ; and it was said that this
custom was traced back to John. Now it
could only cause surprise that in the Gospel
of John the last supper of Jesus with his dis
ciples takes place rather on the thirteenth of
Nisan. That the church overlooked all these
difficulties and left a weapon in the hands of
its opponents rather than surrender the
fourth Gospel, clearly shows that the church
believed that it had proofs of its credibility,
and well felt the spiritual difference which
existed between this work and the well-
meant but little valuable literature of the
second century, such as the writings of
Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, Hermas,
andfapias.— ***&*, "ZR*- €&fopj
Slowly but surely the book passed into
the use of the Church, just as those of the
Synoptists and also the Epistles of Paul.
We are first reminded of this work by the
"Apostolic Fathers" and in the "Teaching
of the Twelve Apostles." About the middle
of the second century writers of Asia Minor
and the apologist Justin quote already some

so The Gospel of St. John
passages without mentioning the author. A
few decades later it appears as the fourth
Gospel beside the synoptists in the New
Testament canon, and is applied as holy
Scripture (by Theophilus and Irenaeus),
yea, is already quoted against synoptic state
ments by Melito and Apollinaris of Hierapo-
lis. The opinion is confirmed that it was
written down by the aged apostle John at
Ephesus toward the end of his life at the
wish of his friends; and it was praised as
the pneumatic gospel which doubtless origi
nated under special inspiration of the Holy
Ghost. It was especially esteemed as abso
lute authority in the controversies which
already broke out in the second century con
cerning the person of Christ, and which were
prolonged to the seventh century. It be
came the fundamental book for the forma
tion of the Christ-dogma, and Luther calls
it "the only tender, true, principal Gospel,
to be much preferred to the other three and
more highly esteemed."

II
REASONS AGAINST ITS
CREDIBILITY
In strong contrast with this special es
teem of the Gospel of John stands the con
trary opinion which became current in the
nineteenth century through theologians like
Bretschneider, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Keim, et al,
and which may be thus briefly summed up :
"This book narrates not actual facts which
took place, but is only a didactic writing on
the theme that Jesus is the divine logos who
appeared in the flesh, and that its author was
not an apostle and eye-witness, but some un
known Christian of the second century who,
m the form of a narrative about Christ, gave
his impressions of the essence and work of
Christianity." This modern opposition to the
Gospel, by which it is directly eliminated
from the sources of the life of Jesus, is es
pecially based upon its relation to the synop
tists, and two points are here particularly to
be mentioned. In the first place it is said:
"The synoptic Gospels describe Jesus as the

.22 The Gospel of St. John
son of his people and child of his time, as the
great prophet and popular preacher of
Nazareth, who proclaims the kingdom of
God and heals the sick, who soon gets into
conflict with the ruling Pharisaic party; is
forsaken by the people and crucified as the
false Messiah. This is a truly human bio
graphical portrait to which nothing human
of successes and disappointments had been
strange. The Johannean Christ, on the
other hand, is a divine being who comes
from heaven to earth and never becomes
natural in it. As a strange guest he walks
among men and makes men feel his superi
ority; he performs great miracles, not out
of compassion for the distress but to let
his glory shine and to combine with it pro
found applications to the spiritual life. He
delivers long discourses, not for the sake
of instructing the people, languishing un
der the ban of legalism., in the righteous
ness of the kingdom of God and of bring
ing near to them the Father in heaven, but
mainly for the sake of deposing to his divine
origin and demanding acknowledgment of
the same. He speaks of himself in images,
calls himself the Bread of Life, the Light,

Reasons Against Its Credibility 23
the Vine, and is indignant when his hints
are misunderstood. He treats his Jewish
countrymen like strangers, yea, like children
of the devil, whose destruction is certain and
deserving. He hardly notices objections ; he
speaks no parable to illustrate his teachings ;
his demeanor is dignified and solemn, but
cold and noble, and this trait is retained in
the history of the passion and resurrection.
His disciples are not saved sinners but truth
ful men who feel attracted to him ; the good
come to him, not the lost. He himself passes
through no development. From the begin
ning he is the Son of God and the Messiah
who knows all things and is hardly in need
of praying for himself. All these strange
traits come from this, that from the begin
ning Jesus is perceived as a superhuman per
sonality, as the Logos. This notion, however,
comes from the writings of the Jew Philo
of Alexandria; he has nothing in common
with the historical Jesus." In the second
place it is stated: "The discourses of Jesus
in the Gospel of John, according to form
and contents, have throughout the stamp of
the Johannean mode of speech, not of the
synoptic Jesus, as he comes before us, that

24 The Gospel of St. John
is, in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus and
John the Baptist speak here just as the
author speaks in his prologue and in his
Epistles, seldom of the kingdom of God, of
repentance and righteousness, but the more
of light and darkness, life and death, truth
and falsehood, heaven and earth, God and
the world, these monotonously recurring
pet-notions of the author, which reflect his
dualistic conception of the world. This con
trast between the upper and lower world has
removed the early Christian contrast be
tween the present and future time, and
brought about a strong spiritualization of
the synoptic eschatology, so that its essential
elements (resurrection, judgment, eternal
life) appear as already realized through
Jesus." Thus read the charges and when we ask :
How could one be induced in the second
century to undertake this strange remodel
ling of the life of Jesus from the human into
the divine, from the simple into the noble,
from the Jewish into the commonly human,
we are answered by various suppositions.
According to some the author was a Gnostic
(perhaps Meander in Antioch) who wished

Reasons Against Its Credibility 25
to recommend with this "Gospel of Truth"
his philosophico-purified Christianity. Ac
cording to the others the author wishes
rather to oppose the Gnostics, by putting
against them a better, ecclesiastical Gnosis.
Others find in the book a concealed polemic
against Judaism which would not recognize
Jesus as the Messiah. Still others read in
the prologue and first chapters a special ten
dency against the communion of the dis
ciples of John, of whom trace is preserved
in the Acts of the Apostles (18. 25 ; 19. 3).
One even observes that in the Gospel of
John the second century with its struggles
is reflected — the victorious march of the
Gospel through the provinces of the Roman
empire, the last convulsions of Judaism un
der Bar-kochba, the origin of the Catholic
Church, and the problems of its apologetics.
It remains indeed a strange expedient, boldly
to impute about the year no or 140 some
thing of an imposing splendor to the his
torical picture of Jesus, which Jews or
heathen might miss and by that carry on an
apology of Christianity. On this account
many of the opponents of the genuineness of
the Gospel did not get rid of the thought

26 The Gospel of St. John
that in this Gospel some recollections from
the time of Jesus must at least have been
utilized. A Christian of Asia Minor, it is
supposed, put together communications of a
disciple from Jerusalem, or a collection of
discourses being current under the name of
John was intertwined by a later redaction
with narratives, or the author of the whole is
indeed a John, but not the apostle. The son
of Zebedee had never left Palestine but, ac
cording to the prophecy of Jesus : "Ye shall
indeed drink of the cup that I drink of ; and
with the baptism that I am baptized withal
shall ye be baptized" (Mark 10. 39). He was
"killed by the Jews" according to a notice
by Papias, like his brother James (Acts 12.
2) . The Gospel was not written by him but
by the presbyter John in Ephesus, whom
Papias knew. But against this also impor
tant doubts arise : the Gospel is a work of one
cast, a fact which is now opposed by the
popular theory of separate sources. To
draw inferences from assertions of the
credulous Papias, means to build castles in
the air and light up the dark with the darker.
To keep away the apostle John from Asia
Minor is a coup of despair, since the state-

Reasons Against Its Credibility 27
ments of Irenaeus, Polycrates and Apol-
lonius in the second centuiy cannot be re
moved. Further such a mighty alteration
of the evangelical tradition by any disciple
the Church of Asia Minor would have hardly
stood. But is not the authority of the
Apostle already disproved by the two rea
sons mentioned above?

Ill
THE SECRET OF THE PERSON
OF JESUS
The answer to the question just asked will
depend on the notion which one has of the
divine revelation to mankind. There was a
time when one supposed it tp be virtually a
sum of doctrines on God and man, communi
cated by the Holy Ghost, written down by
the authors of the biblical books authentic
ally interpreted by ecclesiastical dogma.
This notion, however, is unbiblical and mis
leading. It is a blessing for the church that
this wooden, soulless idea of revelation is
wrested out of its hand through the entire
course of modern theology. God is no
theorem, no mere idea, no postulate, but the
material ground of all things as the infinite
creative personality, the eternal Love. When
this God intended to reveal Himself, doc
trines and letters were too small as organs of
his self-communication ; it had to take place
rather through personalities whose whole
life was an attestation of God to their con-
28

Secret of the Person of Jesus 29
temporaries, because they spoke and taught
in his own power: "God who at sundry
times and in divers manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath
in these days spoken unto us by the Son"
(Heb. 1. 1), and when he selected for him
self continuators of his work, he said to one
of them: "Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16.
18) ; thou art to become the personality
forming the foundation of my Church, as he
indeed became, not as first pope, but as the
preacher on the Day of Pentecost and leader
of the primitive chureh. Men, who suffered
themselves to be apprehended of God and
who spent their lives in his service for their
fellow-men remained to this day the organs
by which God conveys object-lessons to man
kind; that he lives and rules as of old.
Where such witnesses are lacking, the most
ingenious proofs, the best books will always
leave behind the impression of insufficiency.
It is an advantage of modern research that
it suffers itself to be led, especially through
the figures of the Old Testament, to see this
importance of personalities; to apprehend
them also with the average standard in

30 The Gospel of St. John
hand it cannot comprehend their attitude
when it is opposed by the mystery of per
sonal life, the indefinable, enigmatical, and
apparently contradictory. One gradually
learns not to condemn it immediately as
disease or fiction, because the great and sub
lime shines upon us in the incalculable, and
inimitable. But it must not be expected that
this insight is everywhere asserted. What is
conceded to a Jeremiah, a Mohammed or a
Francis of Assisi, can not be refused to the
personalities of the New Testament,' to a
Paul and a John, and above all to Jesus. It
is a fatal mistake that those most powerful
in the kingdom of the spirit, are again and
again examined in a pedantic manner, as to
supposed contradictions, and that that which
puzzles the personal taste of the compiler, is
resolutely adjudicated from them. Thus we
have had quite a number of Jesus-figures:
the smart politician of Reimarus; the en
lightened moralizer of rationalism ; the meek
Nazarene of Renan; the ecstatic of O.
Holtzmann; the unreal Jesus of Kalthoff,
etc. But the portrait of Jesus in the Gospels
has ever silently resisted this effort and shall
do so in future. The personality of Jesus

Secret of the Person of Jesus 31
proves itself again and again so great and
comprehensive, that each editor of his life
can well point out in it some traits but misses
the mark when he imagines that he can omit
other traits less congenial to him. It is not
science but prejudice, to declare war es
pecially on the mysterious as such, on the
miraculous in principle.
Applied to the Johannean question it
means : the objections to the credibility of the
Gospel of John, can appear forcibly only to
him who has made clear to himself the im
portance of the personal element in Jesus
and- in John, and perceives both as a given,
fathomed quantity, whose relation to a book
like the fourth Gospel can be settled with
all certainty. "But we know both" it is
said "from the synoptists and with these the
description of the fourth Gospel does not
tally !" This is just the question.
As concerns Jesus, it is a critical condition
for the opponents of the Gospel of John,
that in the synoptic Gospels also they must
declare a great many traits which point to
the Johannean direction as unhistorical or
put there in the background. I mean here
riot the synoptic passages from which it

32 The Gospel of St. John
can be indirectly shown that Jesus was in
deed more than once in Jerusalem, and in
fact died on the fourteenth day of Nisan.
Upon such outpost engagements we will not
dwell. I rather refer to the main point, the
picture of Christ of the synoptists. Is the
same humanly genial, that everything is
completely spent in a "purely historical"
consideration ? Not at all. The same Jesus
who, as the meek Son of man and popular
itinerant preacher seeks the lost sheep of
Israel, has besides all this an indescribable
eminence in his appearance also in the
synoptists. The demoniacs cry out when
they meet him (Matt. 8. 29; Mark 1. 24) ;
the people are greatly astonished at him
(Matt. 7. 28; Mark 1. 27) ; even the disci
ples have this feeling (Matt. 8. 27; Mark 6.
51); Peter said to him : "Depart from me ;
for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" (Luke 5.
8 seq. ) ; the centurion of Capernaum is
afraid to invite Jesus to his house (Matt. 8.
8) ; the people of Nazareth respectfully make
room for him as he passes through the midst
of men (Luke 4. 30) ; the Pharisees see in his
work the power of devils (Matt. 12. 24 seq.) ;
Herod thinks with trembling that the Bap-

Secret of the Person of Jesus 133
tist is risen from the dead (Matt. 14. 1 seq.) ;
at the death of Jesus the centurion exclaims :
"Truly this man was the Son of God" (Mark
^S- 39)- Ori the other hand, sons of his
people forsake everything at his word and
follow him (Matt. 4. 19 seq.; 9. 9), even
though he imposes on them the greatest
sacrifices and renunciations (5. 29 seq.; 8.
22; 19. 21 ; Luke 9. 62; 14. 25 seq.) ; great
multitudes gather unto him (Mark 4. 1 ;
Luke 12. 1), and numerous sick become
.sound by his word and his touch, so that the
multitudes glorified God (Matt. 9. 8; Luke
•7. 16). If we ask for the reason of this im
pression of Jesus upon the people, we find it
at any rate not only in these miraculous
deeds, but in the powerful authority with
which Jesus spoke. With a quiet decision he
declares who shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven (Matt. 18. 3; 19. 14; Mark 12. 34),
the poor, the hungry, the wretched whose
fate seemed to represent the very outcast to
the kingdom of God (Luke 6. 20 seq.).
He puts himself in opposition to the tradi
tion of the scribes (Matt. 9. 15 ; 15. 3 seq.),
even to the very letter of the law (5. 32 ; 15.
11 ; 19. 4 seq.) ; with his powerful "but I say

34 The Gospel of St. John
unto you" he deepens the demand of Jewish
legality into a morality of the heart spring
ing from religion (5. 22 seq.). He knows
himself entitled to forgive sins (9. 2 seq.;
Luke 7. 48 seq.) and to give all that labor
rest of soul (Matt. n. 28 seq.). He prom
ises heavenly reward (5. 12; 10. 42; 19. 29;
Luke 14. 14) for all that which is done and
suffered "for my sake" (Matt. 5. n ; 10. 18,
22 ; 24. 9) ; but just as plainly also ever
lasting destruction for those who refuse his
message and despise his admonitions (5.
26 seq.; 10. 15, 28; n. 22 seq.; 12. 36 seq.;
13. 42 seq. ; 18. 6 seq. ; 25. 46).
In his last hours he still announces to his
unjust judges their defeat (26. 64), but
promises paradise to the penitent thief (Luke
23- 43)- With royal independence he desists
from being understood by his family (Matt.
12. 46 seq.; 13. 57; Luke n. 28), and an
nounces judgment to his people if they do
not repent (Matt. 8. 10 seq.; 12. 39, 45; 23.
37 seq.; Luke 13. 3 seq.)'. How aristo
cratic in the best sense is his reply
to Herod Antipas who meant to frighten
him away (Luke 13. 32 seq.); how
dignified his silence before Caiaphas, Pilate

Secret of the Person of Jesus 35
and Herod! (Matt. 26. 63; Mark 15. 5 ;
Luke 23. 9.) But the same Jesus could also
speak with holy indignation (Matt. 23. 13
seq.; Mark 3. 5) and with telling invectives
(Matt. 16. 23 ; Luke 9. 55), especially where
he saw the profane in the holy place, as in
the house of Jairus and the cleansing of the
temple (Matt. 9. 25; 21. 12).
He was not afraid occasionally to express
in a strange and unmistakable manner that
which was to go to the heart, to cause reflec
tion thereby (5. 29 seq. ; 8. 22 ; 15. 1 1 ; 16. 6 ;
25. 29). To his hearers he promised perse
cution and sufferings instead of splendid
Messianic days, without fearing the bad im
pression of such expressions (5. 10 seq.;
10. 16 seq., 38 seq.; 13. 21; 16. 24 seq.).
He knew that though he had to suffer the
cross, that his words would remain, "though
heaven and earth pass away" (24. 35 ) . And
his authority Jesus derived from his relation
to God. He speaks not as the scribes miser
ably subtilizing and scheming ordinances,
but like one who has power from God, and
draws from the full (7. 29) . He knows that
the prayer of faith is heard by God (7. 7
seq.; Luke 18. 7 seq.; Mark n. 24 seq.).

36 The Gospel of St. John
He knows when God forgives and when not
(Matt. 5. 25 seq.; 6. 14 seq.; 18. 35; 15. 20
seq.; 18. 14).
He knows how God shall judge man
(7. 21 ; 25. 21), and why he lets him alone
so long (13. 30; Luke 13. 8). He knows
God's thoughts concerning men, and he
understands his rule (Matt. 5. 45; 6. 8,
32; n. 25 seq.), from intimate communion
with him, just as he sees through the hearts
and thoughts of men with a divinely quick
ened look (9. 4; 22. 18). His disciples
noticed how often he retired to solitude for
silent prayer before God (Mark 1. 35 ; Luke
n. 1), and how he knew to speak to them
of mysterious experiences with God, from
which he derived the proof that he was the
one chosen of God (Matt. 3. 16), that he
overcame Satan (4. n ; 12. 29; 10. 18 seq.),
and will die for the redemption of men (20.
28 ; 26. 28) ; but being glorified by God (17.
I seq.), shall return again (16. 27 seq.; 24.
30) as judge of the world (7. 22 seq. 513.
41; 19. 28; 25. 31 seq.). They could not
explain to themselves this iron confidence.
They felt, indeed, that their Master spoke
and worked in the power of the Holy Spirit

Secret of the Person of Jesus 37
(4. 1; 12. 28; Luke 4. 14); but also just
as clearly that every comparison with the in
spired man of the old covenant fails here.
Jesus himself attributed to his person an
importance, as no other prophet had claimed.
He demanded that one should confess
him before men (Matt. 10. 32) ; he declared
that the relation to him would decide at the
last judgment (25. 35 seq.), because the
entire work of salvation ( 1 1. 27 ; 28. 18) for
all mankind even outside of Israel (8. n;
21. 43; 24. 14; 28. 19) is given to him.
Capernaum would be punished more severely
than Sodom ( 1 1 . 2 1 seq. ) . The Son of Man
is more than the temple (12. 6) ; he is also
Lord of the Sabbath (12. 8). He is more
than Jonas and Solomon (12. 41 seq.) for
he brings that which prophets and kings
have only longed for without experiencing
it (Luke 10. 24) . Even the Messianic Name
— "Son of David" — is too humble for him
(Matt. 22. 41 seq.).
On the other hand, his disciples are
through him more than prophets and right
eous men (10. 41 seq.) ; the least in heaven
is greater than John the Baptist who, among
all men before Jesus, is the greatest (n. n

38 The Gospel of St. John
seq.). If his own are so highly esteemed
before God, how much more he himself!
He who receives him, receives God, who
sent him ( 10. 40) ; for he is not a servant
and subject like the others, but the Son
of the Father (21. 37 seq.; 17. 26; Mark
13. 32) who can say: "No man knoweth
the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the Father, save the Son, and he
to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him!"
(Matt. n. 27; Luke 10. 22.) The ex
perience that God the Father is in heaven
is connected with the divine revelation which
the gracious will of Jesus brings to man;
whoever wishes to experience God as the
helper for body and soul, must trust in Jesus ;
he must believe (Matt. 8. 10; 9. 28; 15. 28;
18. 6; Mark 5. 36; 9. 23; Luke 18. 42).
And when the disciples of Jesus, believing
on him, meet, he gives them this promise:
"Where two or three are gathered together
in my name, there am I in the midst of
them" (Matt. 18. 20), "and, lo, I am with
you alway, even unto the end of the world"
(28. 20).
I well know that an effort has been made
to eliminate this whole series of synoptic

Secret of the Person of Jesus 39
traits from the authentic life-picture of
Jesus, by means of the most varied argu
ments ; but this means to mutilate the synop
tic Christ, not to describe him. Agreed
also that the Jesus of the first three Gospels
not "wholly belongs to the side of man
kind," and not only "surpasses by the call
peculiar to him only," his fellow creatures
but according to his entire personality is a
mystery, and indeed a divine mystery, which
no human definition will ever exhaust, be
cause God alone fathoms it. But faith
looks' into it inquiringly and rejoices in the
unspeakable gift of God.

IV
THE PERSONALITY OF JOHN
The uniqueness of the person of Jesus
shows itself also in the manner in which he
affected his disciples. We should already
be thankful to them if, after the manner of
the disciples of the Jewish rabbis, they had
retained his words and had always repeated
them for the instruction of the new members
joining the congregation. But more than
this happened. It is a saying: "When the
kings build, the carters are busy"; but this
King in the kingdom of the Spirit, proved
his claim on the human race by this, that he
not only employed carters and beggars, but
created personalities in each of which some
thing of his essence and work was reflected
>as the contents of the whole life of a dis
ciple. Jesus did not send stenographers,
copyists and instantaneous photographers
into the world as witnesses of his life, but
men in whom his word, his mode of think
ing, his life-work, his Spirit had assumed a
personal figure. This could only take place

The Personality of John 41
after the life of Jesus had found its earthly
close by his death on the cross and his resur
rection. Until then his impress on the dis
ciples was always dimmed by the Jewish
Messianic expectations which they associ
ated with his person (Mark 10. 37; Acts 1.
6). They had heard and seen him, but only
through the medium of their wishes, and it
is not always that "seeking and desiring"
are a guarantee of the right way. One can
also pursue phantoms in which very un
reasonable desires clothe themselves. But
now the work of Jesus was before them as a
whole ; they could see what he brought and
what he did not bring. In the light of his
death only they understood many of his
words, whereas they had formerly taxed the
patience of Jesus by their lack of under
standing (Mark 4. 13; 6. 52; 8. 17; 9. 32).
Now his Spirit could freely rule in them by
means of the adopted words and the under
stood ministries of Jesus. Helpless young
men became strong men in Christ. How
variously this happened the very synoptic
Gospels prove with their differing coloring
of the Christ-picture which is not at all acci
dental but which rests on the reflection and

42 The Gospel of St. John
memory of the first Christians. This of
course we find nowhere else.
In the words of Jesus, however, one had
found simply "trust in God, purity of heart,
mercy, humility, placability and nothing
else." But these demands upon men have
never been and never will be the whole of
Christianity. To be sure the Gospel of Mark
shows us how in the recollection of many
Christians Jesus lived on preeminently as the
great miracle-worker, as the helper and
saviour sent from God, who finally died for
the salvation of men; as the glorious hero
who in the power of God overcame Satan.
In the Gospel of Matthew the life of Jesus
moves in the light of prophecy and fulfill
ment, which was of vital interest for Jewish
Christians. Here Jesus is the promised
Messiah of Israel, the Lawgiver and King in
the kingdom of heaven; the founder of the
new covenant-people in whom words and
deeds unite in a wondrous whole. The Gos
pel of Luke, however, causes the Jewish
background of the life of Jesus to recede, and
the author, dwelling the more earnestly on
that whereby Christ affects man in general,
his mercy toward the poor and the outcasts,

The Personality of John 43
awakens a spirit which finds response in
every human soul.
But the masterpiece of the transform
ing power of the exalted Lord is Paul, the
disciple, who never knew Jesus in his earthly
life, and for all details of that life had
to depend on the communications of eye
witnesses. The appearance of Jesus on the
way to Damascus placed Paul immediately
face to face with the final result of the
life of Jesus. He now saw him whom he
had thus far hated and despised as the cruci
fied one in his exalted state. From this fact,
from retrospection, he was compelled to in
quire into the mystery of the work and per
son of Jesus, and as a result, leaving out of
sight the non-essential, he apprehended
Jesus as he who had died for our sins and
rose again as the author of a new life in the
Spirit. This very Paul was called to explain
the gospel in its eternal power to all men as
none other before him could do. His life,
rich in labor, in the communion with the
exalted Christ, gave sufficient proof that the
permanence of Christianity does not depend
on the wording of certain recollections from
the life of Jesus, but on the personal work-

44 The Gospel of St. John
ing of the historical Jesus in personalities
who are converted and regenerated by him.
Paul is not the second founder of Christian
ity. He is its powerful pioneer on mission
ary ways and theological lines of thought,
which the disciples had not yet even thought
of. His whole being is prophecy ; what great
and unexpected things the living Christ
would work in the human race far beyond
the limits of his historical appearance; how
gloriously the mystery of the Gospel will
unfold itself to coming generations under
the guidance of his Spirit*
The best in this respect was done by John,
the man who speaks to us in the fourth Gos
pel. Far be it from me to delineate a picture
of liis life and development, but we must
just as little pass by the hints which his
writings and the rest of the New Testament
give us. The synoptic Gospels describe the
son of Zebedee, John, the fisherman of the
Sea of Gennesaret, as a man of strong, pas
sionate temper, who was not so much a man
of the world as Peter, but who was more
inwardly moved by enthusiasm for his Lord
and quick zeal for his honor. Jesus called
him and his brother James the "sons of

The Personality of John 45
thunder" (Boanerges, Mark 3. 17), and the
best explanation of this name is given in the
narrative in which we are told that both
wished that fire should come down upon
a city of the Samaritans, which refused to
receive Jesus (Luke 14. 54), by referring
to the example of Elias (Luke 14. 54).
Jesus, however, rebuked them, and said : "Ye
know not what manner of spirit ye are of."
John alone zealously complains of the man
who without belonging to the company of
the disciples can cast out devils in the name
of Jesus (Luke 9. 49). But Jesus anwered :
"Forbad him not, for he that is not against
you is for you." Equally decided is Jesus
when, shortly before the arrival at Jericho,
the two brothers ask of him to be granted
to sit one at his right hand, and the other on
the left hand, in his glory (Mark 10. 37).
He asks them whether they were ready to
suffer and die with him, and when they
cheerfully affirm this, he indeed holds out
prospects to both but leaves the disposal of
places of honor to his Father, and exhorts
the disciples in general to strive after the
true greatness which consists, as in his own
case, in service. But notwithstanding this

46 The Gospel of St. John
unmistakable material ambition, John always
appears among the three most familiar dis
ciples of Jesus. He is permitted to witness
the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mark
5. 37) ; he sees the Transfiguration on the
mountain in the north (9. 2) ; he asks Jesus
concerning the future of the temple ( 13. 3) ;
he accompanies Jesus into the garden of
Gethsemane to watch there with Jesus
(14-33)- As in the case of Peter, Jesus must
have seen something in this Galilean youth
which in spite of his faults and hastiness
spoke well for him. That which attracted
John to Jesus he thus expresses in his Gos
pel : the proofs of his deep, kind knowledge
of the heart which saw and understood the
heart of Christ (John 2. 25; 6. 64; 13. 11 ;
16. 30; 21. 17) and also his miraculous
deeds at which the multitude wondered, not
only as heralding a time of salvation, but
according to Jesus's instruction (Mark 2.
10) as signs also of his glory, his power to
help body and soul (John 2. 11; 4. 54; 5.
36; 10. 25 seq.; 14. 11). Later, after the
resurrection of Jesus, he received also an
additional proof of prophecy in the unbelief

The Personality of John 47
of the Jews and the betrayal by Judas. The
sufferings and resurrection of Jesus he truly
apprehended as having deeper significance
and he expressed this perception by means of
the "it is written" (2. 22; 12. 38 seq.; 13.
18; 15. 25; 17. 12; 19. 24; 28. 36 seq.;
20. 9). The habit of finding a hidden sense
in Old Testament texts, also influenced his
understanding of the words of Jesus (2. 21 ;
7. 39^ 12. 33; 21. 19), so that he speaks of
these also as a "fulfillment" (18. 9, 32).
In this sense we find John in the Acts of
the Apostles as a pillar of the congregation
in Jerusalem (Gal. 2. 9), and as the most
important Jewish missionary next to Peter.
Jewish missionary ! With this the last word
is spoken for many, and every further de
velopment is precluded. Our knowledge of
John is at an end, unless the Jews have
perchance killed him. But was it necessary
for a Galilean Jewish Christian to be a
stupid Judaist and zealot for the law?
Peter already gives the counterproof, not
only as he is described in the Acts of the
Apostles, but also by Paul (Gal. 2. 14).
The obstinate men of the circumcision and
the adversaries of Paul were to be sought

48 The Gospel of St. John
less among the Galileans than among the
former priests (Acts 6. 7) and Pharisees
( 15. 5) of Judea. Against their pretensions
a James (Gal. 2. 12) might be too lenient,
because he and the other brothers of the
Lord had no intercourse with Jesus during
his public ministry (John 7. 5)', like Peter
and John, who were the nearest to Jesus, and
had in their recollection of him and in
prayerful intercourse with him, a source of
life-power and inner continuous develop
ment. This very idea is most impressibly
emphasized by the Gospel of John: "of his
fulness have all we received, and grace for
grace" (John 1. 16). Many things which
Jesus had not yet told them on account of
their limitations as disciples, became after
ward clear to them; not however from a
strange source, but through the teachings of
his Spirit concerning him and the conse
quences of his work (16. 4, seq.), so that
they now stood nearer to him than before
(16. 23 seq.).
I can hardly understand how one will re
ject just here the idea of development which
otherwise governs the entire modern con
templation of nature and history where it

The Personality of John 49
forces itself, as it were, on impartial view.
It is not indeed a development from an immi
nent vitality, but one under the guidance of
the Spirit of God. To it belonged above all
that the great and new which was given to
the church of Jesus in Paul, did not pass by
John without leaving a trace. Paul brought
Christianity to a universal development out
wardly by concentrating it inwardly upon
the decisive principal points : the human race
in sin; Christ Crucified and Exalted; Life
in the Holy Ghost; the Church of Jesus
Christ; the coming of the Lord in glory.
John learned from Paul. This proves
already the fact that after a few decades he
appears in Asia Minor, having thus sought
his field of labor among the Gentiles, because
Palestine closed its eyes more and more to
the Gospel and hastened the solution of the
Messianic problems through the. sword of
the zealots. Here also originated his first
work, the Revelation of John, a book which,
in a very erroneous manner was put in the
keenest contrast to the other Johannean lit
erature because one overlooked in the great
variety of objects the still greater agreement
in fundamental idea. The same is colored

50 The Gospel of St. John
throughout Pauline in color, much also as
the book betrays Jewish types and feelings
concerning the coming of the Lord in judg
ment. The principal person of the Apoca
lypse is Jesus who died on the cross (Rev.
i. 5, 18; 2. 8; n. 8) ; the Lamb slain for
us (5. 6 seq.; 13. 8; 14. 1 seq.; 19. 7 seq.).
He speaks to the seer as the exalted (1. 5,
13 seq., 18; 3. 21; 12. 5), who shall come
again to victory over all his enemies (1. 7;
2. 16; 3. 11; 14. 14 seq.; 19. 11 seq.; 22. 7
seq.), after his church has gone with him the
way to the cross (1. 9; 2. 3; 6. 9; 7. 14;
12. 11 ; 13. 15; 17. 6; 20. 4). The Church is
gathered from all nations (5. 9; 7. 9; 15. 4;
21. 24; 22. 2), and consists of the saints
(5. 8; 13. 7; 17. 6; 22. 21) who believe on
Jesus (2. 13; 14. 12; 17. 14). In reading
the Apocalypse we rightly see ourselves re
minded of the "son of thunder," John; but
he has now learned to understand the long-
suffering of Christ ; his entire book may be
called the book of divine patience, which
again and again puts off the decisive stroke.
The author has still to battle with the Greek
language commonly used in the country
where he had just now settled. In his

The Personality of John 51
images of the future, old motives and new
impressions are still fermenting promis
cuously; but the firm point on which his
prophetical thinking sees its way, is Christ
the Victor, and here on earth were still
greater things destined for him.
John had learned to believe with Mark in
the miracle-worker Jesus ; with the Gospel of
Matthew in the promised Messiah; with
Paul and Luke in the Friend of sinners, and
the Saviour of the Gentiles. Now it is a
known fact, that in manhood, when the tasks
of life expand and deepen, reflection also is
all the more turned to that which properly
gave our life its direction and its content.
Many things which in younger years were
considered as decisive and valuable, do not
stand the test and are dropped. The more
serious the question arises as to the inmost
cause of our personal state of life, and es
pecially of our Christianity. John survived
all other apostles; he was still laboring in
Asia Minor after Paul and Peter had long
since suffered martyrdom. The Roman em
pire under a new dynasty recovered from
the civiL wars ; the Jewish people were
crushed by the destruction of their temple;

52 The Gospel of St. John
in the church one after the other had died
whom John had known ; but the Lord came
not from heaven; he seemed to have for
gotten his disciples and his church. No won
der that the eyes of the aging apostle turned
with redoubled energy to that which no
changes and disappointments of the present
could take from him, the biographical por
trait of Jesus, through whom he had once
experienced the great change of a new life.
What was the decisive blessing in Jesus?
Behind all that we have heretofore men
tioned, something higher flashed up, the
secret of the person of Jesus, which appeared
to us so clearly from the synoptic accounts
— his unique relation to God — that he was
not only a prophet, inspired, sent from God,
a Messiah in the Jewish sense, but also the
Son of God, who stood in the deepest, per
sonal life-communion with God (John I. 52 ;
14. 11); so that open eyes could see the
glory of God in all his actions ( 1. 1452. 11).
In like manner was his unique relation to
men. They saw in him not only a teacher
and helper, but a new life, the life from God
(5. 24 seq. ; 6. 33 seq. ; 10. 10; 17. 2). And
this was perceived not merely as a matter of

The Personality of John 53
fleeting sensation or artificial excitement, but
as truth, as highest reality (1. 14; 4. 23;
8. 32; 18. 37), which became their own
through knowledge, not theoretical infor
mation, but practical experience (6. 69;.
7. 17; 8. 32; 10. 14; 17. 3). True, that
Jesus lived in the memory of John as a man
(4. 29; 7. 46; 8. 40; 19. 5), as one who in
his entire work was dependent on God (5.
19, 30; 8. 28), and lived in obedience to
God (4. 34 ; 6. 38 ; 8. 29) ; as man, who
when wearied sat on the well of Jacob (4.
6), wept at the grave of Lazarus (11. 35),
and before his suffering experienced deep
inward commotions (12. 27; 13. 21). But
more important than these traits which ir
revocably belonged to the past, were to him
the experiences with Jesus which now also
renewed themselves in his communion with
the exalted Christ, and through him with
God (14. 20, 23; 15. 4. seq.; 17. 23) ; the
abiding sense of God in Jesus, which re
vealed itself ever more clearly to the reflec
tion of the disciple at the bottom of the self-
consciousness of Jesus. As many a word of
parental love comes to our memory again in
the stress of life after the parents have long

54 The Gospel of St. John
since passed away, their words, however, are
fulfilled in our experience; thus John, under
the struggles and sufferings of his apostolic
office among the Gentiles, recalled many
sayings of Jesus which he heard from his
lips as a young beginner, but which at that
time he but lightly esteemed because he still
labored under the confused expectations of
the circle of the disciples. Among these es
pecially were the statements of Jesus con
cerning himself, which had been wrung
from him through the opposition and accu
sations of his adversaries, particularly in
Jerusalem, the principal seat of antagonism
to him; statements concerning his life with
God (10. 30, 38; 14. 10 seq., 20; 16. 32;
17. 21), concerning his life's purpose with
God (3. 13; 6. 62; 7. 33; 8. 21) and his
mysterious descent from God (6. 62 ; 8. 23),
which is not from the stream of time, but
from God's eternity (8. 58; 17. 5, 24).
John states expressly that many words of
Jesus again occurred to him and to the
other disciples in general only after his
resurrection, and which had now become
intelligible (2. 22; 12. 16; comp. 13. 7).
Have we a right to explain this as mere

The Personality of John 55
literary fiction? On the contrary, this was
the joy of his old age, that the inner and
outer experiences of his long Christian life
came to a harmonious whole with the im
pressions of his choleric youth ; that he could
bear witness to the Church, that the Christ
with whom Paul conquered the world is no
syncretistic fancy picture, but the historical
Jesus, whose earthly life already breathed
the atmosphere of eternity.

V
THE ORIGINALITY OF THE GOSPEL
OF JOHN
The fourth Gospel proceeded from the
holy joy which prompts its author to leave
this treasure of experiences and recollections
to the Church. We must not ascribe it to
some "great unknown," but we can unhesi
tatingly attribute it to John. With this joy
in his face Raphael represented him writing
in the Disputa, and we must not allow this
gladness to be distorted into the ironical
smile of a forger. It became indeed a won
derful book. John meant to describe a per
sonality which has no analogy; the "only
Son of the Father" (i. 14, 18; 3. 16; 1 John
4. 9). He does not engage with his oppo
nents in dialectical discussion, in documen
tary proceedings, but simply states : "thus it
was, and thus it is." He considers the exhibi
tion satisfactory as proved. But by no means
does he intend to set forth everything he
knows; he will not write a "life of Jesus,"
but says at the close of his work : "and many
56

The Originality of John 57
other signs truly did Jesus in the presence
of his disciples, which are not written in this
book. But these are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God; and that believing ye might have life
through his name" (John 20. 30 seq.). By
this he designates the contents of the book
as a selection of "signs," that is, of deeds
and accompanying discourses of Jesus,
which are to give the reader an insight into
that which Jesus of Nazareth is. He is the
Messiah, as the primitive church already
confessed, but not in the natural and of
ficially circumscribed sense which many
Jewish Christians associated with the word
Messiah. His calling rests entirely upon
his person; he is the Son of God, through
whom the Father has spoken as through
none else. To believe in him constitutes the
innermost nature of the Christian life. Who
ever believes on him, receives in his name
through the effects which proceed from con
nection with his person the trjie life; and
thereby the practical proof, that in him we
have God. This literary intention is carried
out with surprising energy and consequence
through the whole Gospel. This book is

58 The Gospel of St. John
indeed not written by the "flagging hand of
an old man" ; for not every man of seventy
or eighty years is already a decrepit old man.
We knew one of ninety years, who had not
had time to be weary, and nothing compels
us to go down to the last years of the first
century. John omitted many things from
the life of Jesus because they were already
sufficiently known to his readers, and in
their stead he narrated other events which,
for reasons unknown, had not been received
into the synoptic tradition influenced by the
Peter-narratives of Mark. But he selected
only such incidents which to him seemed to
throw an important light upon the person
of Jesus, and which were the cause of the
remarkable statements of Jesus concerning
himself. Hence the origin of that which
has been called the monotony of the Gospel
of John.
The theme is always the same : Jesus him
self, whether John the Baptist, or Nico-
demus, or Caiaphas, or Pilate speak, they all
speak of Jesus. That John was a preacher of
repentance, Caiaphas a high priest, Pilate a
procurator, is for the author a secondary
consideration. To some of our contempo-

The Originality of John 59
raries who bring their art-motives from
Japan, their religion from India, and their
ethics from elsewhere, this may seem intol
erably one-sided ; but nervous versatility has
no right to blame a book which has produced
such great things by its very sound
uniformity. Some striking liberties of the author are
indeed evident. The relation of Jesus to his
people is wholly described in the light of past
history through which it became clear that
upon the whole Israel had refused the Gospel.
Christianity, however, as a new religion, en
tered upon its way through the world free
from the Mosaic law. That Jesus himself
lived under the law we learn indirectly from
the fact of his journeys to the legal feasts,
for the rest of it is mainly the law of Moses
(John 7. 19, 23; comp. 1. 17), the law of
the Jews (7. 51; 8. 17; 10. 34; 15. 25),
which like the rest of the Old Testament,
contains prophecies concerning him (5. 39,
46 seq.). Among the countrymen of Jesus
a distinction is indeed made between the
"people," which gladly listened to Jesus,
and the high priests and Pharisees who op
pose him but the collective name "Jews," is

60 The Gospel of St. John
with preference applied to these opponents
of Jesus. The time of worshiping in Jerusa
lem is past (4. 21) ; Jesus lives not only for
Israel but for the future "children of God"
out of all nations, who are to be gathered in
through him ( 1 o. 1 6 ; 1 1 . 5 2 ) . The miracles
of Jesus, which for Jewish minds played such
an important part (Mark 8. 1 1 ; John 6. 30;
1 Cor. 1. 22), areas outward events little re
garded. One can experience them and yet
inwardly be a stranger to Jesus (John 1. 51 ;
2. 23 seq. ; 4. 48 ; 12. 37) . On him to whom
they became signs of Christ's indwelling
power they had accomplished their purpose.
In like manner the eschatology which, in the
synoptists, especially in the great discourse
on the second coming of Christ, has such a
strong Jewish coloring, is indeed set aside
by John (14. 3 J 5- 28; 12. 48; 5. 29), but
words are put in the foreground in which
the future blessings of salvation are attested
as being already present in Jesus (14. 18;
1 1. 25 ; 3. 18 ; 14. 6) . As to the past as well
as to the future, the meditating and brood
ing memories of the evangelist rise beyond
the bounds of time, to abide by the everlast
ing in Christ.

The Originality of John 6i
But not only is the Jewish in the life of
Jesus affected by this reduction and concen
tration upon the one thing needful, nay, the
eye of John is so dazzled by the bright splen
dor of the personal life of Jesus, that aside
from Jesus he can see only darkness, the dis
tance only from him in the human race. He
knows the relative differences in the lives of
men and expresses them with psychological
fineness in the various personalities of his
narrative — in Nathaniel, Peter and Thomas,
in Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman and
Bartimaeus, in Judas, Caiaphas and Pilate.
But compared with Jesus this whole hu
manity is nothing but the world. Jesus is
wholly and clearly on the side of God; the
world is given to sin, to judgment and death,
and would perish had not God out of love
sent to his Son as the world's Redeemer (i.
29 ; 3. 16 seq. ; 4. 42 ; 12. 47) . Even honest,
truth-seeking men like Nathaniel (1. 48;
3. 21 ; 18. 37) make no exception ; their love
of truth shows itself in this that they suffer
themselves to be drawn by God to Jesus
(6. 44 seq.; 17. 6), they learn through him
the sinfulness of their hearts (1. 49; 4.
18; 5. 14; 6. 70), and through him begin a

62 The Gospel of St. John
new life (i. 43; 3. 3). Now he keeps them
(10. 28; 17. 12) as his chosen ones (6. 70;
13. 18; 15. 16), and prays for them (14.
16; 17. 19) ; he dies for them (10. 15 seq.;
15. 13), and overcomes the world for them
(16. 33), so that the hatred of the world in
which they live, cannot harm them (15. 18
seq.; 17. 11). Whoever believes not in
Jesus is subject to divine wrath and is ex
cluded from eternal life (3. 36). This keen
contrast between the work of God in Christ
and the world has been called "dualism";
but this is an altogether misleading expres
sion, because dualism in philosophical usage
designates the opposition of spirit and mat
ter, whereas John conceives the creation as
not separated entirely from God; he makes
Jesus really live in the flesh (1. 14; 6. 51
seq.). As no supposed monism has yet suc
ceeded in deriving organic life from inor
ganic existence, mental life from animal in
stinct, so John emphasizes with all energy
that the life that he and his fellow-Christians
had received was a gift which only Jesus
could give, and which puts in the shade every
other content of human life. But this life
entered our real world through Jesus and it

The Originality of John 63
produces not only desire for heaven but
power over sin.
The same general latitude and liberty is
shown by John also in the manner in which
he treats his matter as an author. He some
times commences a narrative, but follows it
up only so far until the momentous words of
Jesus are mentioned ; he then breaks off and
the reader can draw his own conclusions.
Thus, at the cleansing of the temple (2. 20),
in the colloquy with Nicodemus (3. 21), at
the raising of Lazarus (11. 44), in the nar
rative of the Greeks who wished to see
Jesus (12. 26). At other times in the midst
of an incident he refers to former events
which belong to another connection. At the
feast of tabernacles he is reminded of the
healing of the sick at Bethesda which took
place a year before (7. 21 ; 5. 8). The sub
ject of the Good Shepherd he takes up again
after many months on the feast of the dedi
cation (10. 26, 15). In the farewell ad
dresses Jesus admonishes the disciples at the
end of chapter 14 to go to Gethsemane (14.
31), yet two other chapters follow and the
high-priestly prayer. The narratives are
given in an order which visibly answers the

64 The Gospel of St. John
desire to show the revelation of God in
Christ, and its different reception by men in
some typical examples. In like manner the
sayings of Jesus which are related as to
content are put together in large discourses
as was done already by the first evangelist,
and before him by the author of the address-
narratives. The farewell addresses, so to
speak, need not to have been successively der
livered in one hour, as we now read them;
but John united at this point what on the
whole he remembered of the words of Jesus
spoken in the midst of his disciples before
his crucifixion. Between the words of Jesus
he occasionally puts some explanatory re
marks (2. 21 seq. ; 6. 6, 64; 7. 39; 8. 27; 11.
13, 51; 12. 33, 41; 13. 11; 18. 9, 32), in
which he shows his predilection for mysteri
ous references to future events. But his
greatest boldness is evinced where he makes
Jesus as well as John the Baptist, and other
persons speak Johannean, that is, in the lan
guage of the many axioms described hereto
fore, in which a few main thoughts are
varied in different ways through effectual
contrasts between Christ and what Christ is
not. In the face of all this emphasis, can the

The Originality of John 65
question still be of the credibility of the
Gospel ? It would seem not. For him who
rejects the idea of verbal inspiration and
demands stenography, everything should not
become uncertain.
But we shall do well to consider the fol
lowing facts : Each author of antiquity was
in the habit of forming without the least
scruple the speeches of his heroes as regards
style, because one proceeded from the cor
rect consideration that the thoughts, the con
tents of that which had been spoken was the
effectual thing, and not the accidental form
of the text. Once only does John quote a
solemn address of Jesus (12. 44 seq.), after
he had narrated that Jesus had departed
from the persistently unbelieving people in
Jerusalem (12. 36). A popular address
("he cried and said") without hearers ? No,
but an address in which, at the close of the
public ministry of Jesus, his testimony was
again but slightly comprehended by the
evangelist. Jesus and his disciples were far
removed from fixing sacred formulas and
texts. The best known words of Jesus, even
the Lord's Prayer and the words at the
Lord's Supper, are extant in different texts.

66 The Gospel of St. John
The church of Jesus was not to swear to
words and fight over words, but to rejoice
in the thing, present salvation in Christ.
Like none else John shows a sovereign in
difference toward the naked text. When he
refers back to what has been said before,
he generally quotes it deviating from the
former wording (3. 3 and 7; 7. 34 and 13.
33; 8. 21 and 24; 6. 44 and 65 ; 11. 26 and
40; 17. 12 and 18. 9). On the other hand,
he quotes words which, according to the
text, exclude themselves, but in truth only
illustrate the same matter from two different
sides (3. 17 and 9. 39; 5. 31 and 8. 14;
comp. 1 John 1. 10 and 3. 9; 2. 7 and 8;
John 3. 32 and 33). This license over
against the letter is connected with the inner
most nature of the spiritual state of the dis
ciple. John knows indeed that one becomes
a disciple when one hears and receives the
words of Jesus (5. 24; 12. 48), keeps and
preserves them (8. 51; 15. 7). He also
knows that the Holy Spirit who rules in the
church since the exaltation of Jesus to the
Father (7. 39; 20. 22), brings nothing new
beyond Jesus, but reminds the disciples of
the words of Jesus ; testifies to them of Jesus

The Originality of John 67
and glorifies Jesus in them (14. 26; 15. 26;
16. 14). Therefore in an increasing meas
ure John formed his own mode of expression
on the very self-testimonies of Jesus which
as time passed became more precious and
valuable. Whereas the Apocalypse very
much reminds us of the Old Testament and
Jewish Apocalypses, John's language in his
Gospel has wholly assumed the solemnly
simple strain, emphasizing great contrasts
and sayings which we also find among the
synoptists where Jesus speaks of himself
(Matt. 11. 25 seq.; 10. 32 seq.; 12. 30 seq.;
13. 11 seq.; 18. 18 seq.; 25. 31 seq.; 28. 18
seq. ; Luke 12. 49 seq. ; 13. 32 seq.). To this
John added nothing foreign to Jesus, but as
with regard to the contents, he only let the
real keynote of the life of Jesus sound
through everything.
It is remarkable that in the Epistles of
John which belong to the same time, the
language is the same, the thoughts, however,
less in depth and originality than the dis
courses of Jesus, are more adapted to the
ordinary Christian consciousness and thus
answered the practical purpose of the
Epistles, which are an echo of the Gospel

68 The Gospel of St. John
and not its source. But in these very
Epistles John shows himself free from all
anxious adherence to given expressions. For
instance, in the Gospel, the Holy Spirit is
called the Comforter (14. 16, 26; 15. 26;
16. 7) but Jesus is thus named in the First
Epistle (2. 1), and the Spirit is called
Unction (2. 20, 27) . To the work of Christ
is applied the thought of "propitiation,"
which is wanting in the Gospel (2. 2 ; 4. 10) .
The Evangelist John is filled with the thought
that the words of Jesus are not saving for
mulas, whose most frequent repetition evi
dences connection with God, but that they
are Spirit and Life (John 6. 63), words in
which are expressed thoughts of God,
truths of God which have an everlasting
meaning and which apply to the most dif
ferent times and relations ; words of eternal
life through which the Spirit of Truth guides
the disciples into all truth (6. 68; 16. 13).
Jesus himself lives in the disciples who be
lieve on him (6. 56; 14. 20; 15. 4 seq.; 17.
23 seq.) ; and hence the disciple remains not
always weak and helpless, but the water
which Jesus gives him, becomes in him a
well of water (4. 14; 7. 38). He can say:

The Originality of John 69
"We have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2.
16) ; he is the friend of Jesus, not merely his
servant (John 15. 14 seq.). He asks Jesus
no more questions of doubt and lacking of
understanding (16. 23) nor does he need
any more metaphorical explanations of the
thoughts of Jesus (16. 25). In Spirit-com
munion with Jesus, the disciple is immedi
ately certain of the love of God ( 16. 26 seq.) .
Imagining that the Gospel of John was writ
ten by a man who had reached the height of
maturity in discipleship, we will not expect
that for the space of half a century he pre
served to us every expression of Jesus in an
authentic text; that his personal order or
mode of life and mode of expression re
mained without any influence on this book,
nevertheless we cannot but conceive that
only a disciple and eye-witness could write
so freely and deeply ; and that we have here
before us the portraiture of the historical
Jesus.

VI
THE CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL
OF JOHN
Turning from the evangelist to his Gos
pel, its very introduction, the prologue (i.
1-18), gives us an imposing proof of the
intellectual liberty and largeness of the view
which John had obtained in his life as a dis
ciple, rich in the experiences of the earlier
evangelists. Mark commenced his account
with John the Baptist (Mark 1. 1 seq.);
Matthew prefaced his by a history of the
birth and infancy and traced the origin of
Jesus back to Abraham (Matt. 1. 1 seq.).
Luke brought a still more detailed fore-his
tory and went back even to Adam (Luke
3. 38). For John this was insufficient.
True, that he also commences his historical
notices with John the Baptist (1. 6, 15, 19),
through whom he had himself come to
Jesus (1. 35 seq.) ; true, that he also knew
that Jesus was born of a woman (2. 1 seq. ;
6. 42; 18. 37; 19. 25 seq.), and was known
among the Jews as the son of Joseph of

Contents of Gospel of John 71
Nazareth (1. 46; 6. 42). But he must go
further back if he is to speak of Jesus; he
must reach back into the depths of God,
which he does with those notable introduc
tory words : "In the beginning was the word
(the Logos), and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God. All things were
made by Him; and without Him was not
anything made that was made. In him was
life, and the life was the light of men."
These words produced much veneration for
the Gospel of John from the philosophically
educated classes of all centuries. In modern
theology, however, they have led to the
opinion that the credibility of John can
already be done away with by the catch
word "Logos-evangelist" and "Logos-
Christ"; because from the beginning the
author takes the Logos-idea as his basis, and
his entire portrait of Jesus is ruled by it.
The Logos-idea, however, it is asserted, he
borrowed from Philo who blended the teach
ings of Heraclitus and the Stoics concerning
the Logos, as the forming law of nature,
with the Platonic ideology, and the later
Jewish statements about Wisdom as media-

72 The Gospel of St. John.
trix of creation, and described the Logos as
the middle principle between God and the
material world. In this assertion a correct
observation is incorrectly turned against the
Gospel. It is quite possible that John in his
manifold intercourse with Hellenists and
Greeks, became acquainted with their Logos-
idea as a pet phrase of the educated at the
time, which seemed to him suitable to con
vey to them an idea of the divine which ap
peared in Jesus; the selection of the term
may have been influenced by this considera
tion. But still more certain is it that John
did not write for a conventicle of the edu
cated, but for the Christian church, to
strengthen it in its belief in Jesus (22. 31).
Hence, he had to use expressions which con
veyed an idea to those without philosophic
training; terms which would be comprehen
sible to every thoughtful member of the con
gregation. Such was the case when, with
the term "Logos," John combined not the
philosophical meaning, "rational system of
the world," but the equally acceptable mean
ing "word," which would remind the first
readers of the speaking of God in the Old
Testament; above all of the history of crea-

Contents of Gospel of John 73
tion which also commences with the words :
"In the beginning," and then passes over to
the creative speaking of God bringeth forth
light and life (Gen. 1. 1 seq.). It would
also remind them of many other Old Testa
ment passages in which the word of God
creates (Ps. 33. 6 seq.), runs (Ps. 147. 15),
goes forth and returns (Isa. 55. 11), destroys
(Jer. 23. 29) and heals (Ps. 107, 20). John
starts from a biblical basis with which his
readers were familiar, and from this leads
them to the deepest understanding of Jesus.
The Word expresses the thought and wish
of man; it reveals what is in him. The God
of the Old Testament was a speaking God,
a God of revelation, of self-communication,
a God of the Word. John then proceeds
from this well-known thought, his life-long
meditation and search, to find the true ex
pression for the mystery of the person of
Jesus, and here his thought has come to a
rest. In each of his great works he speaks
of Jesus as Logos (Rev. 19. 13; John 1. 1,
14; 1 John 1. 1), but every time in respect
ful, brief reference as becomes the mystery.
In the further course of the Gospel Jesus
nowhere calls himself the "Word," but

74 The Gospel of St. John
speaks of the word of God in the usual, ob
jective sense (John 5. 38; 8. 55; 10. 35; 17.
6 seq.), so accurately does John distinguish
between his recollection and his profound
attempt to explain the power of Jesus. The
Church likewise rightly did not receive the
Logos-thought into her oldest confession,
but made greater use of it in her theology.1
In the beginning, says John, before there
was yet a world, was the Word. God has
never been an inactive or dreaming God,
rather he is a living, personal God, conscious
of himself, who had to realize his thoughts.
The will, for such self-manifestation, belongs
inseparably to the being of God and is God
himself ; for God will give nothing less than
himself. By the Word all things without
exception were made. Nothing accidental,
nothing abortive came from the hand of
God ; "Everything was very good." In this
self-communication of God consisted and
consists the life of created things. God is
not the negative of concrete life, but in each
being a thought of God is realized. In man,
however (the author silently follows the
history of creation), this divine power of
1 See Schaff , Creeds of Christendom.

Contents of Gospel of John 75
life becomes a light, a conscious intellectual
life, which is disposed to know the truth ; on
which account man is the crown of God's
creation. These firm foundations of a
Christian theism and optimism form the
basis of everything that follows: the God
of creation is the Father of Jesus Christ.
"And the light shineth in darkness, and
the darkness comprehendeth it not. The
true light which lighteth every man that
cometh into the world. He was in the
world, and the world was made by him, and
the world knew him not."
John does not expressly mention the fall ;
but with a determination which reminds us
of Paul (Rom. 3. 23), he comprises the
time of Judaism and that of heathenism
under judgment. The light of divine reve
lation (here nature and conscience, there
the law) existed, but it shined into humanity
darkened by sin, estranged from God. Thus
it continued until John the Baptist, who as
the herald of the final revelation of God,
was allowed to bear witness of the Light
(John 1. 6-8). Now commence the per
sonal recollections of the author, and he
quickly transfers his readers to that time of

76 The Gospel of St. John
great expectation unforgotten by him, when
the Baptist appeared and pointed at a greater
one who should come after him. At that
time the self-revelation of God to the human
race which to a degree had already aided all
higher life of men, was at its highest mani
festation. It was "to come into the world."
Its presence in the world, which owed to it
its existence, had not sufficed; the world
knew it not. Now came the highest which
would never have entered the mind of any
man: the Word of God appeared in the
world through One, who, not only had God's
word for a certain generation like the proph
ets (Jer. 23. 28), but was God's word for
the entire human race ; God's bodily, perfect
manifestation, God's word in person. And
how was this personal manifestation of God
in him received by men ?
"He came unto his own and his own re
ceived him not. But as many as received
him, to them gave he power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe on his
name; which were born, not of blood, nor
of the will of the -flesh, nor of the will of
man, but of God. *And the Word was made
¦flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his

Contents of Gospel of John 77
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of
the Father, full of grace and truth."
Here already resounds the heavy-hearted
accent which afterward runs through the
Gospel (3. 19, 32; 8. 43; 12. 37) ; the shin
ing manifestation of the heart and will of
God through Him who was the Word him
self was not received, as one would have
expected. He came into the world, which
was his own as true as it was God's world ;
but the men, to whom he came, proved in
different, as before the darkness had kept
off the light. The more precious was his
gift to those who received him in faith.
These he made sons of God by the mysteri
ous experience of spiritual birth from God.
In their midst he dwelt as the Word, which
was made flesh ; as the man whose whole life
was a manifestation of God and the gift of
God. More luminous than Israel had once
seen the "Shekinah," in the tabernacle, the
glory of the Lord, believers saw the glory of
the only Son in divine grace and truth which
went forth from Jesus ; as sons of God they
perceived in him the Son of God, whom the
Father had sent into the world (5. 36 ; 7. 28 ;
S. 32). John does not obtain the certainty

78 The Gospel of St. John
of this divine origin of Jesus from the
Logos-thought, but, like Paul (Rom. 9. 5;
1 Cor. 8. 6; 10. 4; 15. 47; 2 Cor. 8. 9; Phil.
2. 6; Col. 1. 5 seq.), and the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. 1. 2 seq.)
from the total impression of the life of Jesus
which was confirmed to him through the
recollection of the words of Jesus (John 3.
11 ; 6. 38, 46, 62; 8. 23, 38, 42; 16. 28; 17.
5, 8, 24). He who in his earthly existence
was the image of God, and in the power of
God passed from death unto glory, cannot
have proceeded like ourselves from nothing.
An eternal, personal relation to God must be
attributed to him, through which he already
shared in the pre-Christian manifestation of
God (8. 56 seq.; 12. 41). Of this glory of
Jesus, John the Baptist already presaged
something and humbly bowed before it (1.
15). But greater things awaited the dis
ciples of Jesus.
"And of his fulness have all we received,
and grace for grace. For the law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ. No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him." In the

Contents of Gospel of John 79
same weighty conciseness which character
izes the entire prologue, there is stated here
that which has been the outcome of the
intercourse of the disciples with Jesus.
From the life of the Son of God, which
proved to them an inexhaustible fullness of
grace and truth, they could take grace for
grace and were forever rescued from the
power of sin. They were lifted beyond the
law of Moses under which they had thus
far served God slavishly (15. 15). Through
Jesus the grace of God became the object of
their personal experience, and the perfect
knowledge of God which all former genera
tions could not have experienced according
to the existing state of the revelation of
God now become realized in them through
the Son of God, who could speak of God
like one of his bosom friends and
companions. Thus, in this wondj^us_j^iQ^e,._John_
gradually leads his readers from . the-ver-v- —
beginning of creation down to his time, from
the throne of heaven to the earthly existence,
and with an experienced hand, he traces the
ground-lines of the picture which is after
ward to shine before us in warm colors. He

80 The Gospel of St. John
first speaks of the Word, then of the Lord
who had come, then of the only-begotten
Son of the Father; finally, of Jesus, the
Messiah (i. 17). With a firm hand John
links the picture of his Master with the his
tory of religion, and comes to the result:
God's revelation in Jesus is his final word
to humanity ; in Jesus we have the true God.
This is fullness indeed.
We were compelled to dwell at length
upon the prologue because the erroneous as
sertion has been inferred from it that the
Gospel of John could not come from an eye
witness. The rest of the book we can treat
more briefly, because its systematic arrange
ment is striking. The first section (1. 19 —
4. 54) describes how Jesus appeared in
Israel according to the announcement of
John the Baptist, and obtained his first dis
ciples from his followers. To this circle of
disciples the miraculous wine-gift at the
marriage in Cana manifests his glory;
whereas, Jerusalem, in the cleansing of the
temple, experiences his judicial severity;
and there the first remonstrances against
him already begin. The colloquy with Nico-
demus shows Jesus in his intercourse with

Contents of Gospel of John 8i
the leading circles of the people. The con
versation with the Samaritan woman reveals
his affection for the lowly esteemed people,
and opens prospects of a later mission be
yond Israel. In the narrative of the son of
the nobleman, Jesus is finally presented as
the miraculous healer of the sick. Words
and deeds, in close connection, testify of him
as the great Saviour who goes his way in
the power of God.
The second section (5. 1 — 12. 50) shows
how from this work of Jesus originated the
tragic conflict between him and his people.
The healing of the sick at Bethesda gives of
fence, because it is done on the Sabbath. The
Galileans are offended at Jesus, because after
the feeding of the five thousand he would not
take the lead of a Messianic movement, and,
instead of a display of miraculous power,
speaks to them of the Bread of Life and
of the possibility of a bloody end. On the
feast of tabernacles the urgent appeals of
Jesus to believe on him meet with an even
keener opposition which, in the discourse
concerning Abraham, increases to outrages,
and is not allayed by the healing of the man
born blind. From the tenth chapter on the

82 The Gospel of St. John
transition to the circle of the disciples is
prepared. In the discourse on the Good
Shepherd Jesus shows what his followers
have in him. He raises Lazarus. Before
his entrance into Jerusalem he is anointed at
Bethany. After his entrance into the city
the Greeks who wish to see Jesus give him
an opportunity to speak of his death. Jesus
now retires from the public eye.
The third section (13. 1 ; 17. 26) describes
what took place in closest communion with
his disciples. At the last meal Jesus
prophesies the betrayal by Judas and the
denial of Peter. In the washing of their
feet, he shows them his kind love and ex
horts them to like love among themselves.
The other farewell addresses, interrupted by
questions and objections of the disciples, re
fer in a natural vein to his approaching
farewell; to the work of Jesus thus far,
which will not be destroyed but completed
by his death; to the future condition of his
disciples in the world and the inner support
which they shall have by the assistance of
the Holy Spirit ; finally, to the meeting again
with Jesus.
In the "high-priestly" prayer Jesus brings

Contents of Gospel of John 83
before his Father the deepest requests of his
soul for himself, his disciples and the future
church. Painful as were the controversial
disputes of the second section, as comforting
are those words in the circle of the disciples
with the breath of peace and the holy love
which permeated them, priceless comfort for
the mourners of all times.
In the fourth section (18. 1 — 20. 31) Jesus
resolutely faces his destiny and with rapid
strokes the tragedy develops. Jesus is taken
in Gethsemane and examined before the high
priest. Peter denies him. Before Pilate he
acknowledges that he is a king and deeply
impresses the judge, but is finally scourged
and condemned to be crucified. Of the last
hours, the title on the cross and the casting
of lots for the garments are mentioned, to
gether with the three words of the Crucified.
The burial is preceded by the piercing of
Jesus' side, whereby his actual death was
determined. The history of the passion as described by
John is not devoid of truly human traits —
like the thirsting on the cross — but the im
pression of the silent greatness, the majesty
of him who voluntarily offered his life is

84 The Gospel of St. John
predominant. On the Easter-day, Peter and
John find an empty grave. Mary Magdalene
sees the Risen One, and in the evening He
appears in the midst of his disciples. A
week later Thomas is convinced of the truth
of the resurrection and exclaimed : "My Lord
and my God"; which thus expresses the
author's innermost disposition of the heart
toward Jesus.
The twenty-first chapter, with the appear
ance of Jesus at the Sea of Tiberias, forms
an addition, probably by the hand of John
himself, but with a final word by another
hand (21. 24 seq.). It transfers the reader
to the time when Peter had long ago suffered
martyrdom, and the question was raised in
the church as to the end of the aged John;
that this last apostle also died and that
the congregation was, nevertheless, not
shaken in its belief in the coming of the
Lord. This is owed to Paul and John, the
men who had indelibly written into its soul
that salvation is now already present in
Christ, by celebrating Jesus as the Son of
God, the Saviour of the world, the living
King and Lord.

CONCLUSION
One of the ablest workers in the New
Testament department, Weizsacker, com
prised his doubts about the genuineness of
the Gospel of John in these words: "That
that apostle, according to the Gospel, the be
loved disciple, who sat beside Jesus, con
sidered and described everything which he
once experienced, as living with the incar
nate divine Logos is ... a mystery. No
power of faith and philosophy can be largely
enough represented to obliterate the recollec
tion of the real life and to put in its place
this admirable picture of a divine life"
(Apostolisches Zeitalter, 2d ed., p. 517).
His inquiry has led us to answer : The real
life of Jesus, even according to the Synop
tists, was so remarkable, so unique, so
powerful, that in a disciple who spent his
whole life meditating on the mystery of the
person of Jesus, his conception of Jesus as
the incarnate, divine Logos had to be neces
sarily revealed to the church at last, because
his loving, reverential thought could never
rest in any other explanation. 8s

86 The Gospel of St. John
By so doing he did not put the admirable
picture of a divine being in the place of the
historical Jesus, but illustrated the picture
of Jesus of Nazareth with the traits of divine
glory which he and his fellow disciples had
witnessed in Jesus. The decision for or
against the truth of his account will always
be conditioned by two super-historical fac
tors : first, whether one believes in miracles,
for according to John, Jesus is indeed a
miraculous personality who cannot be com
pared even with the greatest men of the
human race. He is the only one after whom
we need not look for another because no reli
gious advance of the human race can ever.
lead beyond Him, but only go deeper into
that which he intended. Secondly, one must
consider what he has experienced himself
with Jesus and how he is personally related
to him. He may take as his pattern a very
great prophet, a religious genius, a hero of
love and trust in God, he may try to reduce
the accounts of all Gospels of the New Testa
ment to the notions of this time; but the
cords will not hold. But he, who needs a
Redeemer from sin, a Mediator and personal
Helper, and has experienced Jesus as such

Conclusion 87
in many anxious hours of his life, will gladly
say with John: "We understand one
another; thy Jesus is also mine; yea, He is
the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man
cometh unto the Father, but by Him I"1
1 For further study see Professor Sanday's recent work
on the Fourth Gospel and Recent Criticism, and The
Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology, by Ernest
F. Scott, M.A.— (T. & T. Clark.) Edinburgh.— Editor.