S^WJ<JW4W4\V

 ¦¦ . .

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION

THE JOHANNINE WEITINGS.

INTRODUCTION

TO

THE JOHANNINE WRITINGS.

DT
PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.
MINISTER OF GALASHIELS,
AUTHOE OF "AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PAULINE EPISTLES," "AN INTRODUCTION TO THE
CATHOLIC EPISTLES," "A COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,"
"EXEQETICAL STUDIES," "MESSIANIC PROPHECY," BEING
THE BAIRD LECTURES FOR 1879, ETC.

LONDON:
JAMES NISBET & CO., 21 BERNERS STREET.

MDCCCXCI.

TO

PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNITED THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY,
NEW YORK,

XEbis imorfe
IS
RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED
IN
TESTIMONY OF THE AUTHOR'S APPRECIATION OF HIS CHRISTIAN
CHARACTER AND PROFOUND SCHOLARSHIP.

PREFACE.

This work is intended to form a companion- volume to
my two previous Introductions, the one to the Pauline,
and the other to the Catholic Epistles. It does not
enter upon any exegetical explanation of the wiitino-s of
St. John, which is tbe province of the commentator,
but discusses, chiefly in a historical manner, the topics
which are properly of an introductory character, such
as the authorship of these writings, their date, the
design of their composition, and the peculiarities which
belong to them. The question of their inspiration is
considered as foreign to the subject, because the authen
ticity of the writings must first be determined before
we enter upon any inquiry as to their Divine origin.
The authenticity of John's Gospel is the great ques
tion of modern criticism, and must be regarded as still
unsettled. In this country the greatest theologians,
with the exception of Dr. Samuel Davidson, are to be
placed on the positive side ; but the case is otherwise
in Germany, where opinions are nearly equally divided.
Whilst Weiss, Zahn, Luthardt, and Beyschlag maintain
the Johannine origin of the Fourth Gospel, Schiirer,
Harnack, Pfleiderer, Weizacker, and Hilgenfeld still
rank among those who deny it. I have endeavoured to

viii PREFACE.
discuss tbe question with all fairness, have frankly
admitted the difficulties which still exist, and have
stated the objections of those belonging to the negative
side of tbe question, and given to them their full force.
I am not so vain as to think that I have added much to
the solution of the problem ; but this only I would
affirm, that whilst there are admittedly difficulties in
the adoption of the supposition that John is the author
of the Fourth Gospel, there exist much greater diffi
culties in the supposition that this author was an
anonymous writer of the second century. In a letter
with which Dr. Schaff favoured me, that learned theo
logian observes : " The Johannine problem is the most
difficult in the literature of the New Testament. That
Gospel is a mystery as the work of the beloved disciple,
but a still greater mystery if the work of some unknown
Christian Plato of the second century. Hase says that
one risks his scientific reputation now-a-days (in Ger
many) by conceding the genuineness of the Fourth
Gospel ; but significantly adds, ' It has not been so
once, and it may not be so always.' I strongly hope
and believe that some master-critic will rise before loujr
to turn the tables, and to restore once more this Gospel
of Gospels to its rightful place, which it held in the
heart of Christendom from St. Augustine and St. Chry-
sostom down to Schleiermacher and Liicke."
Schiirer, in a remarkable address given at a theolo
gical conference at Giessen on 20th June 1889, holds
that the two parties, those who maintain and those who
deny the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
are now approaching to a reconciliation. On the one

PREFACE. ix
hand, he observes, the defenders of the Fourth Gospel
admit that the discourses of our Lord are influenced
more or less by the subjectivity of the author — his
Christian Platonism ; whilst, on the other hand, the
opponents have departed from most of the objections
advanced by Baur and his school, both as to the date
of the Gospel and as to its tendency, and now admit
a genuine kernel of the Apostle's teaching, which was
worked over by one or more of his disciples. Eecent
discoveries of ancient manuscripts — as, for example,
the full text of the Clementine Homilies, the Philo-
sophoumena of Hippolytus, and a more rigid examina
tion of the writings of the Fathers, especially of Justin
Martyr, and of the references to the Fourth Gospel by
the early Gnostic writers — have all been in favour of the
Johannine authorship. On this, Dr. Sanday, who, in
Ins work on the Fourth Gospel, rested the evidence of
its genuineness on internal considerations, and declared
that the external evidence for and against was nearly
equally balanced, in his inaugural address on the Study
of the New Testament, delivered before the University
of Oxford in 1883, now says: "It is now some ten
years since I published a book (Authorship of the
Fourth Gospel) on the subject, and in the meantime
the question has not stood still. I have already alluded
to the remarkable change in the aspect of the external
evidence. When I wrote, I excused myself from deal-
ino- with this on the ground that its results were incon-
elusive. This could not be said now. Justin, Tatian,
the Clementine Homilies no longer give an uncertain
sound. If only the textual argument, of which I have

x PREFACE.
spoken, holds good — and I have great confidence that
it will be found to hold good — then it seems to me
that the date of the Gospel is all but demonstrated."
The three Epistles of St. John have already been
fully discussed in 1x13'' Introduction to the Catholic
Epistles. At one time I thought of restricting this
present work to a consideration of the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse, omitting the Epistles ; but, as
many of my readers may not possess my former work,
and as an Introduction to the Johannine writings
would be obviously incomplete were the consideration
of the Epistles omitted, I have thought it, upon the
whole, better to discuss these Epistles in an abbreviated
form, referring my readers for their more ample dis
cussion to what I have already written in my previous
work. Attached to this Introduction to the Johannine writ
ings there are certain dissertations or appendices on
important subjects connected with these writings.
Were the work simply an introduction in the restricted
sense, such dissertations might well be considered
irrelevant ; but it professes to embrace other questions
connected with the writings of the Apostle.' Attached
to the Gospel of St. John are important discussions
concerning the Logos, and the much-controverted sub
ject, the precise day of our Lord's death. In the
dissertation on the Theology of St. John, attached to
the First Epistle, I have perhaps trespassed into the
department of Biblical Theology ; but a work, specially
treating of the writings of the great Apostle, would
have been imperfect without a brief statement of his

PREFACE. xi
views. I have treated the Apocalypse in an entirely
historical manner, and have not had the temerity to
venture into any discussion of the meaning of this
most mysterious of all Scriptural books. In the dis
sertation attached to it on " The Systems of Interpreta
tion," I have not given the preference to any system,
as I consider aU the schemes of interpretation hitherto
advanced eminently unsatisfactory ; the true key to
unlock the secrets of the apocalyptic visions yet re
mains to be discovered. The last dissertation, on " The
Influence of John on Christianity," is very imperfect
and fragmentary ; it is a subject which requires a volume
for itself; and it is hoped that what has already been
done for the brother Apostles, Paul and Peter, will also
be done for John. In that dissertation I have empha
sised the influence of Schleiermacher in Germany, and
do not think that I have exaggerated its importance ;
aud on this I am in accord with the great German
theologians; but opinions differ greatly on the corre
sponding influence of Maurice in England, and on this
point I may perhaps be fairly charged with exaggera
tion. I regret to say that there are two important works
which I have not been able to use, as they were published
after my book was written, and one of them after I
hadgiven to it a final revision. The first of these is the
second edition of Weizacker's Das apostolische Zeitalter
der christlichen Kirche (1890). The first edition I had
not in my possession. This great work is an intro
duction to the books of the New Testament, arranged
historically according to the date when, in Weizacker's

xii PREFACE.
opinion, they were written. The judgment of a theo
logian of such eminence and fairness cannot be lightly
passed over. I have only been able to insert his
opinions in the notes attached to my work. The other
book is the Bampton Lectures for 1890, by Archdeacon
Watkins, Modern Criticism considered in its Relation
to the Fourth Gospel. This book has been so recently
published that I could not possibly use it to any extent
without deferring the publication of my own work ;
I therefore judged it the better course not to employ
it at all.
In the quotations from the Scriptures I have in general
adopted the Eevised Version, which, although there is
no reasonable expectation of its ever superseding the
Authorised Version, gives the translation of the words
according to the most approved text and the judgment
of eminent critics. Occasionally I have departed from
it, where I considered that the preference should be
given to the Authorised text, or to an independent
translation. The quotations from the Fathers are in
general taken from the QueUensammlung of Kirchhofer, a
work which has superseded the earlier work of Lardner.
In the translation of these quotations, I have often con
sulted the original, but in general have been indebted
to Clark's Ante-Nicene Fathers.
The substance of a few of the dissertations have
already appeared in various periodicals. I may par
ticularly mention an article on the theology of St. John
in the British and Foreign Review; an article on the
day of our Lord's death in the Theological Monthly;
and an article on the Logos of Philo and St. John in

PREFACE. xiii
the American Presbyterian and Reformed Review. At
the same time these articles have in this work under
gone much alteration.
It is now my pleasing duty to acknowledge my
obligations to some kind friends and coadjutors for
their assistance. I have especially to return my thanks
to the Eev. William P. Paterson, B.D., minister of Crieff,
for his verification of my references, and for important
and valuable suggestions. It is a cause of thankfulness
that the Church of Scotland possesses a man of such
eminent abilities, extensive learning, and diversified
acquirements. I have also to thank the Eev. Henry
Wotherspoon, M.A., minister of Burnbank, Hamilton,
another of our promising young clergymen, for kindly
assisting in the correction of the press. And last, but
not least, to one who has been always ready to assist
and encourage me in this aad in all my other literary
labours.

Galashiels Manse, 1891.

SYNOPSIS OF CONTENTS.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
PAGES
Sources of the Life of John  1-3
John's Family Connections  4-15
Youth of John  16-23
John the Disciple of Jesus  24-32
John after the Resurrection of Christ .... 33-43
John's Later Days  43-47
The Ephesian Residence .... . . 48-56
John in Patmos  57-62
Character of John  63-67
Writings op John  68-71
Style of John's Writings  71-75
Interpretation of John's Writings  75-78
Legends Concerning John  79~93
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
Literature on the Subject  94-95
Authenticity of the Gospel : External Evidence . . 95-115
Authenticity of the Gospel: Internal Evidence . . 11 6-1 20
The Johannine Controversy  1 21-130
Objections to the Authenticity op the Gospel . . 131-148
Design and Contents  149-160
Time and Place op Writing  160-162
Integrity of the Gospel  162-166
Dissertation I. — The Logos op John  167-172
The Logos of Philo  173-181
Relation of the Logos to the Old Testament . . 181-185
Relation to the Apocrypha and the Targums . . 185-187
Traces op the Logos in the Gnostic Writings . . 188-189

CONTENTS.

Dissertation II. — Day of our Lord's Death
Account in St. John's Gospel
Account in the Synoptical Gospels .
The Paschal Controversy ....

PAGES
I9O-I96196-203
204-211
211-214

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.

Authenticity of the Epistle
Readers of the Epistle
Design op the Epistle ....
Time and Place of Writing
Style and Character op the Epistle
Integrity of the Epistle
Dissertation. — The Theology of John

215-220220-223
223-229
230-231231-234
234-235 236-263

THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
Private Letters of the Apostle  264-265
Authenticity of these Epistles ... . . 265-270
The Persons Addressed . . . 270-272
Design op these Epistles ... . . 272-279
Time and Place of Writing .... . 279-280

THE APOCALYPSE.
Literature on the Subject  281-282
The Title  282-283
Authenticity of the Apocalypse : External Evidence . 283-292
Authenticity of the Apocalypse : Internal Evidence . 292-294
Objections to the Authenticity of the Apocalypse. . 294-312
The Churches Addressed  312-316
Time and Place of Writing  316-330
Design and Contents  330-336
Text of the Apocalypse  336-337
Dissertation I. — Literary Affinities op the Apocalypse 338
Apocalyptic Literature  338-349
Affinities to Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah .... 349-353
Affinities to Joel and Isaiah  354-355
Relation to our Lord's Eschatological Discourse . . 356-357
Dissertation II. — Systems of Interpretation . . . 358-363

CONTENTS.

xvit

The Pr^ierist System .
The Continuous Historical System
The Futurist System
The Spiritual System .
Dissertation III. — The Millennium
Opinions of the Fathers : Chiliasm
Opinions of the Reformers .
Modern Millenarian Views .
Idea of a Spiritual Millennium .
Duration and TIme op the Millennium
Concluding Dissertation.. — Influence op John on Chris
tianity 
Supposed Antagonism of Jewish and Gentile Christianity
Phases of Christian Doctrine
Influence of John on Early Christianity
Influence of John on the Mystics
The School, of Schleiermacher .
Views op F. D. Maurice
The Church of the Future _

PAGES
364-367368-372
372-374 375-379380-384384-391392-393394-400401-403403-405 406
406-412412-415
415-420420-421
422-425 426-427 427-429

THE JOHANNINE WEITINGS.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Literature. — Among the biographers of St. John may be men
tioned Krenkel: Der Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871. Krenkel
denies the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, and endea
vours to construct a life of John from the Synoptists, the Acts of
the Apostles, and the Apocalypse, altogether overlooking the Gospel
of John. Niese : Das Leben des heiligen Johannes, Leipzig, 1878.
This is rather a devotional book than a critical and historical
sketch of the life of the Apostle. Macdonald : Life and Writings
of St. John, London, second edition, 1880, written in imitation of
Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. Paul. Trench, Rev. F. : Life
and Character of St. John, London, 1850, a work now out of print,
containing an interesting series of lectures on the life of St. John.
To these have to be added the sketches of the life of John in
Encyclopaedias and Commentaries, as by Ebrard in Herzog's Real-
EncyMopddie, Tholuck in Kitto's Cyclopxdia, and Holtzmann in
Schenkel's Bibel-Lexicon ; also the sketches by Godet, Lange, and
Luthardt in their Commentaries.
The later part of John's life, especially the question as to his
residence in Ephesus, has a literature of its own. This was first
called in question by Liitzelberger {Die hirchliche Tradition^ uber
den Apostel Johannes und seine Schriften in ihrer GrundlosigTceit
nachweisen. Leipzig, 1840), and he has been followed by Keim
(Geschichte Jesus von Nazara, Zurich, 1867), by Holtzmann (Schen
kel's Bibel-Lexicon, 1871, and Einleitung in das N. T., Freiburg,
1885), and by Scholten (Der Apostel Johannes in Kleinasien, trans
lated from the Dutch into German by Spiegel, Berlin, 1872). On
the other hand, the Ephesian residence is maintained by Grimm
A

2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
(Ersch und Griiber, Allgemeine EncyMopddie, Leipzig, 1843), by
Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift, 1867, by Steitz (Studien und Kritiken,
1868), by Krenkel (Apostel Johannes, Berlin, 1871, p. 132 ff.,
" Johannes in Ephesus "), by Mangold, Luthard, Kiel, and others.

I. — Sketch of the Life of St. John.
It is a matter of surprise that there are so few
biographies of the Apostle John. Whilst the lives of
Paul are numerous, and those of Peter are not rare,
those books which are devoted to a special treatment
of the life of John are inconsiderable both in number
and in scientific value. The reason of this scarcity is
difficult to ascertain, as the commentaries on the Gospel
of John are more numerous than the commentaries on
any other book of the New Testament, and as our inte
rest in the person of John is, to say the least, as great
as our interest in any of the other Apostles. This
apparent neglect may, however, be largely explained by
the fact that the life of John, in its earlier period, is so
interwoven with that of his Master, that it has been
exhaustively treated in the great modern Lives of Christ ;
whilst the comparatively meagre details of the later
period had little to attract the biographer in comparison
with the copious materials of the life of Paul, and little
to interest the controversialist in comparison with the
question, so important to Roman Catholicism, " Was
St. Peter ever in Borne ? "
The sources of the life of John are first and chiefly
the Four Gospels. We do not now enter upon any dis
cussion concerning the genuineness of these sources ;
we shall afterwards, in the course of this treatise, con-

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 3
sider at length the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel ;
but meanwhile we assume that all contain authentic re
cords of the life of John. In the first three or the Synop
tical Gospels, John is mentioned as taking part in cer
tain incidents, but it is from the Fourth Gospel that we
learn most of the particulars of his life during the life
time of our Lord. Next to the Gospels, as an authentic
source of information, is the Acts of the Apostles. In this
book John is seldom mentioned. He is alluded to as
being directly concerned in only two important incidents,
and on both occasions in connection with Peter — the
cure of the lame man at the Temple gate, and the preach
ing of the Gospel- in Samaria. In the Epistles of St.
Paul he is only once incidentally mentioned, as one of
the three pillars of the Church, and as being present at
the Council of Jerusalem. From the two extant private
letters of John some events of his life may with a
certain degree of probability be inferred. Assuming that
he is the author of the Apocalypse, we learn that there
was an intimate relationship between him and certain
Churches of Proconsular Asia, and that he resided for a
time, perhaps in a state of banishment, in the island of
Patmos, in the iEgean Sea. Several of the traditions
of the Church concerning this Apostle are so strongly
characteristic, and so very simple and natural, as to bear
the marks of authenticity. What adds to the value of
these traditions is that we have not a little informa
tion from Irenseus, the disciple of Polycarp, who was
a disciple of John (see below). From these sources,
meagre and imperfect as they are, a life of the Apostle
may with some degree of probability be constructed.

4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
In several respects John was one of the most promi
nent of the Apostles. He, of all his fellow- Apostles,
appears* to have borne the closest resemblance to the
human character of our Lord. The similarity of their
dispositions drew toward him the special love of the
Saviour, and earned for him the dignified appellation of
"the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on
His breast at supper." * There was no chasm in his
life ; no incident or crisis which broke it up into two
parts — a life before conversion and a life after con
version, as was so evident in the case of Paul; no
violent struggle carried on within him between good
and evil. He was one of those rare and favoured per
sons who are sanctified from their very birth, into whose
mind religion is instilled at the dawn of intelligence,
upon whom the Spirit's influences descend like the
gentle dew from heaven, and the purity of whose char
acter is seldom marred. " John," observes Schaff, " is
the representative of those disciples who are gradually
drawn into fellowship with the Redeemer without any
violent inward struggles or unusual outward changes,
whilst the Apostle Paul furnishes the most striking
example of a sudden conversion. The first mode of
conversion is especially suited to mild, contemplative,
modest characters, such as Thomas a. Kempis, Melanc-
thon, Spener, Bengel, Zinzendorf ; the other to such
•strong, impetuous, resolute, independent natures, as
Tertullian, Augustine, Luther, Farel, and Calvin."2
John was pre-eminently the Apostle of contemplation.
1 John xxi. 20 ; see also John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7.
2 History of the Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p. 57.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 5
Pie was not, like Paul, the Apostle of action, the founder
of churches, the prince of missionaries ; he did not so
much lead, as follow ; his task was not so much to
convert the heathen, as to edify the brethren. He was
not, like Peter, impulsive, ever ready to come forward
as the spokesman of the Apostles ; he was calm and
reserved, living in a serene heaven of his own, removed
from the turmoil of the world.
In all probability, John was the youngest of the twelve
Apostles. According to a credible tradition, he lived
to an advanced age, and survived until the reign of
Trajan (a.d. 98). If so, he must have been compara
tively young when called to be a disciple of Christ, nor
is there any improbability in the supposition of Krenkel1
that he was ten years younger than our Lord. John
was born when Augustus was Emperor of Rome,
Quirinius governor of Syria, Archelaus tetrarch or
perhaps Coponius governor of Judsea, Herod Antipas
tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of
Itursea and of the region of Trachonitis.
The name John is Hebrew (.J1^', Johanan), and
denotes " Jehovah is gracious " or the " Grace of
Jehovah." 2 It is of rare occurrence in the Old Testa
ment ; 3 the only one of any note there mentioned,
bearing the name, is Johanan the son of Kareah (Jer.
xii. 11). Under the Maccabees the name was not so
uncommon, as it was borne by their first monarch, John
Hyrcanus. It occurs four times in the New Testament.
1 Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes.
2 Gensenius gives the interpretation, " The Gift of God " = Theodore.
3 Ten persons of this name are mentioned in the Old Testament. — Dr.
Lindsay Alexander in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, vol. ii. p. 616.

6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
It was bestowed by Divine revelation on the forerunner
of our Lord. Mention is made of John, a member of
the high priest's family (Acts iv. 6), and of John whose
surname was Mark (Acts xii. 12).
Besides his proper name, John had also the surname
Boanerges given him and his brother James by the
Lord (Mark iii. 17). Boanerges is an Aramaic word,
compounded of '32 * and 1^, denoting the sons of tumult
or thunder.2 We cannot, with Tholuck, infer that this
name was conferred by our Lord in the way of censure,
" to remind them (James and John) always of the in
ternal foe with whom they had to contend." 3 Nor do
we think that the reference is to the preaching of John,
indicating that it was so overpowering that it carried
all before it. There is no proof that John's preaching
possessed that peculiarity ; the designation would be
more applicable to the preaching of Peter or Paul.
The reference is rather to the occasional fiery outbursts
of indignation against evil of which his nature, in
spite of its deep-seated calm, was capable.4 We have
several examples of this ardent disposition, as when
James and John wished to call fire from heaven to con
sume the inhospitable Samaritans (Luke ix. 54), and
when John forbade the casting out devils in the name
1 Sheva (:), pronounced in Aramaic oa.
2 V^l, in Hebrew a noisy crowd (Psalm lv. 15) ; in the Syriac, thunder.
3 Trench, Studies in the Gospel, p. 146. Weiss observes : "As the epithet
was applied not to either separately, but to the brothers as a pair, it cannot
have been intended to be constantly borne by them, and is therefore not
• analogous to the name of Peter." — Weiss' Meyer, in loco.
4 "Our Lord herein," says Cave, "had respect to the furious and re
solute disposition of these" two brothers, who seem to have been of a more
fierce and fiery temper than the rest of the Apostles." — Lives of the Apostles,
p. 352.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 7
of Christ (Mark ix. 38) ; and even in his old age,
when he ordered his converts to refuse the rites of
hospitality to false teachers (2 John 10), and when,
according to a credible legend, he rushed out of a
bath to escape from the neighbourhood of the here-
siarch Cerinthus. And although in the Gospel and
in the Epistles love is the predominant feature of
John's character, yet in the Apocalypse he writes as
the son of Thunder, denouncing the judgments of
God against the ungodly. There is no contradiction
between the Apostle of thunder and the Apostle of
love. The birthplace of John is generally supposed to be
Bethsaida, on the western side of the Sea of Galilee.
This was the native place of Andrew and Peter ; 1 and
as James and John were partners with them in the
occupation of fishing, it is natural to suppose that it
was their birthplace also. There were two Beth-
saidas, the one on the western side of the lake, in the
tetrarchy of Herod Antipas, and the other on the
eastern side, in the tetrarchy of Philip, called Bethsaida
Julias.2 The western Bethsaida, in Galilee, is here
meant. It was about two miles north of Capernaum,
near the confluence of the Jordan. There are now
no remains of it, and no tradition as to its locality.
Dr. Robinson identifies it with Ain et Tabigah, a
short distance from Khan Minyeh, supposed to be the
1 John i. 44. Also Philip, another of the Apostles, was a native of
Bethsaida. 2 This has been called in question hy Dr. Thomson, whose opinion
deserves much consideration. "I believe that there was but one Beth
saida at the head of the lake, and that it was at the mouth of the Jordan." —
The Land and the Book,' -pp. 373, 374.

8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
ancient Capernaum.1 It was the frequent scene of our
Lord's ministry, and was one of the towns denounced
by Him on account of its rejection of His message
(Matt. xi. 21).
Various notices in Scripture indicate that John was
Vborn in a better social position than the rest of the
Apostles.2 The trade in fish carried on by the family
on the Sea of Galilee was not necessarily a poor
employment. We are informed that Zebedee and his
sons had hired servants with them in their boats
(Mark i. 20). His mother appears to have been pos
sessed of means, as she is classed among those women
who ministered unto our Lord in Galilee, and prepared
sweet spices to anoint His body at His death (Matt.
xxvii. 55, 56). And it would appear from an inci
dental notice in his Gospel that John had a house, or
at least hired lodgings, in Jerusalem (John xix. 27);
for when our Lord committed His mother to his care,
we are informed that from that hour John took her to
his own house.
It is generally supposed that John is meant by the
disciple who was known to the high priest. " Simon
Peter," we read, " followed Jesus, and so did another
disciple. That disciple was known to the high priest,
and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high
priest. But Peter stood at frhe door without. Then
1 Bobhi3on's Researches, vol. iii. p. 290 ff. There is still much uncer
tainty regarding the identification of Capernaum and Bethsaida. ' See
Schaffs Bible Dictionary j Tristram's Land of Israel, p. 440 ; Farrar's
Life of Christ, vol. i. p. 404 ; Ritter's Geography of Palestine, . vol. ii.
p. 269 ; Caspari's Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 86.
2 Chrysostom, indeed; speaks of the extreme poverty and humility of
his lot ; but this is a purely rhetorical exaggeration.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 9
*
went out that other disciple, who was known unto the
high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door,
and brought in Peter" (John xviii. 15, 16). It is
argued that the manner in which the disciple is here
mentioned points to John's method of designating him
self. The words 6 a'AXo? p.a6r]T^, it is said, can only
denote " the other disciple," namely, the disciple known
to the reader, whom it was unnecessary to name, and
who can only be John.1 "Various reasons have been
assigned to account for his acquaintance with the high
priest, whether Annas or Caiaphas be meant.2 Accord
ing to Ewald, John was related to the priestly race
through his mother Salome. He supposes that both
she and Mary, the mother of Jesus, were of the tribe
of Levi, and that this accounts for the tradition that
John in after life wore the petalon or priestly coronet.3
But for the Levitical descent of Mary there is not the
slightest ground ; 4 and the tradition that he wore the
priestly coronet is a mere invention for the glorification
of John. Others think that John became acquainted
with the family of the high priest through his business
as a chief fisherman on the Sea of Galilee. Thus Arch
deacon Farrar observes : " To me it seems probable
that he knew Annas and his family only in the way of
business." 5 Others suppose that John's general resi
dence, perhaps in the way of his trade, was not in
Galilee, but in Jerusalem. They infer from John xix.
1 Meyer, in loco.
2 Annas, to whom Jesus was brought, is the person here meant.
3 Ewald's History of Israel, vol. vi. p. 181, translation.
* Many of the Fathers, however, held this ; but it is opposed to the
genealogies, and to the express statement in Heb. vii. 13, 14.
5 Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 130.

to GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
2 7 that he had a house of his own in Jerusalem ; that
Zebedee, as a master-fisherman, sent his youngest son
to superintend his business in the capital ; and that in
this way he became acquainted with the high priest's
family. " John's acquaintance with the high priest,"
observes Tholuck, " seems to indicate that he lived in
Jerusalem, and belonged to the wealthier class." 1
But it is questionable whether John is meant by
" that disciple who was known to the high priest." It
is to be observed that in the best manuscripts and
versions the article 6 before a'XAo? is wanting,2 and is
now generally omitted by editors ; so that the word
SXXos is to be translated not " the other," but "another
disciple." Besides, this is not the mode in which John
generally describes himself; not indefinitely aXXos fia-
OtjTijs, "another disciple," but definitely 6 ^acVny? ov
riya-wa o Tiyo-ouc, " the disciple whom Jesus loved." The
only exception to this is his mention of himself in the
company of the Baptist (John i. 35, 40) ; but this was
before his acquaintance with Christ. It can hardly be
imagined that any of our Lord's immediate disciples —
the fishermen and tax-gatherers of Galilee — could be in
such a high social position as to be acquaintedfwith
Annas and Caiaphas, who were at the head of the Jewish
aristocracy. Besides, the character of John, especially his
hatred of evil, the moral indignation against sin which
on many occasions he displayed, would have prevented
him forming an acquaintance with those who belonged
to the Sadducean sect, and who were not even believers
1 Kitto's Cyclopedia, article John the Apostle.
2 Omitted in N, A. B. D, and in the Syriac and Coptic versions.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. ir
in a future state. " It is not easy to imagine," observes
Archdeacon Farrar, "how a Galilean fisherman should
have known anything personal of those wealthy Sad-
ducean aristocrats, with whom he had not a single
thought or a single sympathy in common." x
It is therefore somewhat doubtful if John is here
meant ; nor are we obliged to guess what disciple is
here referred to. Archbishop Whately strangely ima
gines that he is Judas Iscariot,2 who was certainly
known to the high priest, but to whom Peter would
have come under no obligation. Others think that he
was either Nicodemus or Joseph of Arimathea, both
of whom were members of the Sanhedrim. Godet sug
gests James, the brother of John, whom he might be
expected to name, as is his wont in referring to any of
his own family, by a circumlocution.3 But it is better
to affirm indefinitely that he was some unknown
person. " Some," observes Calvin, " have been led
astray by a slight conjecture to suppose that this dis
ciple was the Evangelist John, because he is accus
tomed to speak of himself without mentioning his
name. But what intimacy with a proud high priest
could John have, who was a mean fisherman? And
how was it possible for him, being one of Christ's
household, to be in the habit of visiting the house of
the high priest ? It is more probable that he was not
one of the twelve, but that he is called a disciple because
he had embraced the doctrine of the Son of God." *
1 Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 130.
2 Whately on Bacon's Essays, p. 458. So also Heumann.
3 Godet's Commentary, in loco.
4 Calvin on John xviii. 15. So also St. Augustine. At the same time

12 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The name of John's father was Zebedee [Ze^iSatos).
When our Lord called to the discipleship the brothers
James and John, they were with their father Zebedee
mending their nets (Mark i. 19,- 20). We know little
about him. From his readiness to allow his sons to
follow Christ, and his wife to minister unto Him of her
substance, we may infer that he was one of those who,
like the aged Simeon, waited for the consolation of
Israel (Luke ii. 25).
We know more of his mother. She is usually called
in the Gospels " tfye mother of Zebedee's children ; "
but it is inferred from a comparison of passages that
she is the same as Salome.1 The Fathers suppose that
there was a connection or relationship between Salome
the mother of' John, and Mary the mother of Jesus,
but they differ as to the nature of this relationship.
Epiphanius and Theophylact suppose that she was the
daughter of Joseph, the husband of the Virgin, by a
previous marriage ; 2 whilst others think that she was
the daughter of Cleophas, the brother of Joseph, and
was brought up by Joseph as his own daughter. All
such suppositions are examples of the vagaries in which
the Fathers indulged.
the question must be left in dubio. If John is the disciple here meant,
then he was present at our Lord's trial before Caiaphas and Pilate.
1 In St. Matthew's Gospel we learn that there followed Jesus from Galilee
to Jerusalem, and stood by the cross, Mary Magdalene and Mary the
mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt.
xxvii. 56) ; whilst in the parallel passage in St. Mark's Gospel, the names
of these pious women of Galilee are given as Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome (Mark xv. 40) ; from
which it is reasonably inferred that Salome is identical with the mother of
Zebedee's children.
2 Lardner's Works, vol. iii. p. 87, 4to edition.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 13
Another supposition, more plausible and more scrip
tural, is that Salome, the mother of John, was the sister
of Mary, the mother of Jesus. The subject is interest
ing, and although the relationship cannot be positively
asserted, yet there are reasons for the supposition.
We are informed that there stood at the cross of Jesus
"His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of
Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene " (John xix. 25). It
has been generally supposed that only three women
are here mentioned, but this opinion has been recently
called in question.1 It has been maintained that four
women are mentioned, named in pairs ; the first pair
being our Lord's mother and her sister, whose name is
not stated, and the second pair being the two Maries,
Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene ; and
as we know from the other Gospels that Salome was
present at the crucifixion (Matt, xxvii. 56 ; Mark xv. 40),
it has been inferred that she is the unnamed sister of
our Lord's mother. This opinion has several reasons
in its favour. It avoids the difficulty of supposing that
our Lord's mother and her sister bore the same name,
a circumstance of very rare occurrence, and conse
quently highly improbable.2 On the supposition that
four women are here meant, the number stated in
John's Gospel corresponds with the number given by
the Synoptists. In the other Gospels we find three
women mentioned, the 'mother of Jesus being omitted,
namely, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James
1 Wieseler appears to have been the first who started this opinion.
Studien und Kritiken, 1840, No. 3, p. 648 ff.
2 Godet's suggestion that sister-in-law may be meant, is an evasion, not
an argument.

i4 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
and Joses, and Salome. Now John must have known
that his own mother was present at the crucifixion, and
it is improbable that he would have omitted all allusion
to her when mentioning the women who stood at the
cross. That he does not mention her by name is
entirely in accordance with his manner. It illustrates
the same reserve of style which leads him to mention
himself, not by name, but only by circumlocution, as
" the disciple whom Jesus loved," and never to men
tion his brother James, and only once his father, Zebe
dee (John xxi. 2). Besides, it is to be observed that
the received text admits of being read as if four women
were mentioned. The mention of their names in pairs
is similar to the manner in which the names of the
Apostles are given.1 Yet it must be allowed that there
are several difficulties in the way of this supposi
tion.2 If we adopt the opinion that Salome was the sister
of the Virgin — an opinion supported by plausible
reasons, and maintained by eminent theologians3 — it
will follow that John was a cousin of our Lord. This
may account for many things in the evangelical narra
tive. It would afford a reason for the boldness of the
request of Salome on behalf of her sons to the Lord,
1 The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Persian versions insert a copula after " his
mother's sister," and thus interpret the passage as if four women were
meant. So also Tischendorf (7th edit.) in his punctuation adopts the same
interpretation, indicating that the names are mentioned in pairs.
2 See for a fuller discussion of the subject Gloag's Exegetical Studies,
Exposition IV., " The Women at the Cross."
3 This opinion is adopted by Wieseler, Lange, Liicke, Ewald, and Meyer ;
and, among English critics, by Alford, Farrar, Bishop Lightfoot, Geikie
Westcott, and Milligan. Other theologians, as Neander, Olshausen, Ebrard
Godet, Luthardt, however, call this opiniori in question.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 15
as she proceeded on the ground of relationship, and
also for the intimate friendship between our Lord and
the two Apostles John and James ; for although our
Lord in His Divine nature was raised above all human
relationship, yet this was not the case with His earthly
limitations. If it is our duty to love our near rela
tions with a peculiar love, there is nothing irreverent
in ascribing the same love of relationship to Him who
was the son of Mary and the cousin of John according
to the flesh.
We do not know who composed the family of
Zebedee and Salome. John had at least an elder
brother, the Apostle James. He, like John, was on
several occasions peculiarly favoured by the Lord, and
the two brothers are always mentioned together. We
know little of his life. Like his brother, he was of
an ardent disposition, for to him also the surname
Boanerges was given ; and perhaps it was his impetu
ous disposition that iiiduced Herod Agrippa to select
him from among the Apostles as his victim, in order to
ingratiate himself with the Jews (Acts xii. 1, 2).
John was also intimate in early youth with the two
Apostles Andrew and Peter. They were natives of the
same town of Bethsaida, and partners in fishing with
the sons of Zebedee (Luke v. 10). This early acquaint
ance would, of course, be deepened and strengthened
when all four became the Apostles and followers of
Christ. There seems especially to have been a pecu
liar intimacy between Peter and John ; they are fre
quently mentioned together as intimate associates and
fellow-workers.

1 6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
John's early youth was spent in the neighbourhood
of the Sea of Galilee. As a child, he would wander
along its shores, so memorable to him in after life.
The scenery would help to form his character, and the
society in which he mixed would leave traces of its
impress. He was a Galilean by birth, and the Gali
leans were noted for their ardent and impetuous
disposition. It was shortly before his birth that Judas
of Galilee raised the standard of revolt against the
Romans, declaring that God was their only King ; and
the Galileans were the most desperate soldiers in the
great Roman war. From being a native of Galilee,
John perhaps derived his impetuous temper, and had
it not been for the purifying nature of his intercourse
with Jesus, he might have been ranked among those
restless Galileans whose blood Pilate mingled with
their sacrifices (Luke xiii. i).
John's childhood was not destitute of beneficent
influence. His mother Salome, afterwards so devoted
to the Saviour, following Him when living, and not
forsaking Him when, dead, must have trained him in the
way of the Lord, and instilled into his youthful mind the
principles of piety.1 What Eunice was to the youthful
Timothy, Salome was to John. From a child he would
be instructed by her in the Sacred Scriptures ; he would
accompany his parents, from the age of twelve, to the
annual festivals at Jerusalem ; he would drink in that
spirit of piety which flows from the Psalms of David,
and those lofty aspirations which arise from a perusal
1 See Neander's Planting of Christianity, vol. i. p. 384, for a striking
statement of the influence of pious mothers on their sons.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 17
of the prophecies of Isaiah. And if there be any truth
in the supposition that Salome was the sister of the
Virgin, John may have come in early contact with Him
who was then living in obscurity in the not distant
town of Nazareth.
John would enjoy all the advantages which arose
from an ordinary Jewish education. John and Peter '
are indeed represented by the Jewish rulers as "un
learned and ignorant men " (Acts iv. 1 3) ; but all that
is meant by this assertion was, that the Apostles were
destitute of rabbinical learning — that they had not
been trained in any of the advanced schools or col
leges of the Jews. The Jews were a remarkably well-
educated people. Their synagogues were their schools
as well as their places of worship ; and there were not
only synagogues in their towns, but also in their
villages. It was one of their proverbs that " a town
in which there is no school must perish." The custom
of the Jews was that, until the age of six, children
should be instructed by their parents, and then sent
to school. John, then, must have been instructed in
the school of his native town, Bethsaida ; a faithful
idea of which would probably be obtained from a
modern Jewish school in the East. Besides, we must
remember that the people of Galilee were bilinguous,
so that John would in his early years be acquainted
not only with Aramaic, but with Greek.
The youth of John was passed in a very critical
period of Jewish history ; a period of transition, doubt,
and restlessness. Judaea had fallen under the domi
nion of the Romans, and the procurator Pontius Pilate
B

iS GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
governed it with cruelty and oppression. Under
Herod the Great there had been the semblance of
monarchy and independence, and even his tyranny,
gilded as it was with popular actions and magnificent
public works, contrasted favourably with the oppression
of the Roman governor. The Jews were in a restless
and lawless state, and frequent outbreaks occurred,
especially in the province of Galilee. The party of the
Zealots was gradually forming, soon to involve the
country in all the horrors of the Roman war. Nor was
the religious condition of Judsea less deplorable. The
purity and integrity of the priesthood were gone. The
appointment to the high-priesthood was entirely in the
hands of the Romans, and the office was bestowed upon
their tools and partisans. The great priestly families
belonged for the most part to the Sadducean faction,
and were materialists and unbelievers in a future state.
Caiaphas, who then occupied the office of high priest,
was suspected, like Pope Leo X., of infidelity. Their
opponents, the Pharisees, were for the most part hypo
crites, making a great profession of religion, and bely
ing their profession by their conduct. Religion had
become petrified ; its forms were observed ; the morn
ing and evening sacrifices were daily offered in the
Temple ; but there was no religious life — there was the
mere body without the living spirit. And with this
decadence of religion there was a corresponding degra
dation of morals. The Jews, mixing with the heathen,
earned to practise their vices, and that in one of the
most corrupt ages of the world ; nay, according to the
testimony of their own historian, they even surpassed

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 19
the heathen in wickedness and licentiousness ; so that
Josephus asserts there was no nation under heaven
more wicked than the Jews.1 The whole framework of
society appeared about to be dissolved. Nor was this
state of transition confined to Judaea ; throughout the
whole Roman Empire there was the same spirit of
restlessness, the same corruption of morals, the same
shaking and dissolving of existing institutions.
But what peculiarly distinguished this age was the
prevalence of Messianic expectations. There was a
general expectation throughout Judsea that just at this
time a great Deliverer, whom they called the Messiah,
was to arise, who would reform society, restore the wor
ship of God, and rescue the country from oppression
and wrong. The notions of the nature of this Deliverer
varied with the different opinions of those who believed
in His advent. Some regarded Him as a mighty con
queror, others as a Jewish philosopher, and others as
an ascetic ; though few, if. any, rose to the idea of a
suffering Messiah. This expectation arose from the
Jewish prophecies, especially from the predictions of
Daniel, where a fixed period appeared to be set for
the advent of the Messiah (Dan. ix. 24). It is not
only in the Gospels that we find traces of such an
expectation (John i. 19, x. 24), but an extensive Jewish
literature came into existence just before the advent of
Christ, and this literature is pervaded with Messianic
views. The Fourth Book of Esdras, the Book of Enoch,
1 Probably Josephus exaggerates in order to explain the judgment of
the fall of Jerusalem. It is noteworthy that our Lord does not charge the
Jewish people in general with licentiousness, but rather with religious
deadness.

20 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
the Assumption of Moses, the Jubilees, the Sibylline
Oracles, the Psalms of Solomon, are full of Mes
sianic allusions.1 Nor were such expectations confined
to Judaea ; they were diffused throughout the East.
Wheresoever the Jews went, they circulated their
Messianic hopes; and reference is made to these
Jewish longings by the great Roman historians Tacitus
and Suetonius, who, absurdly enough, apply them to
Vespasian.2 At this period of expectation and unrest, when a
crisis was looked for, a preacher issued from the
wilderness of Judaea of ascetic habits and of strange
appearance. He came with his call to repentance, and
his announcement of the approaching advent of the
Messianic kingdom. "In those days came John the
Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and
saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is
at hand" (Matt. iii. i, 2). He was the divinely-
appointed forerunner of the Messiah ; he himself was
the subject of prophesy ; his coming, like that of the
Messiah, had been foretold, and was also expected
(Isa. xl. 3 ; Mai. iii. 1). His position was unique; he
stood between the Old Testament dispensation and
the New ; he was the last of the prophets, and the
first of the evangelists ; he embodied the spirit of the
age, being himself in a transition state, passing from
the old, but hardly entering into the new. He was
1 For the Messianic views of the Jews before Christ, see Hausrath's
New Testament Times, vol. i. pp. 191-264; Westcott's Introduction to the
Study of the Gospels, chap. ii. ; Schiirer's The Jewish People in the Time
of Ciristj Drummond's Jewish Messiah.
2 Tacitus, Hist. v. 13 ; Suetonius, Vesp. 4.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 21
like a torch or finger-post pointing out the way, but
remaining itself stationary ; a strange phenomenon in
the religious world, a disciple and yet not a disciple.
Well might he call himself a voice, the voice of one
crying in the wilderness, " Prepare ye the way of the
Lord." The Baptist issued from the wilderness as a preacher
of repentance. Filled with a deep and overpowering
sense of the wickedness of the nation, he suddenly
abandoned his retirement and appeared on the banks
of the Jordan, probably on ' the great thoroughfare
between Judaea and Perea, at the fords of the Jordan,
near Jericho, calling on men to repent. He was, like
Luther, a great reformer in this crisis of the world's
history, but there was a sternness in his manner and
a severity in his rebukes which' Luther did not possess.
He denounced every form of wickedness and all classes
of men. He was daunted neither by the rank of the
great, nor by the scholarship of the learned. But
"Repent ye" was not his only call; the exhortation
was only with a view of preparation to the great event
which was coming. He not only preached repen
tance, but also proclaimed the kingdom of God. He
announced the coming of One whose dignity was in
finitely superior to his own, the great Messiah, whom
all eagerly expected, and for whose advent they must
be prepared. " John answered and said, I baptize
you with water; but there standeth one among you
whom you know not, whose shoe latchet I am not
worthy to unloose." We cannot tell what were the
Baptist's Messianic views ; the ascetic of the wilderness

22 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
could not share in the popular idea of a mighty con
queror ; but whether he rose to the idea of a suffering
Messiah, of One who was to redeem Israel and to put
away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, we cannot possibly
affirm.1 John the Baptist gathered around him a band of
disciples, chiefly generous young men, who were the
flower of the nation, deeply impressed with the evils of
the time, and filled with high hopes of a revival of
religion by the coming of the Messiah. Among the
number we are not surprised to find the Apostle John.
He, being of an ardent and religious spirit, would be
attracted by the fame and preaching of the Baptist ;
and if, as is not improbable, he was related to hjm
as his cousin,2 and perhaps cognisant of his former
strange life in the wilderness, he would feel impelled
to come from Galilee and to join him on the banks of
the Jordan. It is almost universally admitted that
John is one of the two disciples mentioned in his
Gospel, where it is said, "And the next day John
stood and two of his disciples" (John i. 35, 36). One
of these disciples, as we are afterwards informed, was
Andrew, the brother of Peter ; the other is unnamed.
That it was John himself is argued from the fact that
he never mentions himself by name in his Gospel ; and
from the particularity of the description here given,
being that of an eye-witness, the narrator himself must
1 The famous phrase, " Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the
sins of the world," would lead us to suppose that the Baptist believed in a
suffering Messiah.
2 Elizabeth, the mother of the Baptist, being the cousin of the Virgin
Mary (Luke i. 36), the sister of Salome, the mother of John.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 23
have been present. John, then, was a disciple of the
Baptist before he became a disciple of Christ. Like
many eminent leaders of the Church, he passed through
a preliminary stage of discipline to a higher platform.
We cannot suppose that a teaching so impressive as
that of the Baptist, and a character so singular, so
original, and so grand, could have been altogether
without effect upon his disciples, especially on one of
so receptive a nature as John. Perhaps John imbibed
some of that ardour and impetuosity of temper, which
procured for him the name of Boanerges, from the stern 1
and uncompromising character and preaching of the
Baptist. That denunciation of wrong, that intense
hatred of sin, that intolerance of evil in every form
which John possessed, were distinguishing traits in
the character of the Baptist. So also the phase of
mysticism which pervades John's writings and dis
tinguishes him from all the other writers of the New
Testament — that instinctive perception of truth which
he. displays — may have been nourished by the teaching
and example of the Baptist, who spent the great part
of his life in meditation and solitary musings. We
must, however, recognise the contrast that there is
between the character of the master and his disciple.
The Baptist was legal, austere, the prophet of the past ;
John was spiritual, contemplative, ardent, full of love,
the Apostle of the future.
It was by the Baptist that John was brought into
personal contact with Jesus. A minute narrative of
this crisis in his life is given by the Apostle, upon
whose mind it must have made an indelible impression.

24 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The Baptist and two of his disciples, John and Andrew,
were together when Jesus drew near ; and the Baptist,
fully recognising Jesus as the promised Messiah,1
directs his disciples unto Him in those ever-memorable
words, "Behold the Lamb of God." And the two
disciples, being thus directed, followed Jesus. "Then
Jesus turned and saw them following, and saith unto
them, Whom seek ye? They say unto Him, Rabbi,
where dwellest Thou ? He saith unto them, Come and
see. They came, and saw where He dwelt, and abode
with Him that day; for it was the tenth hour"
(John i. 35-39). And most memorable was this visit,
the first interview which John had with his beloved
Lord and Master. It was a new birth to him ; he then
came in contact with Him whom he describes as the
" Word made flesh " — that great and mysterious Being
whom he afterwards recognised as the incarnate God.
Well might he, writing half a century afterwards,
recollect the minutest particulars of an event so preg
nant in its consequences, and record that it was the
tenth hour when it occurred.
John, after his first interview with Jesus on the
banks of the Jordan, ceased to be a disciple of tbe
Baptist, and attached himself to the greater Master,
though at first only in a general manner. He,
along with the other disciples, returned with Jesus
to Galilee. The next account which we have of him
is his presence with Jesus at the marriage-feast at
Cana (John ii. 1). That John was present is evi-
1 The Baptist had before this baptized Jesus, and had received the Divine
communication that He was the Messiah ; he had seen the Spirit descend
ing from heaven like a dove, and abiding upon Him (John i. 32).

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 25
dent, not only because the description is graphic and
minute as that of an eye-witness, but from the fact
that we are expressly informed that the disciples of
Jesus were present. By these disciples of Jesus at
this early period, when Pie had hardly entered upon
His public ministry, can only be meant those five whom
our Lord met on the banks of the Jordan where John
the Baptist baptized, and who had attached themselves
to Him, namely, John, Andrew, Peter, Philip, and
Nathanael (Bartholomew X) ; Nathanael himself being
a native of Cana (John xxi. 2). There are various sup
positions and traditions as to the bridegroom. Accord
ing to one tradition, entirely worthless, he was John
himself, who, seeing the miracle which Jesus did, for
sook his bride and followed Him.1 On this occasion
Jesus converted the water into wine. This was His
first miracle — the commencement of that wonderful
series of supernatural acts' by which He blessed the
human race and evidenced the divinity of His mission.
The effect of the miracle on John and his fellow-
disciples is thus stated : " This beginning of miracles
did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His
glory, and His disciples believed on Him " (John ii. 1 1).
Formerly they had been induced to follow Jesus on the
representation of the Baptist ; but now they themselves
had seen the manifestation of His glory, and thus their
faith in Him, previously excited by the words of the
Baptist, was confirmed by their own experience.
Hitherto John was only in a general sense a disciple
1 According to another tradition he was Simon the Canaanite, a tradi
tion arising from a mistaken interpretation of the epithet Kavavkrjv assigned
to that Apostle.

26 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
of Jesus ; he had returned with Him from the Jordan
to Galilee, and probably accompanied Him as a pilgrim
to the Passover at Jerusalem (John ii. 12, 13). But on
his return he appears to have followed his ordinary
occupation as a fisherman ; he had not yet been called
to forsake all and to follow Christ. But now the
momentous crisis in his life — this call to the disciple-
ship — drew near. Jesus was at Capernaum, from which
Bethsaida, the usual residence of the sons of Zebedee,
was about a mile distant. He was walking along the
shores of the lake when he encountered two fishermen,
Peter and Andrew, mending their nets. He then per
formed the miracle of the draught of fishes, which so
overpowered Peter that he threw himself at Piis feet,
exclaiming, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man,
0 Lord." And Jesus said unto him, "Fear not; from
henceforth thou shalt catch men." A little farther
along the shores of the lake Jesus met James and
John, the sons of Zebedee, with their father, also
mending their nets ; and He called them, and they
immediately left the ship and their father and followed
Him (Luke v. 1-11). From that time John became a
constant follower of Jesus. It was no sudden impulse
which induced him to do so ; he had been prepared
beforehand to be a disciple of Jesus by the testimony of
the Baptist, by seeing the miracles of Jesus both at Cana
and Jerusalem, and by his previous converse with Him.
Shortly after this, Jesus from among His disciples
selected twelve to be peculiarly trained by Him, in order
after His departure to be the witnesses to His words
and works, and the first preachers of His Gospel.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 27
Among these, directly after Peter, are mentioned
James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of
James (Mark iii. 16, 17). But John was brought into
a still closer relation ; among the twelve Jesus selected
three — the innermost circle — the iicXe/crav eicXeicTOTepoi
— of our Lord's- disciples. These were Peter, James,
and John : Peter, the natural leader of the Apostles ;
James, the first of " the noble army of the martyrs ; " and
John, the contemplative Apostle. On several occasions
these three were specially honoured by our Lord ;
they alone were permitted to behold the raising of
the daughter of Jairus, the glory of their Master on the v
Mount of Transfiguration, and the agony in the garden.
And even higher still, as the apex of the sacred pyramid
of discipleship, John was selected among the three as
that disciple whom Jesus chose as His peculiar friend,
the sharer of His griefs and sorrows, the one among
all the disciples whom Jesus specially loved. There is
thus a gradation in the ascent — the discipleship, the
apostleship, the privileged three, the disciple whom *"
Jesus loved.
The peculiar temper of John, his ardent and loving
nature, his zeal against everything which he conceived
derogated from the glory of his Master, is seen in the
record of several events in the Gospel narrative. Thus
the Evangelists Mark and Luke record an incident
which occurred in connection with John, when he asked
our Saviour concerning the conduct of the Apostles when
they forbade a certain man, who had never actually
become one of His disciples, to cast out devils in
His name (Mark ix. 38-41 ; Luke ix. 49, 50). "John

28 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
answered Him and said, Master, we saw one casting out
devils in Thy name, and he followed not us ; and we
forbade him, because he followed not us." In all proba
bility the man who cast out devils in the name of Christ
was a disciple of John the Baptist, who had been
directed by the Baptist to Jesus, and had admitted his
Messianic claims ; but who, like the Baptist himself,
had not actually attached himself to Jesus, but remained
on the threshold of the kingdom of God — a disciple and
yet not a disciple. This man performed miracles in
the name of Jesus ; he cast out devils. The Apostles of
Jesus — and here John, and not Peter, appears to have
taken the lead — were indignant at this assumption of
what they considered the prerogative of their Master ;
they were jealous for His glory, and therefore they for
bade the man ; they ordered him to discontinue the
practice of casting out devils in the name of Jesus.1
But Jesus censures the disciples and annuls the prohi
bition. " Jesus said, Forbid him not; for there is no
man which shall do a miracle in My name that can
lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us
is on our part ; " thus imparting, for all time to come, a
lesson of toleration, teaching what ought to be our
conduct toward those who adopt not our opinions, and
belong not to our party in the Christian Church.
In the Gospel of Luke (Luke ix. 51-56) we have a
remarkable incident which displays the character of
John, and certainly merits for the brothers theappella-
1 It was not John alone who forbade him, but the Apostles as a body.
Perhaps John was doubtful of this action of his fellow-Apostles, and pro
pounded it as a question to the Lord whether they were right in this pro
hibition.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 29
tion of Boanerges. Jesus and His disciples were jour
neying to Jerusalem to attend one of the great annual
festivals : instead of going round by Perea, they went
by the direct route through Samaria. There was a large
company, and Jesus sent messengers, probably James
and John, before Him to a certain village of the Samari
tans to make preparations for their reception ; but the
Samaritans would not receive Him. Then James and
John, filled with indignation at such dishonour shown
to their Master by those Samaritans, asked permission
to call fire from heaven to consume them, even as
Elijah did. It does not appear to have been the mere
national enmity of the Samaritans to the Jews that
caused them on this occasion to prevent the passage
of Jesus and His disciples through their country, but
because He, regarded by His followers as the Messiah,
was going to observe the Passover at Jerusalem ; He
was giving His sanction, as Messiah, to the worship at
Jerusalem, instead of to the worship on Mount Geri
zim ; He was siding with the Jews in the great reli
gious controversy. And it was because this dishonour
was offered to Jesus as the Messiah, this indignity
was shown to the King of Israel, that the indignation
of the sons of Zebedee was excited. Zeal for the glory
of their Master, intense love to His person, perhaps
mixed with a national feeling of hatred to the Sama
ritans, moved them to exclaim, "Wilt Thou that we
command fire to come down from heaven and consume
them, even as Elijah did?"1 They would take upon
1 The genuineness of the words as Kal 'HXlas irroLr)o-ev, omitted in the
Revised Version, is doubtful ; but even although spurious, it is evident
that it is to the conduct of Elijah that the Apostles allude.

30 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
themselves to be the avengers of the dishonour shown
to their Master. But our Lord rebuked them ; they
had displayed a spirit the opposite of that which He
came to excite : they wished to destroy, whilst He
came to save. It was a very different fire that He came
to call down from heaven — the fire of divine love.
On another occasion John and his brother James
displayed an ambitious disposition, though combined,
with a loving attachment to their Master. " Then
came the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons,
worshipping Him, and asking a certain thing of Him.
And He said unto her, What wilt thou ? She saith
unto Him, Grant that these my two sons may sit the one
on Thy right hand and the other on Thy left in Thy
kingdom " (Matt. xx. 20, 21). The request appears to
have been a conjoint petition of the mother and her
two sons. It originated in the false views which the
Apostles at that time entertained concerning the nature
of the Messianic kingdom. John and James asked the
first places in this kingdom to be nearest their Master,
next in honour and dignity. On this point there must
have come a vast change over John's disposition,
ending in a complete revolution of sentiment. All
ambition of earthly greatness was eradicated .from his
mind ; all selfish views were absorbed in a universal
charity; and the Apostle of love wished nothing for
himself, but the pleasure of seeing the diffusion of that
spirit of love over all those who professed to be the
disciples of Jesus.
In the last week of our Saviour's life — the memo
rable Passion week — John is frequently mentioned as

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 31
sharing in the transactions which then occurred. He
and Peter were specially intrusted with making the
necessary preparations for the observance of the Paschal
feast (Luke xxii. 8-12). They were to go to the city,
and there they would meet a man bearing a pitcher of
water, and he would show them a large upper room
furnished and prepared. During the Paschal week an
unwonted hospitality was shown ; the inhabitants of
Jerusalem gave up their houses for the use of pilgrims
at the feast.1 The man who gave the use of his upper
chamber to Jesus and His Apostles was doubtless a
disciple of Christ. He has with some degree of proba
bility been supposed to be Mark, who, as we learn from
the Acts of the Apostles, had a house at Jerusalem,
where the disciples were accustomed to assemble (Acts
xii. 12, 13). At the Paschal supper John occupied the
place of honour. Jesus and His disciples were seated,
according to the Oriental fashion, reclining or leaning
on couches. John was next to Jesus, and leant upon
His breast. Hence he is known in the writings of the
Fathers by the title 6 eiriaTriQio's.
Tradition relates that John was that young man who
followed Jesus at Gethsemane, having a linen cloth
cast about his naked body (Mark xiv. 50, 5 1 ). Thus
Chrysostom and Ambrose say that this young man was
John. Jerome, on the other hand, thinks that he was
James the brother of John. All such suppositions are
plainly erroneous. John was with Christ in the garden,
1 On the preparation for the Passover see Lightfoot's Works, voL xi.
p. 328, edition by Pitman ; Geikie's Life of Christ, vol. ii. pp. 462-464 ;
Trench's Life and Character of St. John, pp. 84 ff. ; Edersheim's Life and
Times of Jesus, vol. ii- p. 486 ff.

32 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
and had risen with Him from table. " How some per
sons," observes Calvin, " have come to dream that it
was John, I know not ; nor is it of any importance to
inquire." 1
John, like all the other disciples, fled on the arrest
of his Master at Gethsemane; but he appears soon to
have recovered from his panic, for the next account
which we have of him is standing at the cross of Jesus.
We read that " Jesus saw His mother and the disciple
standing by whom He loved " (John xix. 26, 27). John
was there alone of all the Apostles. The other Apostles
had fled to their houses. Peter indeed had stopped in
his flight, and followed Jesus, but he was overcome by
temptation, and had thrice denied his Lord, and now
he was in solitude and in tears. John was the only re
presentative of " the glorious company of the Apostles "
who ventured to Calvary. And there was along with
John, standing beside him, in most intimate relation to
him, as if he were her protector, Mary, the mother of
Jesus. She also had come up with the other Galileans
to the feast; her holy love drew her to her blessed
Son ; and the two persons who were dearest to the
Saviour's heart — His mother and that disciple whom
He loved — stood by His cross.
Our Lord with His dying lips consigned His mother
to the care of His beloved disciple. John was His
dearest friend ; he was standing with His mother at
the cross ; in all probability he was the nephew of
Mary, the son of her sister Salome '; and he possessed
a house in Jerusalem; and therefore Jesus consigns
1 Calvin, in loco.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 33
Mary to his care. " When Jesus therefore saw His
mother and the disciple .standing by whom He loved,
He saith unto His mother, Woman, behold thy son !
Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother.
And from that hour that disciple took her to his own
home" (John xix. 26, 27).
On the death of their Master the hopes of the dis
ciples were almost extinguished. Their expectations
of the Messianic kingdom were disappointed ; the igno
minious death of their Master had obliterated from
their minds all His intimations of His resurrection,
and they gave utterance to their sorrowful feelings in
the words, " We trusted that this had been He who
should have redeemed Israel." In this state of grief
and despair, John and Peter are startled by the news
brought to' them by Mary Magdalene early on Sunday
morning that she had found the sepulchre empty ; the
grave was open, but the body of Jesus was not there.
Peter and John run to the sepulchre ; John, being the
younger, outstrips Peter and arrives first. He looks in,
and finds the sepulchre empty, but a certain feeling of
awe and reverence kept him from entering. Peter,
however, eager and impulsive, is detained by no con
sideration ; he enters into the sepulchre, and is after
wards followed by John. They find not only the
sepulchre empty, but the grave-clothes carefully folded,
and the napkin that was about His head folded and
lying in a separate place (Luke xxiv. 10-12 ; John xx.
2-10). There were no signs of taste, no evidence that
the body had been hurriedly taken away either by
friend or foe ; all denoted calmness and leisure, as if
e

34 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
one had calmly risen from his bed. Then it must have
flashed upon the disciples that their Master had risen
from the dead ; then would those mysterious intima
tions of His rising again, which He made to them
in His lifetime, but which they did not understand,
be recalled ; then John especially " saw and believed "
(John xx. 8). What John believed was not merely that
the sepulchre was empty, and that the body of Jesus
was absent — that was evident ; nor was it the assertion
of Mary that some one had taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, for the folded garments refuted that
idea ; but it was that Jesus Himself had actually risen
from the dead — that the sepulchre was empty because
He had risen and left it.
Still, however, Jesus had not yet appeared to John ;
he believed that He had risen, but he himself had not
seen Him. But this visible manifestation was soon to
be made. On the very day of the Resurrection, John
and His fellow- Apostles were assembled in an upper
chamber, probably the same upper room where, three
days before, they had partaken of the last Passover with
their Master. They had met to consider the various
reports of the resurrection of their Lord which were
circulated among the disciples, when their doubts were
dispelled by the sudden appearance of the risen Saviour
Himself. " Then were the disciples glad when they
saw the Lord" (Luke xxiv. 36-40; John xx. 19-23).
John gives, in the appendix to his Gospel,1 an
account of a special manifestation to himself and six
1 The question regarding the Appendix to the Gospel will be discussed
in a later portion of this book.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 35
other disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and of a remark
able conversation which followed it (John xxi.). The
Apostles, at the close of the seven days of the feast
of the Passover, had left Jerusalem and returned to
Galilee. This they did at the express command of
their Lord. He had promised to appear to them in
Galilee (Matt. xxvi. 32, xxviii. 7, 10). Probably
several days had elapsed before the fulfilment of His
promise. The Apostles had , betaken themselves to
their usual occupation of fishing. Seven of them1
were fishing, as is not unusual, in the night, but with
out success. As morning began to dawn, and it was
still dark, the figure of One was dimly discerned on
the shore. He asked them if they had been successful
in their fishing; and when He received a negative
reply, He told them to cast their net on the other side
of the ship ; and when they did so, they enclosed a vast
multitude of fish. The recollection of the former
miraculous draught of fishes suggested to John's mind
that the unknown and scarcely visible Person on the
shore was the Lord. He communicates his thoughts
to Peter ; and Peter, with his usual impetuosity, threw
off his fisherman's coat, cast himself into the sea, and
swam ashore. Tbe usual characteristics of the two
Apostles are here seen; John apprehends the truth
and Peter adopts it; Peter takes the lead and John
follows ; John is first in intuition, Peter is first in action.
It was on this occasion that the memorable conver-
1 The seven disciples mentioned as the witnesses of this manifestation
are Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee (Bartholomew ?),
the sons of Zebedee, James and John, and two other disciples, whose names
are not given, probably because they were not of the number of the
Apostles.

36 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
sation between our Lord and Peter and John occurred
(John xxi. 15-23). Peter is solemnly restored to his
apostolic office, and receives from his Master a com
mand to follow: "And Jesus said to him, Follow
me." Peter obeys ; and as he once followed Christ at
a distance, now he follows Him close at hand. John,
unbidden, also follows Christ and Peter. Peter, turn
ing round, sees John following, and he saith to Jesus,
"Lord, what shall this man do?" The question is
put partly from curiosity, and partly from affection ;
perhaps, also, there may have been in it a shade of
jealousy. Jesus gives no definite answer; His words
savour of rebuke : " If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee? Follow thou me." Obey My
command, and do not perplex thyself about the fate
of others, or inquire into their destiny. There have
been various opinions concerning the precise meaning
of our Lord's words. Some suppose that they refer
to Piis coming at death, and that whereas He had
predicted a violent death to Peter, He now foretold
a natural death to John.1 Others refer them to the
coming of the Lord at the destruction of Jerusalem,
when an end would be put to the Jewish dispensation,
and the kingdom of Christ would be fully established.2
And others refer them to the second advent, when
Christ shall appear in glory for the redemption of His
people. Even although he should remain on earth until
I come again, what is that to thee % 3 This gave rise to
1 The view adopted by Augustine, Grotius, Olshausen, Ewald, Lange.
2 The opinion of Bengel, Stier, Luthardt, Alford, Trench, Westcott.
3 The view adopted by Meyer in his commentary. This, we conceive, is
tbe correct interpretation.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 37
the plausible notion or legend that John should never
die — that he should abide until the coming of the
Lord ; a notion which he himself tells us was prevalent
among the brethren, and which he writes to correct.
Jesus, he observes, did not say precisely, " He shall
not die," or " He shall remain until My coming ; " but
hypothetically, "If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee ? "
After the Ascension John finally retired from Galilee ;
he had given up his occupation of fishing, and now
devoted himself entirely to the diffusion of the Gospel ;
nor do we hear that he ever revisited the scene of his
youth. His stated residence was now in Jerusalem,
where in all probability he had a house of his own,
and where he dwelt with Mary, the mother of Jesus,
who had been consigned to his care, and with his own
mother, Salome.
In the Acts of the Apostles, John steps into the
background before the more energetic Apostles Peter
and Paul. After the Ascension, he along with the
other disciples, waited in the upper room in prayer and
supplication for the outpouring of the Spirit (Acts i. 13,
14). He doubtless, with the other Apostles, took part
in the preaching of the Gospel on the day of Pente
cost. In the Acts of the Apostles he is generally
mentioned in company with Peter. There seems to
have been a sacred friendship between these two
Apostles. They were sent together by Christ to make
preparations for the last Passover. They appear to
have sat at the right and left hand of Jesus at the Last
Supper, when Peter beckoned to John to inquire who

38 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
it was of whom He spake when He said that one of
them should betray Him. They were perhaps both
present in the hall of Caiaphas. They ran together to
the sepulchre. They both followed Christ after His
manifestation at the Sea of Tiberias. They are repre
sented as entering in company into the Temple gate
at the hour of prayer. They are sent forth together
by the Church to confirm the converts in Samaria.
"Everywhere," says St. Chrysostom, "we find these
two Apostles in great harmony together." 1 And this
friendship, commenced, as we have seen, in youth, was
increased and confirmed in manhood ; their common
experiences deepened their mutual affection. And yet
the temperament of these two Apostles, as we have also
seen, was very different. So also the love wherewith
they loved Christ was different. Each was equally de
voted to the Master, but they showed their devotion
in different ways. Peter's ardour induced him to draw
a sword in His defence ; John followed Him with an
unfaltering devotion even to the cross. Peter was fore
most in the professions of his attachment ; John was
reticent in profession, but not less ardent in devotion.
Peter's love was the devoted love of a soldier to his
leader, ready to sacrifice his life for his sake ; whereas
the love of John was that which surpasseth the love of
women, never faltering and ever confiding.2
There are only two events recorded in the Acts in
which John is represented as taking an active part.
The one is the cure of the lame man at the Temple gate
1 Chrysostom's Homilies on the Acts, Horn. viii.
2 Howson' Horce Petrince, pp. 54, 55.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 39
(Acts iii.). Peter and John went together into the
Temple at the hour of prayer. The disciples had not
as yet withdrawn from the worship of the Jews ; they
still observed the stated hours of prayer; they still
attended the services of the Temple. Proceeding from
the outer to the inner court, they came to the Beauti
ful gate of the Temple. Here, as was not unusual, at
the gates of the Temple, a lame man was laid for the
purpose of asking alms of those who might enter.1
Peter and John regarded him with compassion ; and
Peter, actuated by a Divine impulse, addressed him :
" In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and
walk." And he took him by the right hand and lifted
him up, and immediately his feet and ankle-bones
received strength, and he stood up and walked, and
entered with them into the inner court of the Temple,
walking and leaping and praising God. The miracle
acted as a bell to call the people to worship, and the
multitude ran together to Solomon's porch. Then
Peter addressed them with irresistible force, telling
them that Jesus, whom they had denied and crucified,
was risen from the dead, and exalted as a Prince and a
Saviour, and urging them to repent and become His
disciples. The Jewish authorities felt constrained to interfere ;
they were implicated in the death of Jesus ; the
Apostles had, indirectly at least, accused them of being
the betrayers and murderers of their Messiah, and the
people were wavering in their views. Accordingly the
chief priests arrest Peter and John and put them in
1 Chrysostom recommends the practice as regards Christian churches.

40 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
prison until the next day, because it was then evening.1
Next day the two Apostles are brought before the
Sanhedrim, and asked by what authority or by what
name they had performed this miracle. Then Peter
boldly accuses them of being the murderers of their
Messiah. The chief priests found themselves in a
dilemma; the man who was cured was standing in
the court, and they could neither deny the miracle
nor punish the Apostles for performing what was un
doubtedly a good action. Besides, the multitude at
this time favoured the Apostles, so that they were con
strained to dismiss them unpunished, with the admoni
tion not to speak nor to teach in the name of Jesus ;
an admonition which the Apostles declared their deter
mination to disobey.
The other event is the preaching of the Gospel in
Samaria (Acts viii. 14-25). Several years had elapsed
since the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost,
and the Christian Church steadily increased in num
bers. John, with the rest of the Apostles, still con
tinued in Jerusalem, or occasionally preached the
Gospel in neighbouring cities. At last Christianity
came into direct collision with Judaism. Stephen, a
Hellenistic Christian, appears to have attacked the
exclusive nature of Judaism, and to have dwelt upon
the inevitable destruction of the Temple and the revolu
tion which must come over the Jewish religion.2 In
1 The reason of this arrest is stated, because the rulers were grieved that
the Apostles taught through Jesus the resurrection of the dead. Con
sequently the chief persons who were concerned in the arrest of these two
Apostles were the Sadducees.
2 Hitherto Christianity wa9 chiefly opposed by the Sadducees, hut it
now displayed its anti-Pharisaical side.

LIFE OF ST. JOHN. 41
consequence of this, the tide of popular favour turned ;
Jewish fanaticism was roused ; Stephen was murdered
in a popular tumult ; and the disciples, with the excep
tion of the Apostles, who appear to have been pro
videntially protected, were dispersed. But this disper
sion only served for the diffusion of the Gospel ;
Christianity, though still restricted to the Jews, was
no longer confined to Jerusalem ; the dispersed went
throughout Samaria, Galilee, and Perea preaching the
Gospel. Philip, one of the deacons, was especially
successful in Samaria. Here a decided step in advance
was taken ; the Samaritans, although recognised as
having embraced the Jewish religion, were regarded
as only half Jews, and now to them the Gospel was
preached, and multitudes of them believed on Jesus.
The matter was regarded of such importance, that the
Church of Jerusalem resolved to send its two most
distinguished members, Peter and John, to visit them.
The purpose of the mission was to confirm the Sama
ritans in the faith, to impart to them true views of
the Gospel, and especially to confer on them by
the imposition of hands the miraculous endowments
of the Holy Ghost. Peter and John preached the
Word of God throughout the cities and villages of
Samaria, and thus advanced the work commenced by
Philip. John, as we learn from an incidental notice in one
of Paul's Epistles, was present at the celebrated Council
of Jerusalem. More than eighteen years had elapsed
since the Ascension, and Christianity had during this
period burst its Jewish bands and penetrated to the

42 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Gentiles. The new Apostle, Paul, had with untiring
zeal and earnestness preached the Gospel in the various
provinces of Proconsular Asia, and had formed numerous
Churches, consisting chiefly of Gentile converts. This
accession of the Gentiles to the Christian Church was
a source of danger and discord. The Jews were
restricted by their religion ; they were forbidden to
have any social dealings with the Gentiles ; their
ceremonial observances prohibited the possibility of
eating with them. Were then these Jewish distinctions
to be done away with ? Above all, was circumcision
to be declared unnecessary in a proselyte ? Was the
wall of separation between Jews and Gentiles to be
broken down ? Or were the restrictions to be adopted
by the Gentile converts, so that by becoming Christians
they must also become Jews ?
The question was referred to the Church of Jerusalem.
The crisis was a most important one ; it depended upon
the decision of that Council whether the progress of
Christianity should be arrested, and Christians continue
a Jewish sect; or whether, being delivered from the
trammels of Judaism, it should aspire to be the religion
of the world. John was present at the Council, and
took a prominent part in its decisions. Although his
name is not mentioned in the Acts, and it would appear
that the controversy was decided by the declared
opinions of Peter and James, the Lord's brother, yet
we learn from the Epistle to the Galatians that John
was equally influential (Gal. ii. 9). The decision of
the Council was entirely in favour of the Gentile
Christians ; the law of Moses was not binding on

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 43.
them ; there was no obligation on them to be circum
cised and to adopt the Jewish as well as the Christian
religion. This is the great charter of Christian rights
and privileges.
Paul mentions James and Cephas and John as those
who were reputed to be " pillars of the Church."
Hence these three have been called " the pillar
Apostles." This appellation, conferred on John along
with the other two Apostles, intimates his importance
in the Christian Church. He was recognised in the
early Church as one of its most prominent leaders ; and
although he did not perhaps take such an active part as
Peter, nor was so venerated by the Jewish Christians
as James, the Lord's brother, yet " the disciple whom
Jesus loved," the guardian and protector of Mary, the
mother of the Lord, must ever have been regarded with
peculiar veneration, and must ever have exercised a
most wholesome influence in the early Church. His
labours in the diffusion of the Gospel are not recorded.
Perhaps on account of his retiring and contemplative
character, they were not so extensive as those either
of Peter or Paul ; but in all ages he will be regarded
as one of the brightest ornaments and supports, a
veritable pillar of the Christian Church.
II. St. John's Later Days.
The presence of John at the Council of Jerusalem
(a.d. 51), incidentally referred to by Paul in his Epistle
to the Galatians (Gal. ii. 9), is the last direct notice of
him in Scripture. We are left very much to the un-

44 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
certainty of tradition regarding his subsequent life.
There are, however, two facts which we may reason
ably infer from the Apocalypse, assuming that this book
was written by the Apostle, namely, his intimate con
nection with the Churches in Proconsular Asia and his
residence in Patmos, where the visions contained in
that bpok were communicated to him. And, in cor
respondence with these two facts, there is in the writ
ings of the early Fathers, from Irenaeus downwards,
a uniform testimony regarding two incidents in the
later life of John, which have been accepted as historical
by the generality of theologians, namely, his lengthened
residence and death at Ephesus, and his temporary
abode in Patmos.
It is uncertain when John finally quitted Jerusalem.'
He is not mentioned in the account of Paul's last visit
to that city ; we are only informed that that Apostle
was received by James, the Lord's brother, and by the
presbyters (Acts xxi. 18); but we are not at liberty to
infer from this that John had already left Jerusalem,
for, on the one hand, the omission of his name may
have been accidental, just as there is no mention of
him in the Acts of the Apostles in the account of the
Council of Jerusalem, although we know from other
information that he was present (Gal. ii. 9) ; and, on
the other hand, if absent on the occasion of Paul's last
visit, this may have been only a temporary absence, as
was the case on the occasion of Paul's first visit, when
he saw none of the Apostles save Peter and James, the
Lord's brother (Gal. i. 18, 19). Godet supposes that
after our Lord's ascension John's permanent residence

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 45
was in Galilee, where he abode with Mary, our Lord's
mother, and that he only occasionally went up to Jeru
salem ; and that this circumstance serves to explain
why in those first times he took so small a share in
missionary work.1 But for this opinion there does not
appear to be the slightest foundation ; the fact that he
was sent by the Church along with Peter to Samaria
naturally suggests that his stated residence was in
Jerusalem. The most probable view is that John did
not leave Jerusalem until he was constrained to do so
at the commencement of the Jewish war, in obedience
to our Lord's commands. Christ had enjoined His
disciples, when they saw Jerusalem encompassed with
armies, to leave the city, as being doomed to destruc
tion (Luke xxi. 20, 21; Matt. xxiv. 15, 16). And
Josephus informs us that after the defeat of Cestius
Gallus, the Proconsul of Syria, "many of the most
eminent Jews swam away from the city as from a ship
when it was going to sink." 2
We learn from Eusebius that the Jewish Christians
at the commencement of the war (a.d. 66) fled from
Jerusalem in obedience to our Lord's command (Luke
xxi. 21), and betook themselves to Pella,3 a city in
Perea, about sixty miles distant. "The whole body
of the Church at Jerusalem," he observes, "having
been commanded by Divine revelation given to men
of approved piety there before the war, removed from
that city and dwelt in a certain town beyond Jordan
1 Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel, vol. i. pp. 41, 42, translation,
2 Bell. Jud., ii. 20.
3 Pella was one of the towns of Decapolis. According to Thomson,
Land and the Book, p. 456, its modern name is Tubukat Fahel.

46 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
called Pella." x Accordingly many suppose that John
accompanied the Christians to Pella, and there assisted
in the organisation of the Church under Symeon, the
son of Cleophas, supposed to be a cousin of our Lord,
who succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem, and
who, according to Eusebius, suffered martyrdom in the
reign of Trajan.2 "Pella," observes Lange, "formed
the natural bridge for the Apostle from Jerusalem to
Ephesus, and probably he did not leave the commu
nity at Pella to pass to Asia Minor until it was firmly
established."3 There is nothing improbable in this
opinion, for if John remained in Jerusalem until the
commencement of the war, he would naturally accom
pany his fellow-Christians to Pella. But Pella must
have been only a stage on his journey from Jerusalem
to Ephesus, and it must have been shortly after, that
he took up his residence in the latter city.
Another tradition or supposition is that John
journeyed eastward beyond the Roman Empire into
Parthia, and there preached the Gospel. His First
Epistle was known to St. Augustine4 and several of
the Fathers5 as the "Epistle of John to the Par-
thians ; " and, on the assumption of the correctness of
this title, it has been inferred that Parthia was the
country to which John first betook himself when he
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 5.
2 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iii. 32.
3 Lange's Bibelwerlc : Das Evangeliwm Johannes, p. 7 ; American trans
lation, p. 10. See also Archdeacon Lee in Speaker's Commentary on the
Revelation, vol. iv. p. 427 ; Ewald's History of Israel, vol. viii. p. 157.
4 Qucest. Evang., ii. 39, where we read : " Secundum sententiam hanc
etiam illud est quod dictum est a Joanne in epistola ad Parthos."
6 So called by Vigilius Thapsensis, Cassiodorus, Bede, &c.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 47
quitted Jerusalem. If so, we again behold him in com
pany with Peter ; for it is evident from the First Epistle
of that Apostle, written from Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13),1 that
Parthia, in which empire Babylon was situated, was
the sphere of his apostolic labours. The Jews were
exceedingly numerous in this quarter ever since their
deportation under Nebuchadnezzar ; 2 only a small num
ber had returned to Palestine ; the great majority had
permanently settled in Babylon and other cities of
Mesopotamia ; 3 and therefore it is argued that there
is nothing improbable in the supposition that Peter and
John, two of the Apostles of the circumcision, who are
always found together, went to preach the Gospel to
the Jews in Babylon. But this supposition has its
origin in a mistake. The title given to John's First
Epistle, as "The Epistle of John to the Parthians," is
founded on error,4 and is rejected by all Biblical critics.
The error probably arose from the title vapOevog, "the
virgin," given to St. John, which was mistaken for the
Parthians. " The Latins," observes Gieseler, " misunder
standing it, made out of it Epist&lam ad Parthos."
There is no mention in ecclesiastical history of John's
mission to the Parthians, and no ground for the above
opinion.
1 Provided the city of Babylon be here meant, and the word be not a
mere designation, as many suppose, for Eome.
2 Merivale's History of the Romans under the Empire, vol. iii. p. 389 ;
Milman's History of the Jews, vol. ii. p. 152.
3 As showing how soon the captive Jews beca'me at home in Chaldsea,
F. Delitzsch says that among the cuneiform tablets from excavations
recently made in the Euphrates Valley are the voluminous books of a
Jewish trading firm, which carried on an extensive business before the fall
of the Babylonish Empire.
4 See Gloag's Catholic Epistles, pp. 274, 275.

48 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The uniform testimony of the Fathers points to
Ephesus as the residence of John during -his later
years. That John resided for some time in Procon
sular Asia is implied in the Apocalypse. This writing
is addressed to the seven Churches which are in Asia,
thus implying that John had some peculiar interest
in these Asiatic Churches, which is accounted for by
assuming his residence in Ephesus. Accordingly, we
have the uniform testimony of the Fathers from Irenaeus
downwards to this fact. Irenaeus (a.d. 180) is an
important witness, as he was only removed one stage
from John ; he was a disciple of Polycarp, and Poly
carp was a disciple of John. In his Epistle to Florinus,
his fellow-student under Polycarp, Irenaeus speaks of
his intimacy, while yet a boy, in Proconsular Asia
with Polycarp, and of Polycarp's reminiscences of his
familiar intercourse with John : "I saw thee, while I
was yet a boy in Proconsular Asia, with Polycarp. I
can tell the very place where the blessed Polycarp was
accustomed to sit and discourse, and what he used to
relate regarding his intimacy with John, and also with
others who had seen the Lord." l And in his letter to
Victor of Rome on the Paschal controversy he writes :
" When the blessed Polycarp visited Rome in the time
of Anicetus, they had slight differences among them
selves, but were soon reconciled. For Anicetus could
not persuade Polycarp not to observe it (the 14th Nisan
as Easter), because he had always observed it with John,
the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the Apostles
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 20. Polycarp was martyred in extreme old
age, having served Christ eighty-six years, in the reign of Antoninus Pius,
A.D. 156, and was probably twenty-eight years old at the death of John.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 49
with whom he associated." x On several other occasions
Irenaeus vouches for the residence of John in Ephesus.
"The Church of Ephesus," he observes, "founded by
Paul, and having John remaining among them perma
nently until the time of Trajan, is a true witness of the
tradition of the Apostles." 2 And again : " John, the
disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon His breast, did
himself publish a Gospel during his residence at
Ephesus in Asia." 3 And he mentions the encounter
of the Apostle with the heresiarch Cerinthus as occur
ring at Ephesus.4 Apollonius (a.d. i 80) relates that a
dead man was raised through the Divine power by John
at Ephesus.5 Polycrates (a.d. 190), who was himself
Bishop of Ephesus toward the close of the second
century, informs us that John was buried in that city.
"Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our
Lord, who also wore the sacerdotal plate (ireraXov), both
a witness and a teacher, was buried in Ephesus."6
Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190), who lived about the
same time, testifies to the same fact. " After the tyrant
was dead, John, coming from the island of Patmos to
Ephesus, went also when called to the neighbouring
regions of the Gentiles, in some to appoint Bishops, in
some to institute entire new Churches, in others to
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 24.
2 Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4%; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iii. 23.
3 Adv. Hcer., iii. 1, 1 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 8.
4 Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 14. A complete collec
tion of the passages from Irenasus bearing on this subject has been made
by Scholten, Der Apostel Johannes, pp. 89 ff. They are thirteen in number.
In them Irenaeus mentions as his authorities : (1) Presbyters of Asia
Minor who had seen John ; (2) The Ephesian Church ; (3) Papias ; (4)
Friends of Polycarp ; (5) Polycarp himself.
6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 18. 6 Idem, v. 24. D

50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
appoint to the ministry those that were set apart
by the Holy Ghost."1 And Origen (a.d. 230) states
that John received Proconsular Asia as his allotted
region, where after continuing for some time, he died
at Ephesus.2
Notwithstanding this early, uniform, and constant
tradition, extending from Irenaeus, the disciple of
Polycarp, the disciple of John, the residence of John
at Ephesus has been called in question by certain
critics of the extreme negative school. The first who
intelligently questioned the fact was Liitzelberger, and
he has been followed by Keim, Holtzmann, Schenkel,
and Scholten. On the other hand, many of the most
distinguished theologians belonging to the Tubingen
school and the later negative school, inasmuch as they
assert the authenticity of the Apocalypse, as Hilgen
feld, Krenkel, and Mangold, maintain the Ephesian
residence of John.8 The reason why this fact so well
attested is opposed, as Liitzelberger admits, seems to
be, that if it is granted that John resided in Ephesus,
then this would be a strong argument in favour of the
genuineness of his Gospel, because it would be impos
sible that a spurious book in his name would pass
current in the early part of the second century in Asia,
where many would be still living who would have
known and conversed with John, and who could not
possibly have been imposed on.4 Deny the Ephesian
1 Euseb., Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.
2 Idem, iii. 1. For the later history of the tradition, see Scholten,
Apostel Johannes, pp. 83 ff.
3 See the literature connected with John's later days given in p. 1.
4 See Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, p. 115.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 51
residence, and a strong proof in favour of John's author
ship of the Fourth Gospel would be removed.
The chief objector in recent times is Keim.1 He
considers John's residence in Proconsular Asia as a
late tradition, having no ground in fact, and being
highly improbable in itself. "Up to the end of the
second century," he observes, "we seek in vain for
the Apostle John in Asia Minor. The New Testament,
even its latest portions — and we would particularly
mention the Acts of the Apostles, which was written
long after the destruction of Jerusalem — is wholly
silent upon this point. Long after the middle of the
second century, the same silence is found in the
Epistles of Ignatius ; not merely in the Epistle to
Smyrna, but also in those to Polycarp and Ephesus.
The same silence reigns in Polycarp's Epistle to the
Philippians and the Smyrnean history of his martyrdom
under Marcus Aurelius. All these works are silent as
to an Apostle John in Asia Minor, and the latter works
even as to an Apostle John at all — the Apostle that
afterwards became the dearest possession of the Chris
tian Church, which, up to the year 1 70, cared to men
tion or to hear no name but that of Paul." 2
But it is precarious to attempt to disprove a gene
rally asserted historical fact by the argumentum e silen-
tio ; 3 in this case it can only be valid provided it can
1 The arguments which Keim uses are in the main those of Liitzelberger,
only, as Luthardt says, not so well arranged.
2 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 218, translation.
3 Krenkel quotes a remark of a correspondent of A. von Humboldt, which
- is interesting in this connection : " Humboldt confirms a statement which we
have oftenmade, thatwe must not infer too much from the silence of authors.
In the archives of Barcelona there is no mention of Columbus's triumphal

s 2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
be shown that it was essential that John should be
mentioned. It is strange to emphasise the Acts of the
Apostles as an example of silence concerning John's
Ephesian residence, as that book closes with Paul's im
prisonment, an event which occurred before the date
assigned to that residence.1 All the books of the New
Testament were probably written before this period,
with the exception of John's own writings, and in the
Apocalypse his residence in Proconsular Asia is implied.
In the Epistles of Ignatius, admitting the genuineness
of the smaller recension, there was no necessity to
mention John. Ignatius was not one of his disciples,
and he only mentions Paul because there was a resem
blance between that Apostle's fate and his own, both
being led prisoners to Rome as confessors of Christ.2
Nor was there any necessity for Polycarp to state that
he was a disciple of John at Ephesus ; he was not
writing to the Ephesians, but to the Philippians, a
Church founded by Paul, and which, so far as we know,
had no connection with John. A similar remark is also
applicable to the Smyrnean account of the martyrdom
of Polycarp.3 The statements of Irenaeus, the disciple
of Polycarp, as to the residence of John in Ephesus, are
entry into that city ; in Marco Polo there is no mention of the Chinese
Wall ; and in the archives of Portugal there is nothing about the voyages
of Amerigo Vespucci in the service of the crown." — Apostel Johannes, p. 139,
note. 1 On this Godet remarks : " The Acts of the Apostles, says Keim, do not
speak of such a sojourn by John in Asia. Is the man serious who speaks
ihus 1 With such logic, replies Leusclmer, it could also be proved that Paul
is not yet dead to this hour." — Commentary on John's Gospel, vol. i. p. 49.
2 Ad Eph., chap. xii.
3 We do not advert to the statements of Papias, 'as his words are very
ambiguous, and different interpretations have been given of them.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 53
to us perfectly decisive. Keim can only endeavour to
invalidate them by assuming that Irenaeus in his Epistle
to Florinus mistook John the Presbyter for John the
Apostle,1 an assumption which is wholly unwarranted,
and is the very extravagance of destructive criticism.
It must also be assumed that in his Epistle to Victor
of Rome, Irenaeus made a similar mistake. Scholten
admits that if the Epistle to Florinus is genuine, the
acquaintance of Polycarp with John is established, and
therefore he is driven to deny the authenticity of that
Epistle. In this " desperate hypothesis," as Hilgenfeld
calls it, he has not been followed by others.2
John could only have come to Ephesus at a late
period. It is probable that he had not arrived before
the death of Paul (a.d. 66 ?) ; for in Paul's Second
Epistle to Timothy, written immediately before his
martyrdom, and sent to Ephesus, there is no allusion to
John's presence in that city. And if, as we have seen
was most probable, John remained in Jerusalem until
the commencement of the Jewish war, he could only
have repaired to Ephesus, at the earliest, in the year
a.d. 66 or a.d. 67.
Ephesus 3 appears at this time to have been the great
centre of Christian light. The Church of Jerusalem,
the centre of Jewish Christianity, had been forcibly
broken up on the occasion of the Jewish war. The
Church of Antioch, the former capital of Gentile Chris-
1 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. pp. 220-222.
2 For a close examination of Keim's argumentum e silentio, see Luthardt,
John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 121 ff.
3 Ephesus is now called Ayasalouk, a corruption of ayios 6e6\oyos, the
name by which St. John was known. For an admirable description of
Ephesus see Le.win's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 355 ff.

54 GENERAL INTRODUCTION,
tianity, had now yielded its precedence to the Chur'ch
of Ephesus. Timothy, the favourite disciple of Paul,
had taken up his residence there at Paul's request,
until called by that Apostle to Rome ; and now his
place was more than supplied by the Apostle John.
"Henceforth," observes so cautious a writer as Bishop
Lightfoot, " we find the headquarters of Christendom
no more at Jerusalem, nor even at Antioch, but, for the
time at least, at Ephesus. Plere John fixed his abode
after his temporary banishment in Patmos. Here also
— if an ancient tradition may be credited — lived
Andrew, the friend of John's youth, a native like him
self of Bethsaida, and a fellow-disciple with him. of
John the Baptist. In the same neighbourhood also
resided a third fisherman- Apostle of Bethsaida, Philip,
who died and was buried at Hierapolis in Phrygia.
Besides these three Apostles, we read also of two other
personal disciples of Christ in these parts, Aristion and a
second John, with whom Papias had conversed respect
ing the human life of the Saviour and the earliest days
of the Church." J Ephesus was peculiarly suitable for
the diffusion of the Gospel. It was situated in a very
populous country, and was intimately connected with
many flourishing cities. Here the courts of Procon
sular Asia were held ; here the Roman Proconsul had
his official residence ; and hence to it the inhabitants
of the neighbouring towns resorted. It was in the
centre of the country, midway between Smyrna and
Miletus. Hence, then, Ephesus was not only the poli-
1 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, vol. i. p. 422. See also his Commentary
on the Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, p. 45. Essays on Super
natural Religion, p. 91.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 55
tical, but became also the ecclesiastical metropolis of
Asia. Besides, John's presence at Ephesus was parti
cularly necessary on account of the rise of Gnosticism.
This form of error, a species of eclecticism, a mixture
of heathen philosophy and Christianity, had disturbed
the Church. It appears to have originated in Asia,
the home of the blending of Oriental and Greek
philosophy, and had its stronghold in Ephesus. Here
Cerinthus, one of the early heresiarchs, had his resi
dence. Here the Antinomian tenets of the Nicolaitanes
were widely disseminated (Rev. ii. 6). Christianity
was in imminent danger of being corrupted through
" philosophy and vain deceit." Now, as we learn from
his First Epistle, John opposed Gnosticism with all
the force of Apostolic authority. He testified especi
ally against that form of it called Docetism, which
taught that Christ did not come in the flesh ; and
his authority was necessary to preserve the purity of
the Church. Asia, the seat of heresy, required the
presence of John, the champion of the truth.
John during his residence at Ephesus appears to
have exercised an apostolic authority over the Churches
of Asia. He visited them, regulated their government,
corrected errors, ordained ministers, and confirmed
believers in the faith. Thus, in a passage formerly
quoted, Clemens Alexandrinus informs us that John
went to the neighbouring regions of the Gentiles to
extend and strengthen the Church.1 He also, as
we learn from his Third Epistle, sent forth evan
gelists with letters of recommendation to preach the
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.

56 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Gospel in the different cities of Asia (3 John 5-8),
and thus acted to all intents and purposes as a metro
politan bishop. Polycrates informs us that he was a
priest, and wore the sacerdotal plate.1 This can only
be understood metaphorically, to indicate the high
esteem in which John was held by the Christian Church
at Ephesus, as if he held a position and an authority
there similar to that of the high priest among the Jews.
The Apocalypse is addressed to the seven Churches
which are in Asia, to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum,
Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, showing
that John had an intimate connection with these
Churches, and exercised an active superintendence over
them. Indeed, some2 think that John was the author
of that ecclesiastical constitution of bishops and pres
byters which prevailed in Asia Minor in the second
century, of which the angels of the Churches men
tioned in the Apocalypse are supposed to be the first
faint traces, and which a little later is more fully stated
in the Epistles of Ignatius ; 3 so that, according to
them, Episcopacy had its origin, in the enactments of
the Apostle John. This is a mere ingenious hypothesis,
and cannot be stated as an authentic fact ; though
undoubtedly John himself exercised episcopal authority
in Asia. Pie was, however, not a bishop, properly so
called, but one of the twelve Apostles of our Lord.
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., v. 24.
2 So Bothe, Thiersch, Neander. See also Lightfoot, Dissertation on the
Christian Ministry, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians,
pp. 179-267.
3 The Episcopacy in the Epistles of Ignatius, however, was not diocesan
but congregational Episcopacy. »^

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 57
The other fact inferred from the Apocalypse is
John's residence or temporary abode in the island of
Patmos. " I was in the island called Patmos, for the
word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ "
(Rev. i. 9).
We have numerous references to John's banishment
to Patmos in the writings of the Fathers. Clemens
Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) speaks of John's return from
Patmos to Ephesus after the death of the tyrant.1
Tertullian (a.d. 200) states that John's banishment to
Patmos was preceded by the legendary miracle of his
deliverance after being immersed in a caldron of boil
ing oil; which, according to him, occurred at Rome.2
Origen (a.d. 230) says, "A Roman emperor, as tradi
tion teaches, banished John into the island of Patmos
for the testimony which he bore to the word of truth ;
and John himself bears witness to his banishment." 3
Victorinus (a.d. 290), Bishop of Pettau, in his Com
mentary on the Apocalypse, observes : " John said
these things when he was on the island of Patmos,
condemned to the labours of the mines by the Emperor
Domitian." 4 Eusebius (a.d. 320) frequently refers to
John's banishment. " About this time," he observes,
"the beloved disciple of Jesus, John, the Apostle and
Evangelist, still surviving, governed the Churches in
Asia after his return from exile on the island, and after
the death of Domitian."5 And again: "In this per
secution," namely, that of Domitian, " it is handed down
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.
2 Tertullian, De Prescript. Hcsr., chap, xxxvi.
3 Origen, Comment, in Matt. xvi. 6.
4 Victorinus, Comment, in Rev. x. 1 1. 6 Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.

58 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
by tradition that the Apostle and Evangelist John, in
consequence of his testimony to the Divine Word,
was condemned to dwell in the island of Patmos." 1
Epiphanius (a.d. 374) calls the emperor Claudius':
" John prophesied in the isle of Patmos in the reign of
Claudius ; " and in another place, " John wrote his
Gospel in his old age, when he was about ninety years
of age, after his return from Patmos, which was in the
reign of Claudius Caesar." 2 Jerome (a.d. 390), in his
book of "Illustrious Men," says: "Domitian, in the
fourteenth year of his reign, raising the second perse
cution after Nero, John was banished into the island
of Patmos, where he wrote the Apocalypse." 3 And
in another work : " John was a prophet, as he saw
the Revelation in the island of Patmos, where he was
banished by Domitian."
John's banishment to Patmos is not so well authen
ticated by the testimonies of the Fathers as his resi
dence at Ephesus. We want here the important testi
mony of Irenaeus.4 The first who alludes to it is Clemens
Alexandrinus, towards the close of the second century.
Besides, the testimonies of the Fathers which are extant
appear to have taken their rise from the statement in
the Apocalypse.5 But assuming John's authorship of
the Apocalypse, his banishment to Patmos, or at least
his temporary residence there, must be regarded as a
historical fact ; nor has it been so much contested by
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 18.
2 Epiphanius, Hcer., 12. 3 De Vir. Illustr., chap. 9.
4 Irenasus states that the Apocalypse was written in the time of Domi
tian, but he makes no mention of the banishment to Patmos.
6 They all refer to the statement in the Apocalypse.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 59
critical writers as the Ephesian residence, because it
has little bearing on the question of the genuineness
of the Fourth Gospel. There is no reason to suppose,
with Eichhorn, that the abode in Patmos is mentioned
merely as a part of the Apocalyptic vision for the sake
of dramatic effect, and that John was only in vision in
the island called Patmos.
It is maintained that the words in the Apocalypse
stating the occasion of John's residence in Patmos (Sid
rov Xoyov too Qeov kcu Sid Trjv fxapTuplav Irjorov Xpiarov)
do not necessarily imply that he was banished there on
account of his faith. Weiss observes that the idea of
John's banishment arose from a false interpretation of
these words which appear in Clemens Alexandrinus
and in Origen. He supposes that John retired to
Patmos as a religious retreat, in order to receive in
vision the word of God and the testimony of Jesus
Christ. The same view is adopted by Bleek, Liicke,
and Diisterdieck. Hartwig supposes that he went to
Patmos to preach the Gospel, which is most improbable,
considering the smallness and the insignificance of
the island ; others, that he retired in order to avoid
persecution ; whilst Ebrard and Hilgenfeld affirm that
the reference is to banishment on account of his faith.
It is also to be observed that among the Fathers who
testify to the fact of John's banishment in Patmos,
there is considerable diversity of opinion as to the time
of its occurrence. Tertullian and Origen do not men
tion the name of the emperor ; Epiphanius states that
it occurred in the reign of Claudius ; Theophylact and
the superscription of a Syriac manuscript, in the reign

60 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
of Nero ; Clemens Alexandrinus, Victorinus, Eusebius,
and Jerome, in the reign of Domitian ; and Dorotheus
in the reign of Trajan. The period generally adopted
by modern critics is the reign of Nero, because it is
supposed that the Apocalypse is proved from internal
evidence to have been written in that reign.1 But this
date is the least attested by external evidence, being
only mentioned by Theophylact, who lived in the
eleventh century, and who also contradicts himself,
telling us in another place that John was condemned
by Trajan.2 Besides, it is doubtful if the persecution
under Nero was lasting and extended beyond Rome.
It was a sudden outburst of fury, occasioned by the
blame of the burning of Rome being thrown upon the
Christians. The best attested date is certainly the
reign of Domitian. The persecution under Domitian
was more extensive than that under Nero, and we
learn that banishment to obscure islands was one of
the means resorted to by that tyrant. If this was the
case, John would be far advanced in life when banished
to Patmos, supposing that this was the cause of his
residence in that island. According to Eusebius3 he
was released on the death of Domitian by Nerva (a.d.
96), and we know that that emperor set at liberty all
those who were imprisoned by his predecessor.4
Patmos is a small and obscure island in the iEgean

1 This opinion is adopted by Liicke, Neander, Baur, Diisterdieck.
2 Theophylact on Matt. xx. 23.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 20, 23.
4 The question of time will afterwards be more fully considered when
we come to the consideration of the Apocalypse ; at present we leave it
undetermined.

ST. JOHN'S LATER DAYS. 61
Sea, about fifteen, or, according to others, eighteen
miles in circumference, constituting one of the Sporades,
at no great distance from the island of Samos, which
lies opposite to Ephesus. It is seldom mentioned by
ancient writers, and only its name occurs in Strabo.1
It is a rocky island, with a sterile soil. There is only
one town, divided into two parts, the lower Scala
constituting the harbour, and the upper Scala situated
on the height above. The present population is about
4000, and although the island belongs to Turkey, its
inhabitants are all Greek Christians. There are many
memorials of John in the island. The convent of
St. John is on the highest point, and may almost be
regarded as the fortress of the island. It possesses a
valuable library, which is allowed to go to waste, owing
to the ignorance of the priests. When Clarke visited
the island in 1801, he found that neither the superior
of the monastery nor his colleague could read.2 The
supposed abode of John, where the Apocalyptic visions
were imparted to him, is a grotto or cave on the descent
from the monastery to the town ; over it is erected a
chapel, where numerous lamps are always burning, and
on its walls are rude drawings of scenes from the Apoca
lypse. Various spots are pointed out where miracles
are said to have been performed by John ; here he gave
sight to a blind man, and there he raised the dead.
Tischendorf thus gives the impression which the island
made on him : " Silent lay the little island before me
in the morning twilight. Here and there an olive
1 Strabo, x. 5. 13. It is also mentioned hy Pliny.
2 Clarke's Travels, vol. vi. pp. 36 ff.

62 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
breaks the monotony of the rocky waste. The sea was
still as the grave. Patmos reposed in it like a dead
saint. John — that is the thought of the island. The
island belongs to him ; it is his sanctuary. The stones
speak of him, and in every heart he lives." :
After the death of Domitian and the accession of
Nerva, John returned to Ephesus. He was now in
extreme old age. He had survived all the Apostles.
He was the last of those who had been privileged to
see and converse with Christ when on earth. He had
blessed memories of the past and glorious hopes, for
the future. The remainder of his days were spent in
peace and quietness in Ephesus. During the short and
beneficent reign of Nerva persecution had entirely
ceased. According to the best authenticated tradition,
John survived until the reign of Trajan, who ascended
the imperial throne a.d. 98. " John," observes Irenaeus,
"remained among them (the disciples in Asia) up to
the times of Trajan." 2 As we have already observed,
he was probably ten years younger than our Lord, so
that there is no reason to adopt the statement of
St. Jerome that he was a hundred years old when he
died. He did not, like Peter and Paul, suffer martyr
dom, but died a natural death. Thus John passed
away calmly and serenely ; his death resembled a
translation ; his soul ascended to that heaven the
glories of which he had so vividly described, and the
spirit of which he had so ardently cherished.
1 Quoted by Schaff, Apostolic Times, vol. ii. p. 62, and by Farrar, Early
Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 159, note.
2 Adv. Hcer., ii. 22, 5.

CHARACTER OF ST. JOHN. 63
III. — The Character of St. John.
John has been well denominated the "Apostle of
Love." Love is the spirit which breathes in all his
writings. He reveals to us the nature and character
of God as love ; he delights to dwell on the loving dis
position of his Master ; and his repeated exhortation to
his disciples is to love one another. Love, like a golden
thread on a dark ground, runs through even the Apoca
lypse, although a revelation of the judgments of God.1
Whilst with Paul faith is the ruling principle which
dominates the Christian, with John the essence of
relioion consists in love. And as in his writings, so
in his actions love is seen. When all the other Apostles
forsook Christ in the hour of His trial, love drew John
to the cross to receive from the dying Saviour His last
requests ; and no doubt it was on account of this love
and tenderness of John that Jesus consigned to him the
care of His mother. That Apostle who leant upon the
bosom of the Saviour must largely have imbibed that
spirit of love which actuated his Lord and Master.
But love was not with John a mere weak sentimental
feeling, a colourless benevolence. We are too much
accustomed to regard John as if he were effeminate,2 as
if there were a certain weakness or want of manliness
about his character. On the contrary, combined with
love we see in him an impetuosity, a severity of temper,
a certain sternness, an intense hatred of evil. We
1 See Rev. iii. 19, 20 ; vii. 17 ; xxi. 4 ; xxii. 16, 17.
2 In all the portraits of John by the great masters he has a woman-like
appearance.

64 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
find this trait of character flashing out on several
occasions noticed by the Evangelists ; notably when
he conceived that a slight or insult had been offered
to Christ. It was this quality which in early youth
procured for him and his brother from his Master the
surname Boanerges. And even in old age the same
spirit of sternness against that which is evil was mani
fested ; as when he cautioned the disciples against
rendering to the false teachers even the ordinary rites
of hospitality (2 John 10). In the Apocalypse espe
cially this fiery spirit of John is seen.1 The judgments
of God are denounced against the ungodly ; they who
worship the beast and his image are consigned to the
lake of fire, to be tormented for ever and ever. And
this hatred of evil is but the 'negative expression of
love. The more intensely one loves Christ, the more
intensely does he hate Antichrist ; the more we love
God, the more we hate sin; the light excludes the
darkness. Thus there are two apparently opposite
qualities in John, love and hatred to evil — qualities
which, so far from being really contradictory, mutually
imply each other, which constitute John at once the
Apostle of love and the Son of Thunder, and which
invest his character with a moral grandeur. " It is
not surprising," as Dean Stanley remarks, " that the
deep stillness of such a character as this should, like
the Oriental sky, break out from time to time in
tempests of impassioned vehemence ; still less that the
character which was to excel all others in its devoted
1 It is noteworthy that he commends the Church in Ephesus because
" they cannot bear them which are evil " (Rev. ii. 2).

CHARACTER OF ST. JOHN. 65
love of good should give indications — in its earlier
stages even in excess — of that intense hatred of evil,
without which love of good can hardly be said to
exist." x
John possessed a retiring disposition : there was in
him, as Ewald remarks, " a kind of delicate reserve
and shyness." 2 He seldom takes the lead ; he is not
foremost in action. It is Peter wdio is the spokesman,
whilst John stands in the background ; Peter goes
before, John follows (John xxi. 20) ; John suggests,
and Peter acts upon the suggestion (John xxi. 7).
John is seldom mentioned in the Synoptical Gospels ;
and in his own Gospel he rarely alludes to himself;
and when he does so, it is by circumlocution, as " the
disciple whom Jesus loved." He only once mentions
the name of his father, and only indirectly alludes
to his mother and his brother. Whilst Petrine and
Pauline parties were formed in the Church ; whilst one
said, " I am of Paul, and another, I am of Cephas "
(1 Cor. i. 12), we never, either in Scripture or in the
writings of the post-apostolic age, read of a Johannine
party. Drawn to the contemplative, as opposed to the
active life, by his retiring temper, John, as a thinker,
possessed a mind of the intuitive order. In his
writings he seldom reasons, but the truth flashes into
his mind ; he feels and perceives the truth ; a long
train of thought is not necessary for him to arrive at
a conclusion ; " he looks up to heaven, and as he gazes
1 Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, p. 238.
2 " Eine Art zarter Zuriickhaltung und Seheu." See Ewald's Geschichte
des Volkes Israel, vol. vii. pp. 200, 201 ; translation, vol. viii. p. 155.
E

66 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
he tells us what he sees." 1 His mode of thought is
the opposite to that of Paul ; he is not, like that
Apostle, a reasoner, but has an immediate perception
of the truth. In his writings his appeal is to the
feelings ; with him it is the heart which makes the
Christian, — it is love which is the summum bonum of
the Christian life. Hence there is a vein of mysticism
both about the character and the writings of John ; he
is in some respects like Moses, a veiled prophet ; he is
so spiritual in his writings that none but ,the spiritual
can fully comprehend him.
But above all, John lived in the truest, deepest, and
most loving communion with Christ. He, beyond all
the Apostles, enjoyed the love and friendship of Christ.
There was something in John's disposition, probably the
overflowing spirit of love, that drew forth the affection
of Christ toward him, and constituted him " the disciple
whom Jesus loved." And the friendship of Jesus must
have been of unspeakable advantage to John ; it must
have sanctified and elevated his nature, so that the
sphere in which he lived and moved must have been a
heaven on earth. This invests the character of John
with a peculiar sacredness, and almost elevates him
above the human race. Friendship is one of the most
innocent of our earthly pleasures ; the friendship of two
souls who are one in the Lord, inspired by the same
hopes and animated by the same love to Christ, must
be a holy heaven, transfusing its blessed influence
through their lives; but the friendship of Jesus and
John is a sacred shrine, a true holy of holies, which,
1 Liddon, Bampton Lectures, p. 282.

CHARACTER OF ST. JOHN. 67
next to our Lord's humanity, is the purest emblem of
heaven upon earth. And even when Jesus left this
world, this unique friendship must have continued, and
John's whole subsequent life must have been a life in
Christ, and a life filled with Christ. Christ's image was
more deeply and more clearly impressed upon this
Apostle than upon any of the sons of men ; he was the
most legible epistle of Jesus Christ. He was, as Meyer
expresses it, " like a bright mirror, faithfully reflecting
the most delicate features of the full glory of the Incar
nate One ; tender and humble, yet without sentimen
talism, and with the full and resolute earnestness of
apostolic energy." 1
There appears to be two leading phases or types of
the Christian character represented by Paul and John ;
the one bold, active, energetic, ever ready to step to the
front ; the other retiring, spiritual, contemplative, will
ing to follow, but not to take the lead. The one more
that of the Christian missionary, active in the diffusion
of the Gospel and in the conversion of sinners ; the
other more that of the Christian pastor, more suited for
building up believers and confirming them in the faith.
In the great 1 era of the Reformation the Pauline type
of Christianity was discernible in Luther, whilst the
Johannine type was seen in his coadjutor Melancthon ;
and the same diversity of type is seen among Christians
in the present day.
1 Meyer on St. John's Gospel, vol. i. p. 4, translation.

68 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

IV. — The Writings of St. John.
John, next to Paul, is the most voluminous writer in
the New Testament. Five writings have been ascribed
to him, namely, the Fourth Gospel, a Catholic Epistle,
two private letters, and the Apocalypse or the Book of
the Revelation. There is considerable diversity in the
nature and character of his writings. In the Gospel he
writes as a historian ; in the larger Epistle as a Christian
pastor; in the private letters as a Christian friend ; and
in the Apocalypse as one of the Old Testament prophets.
And so also there is a corresponding diversity in the
manner of writing. In the Gospel he writes as the
disciple whom Jesus loved, and who was filled with the
most intense love to Jesus ; in the Epistles as the Apostle
of love ; and in the Apocalypse as the seer, the eagle
whose glance penetrates heaven. John's three writings
— the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse — have
been often compared. The Gospel exhibits Christ as in
the world, the Epistle as in the heart, and the Apo
calypse as in heaven. The Gospel sets forth the divine
life as seen in the Person of Christ, the Epistle as seen
in the individual Christian, and the Apocalypse as seen
in the Church. In the Gospel we have a summary of
Christian theology, in the Epistles a summary of Chris
tian ethics, and in the Apocalypse a summary of Chris
tian politics. In the Gospel we have the fundamental
doctrines of the Christian's faith, in the Epistles the
fundamental principles of the Christian's life, and in the
Apocalypse the fundamental element of the Christian's

WRITINGS OF ST. JOHN. 69
glory. In the Gospel we have the historical Christ, in
the Epistles the spiritual Christ, and in the Apocalypse
the glorified Christ.
The genuineness of all these writings has been
more or less disputed. The extreme school of nega
tive criticism rejects them all, whilst other negative
critics admit the genuineness of one or more of them,
and deny that of others. The subject will be fully con
sidered when we come to the examination of each par
ticular book. The genuineness of the Fourth Gospel is
the great question of modern criticism— the battlefield
of negative and positive criticism. It is generally ad
mitted by all critics that the writer of the Fourth
Gospel and the Catholic Epistle which bears the name
of John was the same.1 With regard to the authorship
of the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, the most
diverse and contradictory opinions exist. Some hold
that John was the author of both ; others that he is the
author- of the Gospel, but not of the Apocalypse; others
that he is the author of the Apocalypse, but not of the
Gospel ; and others that he is the author of neither.
These are points reserved for after consideration.
There is also considerable diversity of opinion among
those who admit the genuineness of the Johannine writ
ings, regarding the time of their composition. Some
consider that the Apocalypse was written twenty or
twenty -five years before the Gospel and the Epistles ;
whilst others think that all the writings were nearly
contemporaneous. This also is reserved to form the
1 This has indeed been disputed by several writers, especially by those
belonging to the Tubingen school.

70 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
subject of after consideration. It is, however, to be
observed, that whatever the interval of time between
these writings, they are all the writings of one advanced
in years. John died at Ephesus in extreme old age, and
even at the earliest time to which critics assign the
Apocalypse, he must have been approaching sixty.
There is in the Third Epistle ascribed to John the
evidence of a lost Epistle. We are not to suppose, with
some, that we have in the New Testament all the epistles
which the several writers ever wrote. This could not
possibly be the case with the Apostle Paul, who was
burdened with the care of all the Churches, and whose
practice it was to write letters of recommendation. We
have traces of a lost Epistle to the Laodiceans, and of a
lost Epistle to the Corinthians ; x and there is here evi
dence of a lost Epistle of John. Mention is made of an
Epistle which John wrote to the Church of which Gaius
was a member : " I wrote somewhat unto the Church, but
Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among
them, receiveth us not" (3 John 9). The purport of this
Epistle was evidently to recommend' certain travelling
brethren, probably evangelists, to the favourable notice
of the Church. Attempts have been made to explain
this Epistle without admitting that it has been lost.
Some suppose that this writing was the First Epistle of
John ; others, that it was the Second ; whilst others
translate the verb eypa^a, " I would have written," and
refer it to an unfulfilled intention on the part of the
Apostle. All these are inadequate explanations.2 The
1 Col. iv. 16 ; 1 Cor. v. 9. See Gloag's Introduction to the Pauline
Epistles : " On the Lost Epistles of Paul," pp. 23-36'.
2 Gloag's Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, p. 348.

STYLE OF JOHN'S WRITINGS. 71
words evidently refer to an epistle which John wrote to
the Church, but which has not been preserved. Not all
the writings of the inspired Apostles are preserved in
the New Testament, but only those which God in His
providence has judged to be necessary for the edification
of His Church. What is lost may indeed be equally
valuable with what remains, but not essentially neces
sary. V. — The Style of John's Writings.
It is hazardous to test the genuineness of a writing
by the nature of its style, unless indeed the style of
the writer has very marked peculiarities ; in which
case, if the writing be in direct contrast to these pecu
liarities, we may, with some degree of probability, infer
its spuriousness.1 Eminent writers, as, for example,
Shakespeare, Milton, and Goethe,2 often wrote with a
marked difference of style when the subjects treated
were different. Many writers argue from the diver
sity of style in the Apocalypse and in the Fourth
Gospel that these two boohs could not have pro
ceeded from the same author. This is a point of so
much importance that its examination is reserved until
we come to the consideration of the authenticity of
the Apocalypse.
A writing frequently bears the impress of the mental
1 Even then the inference would be precarious. No writer has such
marked peculiarities as Carlyle, but in his Life of Schiller there is a com
parative absence of these peculiarities.
2 Hase, discussing the difference of style between the Fourth Gospel and
the Apocalypse, cites as an analogy the marked difference between the first
and second parts of Goethe's Faust.

72 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
peculiarities of the author. This, we think, is seen in
the writings ascribed to John; they are the canvas on
which his portrait is painted. We see the same John,
the Apostle of love and the Son of Thunder. The love
which attracted the love of Jesus and secured for this
Apostle the first place in His affections is impressed
upon every sentence of the Epistle, is diffused through
out the Gospel, and is not absent from the Apocalypse.
The severity of temper and hatred of evil which pro
cured for John the title Boanerges are seen in the
spirit of sternness which pervades the Epistle and in
the denunciations of the Apocalypse. The tenderness
which induced the Saviour to consign Mary to his care
is exhibited in his affectionate addresses to the dis
ciples, calling them his " little children." And the zeal
for Christ which induced him to forbid a person who
followed not Christ to cast out devils is manifest in the
earnestness with which he exhorts Christians to devote
themselves to the service of their Lord and Master.
There is a remarkable simplicity in the style of John.
His vocabulary is small ; the same words — love, life,
light, the world — continually occur, and are interwoven
together. " The life is the light of man ; " " Love not
the world." The sentences are simple in construction,
being in the terse aphoristic Hebrew manner, and not in
the involved structure conformable to the genius of the
Greek language, and illustrated in the Epistles of Paul.
Connecting particles are also very sparingly employed.
Hence, of all the writings of the New Testament, none
are so easily read and translated as those of John.
This simplicity of style and ease in translation pervade

STYLE OF JOHN'S WRITINGS. 73
all the writings ascribed to John, the Apocalypse as
well as the Gospel and the Epistles.
There is in the Johannine writings a peculiar kind
of repetition. The same thoughts, or at least thoughts
with little variation of meaning, are repeated for the
sake of emphasis. Often the same idea is expressed
both positively and negatively. This form of repeti
tion is especially seen in the Fourth Gospel and in the
Catholic Epistle.1 The following are examples of this
peculiarity of style : — " All things are made by Him, and
without Him was not anything made that was made."
" If a man love Me, he will keep My words. He that
loveth Me not keepeth not My sayings." 2 " God is
light, and in Him is no darkness at all." "We know
that we have passed from death td life, because we love
the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth
in death." " Every one that loveth is born of God and
knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God "
(1 John i. 5 ; iii. 14 ; iv. 7, 8). There are also throughout
the Johannine writings a series of contrasts, so brought
forward as if they had a concrete existence. Thus, for
example, light and darkness, life and death, truth and
falsehood, love and hatred, are continually opposed to
each other. And in the Apocalypse the same system
of contrasts is employed. There runs throughout the
wdiole of this mystical book the contrast between Christ
and the world.
With the simplicity in style and diction, and even in
1 This peculiarity of style is hardly discernible in the Apocalypse ; yet
see Rev. ii. 13 ; iii. 15, 16.
2 John i. 3 ; xiv. 23, 24. See also iii. 17, 18, 36 ; v. 23, 24; viii. 12,
23, 47 ; ix. 39 ; xii. 25.

74 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
the thoughts and sentiments of the Johannine writings,
there is combined a real profundity which no human
intellect can fathom. The Fourth Gospel especially is
remarkable for its depth ; it has been well called by the
Fathers "the spiritual Gospel," as compared with the
Synoptical Gospels. It opens the deepest recesses of the
spiritual life ; it discloses the very heart of the incarnate
God ; it reveals the Divine human nature which Christ
possessed ; it lifts up the veil, and lets us see into the
holy of holies. The two preponderating ideas are life
and light, and these are embodied in Christ : He is at
once the Life and the Light of man, the source of all
spiritual life, and the essence of all spiritual truth, the
sun of the moral universe. The writings of John may
be compared to a well of water, so clear and sparkling
that at first one thinks he sees to the bottom ; but that
well is so deep, that the more one gazes into it, the
deeper does it appear, and no one has yet been able to
fathom it. Adam of St. Victor (a.d. 1192), in classical
language, thus describes St. John : —
" Volat avis sine meta
Quo nee vates nee propheta
Evolavit altius :
Tam implenda quam impleta
Numquam videt tot secreta
Purus homo purius." 1
1 These words have been translated into English verse as follows : —
" Bird of God, with boundless flight,
Soaring far beyond the height
Of the bard or prophet old.
Truth fulfilled and truth to be,
Never purer mystery,
Did a purer tongue unfold."

INTERPRETATION OF ST. JOHN'S WRITINGS. 75
And the great Christian poet of the Middle Ages,
when looking intently upon John, represents himself as
gazing upon the sun as if in an eclipse, and becoming
dazzled with its rays, so as almost to lose the power of
vision ; and similar is the effect produced by pondering
on his writings. " As he who looks intent,
And striving with searching ken how he may see
The sun in his eclipse, and through desire
Of seeing loseth power of sight ; so I
Peer'd on that last resplendence." 1

VI. — Interpretation of St. John's Writings.
Of course, in the interpretation of St. John's writings
we must first apply those ordinary rules which are
applicable to any other documents. Here are writings
presented to our consideration in manuscripts written
in the Greek language. The first thing that we must
do is to see that we have a pure text ; we must compare
the different manuscripts which we have of those writ
ings, the different versions which have been made of
them, and the quotations from them which occur in the
writings of the Fathers. And this has been done by
qualified scholars with such patient and laborious re
search, with such a multiplicity of materials for exami
nation, and with such success, that we have every
reason to believe that the text is almost identical with
that of the author.2 Having secured a pure text, we must
Dante's Paradise, Cary's translation.
2 This is least true of the Apocalypse, the text of which is the least
certain of any of the New Testament books. This point will afterwards
be referred to in an examination of the Apocalypse.

76 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
next translate it from the Greek into our own language.
And here also the learning of scholars has been so suc
cessfully applied that we may with confidence believe
that we have a translation as correct as can possibly be
obtained. But having done this, we have only arrived
at the commencement of our task ; the great difficulty
is to penetrate into the hidden sense which the author
intended to convey ; and in a writer so profound and
mystical as John, notwithstanding the simplicity of
his style and diction, this is a task of no easy accom
plishment. One thing at least is essential, that we must come to
the study of John's writings with a candid and truth-
loving spirit. This is an essential prerequisite in the
interpretation of every writing ; but it is especially
essential in the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures,
on account of their importance and of our liability to
err in this particular. We must have a simple regard
to the truth ; not to confirm our own opinions, not to
prove the truth of the creed we profess, but with the
sole desire to know what the sacred writers teach ; this
should be our aim. And yet it cannot be expected
that we come to the study of John's writings, for
example, destitute of all preconceived opinions ; our
minds are not entirely blank; we have already our
established Christian beliefs, but we must be ready to
bring these beliefs to the test of the Johannine writings,
and endeavour to find out whether they are in con
formity with the statements contained in them. An
impartial and candid mind does not consist in the
absence of opinions, but in a readiness to adjust those

INTERPRETATION OF ST. JOHN'S WRITINGS. 77
opinions according to the meaning discovered or dis
coverable in the writings.
The interpretation of the Johannine writings is
peculiarly difficult by reason of their profundity.
Hence one essential element of interpretation is sym
pathy with John's spirit. Sympathy with the writer
is essential for the thorough interpretation of any
writing ; we must put ourselves in the position
and imbibe the spirit of the author : no one can
thoroughly understand and appreciate Shakespeare
without a Shakesperian mind. But this is especially
necessary in interpreting John's writings ; these are so
profoundly spiritual, that, unless we have the spiritual
element in our character, we may read and translate
them, but we cannot understand them. It is only a
Johannine Christian who can truly understand and
interpret John's writings. It requires such a spiritual
insight, as is rarely possessed, fully to fathom the
deep things contained in them. Hence a religious and
spiritual nature is essential ; we must have largely
imbibed the Spirit of Jesus Christ before we can enter
into the spirit of John's writings. This well is deep,
and, if destitute of a .spiritual mind, we have nothing
wherewith to draw. As Origen strikingly puts it :
" The Gospels are the first-fruits of all the Scriptures,
and the first-fruits of the Gospels is that of John, into
whose meaning no man can enter unless he has reclined
upon the bosom of Jesus. He must become a second
John, and take John as a Jesus from Jesus."
Hitherto we have not mentioned, or incidentally
only touched upon, the inspiration of the Johannine

78 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
writings ; and the question arises, What influence has
the element of inspiration upon their interpretation ?
How far does it modify the laws of ordinary criticism ?
Now, in a certain sense, the inspiration of the writings
has nothing to do with their interpretation ; the ordinary
rules of criticism applicable to all writings are to be
applied to them ; their inspiration is an after considera
tion, and belongs to the sphere of dogmatics, and not
to that of criticism. But, on the other hand, the in
spiration of the writings requires that we should read
them with faith, receiving them as the true and faithful
sayings of God. It would be entirely foreign, in such
a work as this, to enter into the question of 'inspiration ;
but we would only remark that if there are found in
any writing internal presumptions in favour of inspira
tion, these presumptions are abundantly apparent in
the writings ascribed to John. There is a spirituality,
a purity, a love, a Divine impress, an elevation, a calm
ness, a repose about the Fourth Gospel and the Catho
lic Epistle which stamp them as having been written
under the inspiration of the Spirit of God. And the
Apocalypse professes to be a revelation from God ; and
if it is, as is generally believed, a prediction of the
events which shall befall the Church and the world,
and if some of these events predicted have already
taken place, it can only proceed from that God who
sees the end in the beginning, and before whose omni
scient eyes the future is as the present.

DISSERTATION,
LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN.
The legends connected with the life and death of John
are more numerous, more plausible, and more interesting
than those connected with the life of any of the other
Apostles. We have legends concerning Peter and Paul,
but these are few and extravagant compared with those
concerning John. Of course, the 'authority of these
legends is weak compared with the authentic accounts
of the Apostle contained in Scripture ; but still a few of
them are credible, being attested by those of the early
Fathers who lived near the times to which they relate,
and a few are so plausible and natural, so much in har
mony with the character of the Apostle, as to have
gained considerable acceptance. These legends differ
greatly in the degree of their credibility ; in some we
can ascertain or guess the germs of truth, whilst others
are wholly unhistorical, and have their origin in the
credulity of the age. But still, upon the whole, they
are in harmony with the personal character of John, as
delineated in the Gospels and in his writings, and have
impressed upon them one or other of his two charac
teristic features — his intense love to men and his intense
hatred of sin. In mentioning the legends of John, it
may be convenient to state them in the order of their
apparent probability. 79

80 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
The most credible and best attested of these legends
is the encounter of John with Cerinthus. John, going
to bathe at Ephesus, finds that the heresiarch Cerinthus
is in the bath-house, and flies from it with horror, as
if a judgment should overtake even the buildings which
Cerinthus frequented. The authority for this legend is
Irenaeus. " There are," he observes, " those who have
heard from him (Polycarp) that John, the disciple of
the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving
Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without
bathing, exclaiming, ' Let us fly lest the bath-house fall
down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is
within.' " 1 This legend is twice referred to by Eusebius
on the authority of Irenaeus, and he states that Irenaeus
received it by tradition from Polycarp.2 Epiphanius, a
much later writer, alludes to the tradition, but substitutes
Ebion for Cerinthus.3 Ebion, however, is a mere sup
posititious character, the name having arisen by mistake
from a supposed founder of the sect of the Ebionites,
whereas that term is an appellative denoting their
poverty. Jerome expands the legend by telling us that
the bath-house actually fell. The testimony of Irenaeus
is in itself of considerable weight, but this is greatly
increased as he gives it on the authority of his master
Polycarp, the disciple of John. Nor is there anything
improbable in the circumstance.4 Cerinthus was a
1 Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4.
2 Hist. Eccl, iii. 28, iv. 14 ; also Nicephorus, Hist. Eccl., iii. 30.
3 Epiphanius, Hcer., xxx. 24.
4 The credibility of the legend is questioned by Farrar, The Early
Days of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 162, 163. He thinks it opposed to the
benevolent spirit of St. John ; but see below.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 81
Jewish Gnostic; he held Docetic views concerning the
person of Jesus Christ ; he distinguished between Jesus
and Christ, and taught that Jesus was a mere man,
the son of Joseph and Mary, upon whom Christ
descended at His baptism. And it is generally sup
posed that these opinions of Cerinthus were opposed
Jby John in his First Epistle. This hatred of what
he conceived to be pernicious error reminds us of the
temper of the same Apostle when he wished to call
down fire from heaven to consume the Samaritans
(Luke ix. 54) ; and even in his old age this indignant
spirit was not diminished, as is apparent from his
Second Epistle, in which he directs his converts not
to receive into their houses those who should bring
false doctrines along with them.1 St. John's love to
Christ would not suffer, the honour of his Master to be
attacked with impunity. "We have," observes Dean
Stanley, " a living exemplification of the possibility
of uniting the deepest love and gentleness with the
sternest denunciation of moral evil." 2 And the- remark
of Olshausen is deserving of attention: "There is no
admissible ground for considering the story untrue.
On the contrary, 3 John 10 appears suggestive of the
key of John's conduct towards that heretic ; and even
this, when rightly understood, contains nothing con
tradictory to the mild character of the Evangelist.
The bias, under which this was for a long time viewed
as a fabrication, proceeded simply and solely from that
weakness and indifference with respect to heretics which
1 2 John 10, 11. See before, p. 64.
2 Stanley, Sermons and Essays of the Apostolic Age, p. 271. F

82 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
persons had accustomed themselves to regard as tolera
tion and kindness." 1
Another legend, possessed of considerable plausibility,
is the address, "Little children, love one another," with
which John, when aged, was accustomed to salute his
disciples. This legend rests on the authority of Jerome.2
" The Apostle John," he observes, "tarried at Ephesus
to an extreme old age, and could only be carried into
the church in the arms of his disciples. He was unable
to address them at length, but was accustomed to
. stretch forth his hands to his disciples, and to exclaim,
' Little children, love one another.' At length his hearers,
being wearied with hearing him always repeat the same
words, asked him, ' Master, why dost thou always speak
thus ? ' His reply was, ' It is the Lord's command, and
if only this be done, it is enough.' " As the former
legend displays one side of St. John's character — his-
hatred of sin, so this displays the other side — his love.
It is true that the authority on which this legend rests,
that of Jerome, is of a late date ; but there is something
so natural and .affecting in it, so entirely in conformity
with the loving disposition of the Apostle, and so pure
and elevating, that its truth has been admitted by
many ; it reveals to us the very heart of John, the great
Apostle of love.
A third legend is the well-known story of John and
the robber, recorded by Clemens Alexandrinus, and
preserved for us in the history of Eusebius.3 After the
death of Domitian, John returned from Patmos to
1 Olshausen On the Gospels, vol. iii 170 (translation : T. & T. Clark).
2 Jerome, Comment, ad Gal, vi. 10.
3 Eusebius^ Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 83
Ephesus. In the course of his episcopal visitations he
came to a city, supposed to be Smyrna. There he met
with a young man of a noble and pleasing appearance,
and he said to the bishop, " Him I commend to you
with all earnestness in the presence of the Church and
of Christ." The bishop promised to take care of him.
He received him into his house, instructed and watched
over him, and at length baptized him. But after this
the bishop relaxed in his vigilance. The young man,
led astray by dissolute companions, and falling from
bad to worse, became at last the captain of a band, of
robbers. John, on his next visit to Smyrna, addressed
the bishop, " Restore to me my deposit which I and
Christ committed to thee in the presence of the Church
over which thou dost preside." The bishop imagined
that he alluded to a sum of money which had been
committed to his charge. " No," said the Apostle, " I
demand the young man, the soul of thy brother."
The bishop replied, " He is dead." " Dead ! " answered
the Apostle, " by what kind of death ? " " Dead to God
he has turned a robber, and has beset these mountains
with an armed band." The aged Apostle rent his clothes
took a horse, and rode off to the band of robbers. He
suffered himself to be taken, and asked to be led to
their captain. The robber, as soon as he recognised
John, filled with shame, took to flight. John, forgetful
of his age, pursued after him, crying, " 0 my son, why
dost thou fly from me, thy father — thou an armed man,
and I old and defenceless ? There is still hope of life
for thee. I will intercede with Christ for thee. I will
cheerfully suffer death for thee. Stay ! believe that

84 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Christ has sent me." The words were too much for
the robber ; he stopped with downcast looks ; he threw
away his arms ; he came trembling, and with tears
threw himself at the feet of the Apostle. The Apostle
brought him back to Smyrna, became his sponsor before
the Lord, and restored him to the Church ; " affording,"
writes the historian, "a beautiful example of true
repentance, a striking evidence of regeneration, and a
trophy of a visible resurrection." The legend is cer
tainly very beautiful ; and although there is much in
the narrative that is rhetorical, yet there may be a
germ of truth in it. It gives us an admirable insight
into the character of John, — into his intense love for
the souls of men. The legend was afterwards expanded.
Rufinus informs us that John afterwards consecrated
the young man to the episcopal office.
Various legends are gathered around the composition
of John's Gospel. There is a considerable diversity in
these traditions. Irenaeus simply informs us that John
wrote the Gospel : " Afterwards John," he observes,
" the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon His
breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence
at Ephesus in Asia." 1 Clemens Alexandrinus adds to
this by informing us as to the motives which induced
John to write his Gospel. " John," he observes, " per
ceiving that what had reference to the body in the
Gospel of our Saviour was sufficiently detailed, and being
encouraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the
Spirit, wrote a spiritual Gospel." 2 Jerome goes further :
he tells us that when the presbyters of Ephesus asked
1 Adv. Hcer., iii. i, i. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vi. 14.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 85
him to compose a Gospel, he called them together for a
common fast ; that then suddenly, as if by a miracle, he
broke out into the words, " In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God." 1 And Gregory, Bishop of Tours, embellishes the
account still further. He tells us that upon a hill near
Ephesus there was an uncovered oratory whither the
Apostle used often to retire for prayer and contempla
tion, and where he obtained of God that it might not
rain in that place till he had finished his Gospel2 This
instance shows how legends grow by length of time ; the
simple fact recorded by Irenseus, that John composed
a Gospel, is by successive generations added to and
embellished. ¦ A very doubtful legend is the well-known story of
John's immersion in a caldron of boiling oil. The
authority for it is Tertullian. He thus relates the inci
dent : " How happy is the Church of Rome, on which
the Apostles poured forth their doctrine and their blood ;
where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where
Paul wins his crown in a death like that of John the
Baptist ; where John was first plunged unhurt into boil
ing oil, and afterwards banished to his island home." 3
Tertullian mentions this incident as occurring at Rome ;
but he does not name the emperor, though most pro
bably it was Nero, in whose reign the Apostles Peter
and Paul suffered martyrdom. Jerome twice alludes to
this narrative with various additions of his own. In
1 Jerome, De Fir. Illus., 29.
2 De Olor. Martyr., i. 30 ; Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p. 275.
3 De Prescript. Her., chap, xxxvi. See Lipsius' Die Apokryphen Apos-
telgeschichten, vol. i. p. 419.

86 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
one passage he quotes Tertullian as his authority :
" Tertullian relates that John, being cast by Nero into
a caldron of boiling oil, came forth more healthy and
vigorous than when he was cast in." x And in another
passage he appeals to ecclesiastical records known in
his time : " It is a subject of inquiry how the sons of
Zebedee, James and John, could have drunk the cup
of martyrdom, when the death of James only, who
was beheaded by the command of Herod, is recorded
in the Scriptures, and when John ended his life by a
natural death. But if we give heed to ecclesiastical
records, where it is reported that he was cast for martyr
dom into a caldron of boiling oil, and then went out as
an athlete to receive the crown of Christ, being im
mediately banished to the island of Patmos, we shall
see that in spirit he too was a martyr, and that John
drank that cup whereby he confessed Christ, and which
the three children in the furnace drank too, although
the persecutor did not shed his blood." a Many ecclesi
astical historians adopt this legend as true in its general
details ; indeed, some receive it as a historical statement,
about which there was no dubiety. It must, however,
be rejected as untrustworthy. It rests solely upon the
authority of Tertullian, who lived toward the close of
the second century, and who is given to exaggeration
and embellishment. It is not alluded to by any of the
other early Fathers, nor by Eusebius in his History.
Nor is there the slightest proof or tradition elsewhere
that John was ever in Rome ; his residence, after he left
1 Jerome, Adv. Jovinianum.
2 Jerome, Comment in Matt, xx. 27 ; see Trench's Life and Character of
St. John, pp. 188, 189.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 8>
Jerusalem, is restricted to Ephesus and its neighbour
hood. The legend probably originated, as Jerome's
account suggests, in the desire to bring the life of John
into accordance with the statement of the Lord, that he
should drink of the cup of which He drank. Origen,
when he alludes to this statement of our Lord, makes no
mention of John being cast into boiling oil, but states
that it was fulfilled by his banishment to Patmos for
the Word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Another tradition, but resting on slight authority,
is the legend of John aud the partridge.. The monk
Cassian (a.d. 420) is the sole authority for this legend.1
" It is related that the Evangelist John was one day
gently caressing a partridge, and that a young man,
returning from hunting, seeing him thus employed,
asked in astonishment, ' How so illustrious a man could
employ himself with so trifling au occupation.' 'What
hast thou in thine hand ? ' asked the Apostle. ' A bow,'
replied the youth. ' And why dost thou carry it un
strung 1 ' ' Because,' replied the hunter, ' it would lose
its elasticity were I to keep it always bent.' ' Then,'
replied John, ' do not wonder that I should relax my
mind, without which the spirit would flag from over
exertion, and not be able to respond to the call of duty
when necessity requires it.' " This anecdote is a testi
mony to the impression which John's calmness and
serenity left upon the Church. Although his spirit
was of an almost angelic nature, yet he could stoop to
ordinary and apparently trivial recreations.
1 Cassian, Collat., xxiv. 21 ; Niese, Das Leben des heiligen Johannes, p.
122 ; Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 172, 173; Hilgen
feld, Einleitung in das N. T, p. 405.

88 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Another legend informs us that John, as if he were
of priestly descent, wore upon his forehead the golden
plate which formed part of the official attire of the
Jewish high priest. This legend rests on the authority
of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus toward the close of
the second century: "John, that rested on the bosom
of our Lord, who was a priest that bore the sacerdotal
plate (TreTakov), and martyr and teacher, he also rests
at Ephesus." 1 The sacerdotal plate, here mentioned,
is doubtless the plate of gold which was put upon the
forehead of the high priest : " And thou shalt make a
plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings
of a signet, Holiness to the Lord. And thou shalt put
it on a blue lace, that it may be upon the mitre ; upon
the forefront of the mitre it shall be. And it shall
be upon Aaron's forehead" (Exod. xxviii. 36-38). Of
course, taken literally, this legend must be entirely
rejected. John did not belong to the priestly race, nor
did he wear any sacerdotal plate upon his forehead.
But understood metaphorically — and it is probable that
in this sense only Polycrates relates it — the legend con
veys the truth. John, by reason of his purity and
consecration to the Lord, may well be called a holy
priest, and indeed such an appellation is assigned to all
believers (1 Pet. ii. 9) ; and it may well be said of him
that he bore upon his forehead the inscription, " Holi
ness to the Lord." He must in his old age have been
regarded by the Ephesian Church with peculiar reverence,
as the living representative of Christ upon the earth.
We now leave those legends which have some sem-
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 31, v. 24.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 89
blance of truth about them, some germs of fact at their
foundation, so that they may be possible realities, and
come to those which are incredible myths, though not
without instruction, if understood as parables. Of this
nature is the narrative given us of John's interview with
Domitian. John, in consequence of the edict of Domitian,
was arrested at Ephesus and conveyed to Rome. He
was brought before the Emperor, and ordered to be put
to death by drinking a cup of deadly poison. John
drained the cup, and, to the astonishment of Domitian,
suffered no harm. Then Domitian in anger accused
those who had brought the cup with having deceived
him, having given a cup wherein was no poison. But
John said, "Be not angry, 0 Emperor, but make the
trial, and you shall see with your own eyes the deadly
nature of the poison. Let a condemned criminal be
brought from one of your prisons." The Emperor
commanded that it should be so done. John poured
water into the cup, stirred up the dregs which remained
at the bottom, and handed the cup to the criminal, who
no sooner drank it than he fell down dead. Domitian
commanded the dead body to be removed; but John
stood by it and said, " 0 God of heaven and earth, in
the name of Jesus Christ, Thine only-begotten Son, I
beseech Thee restore the soul to this person seized by
the power of death, in order that Domitian might know
that Thy Son is Lord of life and death." Then he took
him by the hand and raised him up.1 Most probably
this legend had its origin in the promise made by our
1 For a statement of this legend see Niese, Das Lebendes heiligen Johannes,
p. 76 ff.

90 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
Lord to His disciples that if they drank any deadly
thing it should in no wise hurt them (Mark xvi. 18).
Another legend tells how two wealthy young men of
Ephesus, Atticus and Eugenius, were so moved by the
preaching of John that they sold all that they had, and
distributed their money to the poor, and became the
disciples of John. When, shortly after, they came with
John to Pergamum, they saw those who were once their
slaves dressed in splendid garments and adorned with
costly jewels, and living in great honour and prosperity.
Then their envy was excited,- and they repented that
they had deprived themselves of their riches. John,
perceiving the thoughts of their hearts, enjoined them
to go into the wood and cut down a bundle of
rods, and gather some stones out of the brook, and
bring them to him. And when they had done as he
had said, and brought the rods and stones to John,
he, in the name of the Lord Jesus, converted the rods
into gold and the stones into diamonds. Then he said
to them, " Go now and purchase back your lands, and
put on silken clothes and golden ornaments. Be again
rich on earth, but beggars throughout eternity. Blossom
as the rose which shall quickly fade away. Walk in
silken garments in order to be found at the day of
judgment naked and bare." Then he reminded them
of the parable of the rich man and the beggar Lazarus,
in order that they might know what would befall those,
who had preferred the treasures of this earth to those
which were eternal and heavenly. The legend goes on
to say that John raised a dead man to life, and that
Atticus and Eugenius were so much impressed, that

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 91
they threw themselves down before the Apostle and
implored his forgiveness ; and that after thirty days of
penance the gold rods were again converted into wood,
and the precious stones into pebbles.1
There are numerous legends connected with the death
of John. Indeed those legends appear to have com
menced even in the lifetime of the Apostle. His vener
able character, his survival of all the Apostles, his
exemption from martyrdom, and his extreme old age,
had given rise to the idea that he should never die —
that he should either remain alive uutil the second
coming of Christ, or, as a reward for his holiness and a
proof of the peculiar affection of Christ, be translated to
heaven without dying. Allusion is made to this suppo
sition in the Gospel of John, and it would appear that
some verses at the close were written for the express
purpose of correcting this idea : " This saying therefore
went forth among the brethren, that that disciple should
not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, that he should
not die ; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what
is that to thee?" (John xxi. 23). The special legends
connected with the death of John are, however, of late
origin ; they do not occur in the writings of the early
Fathers. Tertullian tells us expressly that John died :
"Even John underwent death, although concerning him
there had prevailed the unfounded expectation that he
would remain alive until the coming of the Lord." 2
. We have the following legend of his burial. John,
perceiving that the time of his departure was at hand,
1 Niese, Das Leben des heiligen Johannes, pp. 103-106.
2 Tertullian, De Anima, chap. 1.

92 GENERAL INTRODUCTION.
called all his disciples together, and gave them many
exhortations. He then went with the presbyters of the
Church of Ephesus to the cemetery and commanded
them to dig a grave ; and when the grave was com
pleted, he calmly took off his upper garments and laid
himself down as one going to sleep on his bed. He
then commanded them to put on the gravestone and
to depart. The next morning, when they came to the
sepulchre and rolled away the stone, they found nothing
but his grave-clothes, and a fountain sprung up from
his tomb. Then the disciples remembered the words of
the Lord Jesus, how He had formerly said to Peter,
" If I will that he remain until I come, what is that to
thee V1 The idea was not only that John rose imme
diately from the dead, but that he never died. Hip-
polytus tells us that Christ's first coming was preceded
by John the Baptist, and that His second coming will
be preceded by Enoch, Elijah, and John. And Ephraem
of Antioch tells us that there are three persons, corre
sponding to the three dispensations of the word, still in
the body — Enoch before the law, Elijah under the law,
and John under the Gospel.
Another legend is that John is not dead, but sleep
ing in the grave. He is indeed buried, but he is kept
alive by the miraculous power of Christ until the
period of His second coming. The earth upon his grave
heaves, in consequence of his breathing. This legend
is alluded to by St. Augustine, who, although he.
does not himself credit it, yet saw in it nothing extra
vagant. " Of John," he says, " we have the tradition
1 Niese, Das Leben, &c, pp. 134-136; Cave's Lives of the Apostles, p. 368.

LEGENDS CONCERNING ST. JOHN. 93
that is found in the apocryphal Scriptures, that he was
present, in good health, when he ordered a sepulchre to
be made for him ; and when it was dug and prepared
with all possible care, he laid himself down there as in
a bed, and became immediately defunct ; yet, as those
think who so understand the words of the Lord, not
really defunct, but only lying like one in such a condi
tion, and, while accounted dead, was actually buried
when asleep, and that he will so remain until the coming
of Christ, making known meanwhile the fact of his life
by the bubbling up of the dust, which is believed to
be forced by the breath of the sleeper to ascend from
the depths to the surface of the grave." * And he adds
that he had heard this account from those who are not
altogether incredible witnesses.
The legend was also prevalent, especially in the
Middle Ages, that John was still alive, and that he
often appeared. Thus we have the legend of his appear
ance to Theodosius the Great to encourage him in his wars
against his rivals to the imperial throne ; to Gregory
Thaumaturgus to inspire him with zeal in his missions to
the heatheh ; to Edward the Confessor and the English
pilgrims, as represented on the screen of the Confessor's
Chapel in Westminster Abbey ; and to James IV. of Scot
land before the battle of Flodden, to warn him against
waging war with the English.2 All these legends prove
the high position which John occupied in the opinion
of the Christian Church, and the supreme importance
assigned to him among the founders of Christianity.
1 Augustine On St. John, vol. ii. p. 549 (translation : T. & T. Clark).
2 Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 177.

THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Literature — The literature on the Gospel of John is very exten
sive. The works on the Johannine controversy will be mentioned
when we come to a consideration of the history of that controversy.
A complete list of them from 1792 to 1875 is given by Dr. Caspar
Gregory in an appendix to the translation of Luthardt's St. John the
Author of the Fourth Gospel, to which several important recent works
have to be added. Schiirer, in a small tractate entitled Ueber den
gegenwdrtigen Stand derjohannischen Frage, gives an interesting state
ment of the present state of the controversy.
Modern commentaries on the Gospel of John are very numerous.
The most important are those of Liicke (Bonn, 1820 ; 3rd edition,
1840); De Wette (Berlin, 1826; 5th edition, edited by Bruckner,
1863); Tholuck (Hamburg, 1827; 5th edition, Gotha, 1857; trans
lated by Krauth in Clarke's Theological Library, 1874); Olshausen
(Kbnigsberg, 1832; translated,. Edinburgh, 1863); Hilgenfeld
(Halle, 1849) ; Luthardt (Nuremberg, 1852 ; translated in Clarke's
Theological Library, 1876); Meyer (3rd edition, 1856; last edition,
edited by Weiss ; translated, Edinburgh, 1874) ; Lange (Bonn, i860;
American translation, with large additions, by Dr. Schaff, 1871);
Ebrard (Konigsberg, 1861) ; Ewald (Gottingen, 1862); Hengsten-
berg (Berlin, 1863; translated, Edinburgh, 1871); Godet (Paris,
1864; translated, Edinburgh, 1887); Westcott (in Speaker's Com
mentary, London, 1880) ; Milligan and Moulton (in Schaff's Popu
lar Commentary, Edinburgh and New York, 1880) ; Thoma (Berlin,
1882); Plummer (in Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges,
Cambridge, 1866); Reynolds (in the Pulpit Commentary, London,
1888). The most valuable of these are the Commentaries of Meyer,
Godet, and Bishop Westcott.
The works treating of the question of genuineness are the special
sections in the Introductions to the New Testament. The most
important of these by German critics are those of Bleek (translated,
Edinburgh, 1869 ; the last edition, much altered, by Mangold, Berlin,
94

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 95
1886), Credner, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, and Weiss (translated,
London, 1888). Of English critics maybe mentioned Alford, in his
Introduction to John's Gospel in his Greeh Testament ; the two very
different Introductions of the venerable Dr. Samuel Davidson (Intro
duction to the Neio Testament, London, 1848; Introduction to the
Study of the New Testament, 2nd edition, London, 1882), and Sal
mon's Introduction to the Neio Testament (London, 1885). The
works of Dr. Sanday on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and on"
the Gospels of the Second Century are most valuable. Dr. Ezra
Abbot's work on the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (London, 1882)
contains an exhaustive account of the external evidences in favour
of the Johannine authorship. Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung and
Charteris' Canonicity contain the references to the Gospel in the
writings of the early Fathers. Other important works will be men
tioned in the course of this Introduction.

I. — The Authenticity of the Gospel.
The authenticity of the Fourth Gospel — whether this
Gospel is really of apostolic origin or only the produc
tion of an anonymous writer of the second century — is
perhaps the most important question in Biblical criti
cism discussed in the present day. It is on this point
that the battle between positive and negative criticism
is being fought both in this country and in Germany.
Critics of distinguished eminence have, arrayed them
selves on both sides.1 And certainly the subject dis
cussed is one of primary importance ; for this Gospel,
by reason of the loftiness of its doctrine, the spirituality
of its teaching, and especially its positive statements
concerning the supreme dignity of Christ, is one of the
most valuable documents of the Word of God ; and were
1 The consideration of the Johannine cpntroversy is reserved until we
come to discuss the objections to the genuineness of John's Gospel. j ¦

96 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
it withdrawn from the Scriptures of the New Testament,
we should be sensible of an enormous blank. " It is
not surprising," as Keim remarks, "that the battle of
criticism has been fiercest upon this ground." x It is
indeed true that there is a danger of exaggerating the
•importance of this question, as if our faith in the truth
of Christianity depended on the fact whether John did
or did not write the Gospel which bears his name. We
are reminded that Christianity existed and .flourished
more than half a century before that Gospel was written.
Paul's great apostolic labours had been closed, and
Christian Churches had been planted in all the great
cities of Proconsular Asia, Macedonia, and Greece, and
in Rome itself. Multitudes of believers had attached
themselves to the Lord, and adorned their profession
of Christianity by holy and consistent lives before this
Gospel had disclosed to them the heart of Jesus, and
made more fully manifest the. mystery of His incarna
tion. But still it may admit of a question, whether
our views of Christ's person as the incarnate Logos,
and of the loftiness of His character as the manifesta
tion of Divine Love, would not have been materially
altered if we had not the Fourth Gospel. The divinity
of Christ, as seen in the Synoptic Gospels, is much more
clearly revealed in the Fourth Gospel, not only by the
direct statements it contains, but in those discourses of
Jesus it relates. We do not mean that the doctrine of
Christ's pre-existence and divinity does in any sense
depend on the Fourth Gospel ; this doctrine is as clearly
taught in the writings of Paul as in those of John ; but
1 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 142, translation.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 97
the doctrine of the incarnate Logos is peculiar to John.
" Without this Gospel," as even Schenkel observes, " the
unfathomable depth, the inaccessible height of the char
acter of the Saviour of the world would be wanting to
us, and His boundless influence, renewing all humanity,
would for ever remain a mystery." 1
The Fourth Gospel is anonymous ; it claims, how
ever, to be the work of an eye-witness, and it is fur
ther evident from certain statements that the author
professes himself to be the Apostle John, the son of
Zebedee. There is frequent reference in this Gospel
to a certain disciple called the " disciple whom Jesus
loved ; " and it is this disciple who professes to be the
author of the Fourth Gospel. Thus we are informed
that the disciple whom Jesus loved was present at the
crucifixion, and, after, the account of the piercing of
our Lord's side, these words occur : " He that saw it
bare record, and his record is true ; and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe." 2 Now it is
evident from a number of considerations, and is almost
universally admitted, that by " the disciple whom Jesus
loved " was meant the Apostle John.3 This self-asser
tion on the part of the author has been- used as an
objection against the genuineness of the Gospel, as
1 A Sketch of the Character of Jesus, p. 34, translation.
2 John xix. 35. Hilgenfeld and others contend that this verse is really
a disclaimer of the Johannine authorship, inasmuch as the Evangelist
here distinguishes himself from the eye-witness of the crucifixion, the
beloved disciple. It is now, however, generally admitted that it is quite
in accordance with the Evangelist's style to refer to himself under the
above formula.
3 Liitzelberger conjectures that Andrew was the person intended. Spath
thinks that he was Nathanael ; and Scholten, an ideal character, the spiri
tual brother of Jesus. G

98 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
savouring of self-conceit, as asserting a pre-eminence
over the other Apostles, and as made with a design to
give authority to the writing ; 1 but it is not inconsistent
with the testimony of the Synoptists to John's position
among the twelve, and is very different from the posi
tive assertions made in apocryphal books, where the
names of the supposed authors are expressly given and
paraded. Here there is a reticence, and it is only
by inference that we learn that the Apostle John is
meant. The authenticity of the Gospel of John is as strongly
attested by external evidence as almost any other book
in the New Testament. Perhaps the earliest attes
tation is that contained in the book itself. The last
chapter (John xxi.) is evidently supplementary, but,
from the sameness iu its diction, is generally believed,
with the exception of the two last verses, to have been
written by the author of the Gospel. At the close of
it is the following anonymous attestation : " This is
the disciple which beareth witness of these things and
wrote these things; and we know that his witness is
true." ' This attestation is found in all the manu
scripts and versions of the Gospel, and is therefore of
undeniable antiquity. We can hardly suppose that
it proceeded from- the author himself ; 3 it is differently
worded from the similar attestation in John xix. 35 ;
1 So Keim, Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 314 ; Scholten.
2 o'lbajiev on akqdrjs iariv 17 fiaprvpia avrov (John xxi. 24).
3 On the other hand, Meyer observes : " No satisfactory reason is apparent
for recognising in o'l8ap.ev a composer different from the ypd\jras."— Gospel
of John, vol. ii. p. 411, translation. So also Michaelis remarks: "The
phrase 'we know that his testimony is true ' is the same as every Christian
knows that his testimony is true."— Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iv. p. 319.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 99
there the singular is employed, " He knoweth that he
saith true ; " but here it is the plural, " We know that
his testimony is true." The probability is that it was
appended after the death of John,1 as it occurs imme
diately after the mention of the mistaken notion that
that Apostle should never die. The most plausible
account of it is that it is] the attestation of the
Church of Ephesus, or of the elders of that Church, to
the genuineness of the Gospel ; 2 perhaps written first on
the margin, and afterwards incorporated into the text.
And if this be the case, then we have in these words
a demonstration that the Gospel was written by John,
this being attested by the authority of that community
of Christians among whom he spent his latter days.
Owing to this Gospel, as most of its defenders assert,
being written at a late period of the Apostolic age, we
can hardly expect any distinct references to it in the
works of the Apostolic Fathers. The Epistle of Clement
(a.d. 96) was nearly contemporaneous with it. Some
assert that there are reminiscences of it in the DidachS
or the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (a.d. 100?).
Thus Dr. Schaff observes: "There are remarkable re
semblances between the two, which cannot be acci
dental. The resemblance is strongest between the
eucharistic prayers and the sacerdotal prayer of our
Lord." 3 God is addressed as " Holy Father ; " thanks
giving is rendered for life, and knowledge, and immor
tality, made known to us through Jesus Christ ; Christ
1 Godet and Luthardt, after Meyer, conclude that the Apostle was still
alive, as he is referred to as jiaprvpav — one who is still bearing testimony,
2 So Liicke, Bleek, Tholuck, Luthardt, Godet.
3 Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, p. 89.

ioo THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
is called the True Vine ; and prayer is offered up that
the Church might be perfected in love.1 But these and
other instances adduced can hardly be regarded as allu
sions to the Gospel ; the utmost that they prove is the
presence of a Johannine spirit in the early Church.
Many suppose that there are allusions or references
to this Gospel in the so-called Epistle of Barnabas
(a.d. 110-120?). This is admitted by Keim'. "The
inner sphere of thought of this Epistle " (of Barnabas),
he observes, " corresponds with the Gospel in so many
ways, both in general features and in details, that scien
tific criticism is compelled to infer a connection, or
to renounce its vocation by leaving the enigma unex
plained."2 Accordingly, numerous resemblances to the
Gospel are adduced from this Epistle,8 the most striking
being the allusion to the serpent lifted up in the wilder
ness as a type of Christ ; i but all the instances adduced
are too vague to be founded upon.
It is different with the Epistles of Ignatius (a.d. 115).
These Epistles have been the subject of much contro
versy. They exist in two recensions, the larger and
the smaller or Vossian recension. Cureton discovered a
Syriac manuscript containing only three Epistles, and
these in a more abridged form than in the smaller recen-
1 Didachd, chap. x. i,ix. 2, 3.
2 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 192.
» Dr. Charteris, in his Canonicity, pp. 168-170, adduces no fewer than
nineteen supposed resemblances between this Epistle and John's Gospel.
1 Barnabas, Epist. xii. 5. On this Kirchhofer remarks : " Barnabas repre
sents the brazen serpent as a type [of Jesus. Some would find therein a
reference to John iii. 14 ; but it is not to be denied that this cannot be
maintained with certainty, as the author might make the application
independently, or obtain it from oral tradition,"— Quelkmammlung, p.
M7-

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 101
sion.1 The most probable opinion is, that the seven
Epistles found in the smaller recension are genuine,
though perhaps containing several interpolations, and
that the Curetonian recension is an abridgment.2 Now,
in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, the best
attested of all his Epistles, we have the following words,
found in the smaller and also in the Curetonian recen
sion : 3 "I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread,
the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David
and Abraham. And I desire the drink of God, the
blood of Him who is undying love and eternal life " i
(comp. John vi. 33, 48, 54). Here we have most pro
bably a reference to the discourse of our Lord concern
ing eating His flesh and drinking His blood.5
The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (a.d. 116)
was written shortly after the martyrdom of Ignatius,
and its genuineness is attested by his disciple Irenseus :
" There is also a powerful Epistle of Polycarp, written
to the Philippians, from which those who chose to do
so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the
character of his faith and the preaching of the truth." 6
Now, Polycarp, in his Epistle, evidently refers to the
First Epistle of John when he says, " For whosoever
does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
1 Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum.
2 The reader is referred to Bishop Lightfoot's learned and exhaustive
work, Apostolic Fathers : St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp. See also Zahn's
Ignatius von Antioch, and two articles by the writer on Ignatius and his
Epistles in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review for 1887.
3 Corpus Ignatianum, p. 231. 4 Ad Rom., chap. vii.
5 Echoes of the Fourth Gospel in the Ignatian Epistles are admitted by
Hilgenfeld and Volkmar.
6 Irenaeus, Adv. Hcer., iii. 3, 4.

102 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
is Antichrist" (i John iv. 3).1 Though disputed by a
few,2 yet it is almost universally admitted, from a con
sideration of the identity of ideas_and style, that the
First Epistle of John and the Fourth Gospel were by the
same author. We have then the testimony of Polycarp
in proof of the genuineness of John's Gospel, and this
testimony is of great importance, as Polycarp was the
disciple of John.
Papias (a.d. i 20), another of the Apostolic Fathers,
made much use, as Eusebius informs us, of John's First
Epistle.3 And in a Latin manuscript of the Gospels of
the ninth century, that of John is preceded by a preface
wherein it is said : " John's Gospel was published and
sent to the Churches by John during his lifetime, as
Papias of Hierapolis, the beloved disciple of John, has
related in his five exoteric (exegetic ?), that is to say,
last books," &c.4 Papias was a voluminous writer, but
of his writings only small fragments remain. It has
been objected that the silence of Eusebius, when quoting
the opinion of Papias concerning John's Gospel, is an
argument against its authenticity ; but, as Bishop Light
foot has well shown, the design of Eusebius was not to
relate all that he knew of the Scriptural writings, but
merely to record the testimonies in favour of the dis
puted books, and of the undisputed books only to men
tion them when some writer had something important
to say concerning them.5
1 Ad Philippens., chap. vii.
2 Disputed by Baur-, Zeller, Volkmar, and Pfleiderer.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 39.
1 Godet's St. John, vol. i. p. 214.
6 Lightfoot's Essays on Supernatural Religion: Essay ii. "The Silence of
Eusebius."

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 103
Irenaeus gives a quotation from those whom he calls
elders or presbyters (a.d. 130), in which there is an
evident reference to John's Gospel. " They (the pres
byters) say that there is a distinction between the
habitation of those who produce a hundred-fold, and
that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those
who produce thirty -fold ; for the first will be taken up
into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, and
the last will inhabit the city; and that it was on this
account the Lord declared, ' In My Father's house are
many mansions'"1 (John xiv. 2). By the elders or
presbyters Irenseus probably meant those who, like
Polycarp and Papias, had conversed with the Apostles
of Christ ; at least, he attributes to them an antiquity
before his time.
Justin Martyr (a.d. 147) 2 is perhaps the most impor
tant authority among the Fathers for the genuineness of
John's Gospel, both on account of his proximity in time to
the Apostle, and, notwithstanding the assertion of some
critics, the distinctness of his references. Of his works
three remain — the two Apologies addressed to Antoninus
Pius, and his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. In these
works he makes frequent mention of the Memoirs or
Memorabilia of the Apostles ; and he informs us that
these Memoirs were read in church on the Lord's day,
along with the writings of the prophets, so that they
were regarded as sacred books. " On the day called
Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather
together in one place, and the Memoirs of the Apostles
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Her., v. 36, 2.
2 The approximate date of his greater Apology.

io4 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
or the writings of the prophets are read as long as
time permits." x The Synoptic Gospels are undoubtedly
included by Justin among the Memoirs of the Apos
tles, but whether the Fourth Gospel is also included
has been questioned. The following references to this
Gospel are, however, clear and unmistakable : — " Christ
has said, Except ye be born again, ye cannot enter
into the kingdom of heaven ; but that it is impos
sible that those who have once been born should enter
into the womb of those who bore them, is evident
to all."2 "The positive reasons," as Dr. Ezra Abbot
remarks, " for believing that Justin derived his quota
tion from this source (the Fourth Gospel) are — (i) the
fact that in no other report of the teaching of Christ,
except that of John, do we find this figure of the new
birth ; (2) the insistence in both Justin and John on
the necessity of the new birth to the entrance into the
kingdom of heaven ; (3) its mention in both in con
nection with baptism ; (4) and last and most important
of all, the fact that Justin's remark on the impossibility
of a second natural birth is such a platitude, in the
form in which he presents it, that we cannot regard it
as original." 8 In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin cites
as the words of the Baptist, " I am not the Christ, but
the voice of one crying ; " 4 which declaration of the
Baptist is found only in John's Gospel (John i. 20, 23).
Justin frequently refers to Christ as the Word of God,
1 Apol, i. c. 67.
2 Apol, i. c. 61. Kai yap o Xpurrbs elrrev ' &v /id) ivayevprjBrjre dv pAj eltreXSrire
eis- T/jv fiatrlXeiav tQv oipavwv. Un Se Kal aSivarov els tos nrfrpas rav reKOVfftSv rolls
fiiraf yevvtap.ipovs ip.[)ijmi, tpavepbv rratrlv itrn (John iii. 4, 5).
3 Abbot, The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 41.
4 Dial, chap. 88.

A UTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 105
an idea which it is highly probable he must have taken
from John's Gospel, as Justin's view of the Logos bears
a greater resemblance to it than to the philosophy of
Philo. He refers to the incarnation of the Logos, an
idea foreign to Philo, and states his view in expressions
which bear a striking resemblance to those contained in
the Fourth Gospel: "And his Son, who alone is pro
perly called Son, the Word, who was also with Him,
and was begotten before the works, when at first He
created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ,
in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering
all things through Him." x Indeed, Justin's use of the
Fourth Gospel is nowT generally admitted. Hilgenfeld,
the greatest living representative of the Tubingen
school, admits it,2 and so do Keim 3 and Thoma.4 Dr.
Samuel Davidson 6 and Renan 6 are the only critics of
any eminence who still call it in question.
1 Apol, ii. c. 6. For a full discussion of the references of Justin to
St. John's Gospel, see Dr. Ezra Abbot's work on the Authorship of the
Fourth Qospel He concludes his examination in the following terms :
" We are authorised to regard it as in the highest degree probable, if not
morally certain, that in the time of Justin Martyr the Fourth Gospel was
generally received as the work of the Apostle John " (p. 80). See also a
very valuable work by Dr. Purves of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, entitled
The Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity, pp. 213-231.
2 Hilgenfeld's Einleitung in das N. T., p. 66.
3 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 189.
4 Thoma, Die Genesis des Johannes Evangelium, p. 824. According to him,
Justin did not use the Gospel as a book sanctioned by the Church, or of
authoritative value. So also Holtzmann.
6 Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 381,
1st edit., vol. ii. p. 347, 2nd edit, where he still affirms : " The result of
our inquiry into Justin's writings is that his use of the Fourth Gospel is
not proved."
6 Renan, The Christian Church, p. 31, translation. Renan, however,
admits that the Fourth Gospel is more than a quarter of a century older
than Justin's Apology.

ro6 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Tatian (a.d. 160?) is another important witness in
favour of the authenticity of John's Gospel. He was a
disciple of Justin, but afterwards adopted the opinions
of the Encratites, a Gnostic sect. In his Apology, or
Address to the Greeks, he quotes the words of the
Epistle and Gospel of John as well known : " This is
in fact that which hath been said, The darkness com-
prehendeth not the light"1 (John i. 5). "God is a
Spirit"2 (John iv. 24). And again : "Do not abhor us
who have made this attainment, but, repudiating the
demons, follow one God. All things were made by
Him, and without Him not one thing was made"3
(John i. 3). But the most striking testimony of Tatian
is from the Diatessaron. We are informed that Tatian
wrote a harmony of the Gospels called the Diatessaron,
in which the genealogies were omitted, and which com
menced with the words, " In the beginning was the
Word." To this harmony Eusebius refers when he says,
" Tatian having formed a certain collection of the Gospels,
I know not howr, has given this the title Diatessaron,
that is, the Gospel of the Four ; which is in possession of
some even now." i This harmony of the Gospels was in
such repute that Theodoret, in the fifth century, informs
us that he found in his diocese more than two hundred
copies of it.5 Dionysius Bar-Salibi, who lived in the
twelfth century, tells us that the celebrated Father
Ephraem Syrus wrote a commentary on it.6 Its exist
ence was called in question by the opponents of the
1 Tatian, Orat. c. Grec, chap. xiii.
2 Idem, chap. iv. 3 Idem, chap. xix.
4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iv. 29. 6 Theodoret, Her. Fab., i. 20.
6 Assemani, Biblioth. Orient., ii. p. 158 ff.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 107
Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel ; but only
recently the commentary of Ephraem has been dis
covered in an Armenian version at Venice, agreeing
with what we know of Tatian's harmony, commencing
with the first verse of the Fourth Gospel and onutting
the genealogies, thus proving beyond all doubt that the
Gospel of John was included in it.1 And still more
recently two other manuscripts were discovered by Pro
fessor Ciasca of Rome in the Vatican ; the one an Arabic
translation of the Diatessaron itself, and the other an
Arabic translation of a Syriac original of the Diatessaron,
corresponding precisely to that used by Ephraem.2 This
not only proves that John's Gospel was in existence in
the time of Tatian, but that it must have existed for
a considerable time, in order to account for its recog
nition by the early Church as the genuine work of the
Apostle John.
A complete manuscript of the Clementine Homilies
(a.d. 160) was found in the Vatican Library by Dressel
in 1837, and published in Gottingen in 1853. In the
rediscovered portion there is the following undoubted
reference to John's Gospel : " Our Teacher, when we
inquired of Him in regard to the man who was blind
from his birth and recovered his sight, if this man
sinned or his parents, that he should be born blind,
answered ' Neither did he sin at all nor his parents, but
that the power of God might be manifest through him
1 The Armenian text was printed in Venice in 1836, and a Latin trans
lation of it was published in 1876. See, on the discovery of Ephraem's
Commentary on Tatian's Diatessaron, two interesting articles by Professor
Wace in the Expositor for 1882, and Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron, p. 240 ff.
3 See Purves's Testimony of Justin to Early Christianity, p. 236.

io8 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
in healing the sins of ignorance" 1 (John ix. 47). For
merly it was denied that there was any use of John's
Gospel in the Clementine Homilies, but it is now in
general freely admitted. " The author of the Clemen
tine Homilies," observes Keim, " after long opposition,
has been admitted to have been acquainted with this
Gospel." 2 And so also Hilgenfeld has retracted his
denial.3 Melito, Bishop of Sardis (a.d. i 70), was one of the most
voluminous writers among the ancient Fathers ; but only
a few fragments of his writings have survived. In one
of these fragments we have the following words : " For
being God, and at the same time perfect man, He Him
self displayed to us His two natures ; His deity by the
signs during the three years after the baptism, and His
humanity during the thirty years before His baptism."4
In the Gospel of Luke we are informed that Jesus com
menced His ministry when He was thirty years of age ;
but it is only from the Gospel of John that we learn
that His ministry extended over three years.
Contemporary with Melito was Apollinaris of Hiera-
polis (a.d. 171), who has the following allusion to the
Gospel of John in his treatise on the Paschal festival :
" The same (the Son of God) was pierced in His holy
side : the same that poured forth again the two purify
ing elements, water and blood." 5
The next testimony is the Muratorian Canon. This
1 Horn. xix. 22.
2 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, p. 187.
3 Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 43, 44, note.
4 See Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, p. 49 ; Weiss,
Einleitung in das N. T., p. 49.
6 Chron. Pasch., Bonn edit, p. 12.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 109
celebrated fragment, mutilated both at the beginning
and at the end, was discovered in the Ambrosian Library
in Milan, and was first published by Muratori in 1 740.
It professes to have been written by a contemporary of
Pius I., Bishop of Rome, and is therefore to be placed
about the year a.d. i 70. Its genuineness has been gene
rally acknowledged.1 In it we have the following
legendary account of John's Gospel : " The fourth place
is given to the Gospel of John, a disciple of the Lord.
At the entreaties of his fellow-disciples, John said, Fast
with me three days, and whatever shall be revealed to
each of us, let us relate it to one another. On the same
night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the Apostles,
that, all giving their sanction, John should relate all
things in his own name." 2 We have nothing to do
with the fabulous nature of the narrative ; all that we
have to do with is the clear recognition of the existence
of John's Gospel at this period in the Western Church.
Celsus (a.d. 170), against whom Origen wrote his
celebrated defence of Christianity, lived, as that Father
tells us, a considerable time before him.2 In his objec
tions to Christianity he makes use of John's Gospel.
Thus he alludes to the blood which flowed from Christ's
side when he asks, " What is the nature of the blood in
the body of the crucified Jesus?"3 (John xix. 34, 35).
And again he observes, " Jesus while alive was of no
assistance to Himself, but that He rose after death
1 It is a manuscript of the seventh century, in very corrupt Latin, but is
supposed to be a translation from the Greek. A transcript of it is given
by Westcott in his Canon of the New Testament, pp. 466-480 ; by Charteris
in his Canonicity, pp. 3-8 ; and by Tregelles in his Canon Muratorianus,
with a facsimile of the MS. from the Ambrosian Library at Milan,
2 Origen, Contra Cels., i. 8. 3 Idem, ii. 36.

no THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
and exhibited the marks of His punishment, and showed
how His hands had been pierced by nails " 1 (John xx.
25. 27).
Athenagoras (a.d. i 76), in his Apology addressed to
Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, speaks of God as hav
ing created the world through the Logos, the Son as
being in the Father, and the Father in the Son, and
the Father and the Son as being one,2 all which expres
sions prove an acquaintance with John's Gospel.
In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne
(a.d. 177), giving an account of the severe persecution
they endured in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, there is
the following distinct reference to the Fourth Gospel :
" Then was fulfilled the declaration of our Lord, that the
day would come when every one that slayeth you will
think that he doeth God a service" 3 (John xvi. 2).
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch (a.d. 177), in his de
fence of Christianity addressed to Autolycus, is the first
Father who expressly attributes the Fourth Gospel to
John: "And hence the Holy Scripture teaches us, as
well as all who are moved with the Holy Ghost, among
whom John says, In the beginning was the Word, and
the Word was with God, showing that at first God was
alone and the Word in Him." 4
Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (a.d. 178), speaks of
John as "the disciple who rested on the bosom of our
Lord," 5 an evident reference to the incident related in
John's Gospel at the Last Supper.
1 Origen, Contra Gels., ii. 59.
2 Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ., chap. x.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 1. 4 Theophilus, Ad Autolyc, ii. 22.
6 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 31.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. in
One of the most important witnesses for John's
Gospel is Irenseus (a.d. 180). This Father was the
disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John ;
and therefore he must have been thoroughly acquainted
with the authorship of the Fourth Gospel. Now it is
a fact that has never been disputed that Irenseus attri
butes this Gospel to the Apostle John. On this point
there can be no controversy. Tischendorf informs us
that there are in the works of Irenseus no less than
eighty direct quotations from John's Gospel.1 Let the
two following suffice : "John relates His original, effec
tual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus
declaring, In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God." 2 " After
wards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had
leant upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel
during his residence in Asia." 3
But besides these quotations from the writings of
the Fathers, we have the evidence of the early versions
of the New Testament. Of these versions, the most
important for our purpose are the Syriac and the Latin,
and both these versions contain the Gospel of John.
The Syriac, whether in the form of the Peshito, or in a
version still earlier, of which remains have been dis
covered,4 was in existence in the second century, and
was probably made in the first half of that cen-
1 Tischendorf, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst, p. 49. English
translation. 2 Irenaeus, Adv. Her., iii, 11, 8.
3 Idem, iii. 1, 1.
4 Cureton in 1858 published a Syriac manuscript containing fragments
of the Gospels, and this is supposed to be from an older version than the
Peshito.

ii2 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
tury.1 The Latin, or the so-called Vetus Latina, was
probably of African origin. Tertullian alludes to it, and
gives citations from it, so that it must have existed
before his time. It has been referred by competent
critics to a.d. 170.
But it is not only from the writings of the early
Fathers and from these early versions that we learn the
genuineness of John's Gospel, but also from the writ
ings of the early heretics. The important discovery at
Mount Athos in 1842 of the Philosophoumena, or The
Refutation of all Heresies, now ascribed to Hippo-
lytus,2 which contains references of the early Gnostics
to the books of the New Testament, has enlarged this
source of evidence. Basilides (a.d. 125), one of the
earliest of the Gnostic writers, and who wrote only
thirty years after the death of John,3 made use of
John's Gospel. Hippolytus tells us that Basilides used
expressions occurring in the Gospels. " That was the
true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the
world " (John i. 9) ; 4 and " Mine hour is not yet come "
(John ii. 4).5 It has, indeed, been asserted that Hippo
lytus does not quote directly from Basilides, but gives
1 " There is no sufficient reason," observes Westcott, " to desert the
opinion, which has obtained the sanction of the most competent scholars,
that its formation is to be fixed within the first half of the second century."
— Westcott On the Canon, p. 211.
2 The Philosophoumena was discovered in a convent at Mount Athos in
1842, and printed by the Clarendon press in 1851. It appeared under the
title Origen's Philosophoumena. The consensus of opinion is in favour of
the authorship of Hippolytus.
3 This early date of the works of Basilides is generally admitted. See
Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 351,
2nd edit
1 Hyppolytus, Refut. Her., vii. 10.
6 Idem, vii. 15.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 113
the words of his disciples ; but there is no ground for
this assertion, as he introduces the quotations of Basi
lides by the words, "he says," not "they say;" so
that Keim admits : " The facts remain sufficiently clear
that the Fourth Gospel actually existed in the time of
Basilides, and that the Gnostics, masters and scholars,
eagerly laid hold of that book." L'
Irenseus expressly informs us that the Valentinians
made copious use of John's Gospel to illustrate their
peculiar doctrines.2 Indeed, Heiraeleon, a disciple of
Valentinian, wrote a commentary on the Gospel of
John.3 But not only did the Valentinians quote from
John's Gospel, but also Valentinus (a.d. 140) himself.
Hippolytus quotes several sayings of our Lord recorded
by John which were adopted by Valentinus. "Valen
tinus," he observes, " says all the prophets and the
law spoke by means of the Demiurgus, a foolish god
who knew nothing. On account of this the Saviour
observes, ' All that came before me are thieves and
robbers ' " (John x. 8).4 Here also there is no reason
to attribute these words to the disciples of Valentinus.
Marcion (a.d. 140) was the founder of the sect of Gnos
tics, who were opposed to the Jewish law. He regarded
Judaism as antagonistic to Christianity, and hence re
jected all the books of the New Testament, with the
exception of the Gospel of Luke and some of the Epistles
1 Keim's Jesus of Nazara, vol. i. p. 196. In 1875, in the third edition of
his Jesu von Nazara, Keim retracted this, and regarded the Fourth Gospel
as containing a polemic against Basilides,
2 Irenseus, Adv. Her., iii. 1 1, 7.
3 Fragments of it have been preserved by Origen.
* Hippolytus, Refut. Her., vi. 30. H

ii4 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
of Paul. Tertullian informs us that he was cognisant of
the Gospel of John and rejected it, not on account of its
spuriousness, but because it was opposed to his views.
"If you (Marcion) had not purposely rejected in some
instances and corrupted in others the Scriptures which
are opposed to your opinion, you would have been con
futed in this matter by the Gospel of John, where it
declares that the Holy Spirit descended in the body of
a dove and sat upon the Lord." 1
Montanus (a.d. 140) evidently derives his peculiar
views concerning the Paraclete from the declarations
in John's Gospel concerning the Comforter. He was
indeed far from being tainted with the Gnostic heresy,
and is rather to be regarded as the father of the mys
tics ; but still he was classed among the heretics by
the early Church.
"The use of the Gospel of John by the Gnostic
sects in the second century," observes Dr. Ezra Abbot,
" affords a strong, it may seem decisive, argument for
its genuineness. However ingeniously they may per
vert its meaning, it is obvious to every intelligent
reader that this Gospel is in reality diametrically
opposed to the essential principles of Gnosticism. The
Christian fathers, in their contests with the Gnostics,
found it an armory of weapons. Such being the case,
let us suppose it to. have been forged about the middle
of the second century, in the heat of the Gnostic con
troversy. It was thus a book which the founders of
the Gnostic sects, who flourished ten, twenty, or thirty
years before, had never heard of. How is it possible,
1 Tertullian, De Came Christi, chap. iii.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 115
then, to explain the fact that their followers should
not only have received it, but have received it, so far
as appears, without question or discussion ? It must
have been received by the founders of these sects from
the beginning ; and we have no reason to distrust the
testimony of Hippolytus to what is, under these circum
stances, so probable, and is attested by other evidence.
But if received by the founders of these sects, it must
have been received at the same time by the Catholic
Christians. They would not at a later period have
taken the spurious work from the heretics with whom
they were in controversy. It was, then, generally re
ceived both by Gnostics and their opponents between
the years 120 and 130. .. . The fact of the recep
tion of the Fourth Gospel as his (John's) work at so*
early a date by parties so violently opposed to each
other, proves that the evidence of its genuineness was
decisive." x
Such is the external evidence in favour of the authen
ticity of the Fourth Gospel. We have considered the
subject at considerable length on account of its im
portance. It is an undoubted fact that this Gospel
was regarded as the work of John by the whole Chris
tian Church toward the close of the second century.
We have discovered traces of it from that time up to
the second decade of tbe second century. It is true
that the name of John is not expressly mentioned until
later ; but if it is referred to shortly after the time
when it was written, it must have been recognised as
his work ; those living at that period could not have
1 Abbot's Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 88, 89.

n6 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
been ignorant of its authorship. Besides, there is the
attestation attached to the Gospel itself. We must
also remember that toward the close of the second
century this Gospel was recognised, not by this or
that Father, but by the whole Christian Church, and
a considerable time must be allowed for the growth
of this universal recognition.1
Nor are the internal evidences in favour of John's
authorship without weight.
i. The author of the Gospel was a Jew. The lan
guage in which it is written is, if we might use the
expression, Hebraising Greek ; the external form is
Greek, but the spirit is Hebrew. It is true that there
is a certain degree of purity in the Greek, but there is
a sufficient number of expressions and idioms to prove
that the writer must have been a Jew.2 " The Greek," ,
observes Dr. Sanday, " is purer than that of the Synop-
tists, not so pure or so characteristic as that of St. Paul.
The Hebraism comes out less in the vocabulary than
in the construction of the sentences, the fondness for
parallel clauses, the frequent repetition of the same
1 "About the end of the second century," observes Professor Norton,
" the Gospels were reverenced as sacred books by a community dispersed
over the world, composed of men of different nations and languages.
There were, to say the least, sixty thousand copies of them in existence ;
they were read in the churches of Christians ; they were continually
quoted and appealed to as of the highest authority ; their reputation was as
well established among believers from one end of the Roman Empire to
the other, as it is at the present day among Christians in any country. . . .
The general reception of the Gospels as books of the highest authority, at
the end of the second century, necessarily implies their celebrity at a much
earlier period, and the long- continued operation of causes sufficient to
produce so remarkable a phenomenon." — Norton, The Genuineness of the
Gospels, vol. i. p. 123.
2 As Godet puts it, " The clothing is Greek, but the body is Hebrew."

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 117
thought, with slight modification of sense or form, the
simple modes of conjunction, the absence of complicated
periods."1 The author has also a thorough acquaintance
with the Old Testament, such as could not be obtained by
a converted Gentile in those days. The quotations which
he makes are numerous, and are both from the original
and the Septuagint, showing his acquaintance with the
Hebrew.2 The author is thoroughly acquainted with
Jewish usages, as the Jewish notion of a Sabbath-day's
journey, the Jewish feasts, not only the great festivals,
but the minor ones, as the Maccabean feast at the dedi
cation of the Temple, the Jewish ceremonies at these
feasts, the Jewish customs of burial and embalming, the
Jewish law of evidence. He is perfectly familiar with
Jewish opinions, as the Jewish expectations of a Mes
siah, the antagonism between Jews and Samaritans, the
supercilious contempt of the Pharisees for the people,
the dread of ceremonial defilement, the belief in the
transmitted punishment of sin. He is also familiar
with the laws and practices of the times ; as that the
Romans had deprived the Jews of the power of life and
death, that blasphemy was according to the Jewish law
punishable with death, and that the Roman procurator
was accustomed to be at Jerusalem at the Passover.3
2. But the author of the Gospel was not only a Jew,
but a Jew of Palestine. He is minutely acquainted
with the topography of the Holy Land. He mentions
1 Sanday, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 28.
2 The quotations in John xii. 40, xiii. 18, xix. 37, are taken from the
Hebrew. 3 For further particulars on this point, see Sanday on the Authorship of
tlie Fourth Gospel, pp. 286-290.

118 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Cana of Galilee, thus distinguishing it from Cana of
Phenicia, formerly belonging to the tribe of Asher ;
Bethsaida as the city of Andrew and Peter, thus dis
tinguishing it from Bethsaida Julias, in the tetrarchy of
Philip ; Sychar, probably a village, in the neighbour
hood of which was Jacob's well.1 He speaks of Bethany
as about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and, according
to the best authenticated reading, of another otherwise
unknown Bethany on the other side of Jordan (John
i. 28), and of other obscure places, as Ephraim (John
xi. 54), iEnon, and Salim (John iii. 23), which could
only be known by one minutely acquainted with the
country. He knows thoroughly the localities of Jeru
salem and of the Temple, as, for example, the pool of
Bethesda by the sheep gate, with its five porches ; the
pool of Siloam ; Solomon's porch, and the treasury in
the Temple ; the brook Kedron ; the place of a skull,
called Golgotha ; and Joseph's sepulchre in the garden.
3. Internal evidences show that the author was an
eye-witness of most of the facts which he relates. This
is expressly stated in the Gospel itself. Thus in the
commencement the author states that the glory of
Christ was a matter of personal observation : " We
beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from
the Father, full of grace and truth" (John i. 14).
When recording a remarkable fact that occurred at the
crucifixion, he adds, " He that saw it bare record, and
his record is true" (John xix. 35). And in the First
Epistle, generally admitted to have been written, by the
same person, he says, "That which was from the begin-
1 Supposed to be the village of Askar, about a mile from Shechem.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL. 119
ning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our
eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have
handled of the Word of Life, declare we unto you"
(1 John i. 1). And in the Gospel there are evident
proofs that it was written by an eye-witness. There
are frequent statements of time that such an event hap
pened about the tenth hour ; that the next day John
stood and two of his disciples ; that it was the sixth hour
when Jesus sat at Jacob's well ; that it was the prepara
tion and about the sixth hour (John i. 39, 35 ; iv. 6 ;
xix. 14). There are graphic and lifelike descriptions of
persons, as Nathanael, an Israelite without guile ; Peter,
full of zeal and always in the front ; and Thomas, eager
to sacrifice his life for his Master, and yet doubting
the reality of His resurrection. There are naratives of
scenes and events which bear impressed upon them the
evidence that the person who narrates them was present,
as, for example, the marriage at Cana of Galilee, the
feeding of the multitude, the cure of the man who was
born blind, the raising of Lazarus, the anointing of our
Lord's feet by Mary of Bethany, the last discourses of
our Lord in the upper chamber, the details of the cruci
fixion, and the visit of the two disciples to the sepulchre.
All these and numerous other incidents prove that
the person who wrote the Gospel must have been pre
sent when the incidents occurred which are related.
Fiction may depict imaginary scenes, but no fiction
could ever attain to such lifelike descriptions and to
such incidental marks of reality as are contained in the
Fourth Gospel.
4. But although the author was a Palestinian Jew

120 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
and an eye-witness, yet there are evidences that when
he wrote he was at a distance, both in place and time,
from the scenes- which he records. He does not write
to those who, like himself, were acquainted with Jewish
rites and customs ; he writes at a distance from Jerusa
lem, and to foreigners. He frequently has to add expla
nations to many of the statements which he makes.
Thus he speaks of Caiaphas as being the high priest for
that year ; of " Master " as the interpretation of the
Hebrew word Rabbi ; of the pool of Siloam, which is by
interpretation Sent; of the place that is called the
pavement, but in the Hebrew Gabbatha ; of the place of
the skull, called in the Hebrew Golgotha. He states
that the pool by the sheep-market was called in the
Hebrew Bethesda, and that Nicodemus and Joseph took
the body of Jesus and prepared it for burial, as the
manner of the Jews was to bury. In like manner the
impression is left upon us, from various incidental
expressions, that a considerable time had elapsed since
the occurrence of the events related. Christianity had
made considerable progress before this Gospel was
written. The universality of Christianity, in contrast
to its limitation to the JewTs, is prominently brought
forward, as when our Lord says, " God so loved the
world;" "Other sheep I have, which are not of this
fold ; " " I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw
all men unto me."
5. All these marks point to the Apostle John. He
was a Jew by birth, versed in the Old Testament,
familiar with Jewish customs, thoroughly acquainted
with the topography both of Palestine and of Jerusalem.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 121
He was an eye-witness of the incidents in the life of our
Lord, and, as we are informed by the Fathers, he wrote
his Gospel at a distance from Jerusalem, and several
years after the occurrence of the events which he
narrates. The author of the Gospel was an intimate
follower of Christ. He was acquainted with our Lord's
constant disciples, whom he calls by their names ; he
was admitted into intimate communion with Christ,
and was a listener to His familiar discourses. He relates
the words of our Lord, and the questions put to Him
by His disciples. Now, according to the Synoptists,
the three most intimate followers of our Lord were
Peter, James, and John, and among them we are to
seek for the author of the Fourth Gospel. He could
not be Peter, for he is in several places expressly dis
tinguished from the author, "the disciple whom Jesus
loved ; " nor could he be James, for he perished in the
early years of Christianity. Hence all internal evidences
point to John, one of the most prominent of the Apostles,
the friend of Peter, and designated by Paul as a pillar
of the Church. II. — Objections to its Authenticity.
In the early Church only the Alogi, an obscure
sect of heretics mentioned by Epiphanius,1 called in
question the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel, and
that from purely dogmatic reasons. " They denied,"
he observes, "the Gospel according to John, and the
Logos who was in Him in the beginning, and who was
1 Epiphanius, Adv. Her., ii. 51.

122 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
God." And he informs us that they ascribed both the
Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse to Cerinthus. The
name was given to this sect by Epiphanius because
they were deniers of the Logos, and with an allusion
to the unreasonableness of their views (aXoyos = unreason
able). "I shall be right in naming them Alogi, since
they reject the Logos of God, the paternal divine Logos,
that came down from heaven, whom John preached."
They appear to have been a rationalistic sect, who arose
in the latter half of the second century, as a reaction
against Montanism, denied the personality of the Spirit,
and in the Trinitarian controversies of the third century
belonged to the Monarchian party. In all probability
they are the same as those heretics of whom Irenseus
speaks, but without mentioning their name, as rejecting
Ihe Gospel of John: "Others, that they may set at
nought the gift of the Spirit, which in latter times has
been, by the good pleasure of the Father, poured out
upon the human race, do not admit that aspect in
which, according to John's Gospel, the Lord promised
that He would send the Paraclete ; but set aside at
once both the Gospel and the prophetic Spirit ; " 1
inasmuch as Epiphanius tells us that the Alogi not
only denied the Logos, but did not receive the Spirit.
It should also be observed that while the Alogi denied
the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, they still bear
witness to its great antiquity by ascribing it to Cerinthus,
a contemporary of the Apostle. The Marcionites also
rejected the Gospel of John ; but, as we have already
had occasion to observe, they did this not from any
1 Irenseus, Adv. Her., iii. ii, 9.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 123
doubts which they entertained concerning its genuine
ness, but because they considered it opposed to their
anti-Jewish views.
The Johannine controversy is of comparatively recent
date. With the exception of the heretical sects just
mentioned, the authenticity of John's Gospel was never
seriously questioned until near the close of last century.
There are no traces of early doubt in the writings of the
Fathers; and even in the times of the Reformation,
when a critical spirit was abroad, the genuineness of
this Gospel remained unquestioned. But toward the
close of last century the attacks commenced in earnest,
and have been continued almost without intermission
until the present time. This Johannine controversy has
given rise to an enormous literature, which is not yet ex
hausted. The first who urged any reasonable objection
was Evanson, at one time a clergyman of the Church of
England, who in 1792 impugned the authority of this
Gospel in his work entitled The Dissonance of the Four
generally received Gospels.1 The reasons which he
assigned for rejecting the Gospel of John were the sup
posed discrepancies between it and the three first
Gospels. He was followed in Germany by several theo
logians, as Eckermann2 in 1 796, Vogel3 in 1801, Cludius4
in 1 808, and Ballenstedt 5 in 1 8 1 2 ; but it was not until
1 Evanson was an Anglican divine in Gloucester. His work was
answered by Priestley, Letters to a Young Man, 1793, and by the Rev,
Thomas Falconer in the Bampton Lectures for 1811.
2 Theologische Beitrage.
3 Der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jiingsten Gericht.
4 Vransichten des Christenthums nebst Untersuchungen iiber einige Biicher
des N. T. Altona, 1808.
6 Philo und Johannes.

124 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
1820 that the controversy assumed importance. In this
year Bretschneider published his Probabilia de Evan-
gelio et Epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et ori-
gine. In this work he collected all the objections which
others had brought against this Gospel, and anticipated
most of those subsequently urged.1 He especially in
sisted on the great differences between this Gospel and
the other three, not only in the events recorded, but
especially in the nature of the discourses related.
According to him, the whole style and type of Christ's
teaching was different ; whilst the other narratives con
tained a plain narrative of the life and teaching of
Christ, the Fourth Gospel gave a philosophical turn to
His discourses. The author, he concludes, could not be
the uneducated Galilean Apostle whose name it bears,
but was in all probability a Christian of Alexandria who
wrote in the middle of the second century. This learned
work of Bretschneider called forth numerous replies ;
and shortly afterwards a reaction took place in favour
of John's Gospel, proceeding from Schleiermacher and
his school, so that the controversy was for a decade
almost entirely confined to the positive side. Bret
schneider partially retracted his views, and stated that
he had attained the end which he had in view, which
was to call forth a more complete demonstration of the
authenticity of John's Gospel.2
In 1835 the controversy broke out afresh, and raged
with renewed vigour. The occasion was the publication
1 According to Weiss : " In all modern criticism of the Gospel there has
hardly been one important suspicion advanced against its genuineness
which Bretschneider did not discuss."
2 Preface to the second edition of his Dogmatik, 1822.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 125
of Strauss' celebrated Leben Jesu. Strauss was entirely
destructive in his arguments, and resolved the Gospel
into a series of myths. But the subject was taken up,
in a far more scientific and profound manner, by Baur in
1844.1 This celebrated theologian assigned a positive
reason for John's Gospel, and maintained that it was
written in advocacy of certain definite aims. The work
was written at a time when the Church was agitated
by the Gnostic heresies, by Montanism, by the Paschal
controversy, and by philosophical views concerning the
Logos ; and traces of all these tendencies are to be
found in the Gospel. According to this view, the
period of composition is- to be fixed about the middle
of the second century. These views of Baur were ably
advocated by several distinguished disciples. Schwegler 2
had even at an earlier period endeavoured to prove that
the Gospel owed its origin to the theological movement
of Montanism ; Kostlin,3 Zeller, and Volkmar 4 advocated
views similar to those of Baur ; and in the present day
the Tubingen school is represented by Hilgenfeld, who,
although he has considerably modified the opinions of
Baur, yet considers that the Gospel was composed with
a definite tendency of reconciliation.5 Numerous other
theologians, who can hardly be said to belong to the
Tubingen school, are opponents to the genuineness of
1 Baur, Krit. Uhtersuchungen iiber die kanon. Ev.
s Montanismus und die ch. Kirche deszweiten Jahrh. Tubingen, 1841.
3 Kostlin's Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und der Briefe Johannis appeared
in 1843, a year before Baur's celebrated essays.
4 Ur sprung unsrer -Evangelien, 1866 Volkmar considered the Fourth
Gospel as a polemic directed against Marcion.
6 Das Ev. und die Briefe Joh., 1849 > Die Evv. nach ihrer Entstehung,
1854; Einleitung in das N. T., 1875.

126 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
John's Gospel; whilst they urge their objections against
it, they do not feel called upon to assign any reason for
its composition. The most noted among these are Holtz
mann, Keim, Mangold,1 Hase,2 Pfleiderer, and Hausrath
Schiirer in Germany; and Dr. Samuel Davidson,3 the
author of Supernatural Religion, and Dr. Abbott in his
article on the Gospels in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
There is another class of opponents, who occupy a
middle position. They do not, like the above, reject
the Gospel as entirely spurious, but suppose that there
is a considerable portion of truth in it ; that it con
tains genuine traditions of John, notes of his discourses,
or a correct statement of facts. Thus Weisse supposes
that the discourses contained in the Gospel are an
enlarged edition of a genuine Apostolic collection of
the sayings of Jesus, whilst the narrative is interpolated;4
Schenkel considers that several of the discourses, especi
ally our Lord's farewell discourse to His disciples, pro
ceeded from John, whilst these discourses are joined
together by a narrative from a later hand ; 5 and
Schweizer considers that the narrative of events in
Galilee is an interpolation, but that the rest of the
Gospel, with some exceptions, is authentic.6 Weizsacker
1 Mangold, in his edition of Bleek's Einleitung, expresses his doubts con
cerning the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel.
2 Geschichte Jesu, 1876. "It is not," he observes, "without a heavy
heart that I have parted from faith in the full authenticity of the Johan
nine writing."
3 Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1st edit, 1868 ; 2nd edit.,
1882. 4 Die evangelische Geschichte, kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, 1838 ;
Die Evang. Frage in ihrem gegenwitrtigen Stadium. Leipzig, 1856.
6 Ueber die neuesten Bearbeitungen des Lebens Jesu, 1840; Characterbild
Jesu, 1864.
6 Das Ev. Joh. nach seinem inneren Werthe untersucht, 1841.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 127
thinks that the Gospel was composed by a disciple of
John after the death of the. Apostle, who based his
work upon genuine Apostolic reminiscences.1 Reuss
considers that the authenticity of the Gospel is very
doubtful, and that it may unhesitatingly be admitted
that the John who appears in Gal. ii. did not write
the Gospel, though he allows that a subsequent trans
formation of character, as was the case with Paul, might
have taken place ; a germ 'of more profound religiosity
may have been implanted in a heart which needed only
change of air and soil to bring it to maturity.2 And
Renan considers that the discourses are almost entirely
fictitious ; but the narrative parts contain valuable
traditions, going back, in fact, to the Apostle John.3
Recent discoveries of ancient documents, as, for ex
ample, the full text of the Clementine Homilies, the
Diatessaron of Tatian, and the Philosophoumena of
Hippolytus, and a more rigid examination of the
writings of the Fathers, especially Justin Martyr, and
of the references to the Fourth Gospel in the early
Gnostic writers, have caused the opponents of the
authorship of John to shift their ground, and to attri
bute to that Gospel a more ancient date than they
formerly assigned ; they find that the assertions formerly
made cannot, in the face of the progress of modern
criticism, be now maintained. Thus Schwegler and
1 Untersuchungen iiber die Evavg. Gesch., 1864. See also his Apostolisckes
Zeitalter, pp. 531 ff.
2 Geschichte der heiligen Schriften N. T., p. 223 ; translation, p. 233.
3 Renan's Life of Jesus, Preface to the 13th edition, p. xv. ; The Chris
tian Church, pp. 25, 26. He supposes that the writer of these traditions
may be the Presbyter John.

128 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Baur had fixed the date a.d. 160-170; and Volkmar
a.d. 155 ; Zeller and Scholten go back to a.d. 150.
Hilgenfeld, constrained to admit the use of the Gospel
by Justin Martyr, places it at a.d. 130; and Schenkel
between the years a.d. i i 5 and a.d. i 20. Keim in his
Jesus of Nazara makes the following admission : "The
external evidence proves that the Fourth Gospel had
its origin in the beginning of the second century, with
out doubt under the Emperor Trajan (a.d. 100-107) ; "*
though in the last edition of his history he returns to
a.d. 1 30. And Renan observes : " There is one thing
at least which I regard as very probable, and that is
that the book was written before the year a.d. 100;
that is to say, at a time when the Synoptics had not
yet a complete canonicity." 2 But if a date has to be
assigned so near the death of John, which, according to
credible testimony, occurred at Ephesus about a.d. 96,
the Churches of Proconsular Asia, among whom it is
generally agreed that this Gospel was first published,
could not possibly be imposed upon by a false author,
when so many of the contemporaries of the Apostle
must still have been alive ; 3 and consequently we are
constrained to fall back upon the testimony of the
Ephesian Church appended to the Gospel : " This is
the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote
these things ; and we know that his testimony is
true" (John xxi. 24).
The defenders of the authenticity of the Gospel
1 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. i. p. 155, translation, vol. i. p. 211.
2 Life of Jesus, translation, Introduction, p. xiv.
3 Keim gets over the difficulty by denying the Ephesian residence of
John. See ante, 51.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 129
have been very numerous, and among them are to be
reckoned theologians of eminent ability and profound
learning. The most eminent are Neander, Bleek, Schleier
macher, Liicke, Tholuck, Ebrard, Hengstenberg, Luthardt,
Lechler, Meyer, Beyschlag, and B. Weiss in Germany ;
Godet in Switzerland ; Pressense in France ; and in our
own country, without disparagement to those whose
names are omitted, may be mentioned Westcott in his
Commentary and in his Introduction to the Study of
the Gospels, Sanday in his Authorship of the Fourth
Gospel and in his Gospels of the Second Century,
Liddon in his Bampton Lectures on our Lord's Divinity,
and Reynolds in his admirable introduction to St.
John's Gospel in the Pulpit Commentary.1 The work
of Dr. Ezra Abbot of America on the authorship of
the Fourth Gospel is an exhaustive and convincing
statement of the external evidences.2
It is evident that the Johannine controversy is not
yet terminated ; it is still carried on almost as fiercely
as ever, and with much ability and learning on both
sides.3 Among the present opponents of the Gospel
are to be reckoned Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Schenkel,
Mangold, Reuss, Thoma, Abbott, Weiszacker, Pfleiderer,
1 It is greatly to be desired that this valuable and masterly introduction
of Dr. Reynolds, extending over 161 closely printed pages, be published in
a separate form. It is a valuable addition to Johannine literature.
2 There is also to be mentioned an essay of great value by R. H. Hutton,
Essays, Theological and Literary, vol. i., 2nd edit, Essay vii., "The
Historical Problems of the Fourth Gospel." An admirable popular treat
ment of the question is contributed by Godet to the series of Present Day
Tracts, vol. v., " The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel."
3 See Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N. T., p. 423; "Die gegenwar-
tige Sachlage ; " Schiirer, Ueber den gegenwartigen Stand der johannischen
Frdge. I

130 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Schiirer, and Samuel Davidson. ; whilst among its pre~
sent defenders are to be mentioned the equally dis
tinguished theologians Bernhard Weiss, Beyschlag, Lut
hardt, Godet, Schaff, Franke, Zahn, Westcott, Sanday,
and Lightfoot.1 Still, however, considerable progress
has been made toward the settlement of the question
in favour of the Johannine authorship. The tendency-
theory of the Tubingen school has been in general
abandoned even by those who do not hold the genuine
ness of the Gospel, and the peculiar views of Baur
may now be considered as antiquated. The date of
the Gospel, as has already been observed, has been
transferred near to the lifetime of John. The external
evidences have been greatly strengthened by recent
discoveries, and the difficulties connected with the
internal evidences, although they may not be removed,
yet have been greatly reduced and modified.2
It must be evident, from the most cursory perusal,
that the Fourth Gospel is very different from the other
three, or the so-called Synoptic Gospels. The scene of
our Lord's ministry is different, being transferred from
1 Since the above was written in manuscript, this great theologian has
passed away.
2 See a complete list of the literature of the disputed origin of St. John's
Gospel from 1792 to 1875 by Dr. Caspar Gregory in an appendix to his
translation of Luthardt's St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel. Since
then have been written, Albrecht Thoma's Die Genesis des Johannes Evan-
gelium, 1882 ; Westcott's Commentary on St. John in Speaker's Bible,
1880; Moulton and Milligan's Commentary in Schaff 's Popular Com
mentary, 1880; Dr. Ezra Abbot, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1882;
Abbott's article on the Gospels in the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1879 > ^ev<
H. Evans' St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, 1888 ; Sanday's Gospels
of the Second Century, 1876 ; and Plummer on St. John's Gospel, 1886. To
these have to be added the relative sections in the introductions of Holtz
mann, Weiss, and Salmon ; and in the Apostolisches Zeitalter of Weiszacker,

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 131
Galilee to Judsea ; its duration is extended from one to
two or three years ; the events recorded, with a few
exceptions, are entirely different. Instead of the simple
narrative of the Synoptics, the Fourth Gospel is clothed
in a philosophic garb ; the person of the Lord Jesus
Christ, as there described, is loftier and more divine ;
the discourses in the Fourth Gospel are of a different
character from the parables in the Synoptics ; the style,
diction, and expression of the Gospel are the same
throughout, so that our Lord's discourses are precisely
similar to the author's own reflections ; and the day of
our Lord's death is differently given in the Fourth
Gospel from what it is in the Synoptics. These points
have given rise to objections which have been brought
forward and insisted on by those who deny the author
ship of John.
1. The scene of our Lord's ministry is asserted to be
different. In John's Gospel the scene is placed chiefly
in Judsea. The visits of Christ to the great annual
feasts at Jerusalem, the conversations which He had
with the Jews on these occasions, and the miracles
which He then performed, are the chief contents of the
Fourth Gospel, whilst His ministry in Galilee is only
casually alluded to. One would think, from a perusal
of this Gospel, that Judaea, and not Galilee, was the
chief scene of our Lord's ministry. The Synoptic
narratives, on the contrary, are almost entirely confined
to the Galilean ministry, and one would hardly have
known that Jesus ever went up to Jerusalem until the
last Passover, when He was crucified. Now, in answer
to this objection, it is to be remarked that it is evident

132 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN:
from John's Gospel that our Lord's ministry was not
limited to Jerusalem. There is in it frequent mention
of Galilee ; the residence in Capernaum, the miracle of the
feeding of the multitude which occurred in the neighbour
hood of Bethsaida Julias, the discourse on the bread of
life in the synagogue of Capernaum, the appearance of the
risen Lord at the Sea of Tiberias are there recorded (John
ii. 12; vi. 1, 59; xxi. 1). We are informed that Jesus
walked in Galilee, for He would not wralk in Jewry be
cause the Jews sought to kill Him (John vii. 1 ) ; and He
omitted a Passover, and it would seem from the narrative
spent nearly a whole year in Galilee (John vi. 4). On
the other, hand, the Judsean ministry is presupposed in
the Synoptic Gospels. Indeed, in one passage in Luke's
Gospel (Luke iv. 44), it is directly mentioned, according
to, the reading of the best manuscripts. Where it is
said in our version that Jesus preached in the synagogues
of Galilee, the best manuscripts read the synagogues of
Judaea.1 Scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem fre
quently attended our Lord's ministry (Luke v. 17).
Judas, the traitor, was a native of Kerioth in Judsea
(Mark iii. 19), and Joseph of Arimathea, one of our
Lord's secret disciples, was probably a resident in
Jerusalem (Mark xv. 43, 46). The lamentation over
Jerusalem, "How often would I have gathered thy
children together" (Matt, xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34),
implied that our Lord must often "have preached the
Gospel in that city, and invited its inhabitants to enter
1 N. B. C. L. The reading adopted by Alford, Tischendorf, 8th edit.,
and Westcott and Hort. In the Revised Version it is placed only in the
margin.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 133
into His kingdom.1 And after His Ascension the
disciples fixed their headquarters in Jerusalem, which
they would not have done had they not already obtained
some footing in that city. Besides, it was the duty of
all the Jews to attend the three great annual feasts at
Jerusalem, and we cannot suppose that Jesus, who came
to fulfil all righteousness, would neglect doing so during
the period of His ministry, provided, of course, that
extended more than a year ; and it is to be observed
that the incidents recorded in John's Gospel, as occurring
in Judsea, took place at our Lord's attendance at these
annual feasts of the Jews. The Galilean ministry, then,
chiefly dwelt upon by the Synoptists, does not exclude
the repeated visits of Jesus to Jerusalem at the Jewish
feasts, chiefly dwelt on by John.
2. It is urged that the duration of our Lord's ministry,
as recorded by John, is different from that recorded by
the other Evangelists. There are at least three Pass
overs mentioned in John's Gospel ; the first after the
marriage at Cana, to which Jesus went up and His
disciples (John ii. 13) ; the second, which He omitted
and abode in Galilee (John vi. 3, 4) ; and the third, the
last Passover, at which He suffered (Johii xii. 1). This
accordingly presupposes a ministry extending over two
or three years. In the Synoptic Gospels, on the other
hand, mention is made only of one Passover, and it has
accordingly been affirmed that our Lord's ministry
lasted only one year. In the writings of the Fathers
1 We do not, however, lay much stress on Luke x. 38, that our Lord
entered into a certain village where He was entertained hy Martha and
Mary, because Bethany is not mentioned by that Evangelist as the name
of the village.

134 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
the one year's ministry is the prevailing opinion ; 1 but
this is evidently only an inference which they have
drawn from a cursory view of the Synoptic Gospels.
While, according to John's Gospel, our Lord's ministry
must have lasted more than two years, there is absolutely
nothing in the Synoptic Gospels which would guide us
to determine its duration. Luke tells us that it com
menced in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Csesar, Pontius
Pilafe being Governor of Judsea (Luke iii. i), and
Pontius Pilate was still governor when our Lord was
put to death ; but as Pontius Pilate was not banished
until a.d. 36, this would give a period of six years to
which Christ's ministry might be extended. Besides, it
is highly improbable that all that is stated in the Synop
tic Gospels, the repeated missionary journeys of Christ
in Galilee, His numerous discourses and miracles, the
mission, first of the twelve, and then of the seventy,
and especially the careful education and training of the
twelve, could be crowded within the space of one year.
There is then no discrepancy between these Gospels and
John's regarding the duration of our Lord's ministry.
3. It is asserted that the events of our Lord's ministry
recorded in the Fourth Gospel, with a few exceptions,
are entirely different from those recorded in the Synoptic
Gospels ; actions of the highest importance, and what
appears to be essential to a record of the life of Jesus,
recorded in the one are omitted in the other. But if
the Gospel of John is a supplementary Gospel, if the
author saw the other three Gospels, and wrote purposely
to narrate facts and discourses not recorded in these
1 So Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Lactantius, and others.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 135
Gospels, this circumstance appears to be .a complete solu
tion of the above objection. Besides the record of the last
sufferings, the only important incident common to all the
four Gospels is the miraculous feeding of the multitude ; 1
but even this appears to be given in John's Gospel for
the purpose of introducing our Lord's discourse on the
bread of life. The baptism of Christ, the institution of
the Supper, the agony of Gethsemane, and other events
of supreme importance are omitted in John's Gospel ;
but the reason of this omission may have been that they
were already fully recorded in the previous Gospels.
Other most important events, the cure of the man who
was born blind, the healing of the impotent man at the
pool of Bethesda, and especially the resurrection of
Lazarus, mentioned by John, are omitted by the Synop-
tists ; but the works of Jesus are so numerous that it
would have been impossible to have recorded them all, so
that a selection must have been made, and in making this
selection the Synoptists appear to have confined them
selves mainly to the events which occurred during the
Galilean ministry. Besides, it is to be observed that the
facts recorded by the Synoptists are in John's Gospel pre
supposed as known. The baptism of Jesus is not men
tioned, but there is a distinct allusion to it in the saying
of the Baptist, " I saw the Spirit descend like a dove
and it abode on Him " (John i. 32). There is no account
of the institution of the Supper, but mention is made of
the disclosure of the betrayer at the table (John xiii.
2 1-30) ; there is no record of the agony in the garden,
but we are informed that Jesus went forth with His
1 Matt xiv. 13-23 ; Mark vi. 30-46 ; Luke ix. 10-17 ; John vi. 1-15.

136 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a gar
den, into which He entered with His disciples (John
xviii. i).
But there is one event, recorded in John's Gospel, of
so important and wonderful a nature, and which was
followed with such momentous results, that its omission
in the Synoptic Gospels is considered a grave difficulty ;
we allude to the resurrection of Lazarus. How does it
happen that this miracle, the greatest which Jesus per
formed, the raising of a man to life after he had been in
his grave four days, is not mentioned in any of the
other Gospels? Admitting that the Fourth Gospel is
supplementary, it is difficult to understand how this
wonderful miracle could be omitted by the Synoptists,
especially as Mary and Martha are mentioned in the
Gospel of Luke (Luke x. 38, 39). " According to the
Fourth Gospel," observes Dr. Davidson, " the resurrec
tion of Lazarus was most important in its consequences,
producing so great an effect upon the Jews at Jerusalem
that the Sanhedrim resolved to put Jesus to death.
The miracle happened at Bethany, in the immediate
neighbourhood of the capital, only a few days before
the Saviour's triumphant entry into the city, which was
but a prelude to His death on the cross. To perform
it, He had come from the district beyond Jordan. The
Synoptists, however, make no mention of the incident,
which is tantamount to their ignorance of it, otherwise
they could hardly have omitted it."1 Now it must be
candidly confessed that this is a difficulty of which we
1 Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 1st edit., vol.
ii. p. 263 ; 2d edit., vol. ii. p. 322.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 137
have failed to find a completely satisfactory solution.
As Neander observes, "To seek a special reason for the
omission in this case could lead to nothing but arbitrary
hypotheses."1 But it must be observed that the objec
tion, if it be an objection, is founded on the argument
from silence — that there is no mention of the miracle in
the other Gospels — a very precarious argument on which
to found a conclusion. Various reasons for the omission
of the miracle by the Synoptists have been assigned. It
has been asserted that tradition was silent on the fact
out of a regard to Lazarus and his two sisters. We
read that the priests took counsel to put Lazarus also to
death. If their attention had been directed to him, he
might have been exposed to persecution and danger ;
whereas, when John wrote, Lazarus would certainly have
been dead.2 But we feel that this is unsatisfactory ; it
is founded on a mere series of conjectures ; and even
although the narration of the miracle had exposed
Lazarus to persecution, yet what of that if the glory of
Christ were advanced thereby ? Others assert that it did
not lie within the sphere of the Synoptists. They con
fined themselves until our Lord's Passion to the Galilean
ministry, and omitted all those miracles which happened
in Jerusalem recorded by John, and for this reason do
not mention the raising of Lazarus. " The ministry of
Jesus in Galilee," observes Meyer, " is, as their Gospels
actually prove, the allotted province to which the older
evangelistic historical writings confined their task and
performance, and this task included the Galilean raisings
1 Meander's Life of Christ, p. 378, note ; Bohn's edition.
2 Godet's Commentary on John, vol. i. pp. 114-116.

r38 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
from the dead, but excluded that of Lazarus." 1 But ac
cording to John, it was this miracle that was one of the
efficient causes that led the Pharisees to devise the death
of Christ. Others think that we exaggerate the signifi
cance of this miracle ; we put our own ideas into the
minds of the Jews. The Jews may have regarded
raisings from the dead in the same point of view as other
miracles ; hence, in the answer to the disciples of John,
the "dead are raised" is mentioned as on the same level
with other supernatural works. " To us," observes Dr.
Sanday, "the raising of the dead stands apart from
other miracles in a class by itself, as peculiarly unex
ampled and incredible. But that it was not so regarded
at the time when the Gospel was written appears from this
very narrative, where the Jews are made to ask whether
He who opened the eyes of the blind could not have
prevented, the death of Lazarus altogether." 2 It is also
to be observed that the raising of the widow's son of
Nain, the miracle which we consider next in point of
greatness to the raising of Lazarus, is only mentioned in
one of the Gospels (Luke vii. 11-15). Besides, the per
formance of this miracle best accounts for the enthu
siastic reception of Jesus by the multitude on His entrance
into Jerusalem on the one hand, and for the increased
animosity of the Pharisees which resulted in His death
on the other. The narrative bears internal marks of
genuineness. The description given of the incident is
so minute, so circumstantial, so graphic, and accom
panied with so many unartificial particulars as to prove
1 Commentary on St. John's Gospel, vol. ii. pp. 138, 139 (T. & T. Clark's
translation). 2 Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 186.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 139
that it is the description of an eye-witness. There is no
art about it ; the devotion of Thomas and his fellow-
Apostles, the impulsiveness of Martha, and the calm
submission of Mary, the sympathy and love of Jesus,
the conduct of the Jews who-came to comfort the sisters,
impress us with a sense of the reality of the narrative.
4. The philosophical character of the Fourth Gospel is
adduced as an additional objection to its genuineness.
It is argued that it is in the highest degree improbable
that a fisherman on the Sea of Galilee should write such
a narrative of the life of Jesus as that contained in the
Fourth Gospel, a narrative which commences with a pro
found statement concerning the nature of the Logos and
His relation to God, and which is throughout highly
subjective and full of philosophical thoughts ; it appears
rather to be the work of a disciple of Plato, or at least
of Philo. We reserve the consideration of the doctrine
of the Logos for a special dissertation ; but meantime we
would only remark that this doctrine has its roots in
the Old Testament, and was in conformity with the
Rabbinical views then prevalent among the Jews, and
that even Philo derived his doctrine of the Logos as
much from the Old Testament as from Plato. Nor does
the statement concerning the Logos extend beyond the
prologue ; it is never adverted to elsewhere in the
Gospel. The thoughtful and spiritual character of the
Gospel is no objection to the authorship of John, when
we consider the strong external authentication of the
Gospel and the disposition of the beloved disciple.
The love which was his predominant characteristic
would constrain him to live more in the internal world

t4o THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
of feeling than in the external world of action ; his
character is rather contemplative than practical ; he
would delight to dwell rather upon the sentiments than
upon the actions of his Master. Besides, his realisation
of Christ as a Divine Being must have imparted an
elevation to his thoughts, and thus increased his mental
strength and spirituality. We see continually the ele
vating and refining power of religion ; and how much
more must this have been the case with John when he
enjoyed the intercourse of Him who was God manifest
in the flesh ; he was raised with Christ into heavenly
places. 5. Analogous to the above objection is another, de
rived from the delineation of Christ's person. It is
affirmed that the person of our Lord as delineated in
John's Gospel is very different from the Christ of the
Synoptics ; the portrait is not the same. In John's
Gospel His divinity is prominently brought forward ;
He is the incarnate Logos. Divine worship is claimed
by Him. His pre-existence is repeatedly asserted, as in
the following declarations : " What and if ye shall see
the Son of Man ascend up where He was before?"
"Jesus said to them, Verily, verily I say unto you,
Before Abraham was I am." "And now, 0 Father,
glorify Thou me with Thine own self, with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was."
"Father, I will that they also whom Thou hast given
me be with me where I am, that they may behold my
glory which Thou hast given me ; for Thou lovedst me
before the foundation of the world" (John vi. 62 ; viii.
58 ; xvii. 5, 24). Whereas, on the other hand, it is

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 141
affirmed that by the Synoptists Jesus is represented
chiefly as a divinely-inspired teacher, as a great worker
of miracles, but without any special reference to His
divine nature or pre-existence. It is admitted that
the divinity of Christ is more prominently brought
forward and more distinctly taught in the Fourth
Gospel than by the Synoptics. John, probably by
longer experience and a more intimate communion
with Christ, by a deeper insight into His nature and
by more abundant revelations, was more deeply im
bued with a sense of our Lord's divinity : he beholds
in Him the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father. But he does not overlook His humanity; he
mentions His being weary with His journey on His way
to Samaria, His weeping and groaning in spirit at the
tomb of Lazarus, His being troubled at the prospect of
His suffering, His washing the feet of His disciples, His
thirst on the cross (John iv. 6; xi. 33, 35; xii. 27;
xiii. 5 ; xix. 28). On the other hand, our Lord's divi
nity is taught or presupposed in the Synoptic Gospels :
His miraculous incarnation, His approval of the confes
sion of Peter that He was the Son of God, His repeated
assertion that He would come again in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory, and that He would
appear as Judge of the world ; His promise that He will
be with His people always, even to the end of the world,
and His command that His followers should be baptized
in His name as well as in that of the Father and the
Holy Ghost are there recorded.
6. Another objection to the genuineness of John's
Gospel i3 that the discourses contained in it are of an

142 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
entirely different character from those given by the
Synoptists. In John's Gospel the discourses are specu
lative and abstract ; they are mystical, and relate to the
deep things of God ; instead of parables, there are alle
gories, as those of the Good Shepherd and the sheep, and
of the Vine and its branches. Whereas in the Synoptic
Gospels the discourses of Jesus are expressed in para
bles, brought down to the comprehension of the people,
and eminently practical. In order to see the difference
we have only to compare our Lord's last discourse to
His disciples with the Sermon on the Mount. " If,"
says Renan, "Jesus spoke as Matthew would have us
to believe, He could not have spoken in the manner
represented by John." 1 It is admitted that there
is this difference, though we consider that it has
been frequently exaggerated. Two reasons may be
assigned for it — the relation of John to Christ, and
the difference of the persons addressed. The first
reason we have often had occasion to allude to.
John was the beloved disciple of Christ, he of all the
Apostles was most intimately associated with Him, his
character bore a close resemblance to Him, and thus he
was enabled to imbibe His spirit and to assimilate His
ideas in his mind, so as to reproduce His sentiments.
And as a second reason it must be remembered that the
chief discourses in John's Gospel were addressed to the
inner circle of the disciples, whilst the discourses in the
Synoptic Gospels were addressed to the multitude.
Reference has been repeatedly made on this subject to
the different representations of the person and teaching
1 Renan's Life of Jesus, Introduction, p. 43.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 143
of Socrates as given by Xenophon and Plato, as some
what analogous to the Jesus of the Synoptics and the
Jesus of the Fourth Gospel. By Xenophon, Socrates is
the practical teacher, and by Plato he is the specula
tive philosopher. Formerly these representations were
thought to be irreconcilable, but now it is generally
admitted that both are true, and that they are only
different aspects of one and the same character.1 Now,
if a wise man like Socrates could exhibit this diversity
of character, is it not reasonable to suppose that Christ,
who was. more than a man, at once human and divine,
could display an equal, and even greater many-sidedness,
appearing as the practical teacher in the Synoptic
Gospels, and as the revealer of heavenly things in that of
St. John ? Besides, the difference has been greatly
exaggerated ; traces of Johannine teaching pervade the
Synoptic Gospels ; and long lists have been given of
sayings of Jesus occurring in John's Gospel, which
appear almost identically the same in the Synoptics.2
Especially in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there is
a passage which bears a strong and striking resemblance
to the language used by Jesus in the Gospel of John.
Our Lord, expressing His joy and satisfaction with the
result of the mission of the seventy disciples, is repre
sented as saying, " I thank Thee, 0 Father, Lord of
1 See Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 212 ; Luthardt's
St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, p. 225 ; Godet's Commentary on
St. John's Gospel, vol. i. p. 165. So also Schleiermacher, Brandis, and
Ritter. 2 Godet gives a list of twenty-seven sayings~of Jesus, occurring in St.
John's Gospel, which appear almost identically the same in the Synoptics.
Commentary on St. John's Gospel, vol. i. pp. 154-156. A similar list,
amounting to twenty-eight instances, is given by Luthardt, St. John the
Author of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 232-235.

144 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
heaven and earth, that Thou hast kept these things from
the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to babes ;
even so, Father, for so it seemeth good in Thy sight.
All things are delivered unto Me of My Father, and no
man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who
the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will
reveal Him" (Matt. xi. 25-27; Luke x. 21, 22). This
has been well called "an erratic Johannine block that has
strayed into Synoptic soil." The formation from which
it was taken must previously have existed. This proves
that language essentially Johannine was not unusual with
Jesus when He conversed in private with His disciples.
The question has been often put, How has John
recorded these discourses of Jesus ? How could he,
after the lapse of more than half a century, have
remembered the words of Jesus ? Especially, how
could he so accurately detail the conversation which
took place between Jesus and His disciples at the
Last Supper ? But the words of Jesus on such an
occasion must have made an indelible impression on
such a receptive mind as that of John ; they must
have been stored up in his memory, and have been
often repeated by him in his conversations with his
disciples ; perhaps, at an early period, they may
have been committed to writing. "Little," observes
Neander, " do such objectors conceive of the nature
of the human soul and of the power of deep impres- •
sions upon it. Such impressions these discourses must
have made upon a mind and heart like John's; and
what was received thus into the depths of his soul, no
concussions could cast out. He must have repeated

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 145
these discourses, times without number, to others ; how,
then, can it be said that he could not commit them
faithfully to writing ? John could not have been John,
had it been possible for him to forget such discourses
of Christ V'1 Besides, we must remember that the
Holy Spirit was promised not only to guide the Apostles
in their writings and to teach them all things, but
to bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever
Jesus had said to them (John xiv. 26). If, then, John
wrote under the higher inspiration of the Spirit, if his
memory was quickened, if the impressions once made
upon him were resuscitated, we may be satisfied that
the discourses which he records contain the very
thoughts of Jesus ; indeed, they bear impressed upon
them the divinity of their origin. As an example in
point, Irenaeus, writing to his fellow-disciple Florinus,
states that he can recall perfectly the discourses of
their master, Polycarp. " I remember," he says, " the
events of those times much better than those of more
recent occurrence, how Polycarp used to relate the
discourses of those who had seen the Lord, and what
things he had heard from them concerning the Lord.
These things, by the mercy of God and the oppor
tunity then afforded me, I attentively heard, noting
them down, not on paper, but in my heart." 2 In age
the impressions of youth frequently come vividly back
to the memory.
7. It is further objected that the style, diction, and
expressions of John are the same when recording the
1 Neandert Life of Christ, pp. 436, 437, Bohn's edition.
2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 20. K

146 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
sayings of the Baptist and Jesus as when he gives his
own remarks and observations. His reminiscences of the
words of Jesus are so blended with his own thoughts, that
it is impossible to know what are the sentiments of Jesus
and what are those of John. As Dr. Abbott observes,
" So great is the similarity between the words of the
writer and" the words which are assigned by him either
to our Lord or to John the Baptist, that Dr. Westcott,
commenting on John iii. 10-21, 27-36, says, 'It is
impossible not to feel that the Evangelist, in fact, is
commenting on and explaining the testimony which he
records. The comments seem to begin respectively at
verses 16 and 31.' V1 Now, it is admitted that there
is truth in this observation ; a certain sameness of style
and diction and expression pervades the whole of John's
Gospel. But then it must be remembered that the
words of Jesus and the Baptist, as given by John, are
a translation ; they were originally spoken in Aramaic,
and not in Greek, and thus the sameness in style and
diction may be accounted for. We have also no hesita
tion in allowing a certain degree of subjectivity on the
part of John. The thoughts and sentiments were those
of Jesus, but John clothed them in his own language,
and in some cases subjoins to those discourses of Jesus
his own reflections.2 Probably, also, he unites into one
1 Article " Gospels " in Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. x. p. 819.
2 See Weiss, Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 381-383,
translation. "Owing," he observes, "to the free, explanatory, and eluci
datory rendering of the words of Jesus, for which, moreover, there is no lack
of precedent in the Synoptical discourses of Christ, it cannot be matter of
surprise that the discourses of Christ in the Fourth Gospel exhibit the
linguistic and doctrinal character of the Evangelist throughout, as he is
known to us from his Epistle.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 147
discourse utterances of Jesus spoken at different times.
The sacred writers, in recording the words of Jesus, do
not lose their idiosyncrasies, and therefore this same
ness of expression between the discourses of Christ and
the reflections of the Apostle ought not to surprise us,
far less be regarded as an objection to the truth of his
declarations. The ideas of Christ are preserved to us
in this encasing of the Apostle's expressions.
8. A great and acknowledged difficulty exists with
regard to the day of our Lord's death. According to
the Fourth Gospel, this occurred before the Pass
over, or on the 14th Nisan (John xiii. 1, 29; xviii.
28; xix. 14); whereas, in the Synoptics, we are ex
pressly informed that Jesus partook of the Passover
with His disciples, and that, consequently, His death
occurred on the 15th Nisan (Matt. xxvi. 18; Mark
xiv. 1 2 ; Luke xxii. 1 5). Here it is said that there is
an obvious discrepancy between the Fourth Gospel and
the Synoptics. This point is of such difficulty, and the
views concerning it are so conflicting, that we reserve
its consideration for a special dissertation. Meanwhile,
supposing that we admit the reality of the difference
between the narrative of the Synoptists and John ; that
according to the Synoptists Christ and His disciples par
took of the Passover at one time, whilst, according to John,
the Jewish rulers partook of it at another ; what follows
from such an admission ? Surely not the spuriousness
of the Fourth Gospel, in defiance of all the external and
internal evidences in its favour. There may be a
method of reconciliation which has not yet been dis
covered ; we are not acquainted with all the facts of

148 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
the case, nor with the details of the method in which
the Jews celebrated their Passover.
Such is the summary of the external and internal
evidences in favour of the authenticity of the Fourth
Gospel. The external evidences appear to be as strong
and as convincing as for any other book of the New
Testament ; the Gospel can be traced close to the life
time of the asserted author. The internal evidences
also point to John, the beloved disciple. It is not
denied that there are difficulties which have perhaps
not yet been fully solved, and even objections, as that
connected with the day of Christ's death, to which no
satisfactory answer has yet been given ; but the diffi
culties are immensely greater on the assumption of the
other view of the subject : there are still more intricate
questions to be answered, and graver objections to be
solved ; and in particular the whole series of external
testimonies in favour of John's Gospel must be ex
plained away and set aside, and all those internal
proofs and evidences which lead up to the recognition of
the authorship of the beloved disciple must be ignored.
Indeed, Olshausen hardly overstates the fact when he
says, " The Gospel of John possesses stronger testi
mony with respect to its genuineness than perhaps any
other writing in the New Testament, or, we may say, of
the whole of antiquity." x " We may boldly declare,"
observes Ebrard, " that, excepting a few of Paul's.
Epistles, no book of all antiquity, either in Christian or
heathen literature, can show such numerous and sure
proofs of its authenticity as the Gospel of John." 2
1 Olshausen On the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 171 (T. & T. Clark's translation);
a Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte, translation, p. 598.

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 149

III. — Design and Contents.
Some suppose that the Fourth Gospel was designed
to be a historical supplement, written for the purpose
of recording some remarkable incidents in the life of
our Lord, and some important discourses not mentioned
in the other Gospels ; and especially of giving greater
prominence to the spiritual character of our Lord's life
and teaching. The Fathers inform us that this was
the purpose which John had in view. Thus Clemens
Alexandrinus says, " John, perceiving that what had
reference to the body (that is, the outward events) was
clearly set forth in the other Gospels, and being en
couraged by his familiar friends, and urged by the Spirit,
composed a spiritual Gospel."1 And Eusebius remarks,
" The three Gospels previously written having come into
general circulation, and also having been handed to him
(John), they say that he admitted them, giving his
testimony to their truth ; but alleging that there was
wanting in the narration the account of the things done
by Christ at the commencement of His ministry. And
this was the truth ; for it is evident that the other
three Evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for
the year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist,
and intimated this in the very beginning of their his
tory. . . . For these reasons the Apostle John, it is
said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account
of the time not recorded by the other three Evange
lists, and the deeds done by our Saviour during this
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vi. 14.

iSo THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
period, namely, the events which occurred before the
imprisonment of the Baptist, and this fact is intimated
by him when he says, ' This beginning of miracles
did Jesus.' " J And Jerome expresses himself in similar
terms. " Another reason of John's writing is also
mentioned,' which is, that after reading the Gospels
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his appro
bation of their history, and corroborated their narra
tives, but observed that they had recorded an account
of but one year of our Lord's ministry, namely, that
following the imprisonment of John the Baptist, in
which year He also suffered. Omitting, therefore, that
year, the history of which had been written by the
other three, he related the acts of the preceding time
before John (the Baptist) was shut up in prison, as
may appear to those who read the works of the four
Evangelists with care ; which may serve to account
for the seeming difference between John and the rest." 2
And this is undoubtedly to a considerable extent true.
If John wrote his Gospel late in the apostolic age, '
there is nothing improbable in the supposition that
he had seen the other Gospels before he wrote his
own. If this be questioned, it is at least certain that
John must have been thoroughly acquainted with
the oral or written Gospel (the Logia), which was in
circulation among the early Christians, and which,, as
is now generally admitted, lay at the basis of the
Synoptics. There is, as we already have had occasion
to observe, in the Fourth Gospel abundant evidence,
not only that the author himself was acquainted with
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 24. 2 Catalog. Scriptor. Eccles., c. 9.

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 151
the incidents narrated in the Synoptics, but that he
takes for granted a similar acquaintance on the part
of his readers.1 This previous acquaintance is the only
reason, by which we can account for the omission and
insertion of important facts not recorded in the other
Gospels. Until we come to the history of the last
sufferings, with the exception of the miraculous feed
ing of the multitude and our Lord's walking on the
sea, there is little in common between John and the
Synoptists. And even the narratives of the Passion
and the Resurrection are very different ; facts are men
tioned by John which are omitted by the other Evan
gelists, and conversely. "As I think," observes Pro
fessor Salmon, "that mere accident will not account
for the likeness to each other of the Synoptic Gospels,
so also do I think that mere accident will not account
for the unlikeness of St. John's to the others. If he
had written an account of our Saviour's life without
any knowledge that other accounts had been written,
it is incredible that he could have so successfully
avoided telling what is related in these accounts. The
true explanation, I am persuaded, is that which has
commonly been given, namely, that this Evangelist,
knowing what accounts Christians already had in their
hands, wrote his Gospel with the intention of supple
menting these previous accounts." 2 But although,
without doubt, John designed his Gospel to be a his
torical supplement, and this influenced him in his
omissions and insertions, yet this was not his primary
1 See ante, p. 134 f.
2 Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 352, 353.

i52 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
design : his Gospel was not a mere record of previously
unrecorded facts and discourses, however important
that might be, but these were given with a design
and purpose which were peculiarly his own.1
Others suppose that John's Gospel was a polemical
treatise, written with a view to confute certain heretical
tendencies then prevalent in the Church. This view is
also mentioned by the Fathers. Thus Irenaeus observes:
"John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith,
and seeks, by the proclamation of his Gospel, to remove
that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated
among men, and previously by those termed Nicolai-
tanes, which are an offshoot of that knowledge falsely
so called, that he might confound them and persuade
them that there is but one God, who made all things
by His Word."2 And Jerome expresses himself in
similar terms, substituting the Ebionites for the Nico-
laitanes : "As John was in Asia, and the seed sown
by heretics, as Cerinthus, Ebion, and others, who denied
that Christ is come in the flesh, was already sprouting,
he, at the solicitation of the brethren, wrote his Gospel."3
Various heretical sects have been named. Erasmus
and Hengstenberg suppose that John wrote against
Cerinthus ; De Wette agrees with Jerome in thinking
that the Ebionites are specially adverted to ; Ebrard
thinks that John had the Docetse in view ; and Grotius
aud Ewald, the Sabeans, or the disciples of John the
Baptist. And this design must also be recognised. It
1 This opinion, that the Gospel was a historical supplement, is adopted
by Hug, Michaelis, Ebrard, Ewald, Beyschlag, and among English critics
by Westcott and Salmon.
2 Adv. Her., iii. n, i. 3 ])e y^ juust ix.

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 153
is evident that the opening words of the Gospel have
a polemic design, and refer to certain errors which were
then disseminated in the Church. At the time when
John wrote, the Gnostic heresies had arisen. Reference
is made to them in the Epistle to the Colossians and in
the Pastoral Epistles ; but since that time, during a
space of twenty years, Gnosticism- had been developed,
and seriously endangered the purity of the Church.
The views of the early Gnostics chiefly consisted in
denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Cerin
thus, for example, a contemporary of John, taught that
the aeon Christ descended on Jesus at His baptism and
left Him before His crucifixion. They also denied the
divinity of our Lord, and thought that Jesus was a
mere man, the son of Mary and Joseph. It was
undoubtedly against these Gnostic heretics that John
wrote his Epistle ; and the Gospel also refers to them.
Against the denial of the true divinity of Christ, the
Gospel lays the utmost stress on His pre-existence and
divine consciousness ; and against the denial of His
true humanity it emphasises His human sympathy and
sufferings. But it is evident that this was not the
primary design of the Gospel ; the polemical element
in it is very small, and hardly discernible ; whilst it.
attacked error, it disclosed and established the truth.1
Others suppose that the Fourth Gospel was designed
to be a dogmatic and apologetic discourse, written to
teach a certain system of doctrine. John was known
in the early Church by the title OeoXoyog. We need not
1 The polemical design of the Gospel is held by Hug, Michaelis, Ebrard,
Hengstenberg, Lange, and Alford.

iS4 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
here allude to the tendency-theory of the Tubingen
school, as this is now generally relinquished. Liicke
supposes that John's design was to inculcate the true
Gnosis as a counterpoise to the false knowledge of the
Gnostics. Reuss especially insists upon the dogmatic
character of the Fourth Gospel. He asserts that the
term Gospel cannot be applied to it in the same sense
as to the other three ; that it is rather a theological
treatise than a history ; and he considers the aim of the
author to be to promulgate a " theology founded on the
idea of our Saviour's divinity." " It is," he observes,
" in the highest degree important for the just under
standing and estimation of this book that the reader
should bear in mind before all things its essentially
dogmatic character. It does not give a history of Jesus
and His teachings after the manner of the other Gospels,
but it contains, in historical form, an exposition of the
Christian faith, in so far as its central point is the
Person of Christ." 1 There is considerable truth also in
this view of the subject. The exalted nature of Christ,
His divinity, and eternal Sonship are the prominent
subjects of this Gospel. But we must not so greatly
emphasise its dogmatic nature as to overlook its historic
character. This Gospel, equally as the other three,
contains a history of Jesus Christ ; indeed, the life of
Christ is here treated with greater exactness, and the
succession of events can be more distinctly traced, than
in the Synoptics. From the mention in it of the various
1 Geschichte des heil. Schriften N. T, p. 210 ; translation, p. 219. The
view of Baur is similar. He considers the whole historical statement but
a development of the prologue ; and observes that the Fourth Gospel
resembles rather the drama of a poet than the work of a historian.

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 155
Jewish festivals, we can almost trace the life of our
Lord chronologically from His baptism to His cruci
fixion, and can mark the development of the hatred of
the Jewish rulers from its first beginnings until it termi
nated in the catastrophe of the death of Christ.1
The immediate design and occasion of the Gospel is
thus stated by John himself : " Many other signs truly
did Jesus in the presence of the disciples which are not
written in this book; but these are written that ye
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;
and that believing, ye may have life in His name"
(John xx. 30, 31 ; see also xix. 35). Whilst the other
Gospels contain a record of the life of Christ for the
information of the Church, the Fourth Gospel is essen
tially an historical writing composed with an evan
gelical purpose. This purpose, as here stated, was two
fold. The first was to establish Christians in the faith
of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. So far Reuss
is perfectly correct in asserting that one chief design of
the Fourth Gospel was to bring into prominence the
divinity of Christ. Hence this Gospel regards Jesus
chiefly as the Son of God. It commences by announcing
His divinity, that He is the incarnate Divine Word, and
this idea pervades the whole Gospel. The works and
the discourses of Jesus are those of the Incarnate Word ;
His very sufferings are no proof of weakness, but the
voluntary sufferings of the Son of God, who had power
over His own life.2 There are intimations in the Gospel
that it was written after errors had arisen concerning the
1 See Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 323, 324.
2 See on this point Meyer's Commentary on John, pp. 42-50, translation.

156 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
person of Christ, and hence the subordinate polemical
design was to correct these errors. John reveals the true
Gnosis, the self-revelation of Christ as the Son of God.
" This is life eternal, that they should know Thee, the
only true God, and Him whom Thou didst send, even
Jesus Christ" (John xvii. 3). The second purpose was,
that believing in Christ as the Son of God, they might
have life through His name. Hence the doctrine of
Christ as the life of the world and of our union with
Him ; that it is out of His fulness that we receive grace
for grace ; that we live only because He lives in us ; that
as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it abide
in the vine, no more can we, except we abide in
Christ (John i. 16; xiv. 19; xv. 4).
The Gospel of John and the Synoptics are biographies
of Christ. There are points of resemblance and points
of difference between them. It is the same Christ who.
is portrayed, but the portrait is viewed in different
lights. In John's Gospel we see into His inner nature —
the heart of Jesus is disclosed ; it has been well deno
minated by the Fathers " the spiritual Gospel ; " x in
the Synoptics we read chiefly of the external life of
Jesus — His intercourse with men and His discourses to
the multitude. In John's Gospel we see Jesus in retire
ment, pouring out the fulness of His love on His dis
ciples ; in the Synoptics we see Jesus in the world,
living a sinless life. We must also remember that both
in the Fourth Gospel and in the Synoptics we have
recorded only a very small portion of the actions and
discourses of Christ ; there are many other works which
1 mievp.aTi.Kbv elayye\iov.

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 157
Jesus did, and many other discourses which He uttered,
which are not recorded ; at best we have only a selec
tion. We are distinctly informed that John's Gospel is
fragmentary. Many other signs truly did Jesus in the
presence of the disciples which are not written in this
book (John xx. 30; see also xxi. 25). And that the
Synoptic Gospels are equally fragmentary is evident
from the nature of the records, from manifold intima
tions in the Gospels themselves, and from the fulness of
such a life as that of Christ. All His words and actions
must have been of high significance.
The Evangelists, in writing the life of Christ, must
have made a selection of His words and actions from a
great abundance ; they must have drawn from an almost
inexhaustible treasure. We do not know the principles
on which the Synoptists made their selection ; they
drew from an original and oral Gospel, or, as many
critics suppose, a written Gospel (the Logia), to which
they added some special incidents that came under their
own cognisance.1 Luke appears to have had several
records of the life of Christ before him in the composi
tion of his Gospel. John, however, wrote with a pur
pose, and therefore would choose those incidents and dis
courses which were best fitted for the accomplishment
of the design he had in view, namely, to lead men to
believe that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God, and to
enable them to derive spiritual and eternal life through
their faith in Him.
As to the sources of John's Gospel, it is evident that
1 Enormous labour has recently been expended in Germany on the origin
of the Synoptic Gospels. It is beyond the nature of this work to discuss
this subject.

158 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
he was not indebted to any previous records of the life
of Christ. He, in all probability, saw the other three
Gospels, but, so far from deriving his information from
them, he appears carefully to have avoided recording the
incidents and discourses contained in them. " The chief
source of his information was his own experience ; his
Gospel professes to be th e record of an eye-witness. What
he affirms in his Epistle is peculiarly applicable to his
Gospel. " That which we have heard, that which we have
seen with our eyes, that which, we beheld and our hands
handled concerning the Word of life ; that which we
have seen and heard declare we unto you " (John i. i, 3).
The words and actions of Christ made an indelible im
pression on his mind, were vividly preserved in his
memory, and wrere faithfully recorded. If there are
in his Gospel any events of which he was not an eye
witness, and any discourses of which he was not an
ear-witness, his intimate intercourse with the Lord,
and his connection with his fellow-Apostles, fully
account for his knowledge of them ; but, from a
perusal of the Gospel, it will be found that these
events and discourses must have been few in number.
In all probability he was a listener to the conversation
between Jesus and Nicodemus, and to His discourse with
the woman of Samaria.
The Gospel admits of the following divisions : — The
Prologue, chap. i. 1-18; three main divisions, the first,
extending from chaps, i. 1 8-xii. 50 ; the second, from
chaps, xiii. -xvii. ; and the third, from chaps, xviii. -xx. ;
and the Epilogue, chap. xxi. The Prologue contains
a general statement of the subject of the Gospel, that

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 159
Jesus is the Incarnate Word, the Christ, the Son of
God, and that He is the Life and Light of the world.
The first main division contains a record of His public
ministry, the testimonies which were borne to Him,
and His rejection by the Jews ; the second main divi
sion contains the farewell discourse of Christ to His
disciples ; and the third main division the record of
His sufferings, death, and resurrection. The Epilogue
or appendix appears to have been written for a special
purpose, to record a remarkable appearance of Christ
in Galilee after His resurrection, and to correct an
error which had gone abroad that the author of the
Gospel should not die. The whole Gospel must be
viewed as written with the special design to lead to
the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God or
the Incarnate Divine Word.
A table of the contents of the Gospel, more or less full,
is given in the various commentaries.1 It is not neces
sary to give a minute analysis ; let the following suffice : —
The Prologue ; the incarnation of the Logos, i. 1-18.
I. The revelation and ministry of the Son of God to the world.
a. Testimonies borne to Christ: by the Baptist, i. 19-34; by
the disciples, i. 35-51 ; by His miracles, 1-11.
I. The ministry of Christ: in Judsea, ii. 13— iii. 36; in
Samaria, iv. 1-42 ; in Galilee, iv. 43-54.
c. Christ's self-revelation as Son of God : in Jerusalem, v. ; in
Galilee, vi.
1 See especially Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i., Prolegomena, pp. 71,
72 ; Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 258-260 ; Lange's
Commentary on John, pp. 41-46, American translation ; Godet's Commen
tary on John, vol. i. pp. 67-83, English translation ; Reynold's Commen
tary on John in Pulpit Commentary, Introduction, pp. 1 54-1 59. Weiss gives
a reference to Francke, Stud. a. Erit, 1884, as containing an excellent sum
mary of the different views as to the Evangelist's principle of arrangement.

160 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
d. Christ's ministry in Jerusalem : at the feast of Tabernacles,
vii.-x. ; at the feast of Dedication, ix., x.
e. Christ's glorification as Son of God in the resurrection of
Lazarus, xi.
/. Close of Christ's public ministry, xii.
II. The revelation and ministry of the Son of God to His
disciples. a. The last discourses of Christ to His disciples, xiii. -xvi.
b. The sacerdotal prayer, xvu.
III. The revelation of the Son of God in His sufferings and
resurrection. a. The last sufferings of Christ, xviii., xix.
b. The resurrection, xx.
The Epilogue.
a. The appearance of the risen Lord at the Sea of Tiberias,
xxi. 1-14.
b. The Lord and His two disciples Peter and John, xxi. 15-25.

IV. — Time and Place op Writing.
It is generally admitted that the Gospel of John was
the last of the four Gospels. We have the uniform testi
mony of the Fathers to this effect. Irenseus, Clemens
Alexandrinus, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius all assert
that John wrote his Gospel after the other three. Some
suppose that the Gospel was written shortly before the
destruction of Jerusalem.1 The reason of this opinion
is because John says, " Now there is (lim) at Jerusalem,
by the sheep gate, a pool which is called in Hebrew
Bethesda, having five porches {irevTe o-too.? e^ovo-a) " (John
v. 2). It is argued that after the destruction of Jeru
salem, although the pool might continue, yet the five
1 Lardner, Lange, Moses Stuart, &c. Michaelis wavers.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 161
porches would have been destroyed. But this state
ment of John by no means warrants this conclusion ;
for, on the one hand, there is no ground to suppose
that the destruction of Jerusalem was so complete, that
all memorials of the past were swept away — the five
porches may have remained standing; and, on the
other hand, the statement may merely mean that, at
the time when the cure of the impotent man was
effected, the pool of Bethesda, with its five porches, was
there. There are in the Gospel itself internal marks of
a late age. Christianity was diffused, heretical notions
concerning the Person of Christ had arisen, and the
doctrines, concerning Christ had begun to take a defi
nite shape. Others assert that John must have been
some time in Ephesus, in order to have acquired his inti
mate acquaintance with the Greek language. Supposing
the Gospel to have been written from Ephesus, it could
not have been written before a.d. 66 or a.d. 67, for, as
we have seen, before that period John had not arrived at
Ephesus. John survived until a.d. 98 ; but we do not
think that the writing of the Gospel was deferred until
he was in extreme old age. The particular date of com
position is wholly uncertain ; we agree with Alford in
fixing it between a.d. 70 and A.D. 85. -1
According to the general testimony of the early
Church, the Gospel was written at Ephesus, the capital
of Proconsular Asia. Thus Irenaeus says, " John, the
disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His
breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence
1 AlfoTd's Greek Testament, vol. i., Prolegomena, p. 65. Lardner fixes on
a.d. 67 ; Michaelis, a.d. 70 ; Credner and Godet, the close of the first cen
tury ; Meyer, A.D. 80. L

i62 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
at Ephesus in Asia ;"1 a statement which is repeated
by Eusebius in his history.2 We have already seen,
from incidental notices in the Gospel, that it was
written at a distance from Jerusalem ; 3 the Hebrew
words had to be translated into Greek for the informa
tion of the readers. Hug and others, after Theophylact,
suppose that the Gospel, along with the Apocalypse,
was written at Patmos ; and others think that John
dictated his Gospel at Patmos, and published it in
Ephesus. But this opinion rests on no foundation, and
is a mere unwarranted inference drawn from the words
of the Apocalypse. There is no ground to call in
question the general opinion that the place of composi
tion was Ephesus. V. — Its Integrity.
There are two passages in the Gospel which require
consideration, as their genuineness has been questioned.
The first passage is the narrative of the woman taken
in adultery (John vii. 53— viii. 11). In the Revised
Version this passage is bracketed with the marginal note,
" Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53— viii.
1 1. Those which contain it vary very much from each
other." The earliest mention of it is in the " Apostolic
Constitutions," written about the third century : " And
when the elders had set another woman which had sinned
before Him, and had left the sentence to Him and were
gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of hearts, inquiring of
her whether the elders had condemned her, and being
1 Adv. Her., iii. i, i. 2 Hist. Eccl, v. 8. 8 See ante, p. 120.

ITS INTEGRITY. 163
answered ' No,' He said to her, ' Go thy way there
fore, for neither do I condemn thee.' " x The section is
found in 300 manuscripts, among which are the im
portant uncial manuscripts D. F. G. H. K. ; in some
iuferior manuscripts of the old Latin, in the Vulgate,
the Ethiopic, and the Jerusalem "Syriac ; and it is
quoted by Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome. Jerome
observes : " In the Gospel according to John, many
manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, contain an account
of an adulterous woman." On the other hand, it is
omitted in the best manuscripts, in N and B. A. and
C. also, though here defective, must originally have
wanted it, as there is no room in the missing leaves
for the section. It is marked with an asterisk in E.
and M. It is not contained in the best manuscripts
of the old Latin,2 nor in the Peshito and the Philoxenian
Syriac. It is quoted by none of the Fathers before
the end of the fourth century ; though Tertullian, if
he had known of its existence, would naturally have
referred to it in his work De Pudicitia. Besides, there
are numerous (at least sixty) variations in the readings
of those manuscripts which have it, and some of them
of importance. It is also inserted in different places ;
in ten manuscripts it is placed at the end of John's
Gospel, and in four others after Luke xxi, 38. And
as the external evidence is against its reception, the
internal evidence is also, on the whole, unfavourable.
It is fully admitted that there is nothing in the passage
at variance with the spirit of, Christ, and the graphic
1 Apost. Constit., ii. c. 24.
2 Codd. Vercellensis, Brixianus, &c.

164 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
nature of the description is in favour of its truth. But
it has been clearly shown that the language and style
and diction of the paragraph are not those of John,
and that it must have proceeded from a different
writer.1 Besides, the context is against it. Its inser
tion disturbs the connection of the narrative, wThereas
its omission preserves it. It is awkwardly introduced
by the words, " And they went every man unto his own
house." The reason which its advocates assign for its
omission is that given by Augustine : " Some of little
faith, or rather enemies to the true faith, I suppose
from a fear lest their wives should gain impurity in
sin, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of
indulgence to the adulteress." But such a reason
would operate to a very limited extent. From this
examination of the external and internal evidences,
we arrive at the conclusion that the passage does not
belong to the Gospel of John ; whether it may contain
a true incident in the life of our Lord is another ques
tion. In all probability, it was first attached to the
margin as a note, and afterwards was inserted in the
text. Alford thinks that the Evangelist may have, in
this solitary case, incorporated a portion of the current
oral tradition into his narrative, and that this portion
may have been afterwards variously corrected from the
Gospel of the Hebrews or other traditional sources.
Some suppose that it was taken from this apocryphal
Gospel of the Hebrews, because Eusebius observes
that Papias gives a history of a woman who had been
1 See Credner's Einleitung in das N. T., pp. 230-232 ; Davidson's Intro
duction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 430, 2nd edit.

ITS INTEGRITY. 165
accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained
in the Gospel according to the Hebrews ; x but there
is no reason to assume the identity of this woman with
the woman taken in adultery. The passage is ex
punged by Tischendorf, Lachmann, and Tregelles, and
by Westcott and Hort in their critical editions, and is
rejected by the great majority of Biblical writers.2
The other passage, whose genuineness is questioned,
is the epilogue or appendix. The Gospel apparently
ends at the close of the twentieth chapter (John xx. 30,
31). The twenty-first chapter comes in unexpectedly,
and must be regarded as an appendix. Accordingly
many have called in question its genuineness, and sup
pose that it was a supplement of the Ephesian Church,
composed after the death of the Apostle. But here,
in contrast to the former passage, all the external and
internal evidences are in its favour. It is contained in
all the manuscripts and versions of the New Testament,
with little variation in their readings. The style and
diction is that of the Apostle John. The graphic de
scription which is given bears the marks of an eye
witness. The writer gives a complete account, writh all
minute details — the disciples fishing at night without
success, the names of those disciples, Jesus hardly dis
cerned by the dim light of the dawn, the insight of
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 20.
2 The passage is accepted by Hug, Michaelis, Bengel, Wieseler, Stier
and Ebrard, and rejected by Grotius, Credner, Olshausen, Liicke, Bleek, De
Wette, Ewald, Tholuck, Meyer, Luthardt, Godet, Alford, and Westcott.
For a full discussion of the passage see Davidson's Introduction to the Study
of the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 427-430, 2nd edit. ; Westcott and Hort's
Greek New Testament, Notes on Select Readings, pp. 82-88 ; and Scri
vener's Introduction to Criticism of New Testament, p. 439 ff.

1 66 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
John, the impetuosity of Peter, the distance of the boat
from the land, the precise number of the fish caught,
the fire of coals and the meal partaken, Peter called
upon to follow Christ, and John following Him un
bidden — all these circumstances impart a naturalness
to the narrative which gives it the impress of truth.
Critics differ concerning the genuineness of this passage,
but it is accepted by the majority of those belonging
to the positive school.1 On the other hand, the two
last verses (verses 24, 25) were probably added to the
appendix as the attestation of the Ephesian Church to
the genuineness of the Gospel, perhaps after the death
of John.2
Various reasons have been assigned for the insertion
of this appendix. Baur supposes that its purpose was
to exalt John above Peter ; whereas Volkmar and Reuss
think that it was to re-establish the authority of Peter
after his denial. Bleek and Meyer suppose that it was
to refute the false report that John would never die.
Lange and Schaff, that as an epilogue it is inserted as
the counterpart of the prologue. Godet thinks that its
design was to assert the confirmation of the Lord's call
of the Apostles to preach the Gospel. Its object appears
to be threefold — to record the remarkable miracle at
the Sea of Galilee after the resurrection ; to emphasise
the restoration of Peter, after his denial, to the Apostle
ship; and to refute the erroneous notion. then prevalent
in the Church of Ephesus that John would not die.
1 The passage is rejected by Grotius, Liicke, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald,
and B. Weiss, and is accepted by Tholuck, Guericke, Lange, Alford, Meyer,,
Luthardt, Godet, and Westcott.
2 So Tholuck, Luthardt, and Godet.

DISSERTATION I.
THE LOGOS.
Liteeatuee. — The literature on the Logos of John and its relation
to that of Philo is very extensive. It is treated more or less fully
in all the commentaries on the Gospel of John by Liicke, Luthardt,
Meyer, and Godet. See especially Westcott's Introduction to his
Commentary on John, and Eeynolds in Pulpit Commentary : John's
Gospel, Introduction, p. 47 ff. The following are the principal
works or monographs which treat of the subject : — Burton's Bampton
Lectures; Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 62-66; Bigg's Bampton
Lectures, pp. 7-26 ; the article on the Logos by Professor Salmon in
the Encyclopcedia Britannica ; the article on Philo by Edersheim in
Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography ; Dorner's Entwicklungs-
geschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, vol. i. p. 22 ff., Eng.
trans., vol.- i. p. 19 ff. ; Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria; Ewald's
Geschichte des VoUces Israel, vol. vi. zweite Ausgabe (1858), p. 231 ff.,
Eng. trans., vol. vii. p. 195 ff . ; Schiirer's Jewish People in the
Time of Christ, part ii., translation, vol. iii. pp. 321-381; Drum-
mond's Philo Judosus; Eeville, La Doctrine du Logos dans le
quatrihne Evangele et dans les QHuvres de Philon ; Jowett's St. Paul's
Epistles, vol. i. pp. 363-417, St. Paul and Philo; Farrar's Life of
Christ, vol. i. chap, xiii., Philo and the Doctrine of the Logos;
Cremer's Biblical-Theological Lexicon, article Xo'/os; Weiss, Der
johannische Lehrbegriff; Mozley, The Word; Mangey, Philonis
Judcei Opera Omnia.
The doctrine of the Logos as enunciated by John has
given risen to much speculation and gathered round it
a large amount of literature. It has been one of the
objections to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel
that the fisherman of Galilee is thereby transformed into
167

168 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
a Christian Platonist. We have already considered
this objection as it refers to the philosophical character
of the Fourth Gospel generally, and we have now to
refer to it particularly in regard to the doctrine of the
Logos. The term Logos, or, as it is translated in our versions,
the Word, as applied to the Person of the Lord Jesus
Christ, is peculiar to John ; it is found in all the several
writings ascribed to him, and occurs in all six times1
— four times in the Gospel, once in the First Epistle,
and once in the Apocalypse. In the prologue to the
Gospel we have the following statements : " In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh
and dwelt among us" (John i. i, 14). In the intro
duction to the Epistle we read : " That which was from
the beginning, that which we have heard, that which
we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld and
our hands handled concerning the Word of Life" (1
John i. 1). And in the Apocalypse, in the description
of our Lord as a mighty conqueror, it is said : " And
He is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood ; and
His name is called the Word of God" (Rev. xix. 13).
In none of the other writings of the New Testament
is the Word so personified as to denote the Lord Jesus
Christ. The nearest approach to this usage is in two
passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In one it
is said, "For the Word of God (0 \oyo? rov 6eov) is
living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of
1 1 John v. 7, is now acknowledged by all scholars to be spurious.

THE LOGOS. 169
both joints and marrow, and quick to discern tho
thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. iv. 12). Here
certainly there is a vivid personification of the Word
of God ; but it is evident from the context that the
reference is to the convincing and quickening power of
the Gospel, and not to Jesus Christ. Again we read :
"By faith we understand that the worlds have been
framed by the Word of God" (jrf/MLTi, 8eov) (Heb. xi. 3).
But here the term employed is not Logos, and the
reference is evidently to the creation or formation of
the world by the simple command of God ; He spoke
the word, and the world came into existence. So also
in the Second Epistle of Peter we read, " For this they
wilfully forget that there were heavens from of old and
an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by
the Word of God" (to) tov Oeov Xoyw) (2 Pet. iii. 5).
Here also the reference is not to Jesus Christ, but to
the creative energy of God's word.
The term Logos is in the Greek susceptible of two
distinct meanings — the Reason (Xo'<yo? IvSiddeTos : ratio),
and the Word (\dyos Trpoabopucos : oratio). The one is
subjective, the other objective ; the one is the innate
principle, and the other its outward expression.1 Whilst
by the Greek philosophers Logos is used to denote the
Reason, it is only in the latter sense, as the Word, that
the term is employed in John's writings. " The Logos,"
remarks Liicke, " is never used either by John or by
any other Biblical author of the reason or understanding
of God, or even of man." That the Logos of John is
1 Liddell and Scott express the distinction very clearly : " (a) the power
of the mind which is manifested in speech (ratio) ; and (b) the word or
outward form by which the inward thought is expressed (oratio)."

170 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
not to be understood of the divine attribute of Reason,
but of a manifestation of the Divine Being, is evident
from the fact that the Evangelist identifies the opera
tions of the Logos with those ascribed in Genesis to
the spoken word of God.1 The term 6 \dyo<s must not
be explained as equivalent to 6 \eycov, " He who
speaks," the revealer of the Word ; 2 it denotes not the
speaker, but what is spoken. Nor must it be con
sidered as the same with 6 Xeydfievos, " He who is
spoken of," the Promised One ; s for this is contrary to
the usage of the term. Nor does 6 \6yos denote the
preached word, of which Jesus Christ is the theme or
subject-matter ; * for the Logos is identified with Christ
Himself. Nor is the term used merely to denote the
Lord Jesus Christ as the author of the Word ; but He
is the Word, because He is the manifestation of God,
the source and origin of all the means by which God
reveals Himself to His creatures ; in short, the medium
of communication between God and the world.5
In the prologue John states first the pre-existence, or
rather the eternal existence of the Word : iv dpxji r\v o
"Kdyos. It is admitted that the phrase iv dpyrj may only
denote " in the beginning of creation," as the reference
is to the creation of the world as recorded in Genesis,
equivalent to w'^ra ; and hence may denote only the
pre-existence of Christ ; a dogma which is affirmed
1 Compare John i. 1-3 with Gen. i. 1-3.
2 Schleussner, Storr.
3 Beza, Ernesti, Tittmann.
4 Hofmann's Schriftbeweis, vol. i. pp. 101 ff. Similarly, Luthardt remarks
that Jesus Christ is the fulness of that Word of God which was frag-
mentally manifested in the Prophets.
6 See Meyer's Commentary on John, vol. i. p. 60 (Eng. trans.).

THE LOGOS. 171
throughout this Gospel (John iii. 13; vi. 62 ; viii. 58;
xvii. 5). But the verb vv denotes that the Word did
not then commence to exist, but was anterior to time,
as in the personification of Wisdom, iv ap-^ 7rpb rov rhv
yrjv iroirio-ai (Prov. viii. 23, LXX.), and in our Lord's
own words, irpb rov rbv Koo-fxov etvai (John xvii. 5) ; and
hence by implication is eternal. But the Word had not
pnly an existence before time, but existed as a distinct
personality of the Godhead : kou 6 Ao'70? nv -Kpbs rbv Qeov
— existed in relation to or in communion with God
(717)0?), and hence was a Personality as distinguished from
God. And this Word that was with God was God ;
Kai. Oebs yv 6 Xo'70?. ©eo'? here must be used adjectively,
denoting the divinity or divine nature of the Word ;
and there is no doubt that the distinct and unhesitating
assertion of the divinity of Christ, His eternal Sonship,
constituted the distinguishing feature in the teaching of
the Fourth Gospel. These three statements — the eternal
existence, the distinct personality, and the divinity of
the Word — are summed up in the verse which follows :
" The same (the Word who was God) was in the begin
ning with God." To this Word the creation of the world
is ascribed : positively, " all things were made by Him ; "
and negatively, " and without Him was not anything
made that hath been made." This, however, is not to
the exclusion of the Almighty Father of all, as if there
was any antagonism between God and the world ; but the
Word was the instrument (oY avrov) by which; God made
the world (irdvra iyivero). He is the medium of com
munication between God and His creatures. The Word
also is the source of all life, both natural and spiritual :

172 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
" In Him was life, and the life was the light of men "
(John i. 4). But the climax is reached by the incarna
tion of the Word: "And the Word became flesh1 and
dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as
of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and
truth " (John i. 1 4). According to these statements in
the prologue to the Fourth Gospel, the Lord Jesus Christ
is the incarnation of the Word of God ; He possesses
two distinct natures, the human and the divine ; He
existed from all eternity with God ; He was the Creator
of the world ; and He came down to this earth by the
assumption of human nature.
But it is a legitimate question, Whence did John
derive this view of the Logos as the medium or mediator
between God and His creatures ? or at least, Whence
did he employ the term Logos as applicable to the
divine nature of Christ ? We derive here little light
from the philosophy of the Greeks. The use of the
term Logos, as a divine personality or relation, is not
very frequent among the Greek philosophers. Hera-
clitus was the first in Hellenic philosophy who promul
gated the doctrine of the Logos as the absolute reason.
It does not constitute a prominent feature in the philo
sophy of Plato. The equivalent term employed by him
is o-ocpia or vow. The Logos of Plato was nothing else
than the mind of God, the seat of the ideas, the eternal
prototypes of all things (ISeai) ; consequently the Logos
is God Himself, and not a distinct personality. Plato
never spoke of the Reason of God (6 Ao'-yo? rov Qeov) as
«
1 The term here used is a-6.pl;, not <ra>p.a. By a-dpg is meant the whole
human nature, soul and body ; by a-S>p.a is meant the body as distinguished
from the soul.

THE LOGOS. 173
a distinct person. With the Stoics, the Logos, as the
operative principle of the world, frequently occurs : He
is the anima mundi ; but at the same time, in accord
ance with their pantheistic notions, no personality is
ascribed to Him. The Logos of the Greeks is an
attribute of God or impersonal Reason, not the Word.1
But it is the philosophy of Philo which is most closely
related to the Johannine doctrine of the Logos ; indeed,
in the opinion of many theologians, the author of the
Fourth Gospel accommodates his theology to the philo
sophical views of Philo. Philo, surnamed Judaeus,
was a contemporary of our Lord, being born probably
twenty years before the Christian era, as he calls him
self an old man in the year that Caligula was murdered
(a.d. 40). He was a Jew by birth, and a native of
Alexandria, in which city the Jews were so numerous
that they constituted more than a fourth of the popula
tion. He belonged to au illustrious and aristocratic
family. " During the reign of this Emperor (Caligula),"
says Eusebius, "Philo became noted; a man distin
guished for his learning, not only among his country
men, the Jews, but also among foreigners. As to his
orioin, he was a descendant of the Hebrews, inferior to
none at Alexandria in point of family and birth." 2 His
brother, Alexander, was the Alabarch or political head
of the Jews of Alexandria,3 who were governed by
1 On the Logos of the Greeks, see Bigg's Bampton Lectures, p. 14 ; article
"Logos'' in Encyclopaedia Britannica; Burton's Bampton Lectures, pp.
213-223. ? Hist. Eccl, ii. 4,
3 This Alexander was a man of great wealth, and a generous and devout
Israelite. Josephus informs us that, he overlaid nine of the gates of the
Temple of Jerusalem with gold and silver.

174 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
their own laws, and possessed special privileges. It is
generally supposed that Tiberius Alexander, the pro
curator of Judsea in succession to Fadius, and after
wards appointed by Nero governor of Egypt, was his
nephew.1 Philo appears to have spent nearly his whole
life at Alexandria in the quiet and unobtrusive study
of philosophy. Although a strict Jew, yet he became
greatly enamoured with the philosophy of the Greeks.
He was a counterpart of Apollos before his conver
sion : "A Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man,
and mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts xviii. 24). When
the circumstances of the Jews became precarious, in con
sequence of the aggressive policy of Flaccus, the gover
nor of Egypt, Philo, in consequence of his learning,
eminence, and influence, was chosen chief of the embassy
of the Jews to lay their complaints before the Emperor
Caligula.2 Numerous works of Philo have survived the ravages
of time. They are of a high moral tendency, and are
chiefly an exposition of the sacred books of the Jews.
" The author," says Eusebius, " who was copious in
language, comprehensive in thought, sublime and ele
vated in his views of the Sacred Scriptures, has made
his exposition of the sacred books equally distinguished
for variety of matter and manner." 3 Eusebius gives us
a list of his books, most of which have come down to
us. His principal works, in accordance with Schiirer's
valuable arrangement of them, are : Three chief works
1 See Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography: Alexander
Tiberius. 2 Josephus, Ant., xviii. 8, 1 ; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, ii. 5.
3 Hist. Eccl, ii. 18.

THE LOGOS. 175
on the Pentateuch, namely — (1) Questions and Solu
tions ; (2) Allegorical Commentary on Genesis ; (3)
Delineation of the Mosaic Dispensation for non-Jews.
Besides these, Philo wrote the following separate com
positions : The Life of Moses ; Against Flaccus ; On the
Embassy to Caius ; and An Apology for the Jews.1
In his philosophy Philo was a Jewish Gnostic, that
is to say, he endeavoured to unite Judaism with
Greek philosophy. His favourite master was Plato,
whose works he made his chief study, and the spirit of
whose philosophy he imbibed ; hence the familiar say
ing, " Either Plato philonises or Philo platonises." His
system was eclectic, being composed of elements taken
from Platonism, Stoicism, and Judaism.2 He united
together the ideas of Plato, the powers of the Stoics,
and the angels of the Jews ; all these he harmonised in
his doctrine of the Logos. But whilst he was given to
the study of Greek philosophy, he was above all things
a Jew. He not only regarded the Jewish religion as
inspired by God, but he gave it the pre-eminence above
all the systems of heathen philosophy. He sought to
prove that Greek philosophy had its roots in the Jewish
religion, and that even Plato himself was a disciple of
Moses. In the Pentateuch all philosophy was con
tained. " Philo," observes Schaff, " who endeavoured
to harmonise the Mosaic religion with Platonism, de
rived his Logos view from the Salmonic and later

o

1 Schiirer, Jewish People before Clirist, Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 243 ff. The best
edition of the works of Philo is by Mangey, London, 1742.
2 There was also in his philosophy a mixture of Neo-Pythagorean doctrines.
Clemens Alexandrinus calls him a Pythagorean, and Eusebius says, " He
was a zealous follower of the sect of Piato and Pythagoras."

176 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Jewish doctrine of the personified Wisdom and Word of
God, and combined it with the Platonic idea of Nous.
The Logos is to him the embodiment of all divine
powers and ideas — the ayyeXoi of the Old Testament,
the Swdfjieis and "Seat of Plato." 1 He was a Gnostic
born out of due time — a Gnostic before the Gnostics.
In the philosophy of Philo, the Logos occupied a
prominent place. The Logos is the embodiment of the
ideas of Plato — the idea of the ideas (ISea rwv 'ISewv),
and of the powers of the Stoics. He is " the angel of
the Lord " of the Old Testament — the archangel (6
apxdyyeXos). In relation to God, he is the representative
of God to the world ; he is called the Son of God (6 vlbs
rov Beov), the First-begotten (irpwroyovos), the second
God (Sevrepos Qedg), the shadow of God (a-Kia Qeov). In
relation to man, he is the ideal or archetypal man (a/>Xe'~
rvTros 6 Kar iiKova avQpooTros), the man of God (6 avQpanrog
Qeov). In relation to the world, he is the Creator (oY ov
6 koo-/j.os Kareo-Kevao-Qr/), the instrument (opyavov) of all
creation. Many of these appellations bear a close and
striking resemblance to those used with reference to
Christ by Paul, John, and the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews.2 The reason of this introduction of the
idea of the Logos, and the stress laid upon it, is that
Philo, with most of the Greek philosophers, regarded
matter as inherently corrupt — a principle which was
also common to all the Gnostic heresies, so that there
could be no direct contact between God and the world ;
that there was a dualism of God and the world. Hence,
1 Schaff's Encyclopedia, vol. ii. p. 1335.
2 See Westcott's Introduction to his Commentary, Speaker's Bible, vol. ii.,
Introduction, p. 16; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 64a

THE LOGOS. 177
then, God could not be the immediate Creator of the
world ; there must be some intermediate being or beings
between God and matter, like the aeons of the Gnostics,
Before God created the world and all things contained
in it, there were spiritual types or ideas, according to the
fashion of which all things were made, and these types
or ideas were concentrated in the Logos. In all proba
bility Philo chose the term Logos, instead of Wisdom or
the Platonic term Nous, because this term was common
among the Jewish writers in his day to express either by
circumlocution God Himself, or sbme principle inter
mediate between God and matter. In all this there is
undoubtedly an approach to Scriptural truth — a fore
shadow of the doctrine of the Logos as promulgated by
John. But there are essential points of difference between the
Logos of John and the Logos of Philo, which demonstrate
that the Johannine doctrine of the Logos was not derived
from Philo, whatever may have been its derivation.
There are especially four distinct points of difference.
1. With Philo the idea of the Logos varies greatly;
there is an indefiniteness in the conception, but in general
it is impersonal, an attribute or quality of God ; whereas
with John there is no ambiguity ; the Logos is a distinct
hypostasis or personality. It is much disputed by Biblical
scholars whether the Logos of Philo is a person at all, or
a mere attribute or relation of God, like the Christ of
the Sabellians. Gfrorer, Dahne, and Liicke maintain •
that Philo's Logos is a distinct personality ; whilst the
opposite opinion is asserted by Burton, Dorner, Meyer,
and Liddon. But whatever opinion we adopt, it is cer-
M

178 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
tain that Philo gives a very uncertain sound. There are
indeed strong expressions of personality, but when these
are analysed, they fade away into mere personifications
or allegorical expressions. " I maintain," says Burton,
"that Philo, when speaking as a Jew or a Platonist
of the Reason of God, never imagined that it was a
person distinct from God. According to Philo, God and
the Reason of God were the same. He was God as to
his essence, but as to his attributes or operations he
was Reason or Mind." x "It cannot be proved," remarks
Dorner, " that the Logos is with Philo a special or dis
tinct essence or mediator between God and the world,
an hypostasis distinct as is God."2 So also Meyer
observes : " Philo's conception of the Logos resolves
itself into the sum-total and full exercise of the divine
energies ; so that God, so far as He reveals Himself, is
called Logos, while the Logos, so far as he reveals God,
is called God." 3 With Philo the Logos is a mere hazy
expression for the Reason of God: it represents the
Nous of Plato, not a hypostasis of the Godhead. On the
other hand, the Logos of John is a distinct personality :
He was with God, and was manifested to the world in
the person of Jesus Christ. Thus, especially in the
Apocalypse, in the description of our Lord as a mighty
Conqueror, the personality of the Logos is distinctly
asserted : " And He is arrayed in a garment sprinkled
with blood ; and His name is called the Logos of God "
(Rev. xix. 13). *
1 Burton's Bampton Lectures.
2 Dorner, Entwicklungsgesch. des Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 30, trans
lation, vol. i. pp. 22-30.
3 Meyer's Commentary on John, vol. i. p. 64, translation.

THE LOGOS. 179
2. There is no connection in Philo's philosophy
between the Logos and the Messiah. In all the works
of Philo there are but slight traces of the Messianic
idea.1 "Philo," observes Dorner, "did not participate
in the warm desires and hopes which filled the heart of
the believing Jew. The idea of the Messiah has become
to him a dead coal." The only trace of Messianic hopes
in his writings is that he looks forward to the restora
tion of the scattered Jews from all parts of the earth to
Palestine by a divine appearance, recognisable only to
the just. He does not, however, identify this divine
appearance (6\|<-t?) either with the Logos or with the
Messiah. But it is evident from the prologue of John
that the Logos is the Messiah : He who was in the be
ginning with God and was God, was manifested unto
the world in the person of Jesus Christ. The Being,
who is described in the beginning of the chapter, is the
same who is afterwards spoken of as the Christ or the
Messiah. "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, who is in the
bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him " (John i.
17, 18).
3. The incarnation of the Logos is opposed to the
philosophy of Philo, while it is the cardinal point with
John. On account of his view of the evil nature of
matter and the impossibility of God's contact with it,
Philo could have no idea of a divine incarnation ;
such an idea must be abhorrent to the whole system
1 There is here a remarkable difference between the later Jewish works
in the Hebrew language and those in the Greek language. In the former
the Messianic idea is prevalent, whereas in the latter it is almost wanting.

180 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
of his philosophy, as it was to the philosophy of the
Gnostics. Hence any incarnation could only be Docetic ;
there could be no reality, but only a form or appear
ance. But with John the incarnation of the Logos is
an essential principle. "The Logos became flesh and
dwelt among us."
4. With Philo the function of the Logos is the crea
tion of the world ; with John it is not only the creation,
but the redemption of the world. Philo certainly
frequently asserts that the Logos is the Creator, Pre
server, and Governor of the world ; and on this point
there is a remarkable correspondence between him and
the Evangelist. But here Philo stops ; he has in his
philosophy little idea of sin. His writings are in the
highest degree moral; he speaks of virtue throughout,
but the virtue, of which he speaks, is that which a man
may attain by philosophy — a high degree of intellectual
reedom. But he does not realise the fallen and corrupt
state of human nature, and hence the idea of redemp
tion, not from intellectual darkness, but from moral
evil, has no place in his philosophy. " Philo," observes
Liddon, "is everywhere too Uttle alive to the pre
sence and consequences of moral evil. The history of
Israel, instead of displaying a long, earnest struggle
between the goodness of God and the wickedness of
men, interests Philo only as a complex allegory, which,
by a versatile exposition, may be made to illustrate
various ontological problems. The priesthood and the
sacrificial system, instead of pointing to man's profound
need of pardon and expiation, are resolved by him into the
symbols of certain cosmical facts or theosophic theories.

THE LOGOS. 181
Philo, therefore, scarcely hints at the Messiah, although
he says much concerning the Jewish expectation of a
brighter future ; he knows no means of reconciliation,
of redemption; he sees not the need of them."1 With
John, on the contrary, the redemption of the world is
the chief function of the Logos. He came to save His
people from their sins. In the Logos of Philo we
have the Creator, but in the Logos of John we have
both the Creator and the Redeemer.
That John derived the term Logos from t>he philo
sophy of Philo and applied it to Christ as the true
Logos, as many scholars affirm, may possibly be the
case, though it is extremely doubtful; but certainly
he did not derive the doctrine of the Logos from
Philo ; it is perfectly distinct ; indeed, in many points,
antagonistic. " The idea," observes Harnack, " of the
relation of God and the world in the Fourth Gospel
is not Philonic ; therefore the Logos doctrine there, in
essential points, is not that of Philo." ' John's doctrine
of the Logos can only be referred either to the direct
teaching of Christ, when He was in this world, and
instructed His immediate disciples in the mysteries of
His kingdom, or to divine revelation, to some of those
"many things" (John xvi. 12) which, after our Lord's
ascension, the Spirit of truth was to reveal unto His
disciples. The germs of the Johannine doctrine of the Logos
are not to be found in Philonic philosophy, but in the
Old Testament ; the doctrine is much more Palestinian
1 Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 68, 69.
2 Dogmengeschichte, p. 79.

1 82 THE GOSPEL' OF ST. JOHN.
than Alexandrian. In the Old Testament the creation
of the world is attributed to the simple Word of God.
Thus in the narrative of creation God speaks, and
the effect follows. God said, " Let there be light, and
there was light ; " " Let there be a firmament, and
there was a firmament." And there is a generally
acknowledged reference in the words, " In the beginning
was the Word," to the first words in Genesis, "In
the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
" By the Word of God," says the Psalmist, " were the
heavens made " (Ps. xxxiii. 6. See also Ps. cvii. 20,
cxlvii. 15; Isa. Iv. 10, 11).
So also there are traces in the Old Testament of a
distinction of Persons in the Godhead, of a mediator or
medium of communication between God and His crea
tures. The revelations of God to the Jews were not
made directly by God; but by means of a mysterious
being called the Angel of the Lord, or the Jehovah
Angel (nilT ^D), who frequently appeared to the
Patriarchs and guided the Israelites in the wilderness,
who assumed to himself divine prerogatives, and was
called by divine names. Thus the Angel of the Lord
appeared to Hagar in the wilderness, when she fled from
her mistress,Sarah : " And she called the name of Jeho
vah that spake to her, Thou art a God that seeth"
(Gen. xvi. 13). The Angel of the Lord appeared to
Abraham, when he interceded with God for Sodom:
" And Abraham," we read, " stood yet before Jehovah "
(Gen. xviii. 22). The, Angel of the Lord interfered,-
when Abraham was about to offer his son in these
words : " Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing

THE LOGOS. 183
thou hast not withheld thy son, thy only son, from me "
(Gen. xxii. 12). The Angel of the Lord appeared to
Jacob when he was alarmed at the approach of Esau :
" And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel ; for
he said, I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved" (Gen. xxxii. 30). The Angel of the Lord
appeared to Moses in a flame of fire out of the
midst of the bush, and announced Himself to be the
God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. iii. 6).
The Angel of the Lord guided the Israelites in the wil
derness : " Behold I send an Angel before thee, to keep
thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which
I have prepared. Take ye heed of him and hearken to
his voice ; provoke him not, for he will not pardon your
transgression; for My name is in him"' (Exod. xxiii.
20, 21). The Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua as
the captain of the Lord's host, and demanded from him
the same reverence as he did from Moses at the burn
ing bush: "And Joshua fell on his face to the earth
and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my
Lord unto his servant ?" (Josh. v. 14). The Angel of the
Lord appeared to Manoah and his wife, and revealed
himself by the name of Wonderful : " And Manoah said
unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen
God" (Judges xiii. 22). In the prophecies of Zechariah
there is frequent mention of the Angel of the Lord : he
appears as the Lord's messenger assisting Joshua the
high priest in the great work of rebuilding the Temple,
and contending with Satan, the great enemy of God
and man. And in the prophecies of Malachi the Angel
of the Covenant is announced as the Lord who shall

i84 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
appear in His Temple : " Behold I will send My mes
senger, and he shall prepare the way before Me, and
the Lord whom you seek shall suddenly come to His
Temple, and the messenger of the covenant whom ye
delight in" (Mai. iii. i). There are various opinions
as to who is meant by the Angel of the Lord. Some 1
suppose that he is a created angel who uses the name
of God and speaks with His authority, just as an
ambassador represents his sovereign; others,2 that he
is not a person, but, like the Shekinah, the visible
symbol of the presence of God ; and others,3 that he is
the Son of God, the Divine Logos, who afterwards
appeared incarnate in the person of the Lord Jesus
Christ. But whatever opinion we may adopt, there are ,
in these theophanies traces of a medium of communi
cation, or of a mediator between God and man — a fore
shadowing of the Logos, who was with God and was
God.4 Divine Wisdom (HDDn) is also frequently personified
in the Old Testament, as if it were a divine personality
in the Godhead — the Logos of the Fourth Gospel. Thus
in the Book of Job, Wisdom is said to be undiscover-
able by men, to be understood only by God, to be the
Eternal Reason by which He foresaw the arrangements
of the wrorld (Job xxviii. 12-28). But especially in
1 Hofmann, Meyer, Dorner, Delitzsch, Pusey.
2 Rosenmiiller, De Wette.
3 Nitzseh, Lange, Stier, Hengstenberg, Pye Smith, Alford.
4 See, on "the Angel of the Lord," Hengstenberg's Christology, vol. i.
p. 107 IT., and vol. iv. p. 282 ff. ; Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony, vol. i.
pp. 296-331 ; Stanley Leathes' Witness of the Old Testament to Christ;
Liddon's Bampton Lectures, pp. 51-55; Gloag's Messianic Prophecies,^.
3Si-36i.

THE LOGOS. 185
the Book of Proverbs there is a striking personification
of Wisdom : " The Lord possessed me in the begin
ning of His way, before His works of old. I was set up
from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth
was.' .... When He established the heavens, I was
there : when He set a circle upon the face of the deep,
.... there I was by Him as a master-workman : and
I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him :
rejoicing in His habitable earth : and my delight was
with the sons of men" (Prov. viii. 22-31). Here
Wisdom is said to be eternal, to be always with God, to
have assisted Him in the creation of the world, to be
the object of God's eternal joy, and to take a loving
interest in the human race : in short, Wisdom is de
scribed in the Book of Proverbs as the Logos is
described by John. It may indeed be affirmed that all
this is a mere personification of Wisdom, just as charity
is personified by Paul ; but the personification is very
striking when viewed in its application to Jesus Christ,
who is the Wisdom of God (1 Cor. i. 24) ; and it would
appear that Christ applies this personification of Wis
dom to Himself, when He says, " Wisdom is justified of
all her children " (Luke vii. 35).
The same personification of Wisdom is met with in
the Apocryphal books which are of Jewish origin, and
were written before the advent of Christ ; o-o(pla is
the medium of communication between God and man,
and the instrument by which God works, and thus is
equivalent to the Xdyos of John. Thus, in the Book of
Ecclesiasticus or Sirach (b.c. 190-170), Wisdom is said
to have its eternal abode with God : " All wisdom cometh

1 86 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
from the Lord, and is with Him for ever. Wisdom
hath been created before all things, and the understand
ing of prudence from eternity. The Word of God
(6 \6yos rov Qeov) is the fountain of Wisdom " (Eccles.
i. i, 45). And in the Book of Wisdom, or the Wisdom
of Solomon (first century B.C.), Wisdom is said to sit
by the throne of God, to have been present with God
when He made the world, to be acquainted with all
the works of God, to be the breath of the power of God,
and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the
Almighty.1 And in a remarkable passage, in the same
book, the Word of God is thus personified : " Thine
almighty Word leapt down from heaven out of thy
royal throne, as a fierce man of war into the midst of a
land of destruction." 2 It is admitted that there is an
indefiniteness and ambiguity in all these expressions,
but they anticipate many of the elements of the
Johannine doctrine of the Logos, preparations in the
providence of God for the announcement of the great
doctrine that the Logos was made flesh and dwelt
among us, like the rays of light darting through the
great darkness, the precursors of the rising sun.
But especially in the Jewish Targums, which, although
published after the Christian era, yet, being of purely
Jewish origin, are acknowledged to contain the current
language of the theology of the times of our Lord, the
phrase "Word of the Lord" (mn» N^D. Memra Jehovah)
is of frequent occurrence. According to Edersheim, it
occurs in the Targum Onkelos one hundred and seventy-
nine times, in the Jerusalem Targum ninety-nine times,
1 Wisdom ix. 4, 9 ; vii. 25. 2 Wisdom xviii. 15.

THE LOGOS. 187
and in the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan three hundred
and twenty-one times.1 Thus we have the following
phrases : — " The voice of the Word of God spake ; "
"The Lord protected Noah by His Word when he
entered the ark;" "God made a covenant between
Abraham and His Word ; " " Hagar gave thanks and
prayed in the name of the Word, of the Lord ; " " The
Word of the Lord was with Ishmael in the wilder
ness ;" "Jacob made a covenant that the Word of the
Lord should be his God ; " " The Word spoke with
Moses from off the mercy-seat;" "Moses at Sinai
brought forth the people to meet the Word of the
Lord ; " " The Shekinah of the Word of the Lord will
go before thee, and His Word will be thy help." 2
In the Book of Enoch, generally admitted to have
been written before the Christian era,* the Word is a
title given to the Messiah. The Messiah is there repre
sented as a white bull who receives the adoration of all
cattle; and it is' said: "And the first bull was the
Word, and this Word was a powerful animal which had
large black horns on its head." 3 The phrase, then, "the
Word of God," as a divine personality or a relation
of the Divinity, was current among the Jews at the
time that John wrote his Gospel.
It is evident that the term Logos, employed by John,
was familiar to the circle of readers to whom his Gospel
was primarily addressed. He commences abruptly with
the words, " In the beginning was the Logos." He gives
no explanation of the term he employs, but evidently
1 Life and Times of Jesus, vol. i. p. 47.
2 See Etherage on The Targums of the Pentateuch.
3 Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch, xc. 38, p. 65.

1 88 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
presupposes that it was already known to his readers ;
and the term, as we have seen, was not unknown to
the Jews, independently of the philosophy of Philo.1
Probably, also, there was a polemic reason for John's
use of the term ; as it may have been employed by
the Gnosties, against whom he wrote his First Epistle.
John wished to draw the attention of his hearers from
the false to the true Gnosis — to the knowledge of God
and of His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, he asserts,
is the true Logos, about whom these heretics in their
ignorance discourse. " The choice of the term 6 \dyos,"
observes Mansell, "as a designation of Christ, the
assertion of the eternity and proper deity and in
carnation of the Logos, have a direct relation and
antagonism to the Jewish Gnosticism of Philo, as well
as to the Christian Gnosticism of Cerinthus." 2
Considering the philosophical speculations of the
Asiatic Greeks, and the popularity of the philosophy of
Philo among the Hellenistic Jews, it is by no means
improbable that Philonism was known to John at the
time when, he wrote his Gospel, as the philosophy of
Philo was promulgated fully half a century before this.
Ephesus, where John resided, was one of the great seats
of Oriental philosophy, and doubtless the doctrine of
the Divine Logos was there promulgated., and the phrase
the Word of God was known. And although we do not
go so far as to affirm, with Bigg, that " there can be no
doubt that John acquired from Alexandria that concep
tion of the Word, which first brought Christian theology
1 It was probably also familiar to the first readers of John's Gospel from
its use in the previous oral teaching of the Apostle.
2 The Gnostic Heresies, p. 75.

THE LOGOS. 189
within the sphere of metaphysics," 1 there is nothing
contrary to the idea of inspiration to suppose that John
was led to employ the term Logos, as one that was
familiar in the language of Jewish and Greek philosophy,
to express the divinity and incarnation of Christ.
The doctrine of the Logos frequently occurs in the
writings of the Fathers, especially of Justin Martyr.2
They derived their notions concerning it from the Gos
pel of John ; and, in contrast to Philonism, they asserted
the incarnation of the Logos in the person of Jesus
Christ. The Logos also appears in the Gnostic writings,
but among them as an aeon distinct from Christ. Of
course, also, the incarnation of the Logos was foreign
and alien to their systems. According to Valentinus,
whose system was the most elaborate of all the Gnostic
systems, as stated by Irenaeus,3 the Logos was the
third in descent from the primary source. The aeons
emanated in pairs ; the first were Bythos and Sige* ; the
second, Nous and Aletheia ; the third, Logos and Zoe.
But there is no identification in the system of Valen
tinus of the Logos with Christ ; Christ was a distinct
and separate aeon.4 Certainly these systems of the
Gnostics are instances of that philosophy and vain
deceit against which Paul warned the Colossians, and
into which men, in the present as well as in the past, fall,
when they endeavour to force the doctrines of the Gospel
into an agreement with the speculations of philosophy.
1 Bigg's Bampton Lectures, p. 24.
2 See Purves's Testimony of Justin, Martyr, pp. 148-156.
8 Adv. Her., i. 1, 1.
4 See Mansel's Gnostic Heresies, p. 171 ; Burton, Bampton Lectures, note
94> PP- 560-563 ; Milman's History of Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 69-73.

DISSERTATION II.
THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH.
Liteeatuee. — This subject is more or less fully discussed in
Neander's Life of Christ, § 265 ; Wieseler's Chronologie Synop. der
vier Evang., Sect. v. § 3, translation, pp. 353 ff. ; Bleek's Einleitung
in das Neue Testament, § 68 and § 72, translation, vol. i. pp. 189,
193; Farrar's Life of Christ, Excursus x. "Was the Lord's Supper
an actual Passover ? " Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus, vol. ii.
p. 479 ff. ; Meyer's Commentary on St. John, on John xiii. 1 and
xviii. 28; Caspari's Introduction to the Life of Christ, translation,
pp. 192-215; Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, article "Passover;"
Sanday 's Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 201-2 11 ; Godet's St.
John, vol. iii. pp. 287-307, "Of the Day of our Lord's Death;"
Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 303-306 ; Davidson's
Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. pp. 369 ff. ;
Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 314-321,
The precise day of the month, on which our Lord
was crucified, was, and still is, a vexed question among.
Biblical critics, the solution of which has not yet been
discovered. The point of dispute is, Whether the day of
our Lord's death was the 14th Nisan, that is, the prepara
tion day before the Passover, or the 15th Nisan, the
Paschal day itself. On this point there is a real or sup
posed, difference between the accounts given us in the
Synoptics and that given us in the Fourth Gospel.
In order to understand the dispute, an acquaintance
with the time at which the Jews observed their Passover,
in the days of our Lord, is necessary. This great festival,
190

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 191
instituted in commemoration of the deliverance of the
Israelites from Egypt, commenced on the evening of the
1 4th Nisan or Abib, which was the anniversary of their
deliverance. According to the original institution, as
given in Exod. xii. 1-20, it was to last for seven days,
during which period the children of Israel were com
manded to eat unleavened bread (Exod. xii. 6, 7, 19,
xiii. 1-10; Lev. xxiii. 5-14; Num. xxviii. 16-25). It
would, however, appear from a statement in Josephus,1
that in the days of our Lord the period of observance
was extended to eight days, the day of preparation, or
the 14th Nisan, being added to the original seven. It
must also be remembered that the Jews reckoned their
days from evening to evening, or rather from sunset to
sunset. Hence the evening of the 14th Nisan is a some
what ambiguous term, but it is evident, from the Mosaic
account of the institution, that it denotes the close of the
14th, that is, according to our reckoning, from three to
sunset. On the 14th Nisan the work of preparation
began ; the heads of families searched for and put away
leaven from their houses. The Paschal lamb was slain
" between the evenings" (D.^jyn V5), (Exod. xii. 6 ; Lev.
xxii. 5 ; Num. ix. 3, 5), that is, as Josephus informs us,
between the ninth and eleventh hour, or between three
and five, according to our reckoning.2 The 14th Nisan
was originally not reckoned as one of the Paschal days ;
it was the day of preparation for the Passover,3 the day on
1 Josephus, Ant., ii. 15, 1 ; Bell Jud., v. 3, 1.
2 Josephus, Bell. Jud., vi. 9, 3. Others interpret it between sunset and
dark, or between five and seven. Wieseler's Synopsis of the Four Gospels,
p. 316, translation.
3 rrapao-Kevr] rov rratrxa, John xix. 14.

192 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
which the Paschal lamb was slain and prepared. Among
the Jews, work was permitted to be done on that day, as
the Passover proper did not commence until the even
ing ; whereas among the Galileans, we are informed, the
whole day was kept sacred.1 The next day, or the 15th
Nisan, was the great day of the feast. At its com
mencement, in the evening, the Paschal lamb was eaten.
This day and the last day were regarded as holy Sab
baths to the Lord, when no work was done (Exod. xii.
16). The intervening days of the feast, it would appear,
were ordinary days, and the only difference between
them and other days was that certain special offerings
were made and unleavened bread was eaten (Num.
xxviii. 18-25). But, besides these special offerings,
there arose among the Jews, connected with the Pass
over* another festival called in the Talmud Chagigah
(n^r![, i.e., "festivity"), consisting of free-will offerings,
and which might be partaken of on any day of the feast,
but generally in the evening or close of the 15th Nisan,
or the Paschal day ; 2 so that the Passover was partaken
of at the commencement, and the Chagigah at the close
of the same day.
Now, keeping in view the distinction between these
two days, the 14th and 15 th Nisan — the one the day
of preparation and the other the Paschal day — the one
a day on which work might be done, the other a sacred
day in which work was forbidden— :we come to the
discussion of the question, On which of these days was
it that our Lord was crucified ? According to John's
1 Caspari's Introduction to the Life of Christ, p. 193.
2 On the Chagigah, see Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. ii. p. 717 ;
Caspari's Introduction to the Life of Christ, pp. 193, 194.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 193
Gospel this occurred before the Passover, or on the
14th Nisan. In this Gospel we have the following five
distinct intimations of date : — (1.) "Now, before the
feast of the Passover (71-^0 t?? eoprijs rov Trdo-^a), Jesus,
knowing that His hour was come" (John xiii. 1). The
natural inference from this is, that the last supper
occurred before the commencement of the Paschal feast.
(2.) "Some thought, because Judas had the bag, that
Jesus said to him, Buy what things we have need of
for the feast" (John xiii. 29). From this it would
appear that the feast had not commenced, and that the
preparation for it had to be made ; besides, it is also
intimated that purchases could be made, which could
not be done on the Paschal day. (3.) " They them
selves entered not into the palace, that they might not
be defiled, but might eat the Passover" (John xviii. 28).
This intimates that the chief priests had not yet par
taken of the Passover, and that consequently the day
was the 14th, and not the 1 5th Nisan. (4.) " Now it was
the Preparation of the Passover" (John xix. 14). This
phrase is most naturally taken to mean the 14th Nisan,
the day of preparation, when all leaven was removed,
and when the Paschal lamb was slain and prepared.
(5.) " The Jews therefore, because it was the Prepara
tion, that the bodies should not remain on the cross
upon the Sabbath (for the day of that Sabbath was a
high day) " (John xix. 31). Here the term "the Pre
paration " (Trapao-icevri) may denote the day before the
Sabbath, but the parenthetic clause, " for the day of
that Sabbath was a high day," intimates that there
was a special importance connected with that peculiar
N

194 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
Sabbath, which would be the case if the Passover
on that year coincided with the Sabbath ; in other
words, if the Friday on which our Lord was crucified
was the day of Preparation, or 14th Nisan. From all
these intimations the natural conclusion is, that our
Lord was crucified on the day before the Passover.
Thus then, according to John, our Lord was crucified
on Friday the 14th Nisan, remained in the tomb on
Saturday the 15th Nisan (the Paschal day), and rose
from the dead on Sunday the 16th Nisan.1
On the other hand, when we turn to the Synoptists,
the natural inference in reading their accounts is, that
our Lord and His disciples partook of the Passover
when He instituted the Holy Communion. On this
point the testimony of the three Synoptical Gospels
coincides. Matthew tells us that on the first day of
unleavened bread (14th Nisan), our Lord sent the
message to a friend in Jerusalem, " My time is at
1 The following table of events is given by Sanday : —

and

Julian Day.

Jewish Day.

Thursday — 6 p.m.

14TH Nisan began.

Midnight
Friday — rrpal.
9 a.m. (Mark), 6th hour (John)
12-3 P-m-
3-5 P-ra-
6 p.m.

The Last Supper, Gethsemane.
Examination before Annas
Caiaphas.
Examination before Pilate.
Sentence pronounced.
Crucifixion.
Slaughter of the Paschal Lamb
15TH Nisan began.

Saturday —
6 p.m.

The Passover.
Great day of the Feast.
Jesus in the grave.

1 6th Nisan began.

— Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p.

302. See Caspari, p. 199.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 195
hand ; I keep the Passover at thy house with My
disciples ; " and that the disciples went and made ready
the Passover (Matt. xxvi. 17-19). Mark informs us
that this was " the first day of unleavened bread, when
they sacrificed the Passover" (Mark xiv. 12). And the
statements of Luke are still more explicit. He tells us
that " the day of unleavened bread came, on which the
Passover must be sacrificed ; " that Jesus " sent Peter
and John, saying, Go and make ready for us the Pass
over, that we may eat ; " that they should say to the
man, in whose house they were to eat, " Where is the
guest-chamber where I shall eat the Passover with My
disciples ] " that " the disciples went and made ready
the Passover;" and that Jesus said to them, "With
desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you
before I suffer" (Luke xxii. 7-15). According to the
Synoptists, then, it would appear that our Lord pautook
of the Passover with His disciples ; that consequently
He was crucified on the Paschal day, the 15th Nisan;
that He lay in the tomb on the weekly Sabbath, the
1 6th Nisan ; and that He rose from the dead on Sunday,
the 17 th Nisan.
Thus it would appear that, according to John, on the
day of our Lord's death the Passover had not been eaten ;
whilst, according to the Synoptists, Christ had already
partaken of the Passover with His disciples. It is to
be observed that there is a perfect agreement among the
four Evangelists regarding the day of the week on which
our Lord was crucified ; that day was Friday, the
preparation day before the Jewish Sabbath. All agree
that on Saturday, or the Jewish Sabbath, our Lord

196 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
remained in the grave, and that He rose from the dead
on the Sunday, or the first day of the week. Bishop
Westcott indeed suggests that Thursday might be the
day of the crucifixion ; J but this is a mere suggestion,
unsupported by evidence, at variance with the Gospel
statements (see Mark xv. 42), and, so far as we are
aware, adopted by no other writer.2 But whilst there
is this agreement as to the day of the week, there is an
apparent disagreement as to the day of the month ;
according to John, this was the Preparation day, or 14th
Nisan ; whilst according to the Synoptists, it was the
Paschal day, or 15th Nisan. The question which meets
us is, How are these apparently discrepant accounts to
be reconciled ? Which of these days is correct ? Was
our Lord crucified on the 14th or on the 15th Nisan?
Accordingly critics are not here agreed, and various
modes of reconciliation have been advanced.3
I. The majority of Biblical students assume the cor
rectness of John's account that our Lord was crucified
on the 14th Nisan, or the preparation day before the
Passover.4 They assert that this is the account of an
eye-witness, of one who must have known the precise
day, who was interested in recording it, and whose
intimations of date cannot be explained away. They
1 Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 321.
2 Schneckenburger is said to have affirmed that our Lord was crucified
on Wednesday, and lay four days in the grave.
3 For these methods of reconciliation, see Liddon's Bampton Lectures,
p. 224.
4 This is the opinion of De Wette, Neander, Bleek, Ustersi, Ewald,
Sieffert, Meyer, Bruckner, Hase, Caspari, Weiss, Godet ; and among English
theologians, of Alford, Ellicott, Farrar, Sanday, Plummer, Westcott, Lias,
and Beynolds.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 197
further think that this opinion is proved, because the
events mentioned in the Gospels could not have occurred
on the Paschal day. That day was a day of peculiar
sanctity, on which all work was forbidden, except that
connected with the preparation of food (Exod. xii. 16) ;
none were permitted even to go out of their houses whilst
the Paschal supper was being eaten. The priests could not
have arrested Christ on that day, nor have gone through
the form of a judicial trial; nor would our Lord have
been put to death on so sacred a day. Herod, we are
informed, deferred the execution of Peter until after the
Passover. " Those were the days of unleavened bread,"
the Paschal feast ; " intending after the Passover to bring
him forth to the people" (Acts xii. 3, 4). Even in the
Synoptic accounts there are intimations that the day
of the crucifixion was not a sacred day, but a day on
which work might be done. Simon the Cyrenian, it is
observed, was coming out of the country (Luke xxiii.
26), probably returning from the labours of the field.
Joseph of Arimathea bought fine linen for the interment
of Jesus (Mark xv. 46), which he could not have done
if that day was a holy day, for all buying and selling
were forbidden. Besides, this accounts for th$ extreme
haste of the crucifixion, in order that it might be com
pleted before the Passover commenced. Our Lord was
judicially examined by the Sanhedrim, tried by Pilate,
brought before Herod, condemned, and crucified on the
same day ; and the Jews were anxious that the bodies
should be taken down from the cross, because the next
day was a high day, a peculiar Sabbath among the Jews.
Further, it is asserted that this opinion best corresponds

198 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
with the declarations of St. Paul. That Apostle, in
speaking of the Lord's Supper, intimates that it took
the place of the Passover, and he represents Christ as
the true Paschal Lamb : " For our Passover also hath
been sacrificed, even Christ" (i Cor. v. 7) ; words which
would receive their full significance were our Lord cruci
fied at the very time that the Paschal lambs were being
slain in the Temple, which would actually be the case
were the afternoon of the 14th Nisan the period, of the
execution.1 And in his account of the Lord's Supper,
Paul says that it was instituted " on the night on which
He was betrayed." But if it occurred on the night on
which the Paschal lamb was slain, would he not rather
have alluded to that symbolical event ? 2
In order to reconcile the date given us by John with
the statements of the Synoptists, some suppose that
our Lord and His disciples anticipated the Passover,
because He wanted to partake of it with His disciples
before He suffered.3 The anticipation of the day is
supposed to be hinted at in the Synoptic Gospels. Our
Lord said, "My time is at hand; I keep the Pass
over at thy house with My disciples" (Matt. xxvi. 18).
As if He said, " It is my intention to keep the Passover
this evening ; I will not defer it until to-morrow, the
proper Paschal day, for to-morrow will be too late ; My
time is at hand (6 Kaipos pov iyyvs io-n) — the time when
1 Our Lord, according to the Synoptists, hung upon the cross six hours
before His death, from the third hour (9 a.m.) to the ninth hour (3 p.m.)
(Mark xv. 25, 33, 34) ; and it was from the ninth to the eleventh hour that
the Paschal lambs were sacrificed.
2 1 Cor. xi. 23. According to Neander, attention was first drawn to
tliese Pauline passages by Liicke in the Gottinger Anzeiger.
8 This opinion is adopted by Grotius, Kahuis, Weiss, Godet, Ellicott.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 199
I shall be offered up as the true Passover." So also
He said to His disciples, " With desire I have desired
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" (Luke
xxii. 15). " I have earnestly wished to partake of this
Passover x with you before My death ; and therefore I
do not defer it until to-morrow." As Neander observes,
" Jesus foresaw that He would have to leave His disciples
before the proper Passover, and determined to give a
peculiar import to His last meal with them, to place it
in a peculiar relation to the Jewish Passover, as the
Christian covenant-meal was to take the place of that
of the Old Testament." 2 He, who as Son of Man was
the Lord of the Sabbath and had authority to change
the day, was also the Lord of the Passover, and had
power to alter the day of its celebration.3 The Lord's
Supper was now to take the place of the Passover, and
therefore it was fit and proper that the last typical
Passover should be partaken of by Christ and His
disciples on the day of the institution of the Supper.
Besides, the vast multitude of lambs, amounting to
several thousands,4 which were slain in the Temple,
and the time necessarily occupied in doing so, may have
occasioned a difference of time in the partaking of the
Passover. In consequence of this, there may have been
some irregularity in the time of eating the Passover, or
1 Observe the emphasis, rovro to rraa-xa.
2 Neander's Life of Christ, pp. 425-427, Bohn's edition.
3 " If," says Godet, " Jesus could boldly declare Himself the Lord of the
Sabbath — and the transference of the Sabbath-day from Saturday to Sunday
in His Church has proved that this was no vain word — how should He not
also be the Lord of the Passover ? "
4 Josephus mentions the number of lambs sacrificed to be 256,500, which
is surely an exaggeration. Bell. Jud., vi. 9, 3.

200 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
at least of slaying the lambs, so that this anticipation of
the Passover might have occurred. "There is now,"
observes Weiss, " no possibility of proving that the
custom of the feast made it permissible to offer the
sacrifice and to partake of the supper a day before the
actual Passover, but it is rendered highly probable by
the apparent impossibility of slaying all the Paschal
lambs on one day. In that case Jesus partook of the
Passover with His disciples on the 13 th Nisan, and in His
own free way observed those customs connected with the
observance which possessed any significance for Him, or
which He could invest with a new and higher meaning." 1
This solution is exceedingly plausible, exposed to
fewer objections, and removes many of the difficulties
in the accounts of the Evangelists. Jesus and His
disciples partook of the Passover, according to the
accounts given us by the Synoptists, but it was by
anticipation and before the legal Passover, according
to the account given us by John. But it is difficult to
imagine that the lamb could be sacrificed before the
appointed time ; there is no intimation in the Jewish
records that this was done, notwithstanding the multi
tude of sacrificial animals ; and if this was not permis
sible, there could be no anticipation of the Passover.
Besides, the above explanation only removes half the
difficulty. If the Synoptists only stated that Jesus ate
the Passover, the difficulty might be solved by the
supposition that He anticipated the rite ; but as they
also state that He gave orders for its observance on the
first day of unleavened bread, 14th Nisan, the day ou
1 Weiss' Life of Christ, vol. iii. p. 280.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 201
which, according to John, He was crucified, a difficulty
still remaius.1
Another plausible hypothesis is that advanced by
Bishop Westcott, who supposes that the Passover par
taken of by Christ and His disciples mentioned by the
Synoptists was not the actual Passover, but the Feast
of Preparation, which occurred on the 14th Nisan.2
The time is designated by the Synoptists as "the first
day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pass
over,"8 consequently the 14th Nisan, when the eating
of unleavened bread commenced, and when the Paschal
lamb was sacrificed. This day was observed by the
Galileans — and our Lord and His disciples were Gali
leans — as a holy day, and was in the time of our Lord
reckoned as the first of the Paschal days. It is supposed
that the Synoptists intimated that it was at the com
mencement of this day — that is, according to the Jewish
reckoning, the evening at the beginning of the 14th
Nisan — that Christ sat down with His disciples. Be
sides, it is to be observed that in the account of the last
supper by the Synoptists there is no mention of any
Paschal rites. One, on reading it, would not guess that
it was the feast of the Passover. Jesus gives to His
disciples bread and wine, but there is no allusion to the
lamb, the eating of which constituted the chief part of
the feast, nor is there any mention of the bitter herbs ;
it rather resembles a common meal of which our Lord
1 But to this it may be answered that Jesus and His disciples might
have partaken of the Passover on the evening which commenced the 14th
Nisan. 2 Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 318.
3 rrj rrparrj r\p.£pa rtw a£vp.a>v ore to 7rdo-^a edvov, Mark xiv. 12.

202 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
partook with His disciples. According to this explana
tion, we are mistaken when we affirm that our Lord
partook of the Paschal lamb with His disciples. " The
evening of the supper," observes Bishop Westcott,
" would thus be, as John represents it, the evening at
the beginning of 14th Nisan. The same day after sun
rise next morning is rightly described as a preparation
day, 'the Preparation of the Passover.' " x
Such an explanation is ingenious, but it does not
correspond with the natural meaning of the language
employed by the Synoptists. Although there is no
mention in their accounts of the Paschal lamb, yet the
evident impression which their words leave is, that our
Lord actually partook of the Passover with His dis
ciples. The disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where
wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the Pass
over?" Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, "Go and
make ready for us the Passover that we may eat." And
the message which He sent to the proprietor of the
upper room was, "The Master saith, My time is at
hand : I will keep the Passover at thy house with My
disciples." These words appear distinctly to assert the
fact that Jesus did eat the Passover; and to explain
them as if they meant only that our Lord partook of
a preparatory feast, but not of the actual Passover,
appears to be a perversion of their meaning.
1 Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 316. The Kev. J.
J. Liss supposes that the solution of the problem is found in the fact that
the Lord's Supper was regarded by the primitive Church as the Passover
of the New Testament, and that it was of the Christian, and not of the
Jewish Passover that the Synoptists speak. See also Plummer's Commen
tary on St. John in the Cambridge Series, p. 380.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 203
Other critics1 solve the difficulty by cutting the
knot ; they affirm that the Synoptists, in their account
of our Lord's partaking of the Passover with His dis
ciples, were in error. They admit the discrepancy
between the accounts of the Synoptists and that of
John ; they do, not attempt to remove it, but assert
that the mistake was on the part of the Synoptists.
This mistake arose in a natural manner. According
to the testimony both of the Synoptists and of Paul,
our Lord, at the evening meal of which He partook
with His disciples, instituted the Holy Communion to
be a perpetual memorial of His death. This ordinance
was to take the place of the Jewish Passover in the
Christian Church ; it was the Christian Passover, the
memorial of our deliverance from the bondage of sin
and Satan. Hence, being so intimately connected with
the Passover, it was natural to suppose that at the time
of the institution of the Holy Communion our Lord
and His disciples partook of the Passover, more espe
cially if Jesus had spoken concerning the Passover as
about to be superseded by the feast which He was to
institute. John, accordingly, here corrects the error of
the Synoptists.2 This, however, is a violent mode of
solving the difficulty, and ought not to be resorted
to until all other methods of solution have failed, and
not even then, because the proper data for solution
may be wanting.
II. Other critics assume the correctness of the account
1 Among them are De Wette, Ustersi, Bleek, Meyer, Farrar, and
Sanday. 2 See Bleek's 'Introduction to the N. T., vol. i. pp. 203, 204 ; Farrar's
Life of Christ. Excursus X., Was the Last Supper an actual Passover 2

204 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
given in the Synoptic Gospels, that our Lord was
crucified on the 15th Nisan, or the day of the Pass
over.1 They assert that the narratives of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke are plain and evident, and cannot
be explained away ; whereas the language of John
is indefinite, and may be explained by reference to
the manner in which the Jews observed the Passover.
They minimise the difficulties arising from the fact that
the 15th Nisan was a holy day, and some assert that
such was the rage of the chief priests that they would
not be baffled by legal scruples as to the lawfulness
of their actions. If they imbrued their hands in the
blood of the Son of God, they would not scruple to
break through the ordinances of the law ; they would
permit nothing to stand in the way of the accomplish
ment of their atrocious purposes ; they would rather
profane the Passover than give their victim a chance
of escape. An opportunity of apprehending Christ had
presented itself, and they, in defiance of all obstacles,
grasped at the opportunity. The Pharisees must have
regarded the matter as a life-and- death struggle.
In order to effect a reconciliation between this view
and the statements of the Fourth Gospel, some suppose
that the supper recorded in John's Gospel, at which our
Lord washed His disciples' feet, is different from that
recorded in the Synoptics, at which our Lord instituted
the Holy Communion. This is the opinion adopted by
the great Hebrew scholar John Lightfoot, and by Bengel.
Lightfoot identifies it with the supper of Simon the
1 This is the opinion of Wieseler, Olshausen, Tholuck, Guericke, Lange,
Luthardt, Hengstenberg, Hofmann, Oosterzee, Ebrard, Schaff, and among
English theologians of Wordsworth, Edersheim, Geikie, and M'Clellan.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 205
leper, when Mary poured the precious ointment on our
Saviour, and which occurred two days before the Pass
over. This would account for the want of all allusion
to the Holy Communion in the discourse of our Lord to
His disciples. If the supper was identical with that men
tioned by the Synoptists, it is argued that it is difficult
to account for the absence of any reference to that
solemn feast, which was to supersede the Passover, and
which was to be a perpetual memorial of the Lord's
death. Besides, this supposition explains several refer
ences in John's Gospel, such as, that the supper occurred
before the feast of the Passover, and that the disciples
supposed that our Lord gave directions to Judas to pur
chase those things which were necessary for the feast.
But this explanation, founded on the supposition of
two suppers, is completely untenable, and would not,
even if the supposition were correct, solve the problem.
The supper recorded in John's Gospel is the same as
that recorded in the Synoptics : in both accounts Judas is
pointed out as the betrayer, and Peter is forewarned of
his impending defection ; and at the conclusion of both,
Jesus and His disciples repair to the garden of Geth
semane. Thus in John's Gospel we read, " When Jesus
had spoken, these words, He went forth with His disciples
over the brook Kidron, where was a garden, into which
He entered, Himself and His disciples" (John xviii. 1).
The omission of all reference in our Lord's discourse to
the Holy Communion is accounted for by the supple
mentary nature of John's Gospel, which omits various
events of the highest importance recorded by the other
Evangelists. Nor would the supposition of two suppers

206 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
remove .the difficulty. Supposing that the supper re
corded by John occurred two days before the Passover,
and the supper mentioned by the Synoptists was the
Paschal Supper, although this accounts for two intima
tions in John's Gospel (John xiii. i, 29), yet it does not
account for other statements, as that at our Lord's trial
before Pilate, the chief priests would not enter into the
praetorium lest they should be defiled, but that they
might eat the Passover, and that the day of the trial
was the preparation of the Passover. The difference
between the accounts of the Synoptists and John re
mains as it was.
Others suppose that the chief priests postponed the
Passover from the 15th to the 16th Nisan. This opinion
was suggested by Chrysostom as an alternative, and has
been adopted by Bishop Wordsworth. So eager were
the chief priests to put our Lord to death, that in order
to seize the opportunity of crucifying Him which pre
sented itself, and at the same time to avoid the desecra
tion of the Paschal day, they deferred the Passover to a
day later than that prescribed by law. Thus, according
to this theory, our Lord and His disciples, in accordance
with the Synoptists, partook of the Passover on the law
ful day, the 15th Nisan, but the chief priests deferred
its observance until the following day, the 16th Nisan.
This would account for the statements given in the
Gospel of John.
But there is no ground whatever for this opinion.
There is not a shadow of reason for the supposition that
the priests postponed the Passover ; indeed, such a sup
position approaches to an absurdity. The chief priests,

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 207
who were so scrupulous in their legal observances, who,
although they would imbrue their hands in the blood of
an innocent man, yet would not enter into the judgment-
hall of Pilate lest they should be defiled, would not
commit such a glaring breach of the Mosaic law as
actually to change the day of the celebration of the
most sacred of their feasts. Besides, even admittiug
the supposition, the discrepancy still remains, the pro
blem is unsolved. John expressly tells us that Jesus
and His disciples partook of their last supper before the
feast of the Passover.
Others1 suppose that John, when he speaks of the
Passover, does not allude to. the particular day, 15th
Nisan, when the Paschal lamb was eaten, but to the
whole Paschal feast, which lasted seven or eight days.
These days are included in the feast of the Passover ;
they were " the days of unleavened bread," and ou
them there were special offerings, and especially the
feast called in the Talmud Chagigah, which was regarded
as being almost as sacred as the Passover.2 When,
then, it is said that the priests entered not into the
judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, but that they
might eat the Passover, the allusion is not to their eat
ing the Paschal lamb, but to their eating the Chagigah.3
So also, when it is said that it was the preparation of
the Passover, the allusion is to the Sabbath in the Paschal
week, of which the Friday was the preparation, and which
1 This solution has been advanced by Olshausen, Wieseler, and Tholuck.
2 Deut. xvi. 16, 17. Lightfoot, Horm Heb. on John xviii. 28. The
Chagigah was eaten at other festivals : it was not a purely Paschal
ordinance. 3 Wieseler's Synopsis, pp. 348 ff.

208 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
is called by the Synoptists irapaa-Kevrj 6' io-n Trpoo-dfijiarov
(Mark xv. 42). When, also, it is said that that Sabbath
was " a great day among the Jews," the words receive
their appropriate meaning by considering that it was
the Paschal Sabbath, and the day on which the sheaf-
offering was presented.1
However ingenious this solution of the problem is, yet
it gives a forced interpretation to the words of John, and
will not stand the test of criticism. However wide a
meaning may be given to the word Passover, as embrac
ing the whole Paschal feast, yet the phrase " the prepa
ration of the Passover" (John xix. 14), must denote the
preparation day or 14th Nisan, when the Paschal lamb
was sacrificed and prepared. To put any other meaning
into the words is to distort the sense in order to accom
modate it to our preconceived opinions. The phrase " to
eat the Passover," in its obvious and natural sense, can
only mean to eat the Paschal lamb, and it is putting a
forced interpretation into the words to apply them to
the eating of the Chagigah, which, properly speaking,
constituted no part of the Paschal feast at all, as it was
eaten at other festivals besides the Passover.
Such, then, are various hypotheses of reconciliation
which have been adopted. Some of them are more
plausible than others ; but it cannot be affirmed that
even the most plausible is completely satisfactory. So
far as appears to us, the correct solution has not yet been
discovered, the difficulty in the way of reconciliation
still remains. It is our duty as Biblical critics, as
seekers after truth, frankly to admit the difference —
1 Lev. xxiii. 9-14 ; Jos. Ant. iii. 10, 5.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 209
that, according to the Synoptists, Christ and His dis
ciples partook of the Passover at one time, whilst,
according to John, the Jewish rulers partook of it at
another. " A thorough exegesis," observes Bleek, " will
not suffer us to deny that we have here a real difference
betsveen the narrative of the Synoptists and that of
John." x " That there is here a real difficulty," observes
Professor Salmon, " I freely acknowledge, for there seems
a force put on the words of John, if our Lord's last
supper be made the Passover supper, or else a force put
on the words of the Synoptic Evangelists, if it be not.
It probably requires only a fuller knowledge of some of
the facts connected with the usages of the time to remove
the discrepancy." 2 " We regard," observes Pressense',
" the question up till now as insoluble, while holding
John's account to be entirely correct." 3
But whilst admitting the failure of all methods of
reconciliation hitherto advanced, we are not thereby
constrained to admit that there is any real contradic
tion, and that a satisfactory solution is unattainable.
There are various matters connected with the mode of
the celebration of the Passover in the days of our Lord
on which we require more information. The regula
tions laid down in the Talmud have more closely to be
examined, and it has to be determined whether these
regulations were observed in the days of our Lord.
There was then a difference in the mode of observing
the Passover from that enjoined in the Mosaic law,
but the nature and extent of the modifications have
1 Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 191.
2 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 304. 3 Vie de Jesus, p. 593.
O

210 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
not been ascertained. "The ancient authorities (the
Bible, Josephus, and Philo)," observes Professor Salmon,
" leave some points undetermined on which we desire
information, while regulations cited from the Talmud
are open to the doubt whether they are as ancient as
our Lord's days. Without knowing, for example, what
latitude the usages of that period permitted as to the
time of holding the feast, we cannot tell whether to
accept solutions which assume that the priests did not
eat the Passover at the same time as our Lord's dis
ciples."1 But allowing the differences to remain, we
must ever recollect that differences in the statements of
the concomitants of facts do not necessarily destroy the
evidence of the truth of the facts themselves. There
are many divergencies in the accounts given us by the
several Evangelists of the resurrection of Christ, and
there is an acknowledged difficulty in reconciling them,
but these do not at all affect the fact that Christ rose
from the dead. So also here, the differences as to the
precise day of the month of our Lord's death does not
in the slightest degree weaken the truth of the fact that
Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
dead, and buried. Admitting the differences in the
accounts on this point, the general credibility of the
narrative in its main particulars is not affected thereby.
With regard to the precise day of our Lord's death,
after careful examination, we have come to the conclu
sion that it was the 14th Nisan, the day of Prepara
tion, in accordance with the intimations given in John's
Gospel. Historical evidence, as far as it goes, is in
1 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 305.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 211
favour of the 14th Nisan as the day of the crucifixion.
We have the testimony of Irenseus, Tertullian, Clemens
Alexandrinus, and Hippolytus that our Lord was cruci
fied on the 14th Nisan. But what is most singular is,
that in the Jewish records, when the subject is alluded
to, our Lord's death is asserted to have occurred at this
time. Thus in the Babylonian Gemara we read that
" Jesus was suspended on the evening of the Passover,"
an expression which denotes the evening when the
Passover commenced, or the evening of 14th Nisan.1
With the day of Christ's death is connected the
Paschal or Easter controversy, which nearly rent asunder
the Western and Oriental Churches, and anticipated by
several centuries the great schism which afterwards
occurred. The dispute was, whether the anniversary of
our Lord's death was to be observed on a stated day of
the week or on a stated day of the month. The follow
ing is the account given us by Eusebius : — " There was
a considerable discussion raised about this time, in con
sequence of a difference of opinion respecting* the obser
vance of the Paschal season. The Churches of all Asia,
guided by a remote tradition, supposed that they ought
to keep the fourteenth day of the month for the festival
of the Savibur's Passover, on which day the Jews were
commanded to kill the Paschal lamb ; and it was incum
bent on them at all times to make an end of the fast
on this day, on whatever day of the week it should
happen to fall. But as it was not the custom to cele
brate it in this manner in the Churches throughout the
rest of the world, who observe the practice that has
1 Godet's Commentary on St. John, vol. iii. p. 291.

212 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time,
so it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any
other day but the day of the resurrection of our Saviour.
Hence there were synods and convocations of bishops
on this question, and all unanimously drew up an eccle
siastical decree, that the mystery of our -Lord's resurrec
tion should be celebrated on no other day than the
Lord's day, and that on this day alone we should observe
the close of the Paschal fast." 1 According to the Orien
tals, the fast was terminated on the 14th Nisan, on whatr
ever day of the week it should happen, and hence they
were called Quartodecimans, and for this practice they
appealed to the authority of John ; whereas, accord
ing to the Westerns, the anniversary of the Lord's
death was to be observed on the Friday following
the 14th Nisan, and the fast before Easter terminated
on the Sunday, the anniversary of His resurrection,
and for this practice they appealed to the authority
of Peter and Paul. With the Orientals the day or
days were variable, as Christmas with us ; with the
Westerns they were settled, as Good Friday and
Easter Sunday with us.2 The first notice which we
have of this famous controversy is ' the dispute which
arose between Polycarp and Anicetus, the Bishop of
Rome. Neither convinced his opponent, but each was
allowed to keep his own opinion. Thus Irenaeus writes,
"Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 23.
2 The controversy now appears to us to be most insignificant, though in
reality it is not more insignificant than many other controversies which
have not only threatened to rend, but have actually rent the Christian
Church.

THE DAY OF OUR LORD'S DEATH. 213
observe it (the 14th Nisan), because he had always
observed it with John and the rest of the Apostles with
whom he associated." x Several years after, Victor, the
Bishop of Rome, endeavoured to force the Orientals into
the adoption of the opinion of the Western Churches,
and attempted to " cut off the Churches of all Asia,
together with the neighbouring Churches, as heterodox,
from the common unity." 2 For this he was rebuked by
Irenseus, who, although he himself adopted the Western
custom, yet was opposed to the arrogance and intoler
ance of Victor. The controversy did not terminate until
the Council of Nice (a.d. 325), when it was settled in
favour of the view of the Western Churches.
This controversy has been used by the Tubingen
school as an argument against the authenticity of the
Fourth Gospel. They affirm that the Paschal feast was
a commemoration of the Lord's Supper, the Christian
Passover, and as the Orientals who adopted the 14th
Nisan pled in support of those opinions the authority
of John, they argue that John must have held that
our Lord partook of the Supper on the evening at the
close of the 14th Nisan, which is contrary to the
account in his- Gospel. But they entirely overlook the
fact that, whilst this controversy raged, the Gospel of
John was fully recognised by the whole Christian world.
Besides, it is a mere assumption, and an assumption
which is extremely doubtful, that the Lord's Supper
was the ordinance commemorated. Others (Liicke,
Gieseler, De Wette, Bleek, Charteris 3) suppose that the
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, v. 24. 2 Idem.
3 See a very learned dissertation by Dr. Charteris in his Canonicity,

214 THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
14th Nisan was kept because it was the legal Passover
of the Jews ; and others (Neander, Ewald, Godet),
with still greater probability, suppose that the celebra
tion of the 14th Nisan was the commemoration of the
death of Christ ; and if this is the case, it is in perfect
agreement with the chronology of the Fourth Gospel.1
But until Biblical critics are agreed what fast was com
memorated by the Orientals on the 14th Nisan, it is
evident that the Paschal controversy has, no bearing
either on the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel or on
the question under discussion, the day of our Lord's
death.
pp. 85-96. The arguments in favour of this view of the subject are there
stated with great force and ingenuity.
1 For the different views of theologians concerning the nature of the
Paschal controversy, see Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel,
pp. 154, 155.

THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.1
Literature. — The most important commentaries on this Epistle
are those of Liicke (Bonn, 1836; translated, Edinburgh, 1837);
De "Wette (1837, fifth edition, edited by Bruckner, Leipzig, 1863);
Neander (Berlin, 1851; translated, New York, 1853); Diister-
dieck (Gottingen, 1852); Huther (Gottingen, 1855; fourth edition,
1880; translated, Edinburgh, 1880); E. D. Maurice (Cambridge,
1857); Ebrard (1859; translated, Edinburgh, 1880); Braune
(Lange's Bibelwerh, 1862 ; translated, New York, 1867) ; Haupt
(Colberg, 1870; translated, Edinburgh, 1879); Pothe (posthumous,
edited by Miihlhauser, 1879) ; Bishop Alexander (Speaker's Com
mentary, 1 88 1 ; also Expositor's Bible, London, 1889) ; Sinclair (in the
Neio Testament Commentary, edited by Bishop Ellicott) ; Plummer
(in the Cambridge Series, 1883); Pope (in Schaff's Popular Com
mentary, 1883 ; Westcott (London, 1887) ; Lias (London, 1889).

I. — The Authenticity of the First Epistle.
This Epistle, like all the other writings of John, with
the exception of the Apocalypse, is anonymous ; but the
external evidence in favour of its Johannine origin is
early, strong, unbroken, and conclusive. At the com
mencement of the second century, Polycarp (a.d. 116),
who, as Irenseus informs us, was a disciple of John,
evidently alludes to it when he says, " For whosoever
does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is Antichrist " 2 ( 1 John iv. 3). Papias (a.d. i 20), who,
1 This subject has already been discussed in the author's Introduction to
the Catholic Epistles. It is here treated in an abridged form. The reader
is referred for a fuller discussion to the work above mentioned.
Ad Philipens., chap. vii. 21s

216 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
according to Irenseus, was a hearer of John and an
associate of Polycarp, as Eusebius informs us, "made
use of testimonies from the First Epistle of John, and
likewise from that of Peter." x And, along with these
two apostolic Fathers, we have express declarations
to the Johannine authorship of this Epistle made by
Irenseus2 (a.d. 180), the Muratorian canon3 (a.d. 180),
Clemens Alexandrinus4 (a.d. 190), and TertuUian6
(a.d. 200), in the second century ; and by Origen 6
(a.d. 230) and Cyprian 7 (a.d. 250) in the third.
Eusebius mentions this Epistle among the universally
acknowledged writings (6ju.6\oyovfji.eva.),s and states that
" besides the Gospel of John, his First Epistle is acknow
ledged without dispute, both by those of the present
day and also by the ancients." 9 This general testimony
of the Fathers has been called in question only by a
few heretical sects : by the Alogi, because there is in
it a reference to the doctrine of the Logos, which they
reject; and by the Marcionites, an extreme anti- Jewish
Gnostic sect, who from polemical reasons rejected all
the books of Scripture, with the exception of the Gospel
of Luke and several of Paul's Epistles.10
Nor is the internal evidence less strong than the
external. The author represents himself as an eye-
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 39.
2 Adv. Her., iii. 16, 5 ; iii. 16, 8.
3 "Quod ergo mirum, si Joannes tam constanter singula etiam in
epistolis suis proferat, dieens in semetipso, Quae videmus,'' &c.
* Strom., ii. 15 ; Pedog., iii. 11.
6 Adv. Prax., chap. xv. ; Adv. Marcion., v. 16 ; Scorp., chap. xii.
0 De Oral, Opp., torn. i. p. 233. ' Epist. 24 (al. 28).
8 Hist. Eccl., iii. 25. ° Idem, iii. 24.
10 For a fuller statement of the external testimonies in favour of the
First Epistle of John see Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, pp. 256-259.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 217
witness of the incidents of the life of Christ in words
similar to those used by the writer of the Fourth Gospel :
" That which we have seen and heard declare we unto
you ; " " We have beheld and bear witness that the
Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world "
(John i. 3, iv. 14) ; thus suggesting that the two works
proceeded from the same author. The Epistle also
bears upon it the impress of John's character, as that is
elsewhere manifested in the other writings of the New
Testament, and in the legends or reminiscences of the
Church. " Love was the distinguishing feature of the
beloved Apostle, and love is the chief theme of this
Epistle. That moral indignation, which was displayed
when he wished to draw down fire from heaven to
consume the Samaritans, is also seen in his invectives
against those heretics who called in question our Lord's
advent in the flesh. That contemplative disposition,
which is seen in the record of our Lord's farewell ad
dress and in the insight into our Lord's disposition, is
also conspicuous in the Epistle. That calmness and
composure of mind, which distinguished John from the
ardent Peter, and which distinction on several occa
sions was manifest in the actions of these Apostles
when together, are noticeable as characteristics of this
Epistle." x " Let it be noted," observes Haupt, " how
admirably the character of our Epistle accords with
what we otherwise know of the character of the Apostle.
On the one side there is a keenness of severity in the
severance of light from darkness, and of the world from
the kingdom of God, which betrays the Son of Thunder.
1 Introduction to Catholic Epistles, p. 262.

218 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
But, on the other side, and concurrently with this, we
feel a breath of most pathetic and most inward affec
tion, from a spirit overflowing with love and strong in
peaceful rest, such as corresponds precisely with those
narratives, handed down from antiquity, concerning
his old age, which appeal so forcibly to our hearts." J
So also when we carefully read the Fourth Gospel
and the Epistle and compare them together, we feel
constrained to come to the conclusion that both pro
ceed from the same author. There is not only a
similarity, but an identity of style. The same ideas
are employed, and often the same words. The two
leading ideas of the Gospel — Life and Light — that
" in Him was Life, and the Life is the Light of men,"
also pervade the Epistle. Such leading expressions
as "being born of God," "abiding in God," "walking
in the truth," " walking in darkness," " overcoming
the world," are found in both writings. Long lists
of parallels are given by various commentators which
go to demonstrate an identity of authorship.2
But yet this resemblance is not the resemblance of
imitation, so that the Epistle might be considered as a
mere imitation of the Gospel written by some other
person, but arises from the same person writing diffe
rent books and discussing different subjects. Along
with points of resemblance there are also points of
1 Haupt, The First Epistle of St. John, p. 366, English translation.
! See Eichhorn's Einleitung in das N. T., vol. ii. pp. 281-283 ; De Wette's
Einleitung, p. 396 f. ; Guericke's Neutestamentliche Isagogik, p. 474 ; Bishop
Alexander, Speaker's Commentary, vol. iv. p. 282 ; Westcott's Epistles of St.
John, pp. 41-43 ; Plummer On First John, Cambridge series, pp. 37-40 ;
Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, 2nd edit.,
pp. 233-235.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST EPISTLE. 219
difference. The occasions and objects of these writings
were different. The Gospel is a historical account of
the life of Jesus Christ, whilst the Epistle is a practical
exhortation to believers to imbibe the spirit of Christ.
The polemical element is much greater in the Epistle
than in the Gospel. There is direct mention of heretics,
and their heresies' are stated and condemned. In the
Gospel the Paraclete is the Holy Ghost (John xiv. 16),
whilst in the Epistle the Paraclete is Jesus Christ
Himself (1 John ii. 1). In the Epistle the death of
Christ is said to be a propitiation (t\ao-p.d?) for our sins,
and likewise for the sins of the whole world (1 John
ii. 2) ; whereas in the Gospel it is only asserted that
Christ gave up His life for us, but without any definite
mention of the propitiatory nature of His death. These
differences result from the difference in the designs of
the two works; the Gospel was written to prove that
Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God ; the
Epistle on the assumption! of this truth, and to exhort
believers to walk in the light, and to cultivate fellow
ship with the Father and the Son. " The First Epistle,"
observes Westcott, " presupposes the Gospel, either as
a writing, or as oral instruction. But while there are
numerous and striking resemblances both, in form and
thought between the Epistle and the Evangelist's record
of the Lord's discourses and his own narrative, there
are still characteristic differences between them. In
the Epistle the doctrine of the Lord's true and perfect
humanity (o-dp%) is predominant ; in the Gospel that of
His divine glory (8d£a). The burden of the Epistle is
' the Christ is Jesus ; ' the writer presses his argument

220 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
from the divine to the human, from the spiritual and
ideal to the historical. The burden of the Gospel is
' Jesus is the Christ ; ' the writer presses his argument
from the human to the divine, from the historical to
the spiritual and ideal."1
II. — The Readers of the Epistle.
Some 2 suppose that this Epistle of John is in reality
not an Epistle at all, but an ethical treatise on the
Christian life, or an epitome of Christian doctrine, or a
pastoral. It has none of the characteristics of an epistle ;
there is no address to the readers at the commence
ment, and no salutation from the author at the close ;
nor are there in it any personal references. But
although it has not the form of an epistle, yet it
abounds with epistolary addresses ; and although there
are no references to individuals or to Churches, yet there
are references to certain forms of heresy, into which those
addressed were liable to fall. It has been uniformly
regarded by the Fathers as an Epistle. The title
catholic or circular given it in our catalogue of the
sacred books appropriately designates it.3
So also it has been supposed that the Epistle bears
a peculiar relation to the Fourth Gospel, and was
written with a distinct reference to it.1 Some think
that it was a preface or introduction to the Gospel ;
1 Introduction to the Gospel of St. John in Speaker's Bible, vol. ii. p. 88.
2 Bengel, Michaelis, Bishop Horsley, Eeuss, Bishop Westcott.
3 Its epistolary character is maintained by Liicke, Bleek, Huther, Weiss,
and Diisterdieck.
* This is the opinion adopted by Storr, Hug, Ebrard, Haupt, Hofmann,
Thiersch, Bishop Alexander, Bishop Lightfoot, Plummer, and Westcott.

THE READERS OF THE EPISTLE. 221
others, that it was a supplement or postscript ; others,
that it was a comment or dissertation ; others, that
it was a companion-document ; and others, that it was
an encyclical letter accompanying the Gospel. But
all these opinions are mere hypotheses, for which there
is no adequate reason. Although the Gospel and
Epistle were written by the same author, yet there is
no reason to suppose that the one was written with
a direct reference to the other. They are separate
writings, written with different designs, and indepen
dently of each other, and called forth by different
occasions, each writing being complete in itself.1
Some Latin authors suppose that this Epistle was
addressed to the Parthians. This opinion has its origin
in a statement of Augustine, who quotes from this Epistle
as " the Epistle of John to the Parthians." 2 In this he
has been followed by Vigilius Tapsensis, Cassiodorus,3
Bede, and in modern times by Grotius, Schulthess, and
partially by Michaelis. It is evidently erroneous, as it is
not adverted to by any of the ancient Fathers, nor is
there any mention of a mission of John to the Parthians.
Various reasons have been assigned for this mistake.
Some suppose that John being styled 6 TrapQivos, the
mistake arose from confounding the word -wapQivoi with
irapQbi ; others, that the error originated from the Second
Epistle being styled in some manuscripts Trpb$ vapQivovs,
which was confounded with vpbs 7rdpQov<; ; and others,
that the Epistle being catholic, had the title ttooj rovg
1 This opinion of the independence of the two writings is held by Bleek,
Liicke, Ewald, Huther, and Alford.
2 Quaest. Evang., ii. 39.
8 Cassiodorus, De institut. divin. script., c. 14, Opera, p. 459.

222 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Siacnrapcrafji.evovi, rendered in Latin ad sparsos, which
being not understood, was changed into ad Parthos.
Equally groundless are the suppositions that the Epistle
was originally addressed to the Jewish Christians in
Judaea,1 and to the Church of Corinth.2
Setting aside these opinions as erroneous, we consider
that the Epistle was not addressed to one particular
Church, but that it is a catholic or encyclical Epistle.
It was primarily addressed to the Churches of Procon
sular Asia. With these Churches John was in intimate
relationship ; to them he addressed the Apocalypse ;
for many years he resided at Ephesus, the centre of the
district, and, as we learn from Eusebius, he was accus
tomed to make to them pastoral visitations. He is
evidently acquainted with their wants and temptations,
and he writes to them, not as to strangers, but with
all the love of a spiritual father.
Christianity had at an early period, chiefly by the
missionary labours of Paul, been planted in the princi
pal cities of Proconsular Asia. There were flourishing
Christian congregations in Ephesus, Colosse, Laodicea,
and Smyrna. These Churches were chiefly composed of
Gentile converts. There were indeed numerous Jews
resident in Proconsular Asia, but it does not appear-
that they in any numbers had embraced the Gospel.
It would also appear that these Churches were in a state
of comparative peace ; they had been allowed to develop
themselves without any interference from the Roman
Government ; the Neronian persecution had not extended
1 The opinion of Benson and Macknight.
2 The opinion of Dr. John Lightfoot.

THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. 223
to Asia, and that of Domitian was in all probability
past. The dangers which threatened the Churches of
Asia arose not from without, but from within ; heresies
had sprung up within them. Proconsular Asia, and
especially its capital, Ephesus, w7as the chief seat of
heresy on account of the contact of Christianity with
Greek and Oriental philosophy. Paul, in his farewell
address to the elders of Ephesus, forewarned them of
this danger (Acts xx. 30). In his First Epistle to
Timothy, who was at that time resident in Ephesus,
he speaks of the opposition of science falsely so called
(1 Tim. vi. 20). And in the Epistles to the seven
Asiatic Churches there are various intimations of the
prevalence of heretical opinions among them ; mention
is in them made of the Nicolaitanes, an impure Gnostic
sect, of that woman Jezebel, who called herself a pro
phetess, and who seduced believers to eat things sacri
ficed to idols ; and of those who held the doctrine of
Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block
before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to
idols, and to commit fornication (Rev. ii. 6, 14, 20).
III. — The Design of the Epistle.
The general design or intention of the Epistle is thus
stated : " That which we have seen and heard declare
we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us ;
and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with
His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto
you that your joy may be full." " These things have I
written unto you that believe on the name of the Son

224 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
of God, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and
that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God "
(i John i. 3, 4 ; v. 13). The Epistle was written not so
much for the purpose of conviction as with a view to
edification. The Gospel was designed to prove that
Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God ; but the
Epistle was written to those who already believed on the
name of the Son of God ; it was addressed to believers ;
its object was not to convert, but to edify and exhort.
John proceeded on the ground that his readers were
firmly convinced of the divine nature of Christ, that
the Logos was made flesh, and he aims at the promotion
of fellowship with the Father and the Son ; he seeks to
persuade Christians that they have eternal life, and that
they should walk in the light as Christ is in the light.
But although such is the general design of the Epistle,
yet a polemical element evidently pervades it. The
Apostle writes to warn Christians against certain
erroneous views of the person of Christ which were
doubtless circulated among the Asiatic Churches. He
cautions them against being led astray by certain
.prevalent opinions, and exhorts them to test these
opinions by their nature and tendency. " Believe not
every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of
God, because many false prophets, are gone out into
the world" (John iv. 1). Hence the Fathers uniformly
recognise the polemical character of this Epistle, and
particularise the heresies against which it was written.1
1 Thus Tertullian observes, " In this Epistle John specially designates
those as antichrists who denied that Christ was come in the flesh, and who
refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one dogma Marcion
maintains ; the other Ebion." — De Prescript. Her., chap, xxxiii.

THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. 225
The general form of heresy against which John wrote
was Gnosticism. Gnosticism arose early in the Apostolic
age, but was not fully developed until the second
century, when it took shape and form, and greatly
disturbed the peace of the Christian Church and en
dangered its purity and unity. It was an eclectic
system, and necessarily arose from the contact of
Christianity with heathen philosophy. When the
educated and philosophising heathen passed over to
Christianity, they carried their philosophy with them,
and mingled its tenets with the doctrines of the Gospel.
There are four peculiarities which in some form or other
are common to all Gnosticism, (a.) The Gnostics set a
high value upon the Gnosis or knowledge ; they exalted
this at the expense of Christian morality, and hence
they divided Christians into two classes or castes — the
enlightened, who have attained to the knowledge of the
truth, and the unenlightened, who are not initiated into
the mysteries of the Gospel ; faith suffices for the latter,
whilst knowledge is the exclusive possession of the
former, (b.) The Gnostics regarded all matter as in
herently corrupt, as the principle of evil ; they were
distinctly Dualists. Between God and matter there was
a void which was filled up with a number of spiritual
beings or powers, called seons. These seons were con
sidered as emanations from God, and the farther they
were removed from God, the greater was their imperfec
tion, (c.) As matter was evil, the Gnostics could not
conceive God to be the Creator of the material world.
They thought that some inferior being, to whom the
majority of them gave the name of Demiurgus, was the

226 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF- JOHN.
creator. According to some, the Demiurgus was an
inferior but benevolent being ; according to others, he
was an evil power. Most of them regarded him as the
God of the Old Testament, (d.) For a like reason the
Gnostics could not conceive that Christ had a material
body. Hence they denied that Christ came in the flesh,
and maintained that His person was an appearance, and
not a reality. What is called Docetism, or the mere
appearance of a material form without any substance,
was not a particular heresy of certain Gnostics, but an
essential principle which pervaded all Gnosticism. In
general Christ was regarded by the Gnostics not in an ex
clusive sense as the Son of God, the incarnate Logos, but
as the highest seon or emanation from God. When in the
world, He possessed an apparent, but not a real body.1
Gnosticism was not fully developed into a system or
systems until the second century by Basilides, Valen
tinus, Marcion, and others ; but its germs existed in the
Apostolic age. There was a mingling of Christianity
with heathen philosophy. Especially was this the case
in Proconsular Asia, which may be considered as the
cradle of Gnosticism, on account of the speculative
tendency of the Asiatic-Greek mind. Thus in the
Epistle to the Colossians, Paul warns his converts
against certain errors of a Gnostic character: "Take
heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of
you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ" (Col. ii. 8). He cautions them
1 See Dissertation on Gnosticism in my Introduction to the Catholic
Epistles, pp. 305-321.

THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. 227
against the worshipping of angels and the intrusion
into things not seen. He discountenances the pre
tentions to a superior knowledge, and speaks of those
who had only a show of wisdom, vainly puffed up by
their fleshly mind. And he emphasises Christ as the
Creator of the world, as if in contrast with the Gnostic
notion of the Demiurgus, and asserts that in Him
dwelleth all the pleroma of the Godhead bodily (Col.
ii. 18; i. 16; ii. 9). In the First Epistle to Timothy,
sent to Ephesus, the Apostle, with evident reference to
Gnostic errors, speaks of the antithesis of knowledge
falsely so called, and of the endless genealogies in which
men indulged (1 Tim. vi. 20; i. 4), which may well be
understood as a reference to the successive descents of
the Gnostic seons. But Gnosticism had been consider
ably developed during the interval between the period
when Paul wrote his Epistles and when John wrote his.
It was more widely spread, more clearly defined, more
systematised. The docetic nature of Christ, which is
only dimly indicated in Paul's Epistles, was now dis
tinctly taught, and the great doctrine of the incarna
tion was either denied or explained away.
The particular form of Gnosticism, against which John
protests in his Epistles, is Docetism — the denial that
Christ came in the flesh (1 John iv. 2, 3 ; 2 John 7).
According to this view, Christ was a mere appear
ance, like the angels who appeared in Old Testament
times. Some distinguished between Jesus and Christ.
Jesus, they admitted, was a man possessed of a real
humanity, upon whom Christ, the heavenly seon, de
scended at His baptism, but left Him before His suffer-

228 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
ings commenced,1 Similar warnings against Docetism
were given by the Apostolic Fathers, proving how early
this form of Gnosticism pervaded the Christian Church.
Thus Ignatius in his Epistle to the Trallians writes :
" Be ye deaf, therefore, when any man speaketh to you
apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race- of David,
who was the son of Mary, who was truly born and ate
and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate,
was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in
heaven, and those on earth, and those under the earth." 2
And in his Epistle to the Smyrnians he writes : " He
suffered all these things for our sakes : and He suffered
truly, as also He raised Himself truly ; not as certain
unbelievers say, that He suffered in semblance." 3 So
also Polycarp writes with evident allusion to the words
of John : " Whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ
is come in the flesh, is Antichrist." i
Nor is Gnosticism by any means extinct. The warn
ings of the Apostle against it are still applicable in our
days. We may wonder at the fancies, and follies, and
absurdities of Gnostic speculations — the genealogies of
seons ; but although the form is altered, yet the spirit
of Gnosticism is still abroad in the Christian Church.
We certainly are in little danger of vilifying and depre
ciating matter, as if it were intrinsically evil ; our error
lies in. the contrary direction of deifying it. But
although Gnostic cosmogony may be abandoned, yet
the Christology of many is decidedly Gnostic. Many
1 This was the doctrine of the heresiarch Cerinthus, a contemporary of
John. Irenseus, Adv. Her., i. 26, 1.
2 Ep. ad Trail, chap, ix., Bishop Lightfoot's translation.
¦ 3 Ep. ad Smyr., chap. ii. * Ep. ad Philippens., chap, vii.- -

' THE DESIGN OF THE EPISTLE. 229
adopt the Ebionite view of denying the incarnation and
divinity of Christ, and regarding Him as a mere man.
The tendency now is to dwell wholly on the human
character of Christ, and to overlook His divine nature.
Many also adopt the views of Cerinthus, and separate
the Christ from Jesus ; they deny that Jesus wrought
any miracles, and, like Cerinthus, esteem Him merely
as more righteous, prudent, and wise than other men.
Many give a docetic interpretation to His resurrection,
and hold that the manifestations to His disciples were
merely visionary appearances, and not realities. The old
forms of heresy are reappearing in new shapes, and are
again corrupting the purity of the faith.
But the polemical element forms only a small portion
of this Epistle. John did not write merely to confute
gainsayers or to attack the heresies which were then
prevalent. He aimed at practical godliness. He wished
to establish believers in the truth and in the practice of
the truth. All his exhortations are with a view to this.
He has an intense hatred of sin and an intense love of
holiness. What he has chiefly in view is the promotion
of fellowship with the Father and the Son, and, by means
of this, fellowship among believers. He especially ex
horts believers to entire severance from the world. The
world is the kingdom of Satan ; it is the enemy of God ;
it lieth in wickedness. Herein consists the great contrast
between the kingdom of light and the kingdom of dark
ness. All that is in the world — its lusts, its allure
ments, its rewards — are not of the Father. And cer
tainly, at the period when John wrote his Epistle, the
world was in a state of extreme moral degradation, and

230 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
no warnings against it could be sufficiently emphatic,
and no denunciations of it sufficiently strong.

IV. — Time and Place of Whiting-.
The supposition of Grotius, Whitby, and Michaelis,
that this Epistle was written before the destruction of
Jerusalem, is entirely baseless. The Epistle bears inter
nal evidence that it was written toward the close of
the Apostle's residence in Ephesus. The Church was
in a state of external peace; the Roman government
had ceased to be hostile. Flourishing Churches had
also been for some time established in all the prin
cipal cities of Proconsular Asia, as is evident from their
development, and from the variety of opinions which
then prevailed among them. The Jewish controversy,
which had early disturbed the peace of the Church,
and against which Paul in almost all his Epistles had
contended, had ceased. A new phase of controversy
concerning the Person of Christ had arisen — a contro
versy which necessarily implies an education in Chris
tian doctrine. And it is also evident that the Epistle
bears internal marks that it was written by an aged
man ; it is the outpouring of the love of an aged saint
toward his beloved children : " I write unto you, little
children." The first generation of Christians were pass
ing away, and a new generation had arisen. It is still a
matter of dispute, whether the Gospel or the Epistle was
written first. Liicke, Ewald, Ebrard, and Haupt main
tain the priority of the Gospel, whilst Bleek, Bruckner,
Huther, and Weiss assert that the Epistle was first

STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 231
written. In all probability there was no great difference
of time between them ; and as John survived to the
reign of Trajan (a.d. 98), both were probably written
toward the close of the second century.1
There is no reason to call in question the general
opinion that the place of composition was Ephesus.
Here John resided for more than thirty years, and from
this as a centre he exercised an apostolic superintend
ence over the Churches of Proconsular Asia. Ephesus
might at that period be regarded as the chief seat of
Christianity ; it was the capital of a large and flourish
ing province, the great emporium of the merchandise of
the East, the place of resort of all nations, and the centre
of philosophic thought. The other supposition, favoured
by Hug, Ebrard, and Haupt, that the Epistle was written
from Patmos, rests on no foundation.

V. — Style and Chabactee. of the Epistle.
The style of the Epistle has already been considered
in the general remarks on the style of John's writings.
Attention was then directed to the simplicity of language,
the smallness of the vocabulary, and the sparing use of
connecting particles. Especially in this Epistle is the
peculiar kind of repetition in the form of antithetic propo
sitions conspicuous, the proposition being expressed first
negatively, and then positively ; as, for example, " God is
lio-ht, and in Him is no darkness at all ;" " He that doeth
good is of God : he that doeth evil hath not seen God."
1 Ebrard fixes on a.d 94.

232 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
All this is analogous to the poetry of the Hebrews. The
language is Greek, but the form of expression is Hebrew.
There is a picturesqueness of style, a Hebrew rhythm,
like that of the Old Testament prophets, which shows
that the author, although writing in comparatively pure
Greek, was a Hebrew poet and a profound student of
the Old Testament. But, along with this simplicity of
language, there is a profundity of thought. Few of the
writings of the New Testament require more patient
study to discover the full import of the thoughts which
the words convey, or to fathom the doctrines which
are there asserted in apparently simple aphoristic
terms.1 There is an idealism about this Epistle. It not only
exhibits a high degree of Christian perfection, but one
which is apparently unattainable. " He that is born of
God sinneth not, and he cannot sin, because he is born
of God." This is the ideal state — the condition to which
Christianity seeks to bring man. Love is the great
principle which pervades this Epistle ; it is its keynote —
love to man arising from love to God. But this love is
with John not a mere sentimental benevolence ; it is ever
combined with hatred to sin. Love shows itself in the
hatred of evil ; the light excludes the darkness ; and
hence combined with intense love there is a tone of
severity in the Epistle. " As it had become," says
Ewald, " a growing custom to write in epistles to the
Church at large on important general questions, in his
special circumstances John found it still more appro
priate, in lofty repose, almost as a glorified patriarch,
1 Introduction to Catholic Epistles, pp. 285, 286.

STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EPISTLE. 233
already raised far above the errors of the world, to
address himself to Christians generally as his children,
and to leave them in this Epistle a final testimony of
his love. In this way arose an Epistle which pours
forth, as in serenest certainty, a rich stream of the
highest Christian truths, and in the midst of its course
strikes with keenest words the false teachers who had
in the first instance occasioned it, but without even
mentioning them by name, or specially describing
them."1 The plan of this Epistle has been variously repre
sented.2 Bengel arranges the Epistle with reference to
the Trinity, and assumes 1 John v. 7 as the key to its
understanding. According to him, it treats of fellow
ship with the Father (chap, i.), with the Son (chaps.
ii., iii.), with the Holy Ghost (chap, iv.), and concludes
with a comprehensive statement of the testimony of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (chap, v.).3" Diister-
dieck supposes that the theme of the Epistle is fellow
ship with God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Farrar arranges the Epistle into three sections, corre
sponding with the three propositions, " God is light "
(chaps, i., ii.), " God is righteous" (chaps, iii.— iv. 6), and
" God is love " (chaps, iv. 7-v.) ; 4 and Plummer into two,
corresponding with the propositions " God is light "
(chaps, i.-ii. 28), and "God is love" (chaps, ii. 29-v.
12), to which is annexed a conclusion (chap. v. i3~2i).s
1 Ewald's History of Israel, vol. viii. p. 168, English translation.
5 Calvin, Reuss, and Holtzmann are unable to discover any plan.
3 Bengel's Gnomon, comment on 1 John v. 7.
4 Farrar's Messages of the Books, p. 486.
6 Plummer's Epistles of St. John, pp. 44, 45.

234 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
Macdonald supposes the keynote of the Epistle to be
fellowship, and adopts the following arrangement : x —

I.

Fellowship, its nature

. chap, i.-iii. I, 2.

2.

Fellowship, its fruit, Holiness .

„ iii. 3-24.

3-

Fellowship, its law, Truth

„ iv. 1-6.

4-

Fellowship, its life, Love

„ iv. 7-20.

5-

Fellowship, its root, Faith

„ v. 1-2 1.

VI. — The Integrity of the Epistle.
There are only two disputed passages, on which it is
necessary to remark.
The first is 1 John ii. 23, where the last clause, " He
that confesseth the Son hath the Father also " (6 6p.6\oywv
rbv vlbv kou rbv iraripa ey/ei), is in the Authorised Version
italicised, as if it were of doubtful genuineness. It is
omitted in the textus receptus. Its genuineness has now,
however, been fully established ; and it is accordingly
printed in Roman characters in the Revised Version,
without any marginal note. It is found in the Sinaitic,
Vatican, Alexandrian, and the principal uncial manu
scripts, and is retained by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre-
gelles, Westcott and Hort.
The other passage is 1 John v. 7, 8, the well-known
passage of the heavenly witnesses. The disputed words
are ev rw ovpavo) 6 TLarrjp 6 A.6yo<s kou ro *Ayiov Tlvevfia.
Kai oSroi 01 rpeh ev eieri. Kai rpeig eieriv ol fiaprvpovvres iv
Ti5 yd : " In heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost ; and these three are one. And there are three
that bear witness on earth." These words, inserted
without comment in the Authorised Version, are
1 Macdonald's Life and Writings of St. John, p. 381.

THE INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. 235
expunged from the Revised Version. They are now
universally rejected as spurious; no critic of any note
now maintains their genuineness. They are omitted
in all the uncial manuscripts, and in all the cursives,
except three or at the most five, and these of no autho
rity ; they are found in none of the ancient versions,
except in the Old Latin, where there are possible traces
of them, and in the more recent manuscripts of the
Vulgate. They are omitted by all the Greek Fathers
before the sixth century, and by all the Latin Fathers
previous to the close of the fifth century, with the
possible exceptions of Tertullian and Cyprian. It was
with reluctance that Erasmus inserted them into his
Greek Testament, and from his edition they were in
serted in the textus receptus. The most recent editions
of the Greek Testament entirely exclude them.1
1 See Dissertation on the Heavenly Witnesses in the Introduction to the
Catholic Epistles, pp. 289-305.

DISSERTATION.
THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN.
Literature. — The writings on the Biblical Theology of John are
numerous. The most important works are Lechler's Apostolisches
Zeitalter, pp. 195-228, English translation, vol. ii. pp. 163-253;
Frommann's Der johannische Lehrbegriff ; Neander's Planting of
Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 28-56 ; Schmid's Theology of the New Testa
ment; pp. 519-542 ; KostUn's Der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums und
die Briefe Johannis ; Schwegler's Das nadhapostolische Zeitalter; Hil-
genfeld's Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihren Lehr
begriff dargestellt ; Baur's Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, erste
Band, pp. 146-174, and his Neutestamentliche Theologie ; Eeuss's
History of Christian Theology, pp. 356-527 ; Scholten's Das Evange
lium nach Johannes, translated into German from the Dutch ; Weiss'
Der johannische Begriff, and his Biblical Theology of the New Testa
ment, vol. ii. pp. 3 1 1-4 1 6 ; Eeynolds' Introduction to John's Gospel)
in the Pulpit Commentary, pp. 138-150; Thoma's Die Genesis des
Johannes- Evangeliums, pp. 1 7 1-302 ; Westcott, Tlie Epistles of St.
John. The only sources, from which we learn the doctrinal
views of John, are his writings. No discourses of his
are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, nor have his
sayings transmitted by tradition sufficient attestation
to be relied on. These writings are separated into two
distinct classes, marked by well-defined peculiarities;
the one class contains the Fourth Gospel and the three
Epistles ascribed to John, and the other class the Apo
calypse. We have already discussed the Gospel and
236

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 237
the First Epistle, whilst the Apocalypse still remains
as a subject for consideration. Besides, the Apocalypse
is so entirely different both in matter and form1 from
the other writings of John, professing to be a revela
tion of the future, that it seems better to consider the
theology of these two classes of writings separately. It
is from the Gospel and Epistles that we derive our
notion of Johannine theology in general, whilst the
Apocalypse, from its nature, treats specially of the
different points of eschatology. In this dissertation,
therefore, we restrict ourselves to the doctrinal views
of John as contained in the Gospel and Epistles.
But here we are met with a difficulty at the outset.
To what extent are we permitted to use the Fourth
Gospel as expressive of the views of John ? It has
been affirmed that, in deriving John's views from the
Fourth Gospel, we are precluded from using for this
purpose the discourses of Jesus. It has been said that
if we consider these discourses as containing the views
of John, we sacrifice their historical character, and
regard them as the free composition of the Apostle,
If this objection is valid, we are certainly restricted in
the use of the Gospel to very narrow limits. "The
direct sources of the Johannine system of teaching,"
observes Schmid, "which can be derived from the
Gospel are, in the first place, the prologue (John i,
1- 1 8) and the short conclusion (John xx. 30 f.). Next, we
have certain statements which the Apostle adds on his
own account, especially the interpretation of some of the
1 The difference in matter is that the Apocalypse deals mainly with
eschatology, and in form that it sets forth doctrine in figurative and sym
bolical language.

238 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
utterances of Jesus, as in chaps, ii. and vii., xi. 51 f.,
xii. 33 ; added to these, we may compare the passage
with which he concludes the account of the public
ministry of Jesus (John xii. 37 f.). Other passages may
be adduced, but doubtfully ; that in chap. ii. 24 f. must
in any case be added." x Now, it must be confessed
that there is considerable plausibility in this objec
tion ; but we must consider the peculiar impressions
which the discourses of Jesus made on such a suscep
tible mind as that of John. John was the beloved
disciple of Jesus ; he shared His inmost thoughts ; his
mind was saturated with His opinions; and hence
those discourses of Jesus, made in private to His dis
ciples, contain the views which doubtless were adopted
by the Apostle. We are entitled to speak of the
theology as Johannine, because the doctrines of Jesus
were selected and organised by John in correspondence
with his own subjective opinions ; and this, as we
have already observed, is the reason why there is
little difference in spirit, and even in diction, between
the writings of John and the discourses of our Lord
as recorded in the Fourth Gospel. Besides, John's
own views were founded on those discourses ; from
them he derived much of his inspiration ; they formed
the staple matter of his opinions. It is impossible,
therefore, to treat of Johannine doctrine satisfactorily
except in connection with those discourses of Jesus
which it presupposes, and with which it is so closely
bound up. His First Epistle may be considered as a
comment on the Gospel, as the views expressed by
1 Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament, p. 521.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 239
Jesus in the Gospel are contained in it.1 Accordingly,
we feel ourselves warranted in deriving the Apostle's
doctrine from the discourses of Jesus recorded by him.2
The main peculiarity of the Johannine theology is
its subjectivity or experimental character. This dis
tinguishes it from the doctrinal views of the other
Apostles, Paul, Peter, and James. It is addressed to
our feelings rather than to our intellect : the appeal
is to the conscience and emotions ; it is the theology
of the heart. The manifestation of Christianity in
the outward conduct arises from an internal principle
of life ; the objective loses itself in the subjective.
Hence there is a peculiar mysticism connected with
John's theology. Undoubtedly the Johannine system
is mystical, and John is the father of all Christian
mystics. "John," observes Neander, "is the repre
sentative of the truth which lies at the basis of that
tendency of the Christian spirit which sets itself in
opposition to a one-sided intellectualism and ecclesias
tical formality, and is distinguished by the name of
mysticism." 3 " The religious idea," observes Reuss,
" by which the theology of John is mainly character
ised, does not attract us by the same eloquent presen
tation of it (as does the theology of Paul) ; it hides
itself, as it were, in an inner sanctuary ; it must be
sought in order to be found ; it communicates itself
1 The chief exception to this is the doctrine of the agency of the Holy
Spirit, which is so fully stated in our Lord's last discourses, but not much
dwelt upon in the Epistle of John.
2 See on this point Lechler's Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, vol. ii.
pp. 163-177 ; and Weiss' Biblical Theology of the New Testament, vol. ii.
pp. 3 1 1-3 1 5.
3 Neander's Planting, vol. ii. p. 48.

24o THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
only to sympathetic souls ; it is less attractive to the
speculative mind, eager for new discoveries, and re
joicing to see its horizon widening, than to the heart
which, full of holy desire and gratefully accepting
what it thus receives, is satisfied even in its restricted
sphere." x By mysticism in religion we mean the inner
life, or that religion which is founded on the feelings
rather than on the reason, which is intuitive rather
than logical, idealistic rather than realistic, the product
of contemplation rather than of speculation, and can
thus be understood only by a sympathetic mind ; it
relates to the soul's union with God ; it refers to God's
relation to us rather than to our relation to God. And
yet this mysticism of John must not be perverted,
as if there were anything fanciful or morbid about it ;
much indeed there is that is incomprehensible, obscure,
and perplexing. It arises from John's endeavour to
rise to the highest conception of Christianity. Like
the eagle, which is his emblem, he gazes on the sun ;
and his eye is dazzled with the glories he beholds. Nor
is it a mere contemplative mysticism ; it is a mysti'
cism transfigured by love ; combined with contempla
tion there is intense love of man and intense hatred
of sin.
The relation of the doctrinal views of John to the
Jewish law has been much discussed by theologians,
especially by those belonging to the Tubingen school.2
1 Reuss' History of Christian Theology in the Apostolic Age, vol. ii. pp.
334, 335-
2 See Baur's Geschichte der christlichen Kirche, vol. i. p. 156 f., Engr-
lish trauslation, vol. i. pp. 155, 179, 180 ; also his Neutestamentliche
Theologie.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 241
In his writings allusions to the Jewish law are rare.
Almost all the other writings of the New Testament
are pervaded with questions concerning the relation of
Christianity to Judaism. In John's writings there is no
mention of those disputes which were occasioned by the
Judaising Christians, and which disturbed the peace of
the Pauline Churches. When John wrote, the great con
troversy concerning the Law and the Gospel had ceased ;
there was no longer any question how far the Gentile
converts should accommodate themselves to Jewish obser
vances ; all particular ceremonies had been abolished,
and Jew and Gentile were united in Christ. The divine
origin of the Jewish religion was fully recognised.
Moses and the prophets were quoted as authorities
(John i. 17; iii. 14; v. 45; vii. 19). The Jews were
the peculiar people of God ; Christ came to His own
(John i. 11); the Temple was His Father's house (John
ii. 16) ; the special feasts at Jerusalem were honoured
by His presence ; and to the Samaritan woman our
Lord said that salvation was of the Jews (John iv. 22).
But whilst it was maintained that Judaism was a
divine revelation, yet its restrictedness was done away
with, and in every place the true worshippers were to
worship the Father in spirit and in truth (John iv. 21).
Jesus was to die not for the nation of the Jews only,
but was to gather into one the children of God that
were scattered abroad (John xi. 52). His death was
a propitiation for the sins not of the Jews only, but
likewise for the sins of the whole world (1 John ii. 2).
And hence those theologians who make a distinction
between a Jewish and a Gentile form of Christianity Q

242 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
maintain that both are reconciled, or rather absorbed,
in the universality of John's Gospel.1
It is extremely difficult to determine what are the
central or leading ideas of John's theology. There is a
certain mysticism which renders it difficult of compre
hension ; there is a profundity about it which can hardly
be fathomed. One is inclined to think that the new life,
as begun in regeneration and developed in the subsequent
conduct of the Christian, the eternal life commenced on
earth and perfected in heaven, is the groundwork of
the Johannine system ; and there is no doubt that, to a
certain extent, this is true, — the religion inculcated by
John is that of the inner life. The sentiment of love,
which pervades the writings of this Apostle, and consti
tutes him "the Apostle of Love," as seen in the revelation
of the Fatherhood of God, and in the enforcement of
love to the brethren as the essence of the Christian life,
is regarded by some as the keynote of the Johannine theo
logy. The assertion of fellowship with the Father and
the Son, and the mystical idea of union between the
Father and the Son and between believers and Christ,
also seems to be a leading idea, and pervades both the
Gospel and the Epistle. But what appears to be the most
essential principle of the Johannine theology is the pro
minent, unflinching, and unhesitating assertion of the
divinity of Christ. The incarnation of the Divine Logos
is the keynote of John's theology; all his other doctrines
are connected with this idea or are derived from it.2
1 See on the relation of Johannine theology to Judaism, Weiss' Der
Johann. Lehrbegriff, pp. 101-129, "Die alttestamentlichen Grundlagen des
johanneischen Lehrbegriffs."
2 In perfect accordance with this, John thus defines the view of his

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 243
The Gospel commences with a declaration of the divi
nity and incarnation of the Logos. That Word which
was in the beginning with God, and was God, was made
flesh and dwelt among us (John i. 1-14). And the
Epistle commences with a similar declaration, " That
which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked
upon, and our hands have handled of the Word of life,
declare we unto you" (1 John i. 1-3). This, then, is the
point from which John starts, and the development of
which pervades his whole Gospel. Nor can there possibly
be a truth of greater magnitude ; that the Eternal God
should take upon Himself human nature aud appear in
the Person of Jesus Christ, is a declaration of stupen
dous importance, and must fill our minds with amaze
ment and awe. There can hardly be any doubt that
John believed in and taught the divinity of Jesus
Christ, that He was the Son of God in a peculiar,
ineffable manner, the partaker of the divine nature,
the sharer in the divine attributes. The pre-existence
of Christ is repeatedly asserted. Our Lord Himself
declares that He existed before Abraham, and that He
shared in the glory of the Father before the world
began (John viii. 58 ; xvii. 5). He is declared to be
the Sent of God, and to have come down from heaven
to earth (John iii. 17; vi. 38). He and the Father are
one, and the works which the Father doeth, the same
doeth the Son (John x. 30; v. 19). But the humanity
of Christ is no less positively insisted on. The Logos
Gospel : " These things are written that ye might believe that Jesus is
the Christ, the Son of God " (xx. 31)-

244 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
became flesh ; not merely a partaker of man's physical
nature, but of the whole human nature, possessed of a
human soul as well as a human body. In none of the
Gospels is Christ's humanity more clearly taught. We
are informed that He was a prey to human weakness ;
He was weary with His journey (John iv. 6) ; He was
thirsty (John xix. 28) ; He wept at the tomb of Lazarus
(John xi. 35) ; He was grieved with the perverseness of
His disciples, and sympathised with them in all their
sorrows (John vi. 66-70; xiv. 1) ; He grieved in spirit,
and was troubled at the thought of the sufferings which
awaited Him (John xii. 27); and He was concerned
about His mother when hanging on the cross (John xix.
26, 27). Thus the Christ of John is equally removed
from Ebionism on the one hand and from Docetism
on the other. There was in Him the union of the two
natures, the human and the divine ; and this constituted
the merit of the confession of Peter : " Lord, to whom
shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life ; and
we believe and know that Thou art the Holy One of
God" (John vi. 68).
From the incarnation of the Logos necessarily arises
the revelation of God. Jesus Christ is God manifest
in the flesh. God Himself is incomprehensible to His
creatures. He dwelleth in the light which is inacces
sible. Christ only could reveal Him. He (only was
acquainted with His nature and character (John x. 15).
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only-
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He
hath declared Him" (John i. 18). There are in the
writings of John four remarkable categorical statements

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 245
of the nature of God. God is a spirit (John iv. 24),
removed from all that is material ; God is light ( 1 John
i. 5), a Being of infinite knowledge and purity ; God is
life (John v. 26), the source of all life, physical, mental,
and spiritual ; God is love ( 1 John iv. 1 6), a Being of
infinite benevolence. But not only has Christ revealed
God to us in His discourses and in His works, but He
Himself, as the Incarnate Word, is the revelation of
God. He is the transcript of the divine character ;
those feelings which He manifested while on earth were
the revelation of the moral character of God. "He
that hath seen Me," saith our Lord, "hath seen the
Father. Believest thou not that I am in the Father
and the Father in Me ?" (John xiv. 9, 10). All which
is in accordance with the declarations of Paul and with
the statements in the Epistle to the Hebrews.
From this peculiar relation of the Incarnate Logos to
God arises the idea of the subjection of the Son to
the Father, an idea which forms a striking feature of
Johannine theology. As a Son, He learned obedience.
As the Sent of God, He received from the Father the
work given Him to do. At all times and on all occa
sions He owns this subjection. The doctrines which
He taught were communicated to Him by the Father ;
He received commandment from the Father what He
should speak, and He spoke only what He had heard of
the Father (John xii. 49, 50). The miracles which He
performed were the works which the Father had given
Him to do (John v. 36), and were done by Him in His
Father's name (John x. 25) ; it was the Father that
dwelleth in Him who doeth the works (John xiv. 10).

246 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
When He raised Lazarus from the dead, the miracle
was performed in answer to prayer (John xi. 41, 42).
He came into the world not to do His own will, but the
will of Him who sent Him (John iv. 34), so that at the
close of life He could exclaim,- " Father, I have glorified
Thee on earth ; I have finished the work which Thou
gavest Me to do " (John xvii. 4).
The great purpose of the Incarnation was the redemp
tion of the world. The Incarnate Logos was not only
the Creator, but the Redeemer of the world, and as such
was manifested in the Person of Jesus Christ. For this
purpose He came into this world and suffered for our
sins. The sufferings and death of Christ for our sins
occupy in the theology of John as prominent a place as
in the theology of Paul. The sacrificial doctrine of the
atonement is distinctly taught. Christ is " the Lamb
of God that taketh away the sins of the world " (John
i. 29). Christ laid down His life for us (1 John iii.
16). "The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us
from all sin" (1 John i. 7). The Good Shepherd laid
down His life for the sheep (John x. 4). The sufferings
of Christ are represented as voluntary on His part, as
the highest instance of self-sacrifice ; no man took His
life from Him, but -He laid it down of Himself (John
x. 18). At the same time, they were expiatory. John,
in his Epistle, dwells upon the fact that they are a
propitiation (IXao-fids) for our sins,1 so that, in virtue of
them, we may be restored to the favour of God. Their
efficacy is in some respects universal; Christ died as
1 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10, ikacrp.6s is the translation in the Septuagint of the
Hebrew D'HBlp, the covering of sin by means of a sacrifice.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 247
the propitiation for the sins of the whole world ( 1 John
ii. 2). We are saved through the sufferings of Christ ;
the forgiveness of our sins is the result of the shedding
of His blood. But not only does forgiveness flow from
the sufferings of Christ, but also purification ; there is
a cleansing efficacy in Christ's blood ( 1 John i. 7, 9) ;
we are thus by the death of Christ redeemed not merely
from the guilt, but from the pollution of sin.
John especially brings prominently forward the great
truth that our redemption arises from the love of God.
Christ's death did not excite God's love, but it was
God's previous love to the world that constrained Him
to send His Son. Christ is the gift of the Father's
love, the brightest and most glorious display of His
benevolence. " God so loved the world that He gave
His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on
Him might not perish, but have eternal life" (John
iii. 16). "Herein was the love of God manifested in
us, that God hath sent His only-begotten Son into
the world, that we might live through Him. Herein
is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and
sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins " (1 John
iv. 9, 10). This truth is also stated by Paul in many parts
of his Epistles (Rom. v. 8) ; but John especially empha
sises it; it is a point of chief importance in his writings.
In the writings of John there is a special revelation
of the Fatherhood of God. The name Father is assigned
to God throughout, both in the Gospel and in the
Epistle.1 Christ came to make known the Father to
1 The name Father, as assigned to God, is used by John 98 times in his
Gospel and 15 times in his Epistles.

248 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
us — to reveal the heart of God. He speaks of God as
Father, as the Father, as the living Father. He is
the Son of God, and, by taking upon Himself our
nature, He confers this divine relationship upon the
children of men; they are the sons of God. God is
not only the Creator, but the Father of the human race.
In one sense, indeed, this is not a new revelation of
God. In the Old Testament God is often spoken of as
the Father of His theocratic people. Israel is His son,
His first-born.1 Even the Greeks speak of Zeus as
the father of men and gods. The whole character
of God is by John summed up in one attribute, " God
is love" (i John iv. 8). He loved the world as a father
yearns for the return of his prodigal children ; and this
Fatherhood, lost to us and forfeited by sin, is, by the
interposition of Christ, restored to all those who believe.
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed
upon us, that we should be called children of God"
( i John iii. i ).
In the idea of redemption the idea of sin is involved.
The Incarnate Logos came to deliver us from evil, and
sin is that evil into which we had fallen. With Paul,
sin is chiefly regarded in a legal point of view as a
transgression of law ; with Peter, chiefly in an ethical
point of view, as a moral defect, as that which corrupts
and pollutes the soul ; and with James, chiefly in a
derivative point of view, as the outcome of an evil
nature ; whilst John regards it chiefly in a privative
point of view, as alienation from God, the loss of spiri-
1 Exod. iv. 22. In the Old Testament God is generally spoken of as the
Father, not of individuals, but of the nation.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 249
tual life. Sin is lawlessness (dvon'ia), (1 John iii. 4),
estrangement from the holy law of God. The soul is
cut off from God, and is in a state of spiritual death.
As sin is the revolt from the law of God, and as this
law is summed up in love, so according to John the
absence of love, whether in the form of selfishness or
positive hatred, constitutes the essence of sin (1 John
ii. 9 ; iii. 15; iv. 20). Sin is universal in humanity ; it
belongs to the flesh (o-dpg) : " That which is born of the
flesh is flesh " (John iii. 6). There is no reference,
however, by John to the origin of sin ; its existence
and universality are stated as facts ; but how sin
entered into the world is not mentioned.
We are delivered from sin and made partakers of
the redemption procured by Christ by means of faith.
Faith has in the theology of John as great importance
assigned to it as in the theology of Paul ; so that the
same answer to the question, What must I do to be
saved ? is given by both Apostles. " This is the work
of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent"
(John vi. 29). Faith has its origin in the antecedent
grace of God ; it is the gift of God : no man can
come to the Son except the Father who hath sent Him
draw him (John vi. 44). Its nature, according to
John, is very simple ; it is a belief in God's testimony
concerning Christ. " If we receive the witness of men,
the witness of God is greater ; for the witness of God
is this, that He hath borne witness concerning His Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness
in him ; he that believeth not God hath made Him a
liar, because he hath not believed in the witness that

250 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
God hath borne concerning His Son. And the witness
is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life
is in His Son" (i John v. 9 11). Saving faith, then, is
belief in the great declaration that Jesus is the Christ,
the Son of God ; in other words, in the incarnation of
the Word of God. It is the acceptance of this truth
with the heart ; the reliance on Christ for eternal life.
This is that principle which brings us into living union
with Christ ; it is the bond of connection between the
soul and the Saviour ; it brings the soul into touch with
Jesus. Hence faith is the source of spiritual life ; it
rescues the soul from that state of spiritual death in
which it is by reason of its sinful nature, and infuses into
it a new and divine life ; the sinner, by simply believ
ing in Christ, passes at once from death to life : " Who
soever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten
of God" (1 John v. 1) ; he draws life from the living
Saviour, to whom he is united by faith. Faith restores
men to the Fatherhood of God. Those who believe on
the Son receive power to become the sons of God (John
i. 12). By faith believers are not merely assured of a
future salvation, but they are already saved. According
to John, salvation is a present blessing : " Whosoever
believeth on Him should not perish, but have (already
possess) eternal life" (John iii. 16).
The agency of the Holy Spirit in our redemption is
not overlooked in Johannine theology ; on the contrary,
a prominent place is assigned to it ; indeed, we have in
the Fourth Gospel a special revelation of the Spirit and
His work. In no part of Scripture is the personality of'
the Holy Spirit more distinctly taught than in the last

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 251
discourses of our Lord, as recorded by John. Personal
activities and feelings are ascribed to the Spirit. He is
mentioned as another Comforter distinct from our Lord ;
He was to teach the disciples all things ; He was to
show them things to come ; He was to testify of Christ ;
He was to convince the world of sin, righteousness, and
judgment. The advent of the Spirit was to succeed
Christ's Ascension (John vii. 39) ; the first Comforter
had to depart before the second Comforter should come
(John xvi. 7) ; He was to be sent by the exalted Christ ;
and accordingly we find that it was after the Ascension,
on the great day of Pentecost, that the Spirit was
sensibly poured out upon the Church. His great office
was to glorify Christ, to take of the things which were
Christ's and to show them to the disciples (John xvi. 14).
He was not to speak of Himself, but to reveal that which
He knew of the Father (John xvi. 13). He proceeds
from the Father, and dwells in the heart of believers.
He was so to quicken the memory of the disciples as to
bring all things to their remembrance whatever Christ
had taught them, and so to perpetuate the instructions
of our Lord for the benefit of the Church (John xiv. 26).
As the Comforter, He would console the disciples in all
their troubles ; as the Spirit of conviction, He would
convince the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judg
ment; and as the Spirit of holiness, He would abide
with the Church even to the end of time.
Especially is the Holy Spirit the author of the new
life in the soul. The doctrine of the new birth forms
an important part of the theology of John. It is de
scribed to us in the discourse of our Lord with Nico-

252 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
demus, a discourse which was probably delivered in the
presence of John. It is declared essential to a man's
entrance into the kingdom of God that he be born
again, and this new birth is ascribed to the agency
of the Holy Spirits " Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
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" (John iii. 5, 6). By this new birth a
new life is implanted in the soul, the sinner passes from
death into life ; he is born of the Spirit. And indeed
this new life is the groundwork of John's religious
system. With Paul the groundwork is righteousness ;
hence God is regarded as the Justifier of the ungodly,
and hence the most prominent doctrine with Paul is
justification by faith. But with John the groundwork
is life — a new life-principle implanted in the human
soul ; and hence he speaks little of righteousness or of
justification, but dwells chiefly on love as the essence of
the new life. And this life is not merely the precursor
of eternal life, but it is eternal life itself; it is life
without interruption and without end ; it is not arrested
by death; over it death has no power: "Whosoever
liveth and believeth on Me shall never die" (John xi.
26). With John the present is always prominent ; the
future is hardly distinguished from it ; salvation and
eternal life are matters of present enjoyment.1
Christ is the Life of the world. He is " the way, the
truth and the life." He is not only the source of all
1 By many eternal life is considered as the keynote of John's Gospel.
" This is the promise which He promised us, even the life eternal" (i John
ii. 25).

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 253
natural life as the Creator of the world, but is especially
the source of all spiritual life, as the Redeemer of the
world. He bestows life upon all who come to Him.
Faith is the living bond of connection to the Saviour
through which the current of spiritual life flows ; when
this connection is formed, then life is the result. In
the Incarnate Logos is life. " God gave unto us eternal
life, and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son
hath the life ; he that hath not the Son of God hath
not the life" (1 John v. 11, 12). The Holy Spirit, the
author and the sustainer of this spiritual life, is the
Spirit of Jesus Christ — the Spirit who was bestowed
upon Him without measure, and whom He communicates
to His disciples. Nay, more ; John teaches us that all
good in 'man, all his holy thoughts, and purposes, and
aims, proceed from Christ ; that He is the great source
and inspirer of all that is pure and holy ; so that the
virtues of the heathen, of Socrates, of Plato, of Cicero,
of Marcus Aurelius, instead of being, as Augustine repre
sents them, only splendid sins, are the effects of Christ's
Spirit. So also the glimpses of truth embodied in the
religions, and still more in the lofty theologies of the
ancient world, are due to a partial illumination by the
same Spirit : " In Him was life, and the life was the
light of men" (John i. 4); "He lighteth every man
coming into the world " (John i. 9).
From this results the mystical idea of union to Christ.
Christ dwells in the hearts of believers by His Spirit,
and they are united to Him by faith. In no writings
of the New Testament is the mystical union between
Christ and believers more dwelt upon. The strongest

254 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
metaphors are employed to represent that union. The
believer is said to eat Christ's flesh and to drink His
blood (John vi. 56). The life of Christ is said to
circulate in the believer as the sap circulates in the
vine (John xv. 4, 5). Christ is said to dwell in the
believer, and the believer in Christ. Nay, this union
is so represented by John as a union with God Him
self; by believing on Christ as the Son of God, and
by being possessed of the grace of love which constitutes
the nature of God, believers are united to God and
made partakers of His nature. " Whosoever shall con
fess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him,
and he in God. And we know and have believed the
love which God hath in us. God is love ; and he that
abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in
him" (1 John iv. 15, 16). Hence all spiritual life pro
ceeds from Christ ; it is because Christ lives that we
live also ; we live in the fountain of life. This doctrine
of life in Christ, taught by Paul when he says, " I live,
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me," has greater pro
minence given to it in the writings of John.
Another peculiarity in John's theology is the pre
eminence assigned to love. Paul also gives the pre
eminence to love (1 Cor. xiii. 13); but this grace so
pervades the discourses of our Lord in the teaching
of the Fourth Gospel and the Epistle of John, that it
absorbs all other graces. Faith and works find their
goal in love. The source of all love is God ; God is
love, and love is of God (1 John iv. 7, 8). The love
of God is especially seen in the gift of His Son ; and
the infinite love of Christ, in taking upon Himself

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 255
human nature and in suffering for us, is the reflection
of the love of God. This love of God and Christ begets
in man love to God. " We love, because He first loved
us" ( 1 John iv. 1 9). And from this love to God flows love
to the brethren : " 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" (1 John iv. 7, 8). If we are
partakers of the divine nature we must love one
another ; love is the only true evidence of the new life :
" We know that we have passed out of death into life,
because we love the brethren " (1 John iii. 14). Hence
the new life, which is the life of God in the human soul,
can only be ascertained by the application of this test ;
if love be absent, the life is absent ; there may be a
body of dead works, but there is no living spirit. At
the same time, perhaps, the love of John is not so
comprehensive as that of Paul : it appears to be chiefly
confined to the brethren, that is, to fellow-Christians ;
whereas the love of Paul is universal in its extent, and
embraces the human race. John certainly speaks of
God as loving the world, and of Christ as the Saviour
of all men; but the prominence is given to brotherly
love rather than to philanthropy.
But there is the counterpart of this. Love to Christ
will show itself in hatred to all that is opposed to Christ.
If we love the good, we will hate the evil. Now, accord
ing to John's view, as prominently brought forward both
in his Gospel and iii his Epistle, the world is the oppo
nent of Christ. Christ in His pre-existent state was the
Creator of the world, and in His incarnate state He

256 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
came to save the world ; but the world in its existing
state, the world in its views and principles, is at enmity
with God. Christ is Light, and the world is the region
of darkness. Christ is Life, and in the world death
reigns. Believers are cautioned against the world.
" Love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world. If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him" (1 John ii. 15)'. The world is
doomed ; it is condemned already, and shall finally be
destroyed. Believers are called out of the world ; when
they believe in Christ, they belong no longer to the
anti- Christian world ; they pass from the kingdom of
death and darkness into the kingdom of life and
light.1 Satan is regarded as " the prince of the world" (John
xii. 31 ; xiv. 30 ; xvi. 11); he is the ruler of that world
which is opposed to the kingdom of Christ : " The
whole world lieth in the evil one" (1 John v. 19).
All evil proceeds from him; he is a liar and a mur
derer from the beginning (John viii. 44) ; and all the
sins of men, from the fratricide of Cain to the trea
chery of Judas, are ascribed to his inspiration. He is
the negation of that light, and life, and love which
constitute the nature and character of God. All men
are arranged under two hostile powers ; they either be
long to Christ or to His rival the devil : " He that doeth
sin is of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the be
ginning. In this the children of God are manifest, and
the children of the devil ; whosoever doeth not right-

¦¦¦<-.'¦

1 For a full statement of John's view of the world, see Lucke's Commentary
on the Epistles of John, pp. 63 ff.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 257
eousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his
brother" (1 John iii. 8, 10).
But although Christ and Satan are represented as
two hostile powers, the one the prince of light and the
other the prince of darkness, it must not be supposed
that there is anything approaching to Manichseism
taught by John, or, as Reuss and Hilgenfeld1 assert,
that the doctrine taught is a Gnostic dualism, as if the
principles of good and evil were alike eternal. It is
true that there is no direct reference to the fall of Satan
and the evil angels, nor any allusion to the fall of man.
It is indeed asserted that Satan sinned from the begin
ning, and was a murderer from the beginning. But this
expression, " from the beginning," does not necessarily
imply that Satan was originally and by nature an evil
being, but may denote either, as Lechler interprets it,
from the creation of man,2 or, as Weiss renders it, before
men sinned.3 Not only is God represented as the Creator
of all things without exception, through Christ the
Logos, but Satan is entirely dependent on God, and will
yet be completely overcome by Christ. "To this end
was the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy
the works of the devil" (1 John iii. 8).
The conflict between the kingdom of Christ and the
kingdom of Satan is represented as carried on inces
santly. This conflict was waged in pre-Christian times,
but it became intensified when Christ came into the
1 Hilgenfeld goes the extravagant (blasphemous 1) length of affirming
that Jesus speaks of the God of the Jews as the father of the devil, in the
words i< rov irarpbs tou 8ia@6\ov iari (John viii. 44).
2 Lechler's Apostolic Times, vol. ii. p. 1 86.
3 Weiss' Biblical Theology of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 394. R

258 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
world (i John iii. 8). When gthe prince of this world
comes, he finds nothing in Christ (John xiv. 31). Christ
has overcome the world in its antagonism to His people.
None of His people shall perish, and no one shall snatch
them out of His hand (John x. 28). And He is enabled
to triumph over all His enemies, and to exclaim, " Now
is the judgment of this world ; now shall the prince of
this world be cast out" (John xii. 31). And so also
believers, deriving' their strength from Him, are enabled
to overcome the evil one. " I have written unto you,
young men, because ye are strong, and the word of
God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the evil
one" (1 John ii. 13, 14).
In the Gospel and the Epistles there is not much
allusion to eschatological points. In the First and
Second Epistles there are several references to Anti
christ : " It is the last hour ; and as ye heard that
Antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many
Antichrists ; whereby ye know that it is the last hour "
( 1 John ii. 1 8). By Antichrist is meant not the substitute,
but the opponent of Christ. According to John, and also
to Paul, Antichrist was to make his appearance in the last
hour, that is, probably, in the great conflict which shall
precede the final consummation of all things.1 There
was, according to John, a plurality in his manifestation ;
one Antichrist and yet many Antichrists — many powers
or influences at work, similarly opposed to Christ. John
especially specified as Antichrists those who called in
question the true humanity of Christ — the Gnostics of
his day : " Many deceivers are gone forth into the
1 See Westcott on the Epistle of John, p. 67, in loco.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 259
world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ
cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the Anti
christ" (2 John 7). "Every spirit which confesseth
not Jesus is not of God ; and this is the spirit of the
Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh ; and
now it is in the world already" (1 John iv. 3). Anti
christ himself was a future manifestation, but the spirit
of Antichrist was already in the Church and in the
world. So also with Paul, Antichrist, or " the man of
sin," was to be manifested in the future history of the
Church, yet the mystery of iniquity was already work
ing in his days (2 Thess. ii. 7). Paul imparts a greater
unity to his idea of Antichrist ; he speaks of him as
a single adversary, whereas John alludes to many
Antichrists. With Paul, Antichrist has yet to be re
vealed; whilst with John, Antichrist is both present
and future.
In the writings of John the judgment is represented
as present as well as future ; here, as in other particulars,
the future is absorbed in the present. There is a pre
sent judgment. The sifting process is going on ; men
are being separated into two classes — into those who are
drawn toward Christ, and those who are repelled from
Christ: "Now is the judgment of this world" (John
xii. 31). "He that believeth on Christ is not judged;
he that believeth not hath been judged already, because
he hath not believed on the name of the only-begotten
Son of God" (John iii. 18). " For judgment," says our
Lord, "came I into this world" (John ix. 39).1 But
1 "The judgment," observes Neander, "John considers as something
present, as a fact inseparable from the redemption of mankind and the
publication of the Gospel. There follows, as a necessary consequence, a

260 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
whilst there is a present, there is also a future judg
ment. Christ speaks of the last day, when men shall
be judged (John xii. 48) ; and in the Epistle there is
mention of the day of judgment (1 John iv. 17). Christ
Himself shall be the Judge, and before His tribunal all
men shall be assembled. The Father judgeth no man,
but He hath given all judgment to the Son, and hath
given Him authority to execute judgment, because He
is the Son of Man (John v. 22, 27).
So also the resurrection of the dead is represented as
both present and future. There is a present resurrec
tion, when a new life is imparted to those who are
spiritually dead ; and to this our Lord alludes when He
says, "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" (John
v. 25). And there is a future resurrection, when all
the wicked as well as the righteous shall be raised,
not as regards their souls, but as regards their bodies :
" 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 resur
rection of life ; and they that have done ill, unto the
resurrection of judgment " (John v. 28, 29). And as
Christ is the Judge of the world, who decides the
destinies of the human race, so He is also the Resurrec
tion, at whose command all men shall come forth from
their graves: "I am the resurrection and the life"
(John xi. 25).
separation between those who with susceptible minds receive the divine,
and those who exclude themselves by their unsusceptibility." — Planting of
Christianity, vol. ii. pp. 48, 49.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 261
The state of the blessed after death is not much
dwelt upon by John, either in his Gospel or in his
Epistle. Salvation is regarded by him as present, and
heaven as enjoyed on earth. Before His departure our
Lord comforted His disciples with the thought of the
many mansions in His Father's house ; He promises to
come again and receive them to Himself, and He prays
for them that they may behold His glory. In the
Epistle John tells us that the nature of the future state
of the blessed is not disclosed, but that believers will
be transformed into the image of Christ, and that this
resemblance to Christ, which will be perfected by seeing
Christ as He is, will constitute the happiness and the
holiness of the redeemed (1 John iii. 2). Eternal life
is enjoyed in this world, when God in our new birth
breathes into us His Holy Spirit, and when we were
united to Christ, the source of all spiritual life. But in
heaven it will be enjoyed in all its fulness and in all its
perfection ; life without weakness or decay ; life un
tainted by sin and untrammelled by infirmity; life even
that which Jesus Christ Himself possessed, the life of
God in the soul. "This is life eternal, that they should
know Thee, the only true God, and Him whom Thou
didst send, even Jesus Christ " (John xvii. 3).
Such is a brief statement of Johannine theology. The
two most considerable writers of the New Testament,
who may be denominated the two theologians of Chris
tianity, are Paul and John. In all essential points
these two Apostles are in perfect harmony. Both insist
on the divinity of Jesus Christ, His manifestation in
the flesh, the atoning nature of His sufferings, the state

262 THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN.
of sin in which man is placed, the necessity of faith as
the means of salvation, the agency of the Holy Ghost,
the final judgment, and the resurrection of the dead.
" Independent of each other in their origin and in their
composition," observes Reuss, " the systems of these two
eminent theologians among the Apostles agree in all
that is essential." 1 But whilst they agree in the matter
of their theology, they differ greatly in their method of
stating it. Paul addresses himself to the reason ; he
appeals to our intellectual faculties ; he argues, demon
strates, and draws inferences. John seldom addresses
the intellect ; he appeals to the heart ; he states his
propositions in the simplest terms, and enforces them
merely by an antithetical repetition of the same senti
ment. Paul is argumentative, John is contemplative ;
the theology of the one may be termed speculative, the
theology of the other is mystical ; 2 the objective ele
ment prevails in the one, the subjective in the other.
So also the starting-points of these two Apostolic writers
are different. Paul proceeds upwards from man to
God ; he starts from the disease, and proceeds to show
the remedy. John starts from God and the incarnation
of the Divine Logos, and proceeds to show the reason
of that incarnation in the salvation of the human race ;
his system of revealed truth is a true theology. With
Paul the incarnation is an essential part of the humilia
tion of Christ (Phil. ii. 5-8); whereas with John it is
rather to be considered as the manifestation of the
1 Reuss' History of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 513.
2 We do not deny that the mystical element is also contained in Paul's
Epistles, but it does not occupy so large a space as it does in the writings
of John.

THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 263
glory of the Logos and the exaltation of humanity
(John i. 14; xiii. 31). This difference may in part be
accounted for from the personal experience of the
writers. Paul, the former persecutor, bowed as the
disciple before the Master, and was eager to convert the
world to Christ. John, the beloved disciple, could not
forget his intimacy with Jesus, and thus regarded the
exalted Saviour as his heavenly Friend, and was desir
ous that all should experience the fulness of His love.
Paul's life-object was to diffuse the Gospel, to act as a
missionary ; whilst John's was to edify the Church, to
infuse the love of Christ into the hearts of believers.
" Both are striving with all the powers of their soul for
the same end — an end, however, which to the one seems
distant, to the other near. John, grasping the hand of
the Saviour, outstretched to him as a friend, and never
letting it go, has already ceased to feel that hunger and
thirst which once he had known. Paul, now humbled
by the memory of the past, now uplifted by grace, con
tinues to bow as the disciple before the Master, and
frankly confesses that he has not yet reached the goal." 1
1 Reuss' History of Christian Theology, vol. ii. p. 526.

THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.1
In the canon of the New Testament three private
letters are preserved, one ascribed to Paul and two to
John ; but these must evidently constitute but a small
fragment of the correspondence of the sacred writers.
Of course, letter- writing was not so much practised at
that time as in our own day ; but still, as we learn
both from classical and from patristic remains, it was
not uncommon. Frequent allusions are made to it in
Scripture. Paul speaks of " epistles of commendation "
(2 Cor. iii. 1) in such a manner as to intimate that
such letters were not unfrequent. Writing to the Corin
thians relative to the general collection which he was
making for the Christians at Jerusalem, he says (accord
ing to the correct rendering), " When I come, whom
soever ye shall approve, them will I send by letters to
bring your liberality to Jerusalem" (1 Cor. xvi. 3).
And we have in the Third Epistle of John a reference
to a letter of recommendation which that Apostle sent
to the Church, and which is not now extant : " I wrote
somewhat unto the Church, but Diotrephes, who loveth
to have the pre-eminence among them, received us not "
(3 John 9; seesupra, p. 55). Much then of the correspon-
1 This subject has already been considered in the Introduction to the
Catholic Epistles ; it is now stated in an abridged form.
264

AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLES. 265
dence of the Apostles is lost ; of their private letters we
have only three, or, if we include the Pastoral Epistles,
at the most six ; and there are also traces of letters
written by St. Paul to Churches which must be re
garded as lost Epistles (1 Cor. v. 9; Col. iv. 16). As
Meyer observes, when adverting to St. Paul's letters
of recommendation : " Hence we see how common in
Paul's practice was the writing of epistles. Who knows
how many private letters of his, not addressed to
churches, have been lost ? The only letter of the kind
which remains to us (that of Philemon) owes its pre
servation perhaps to the mere circumstance that it is at
the same time addressed to the Church in his house." 1
I. — Authenticity of the Epistles.
Two private letters are extant which are ascribed to
St. John. On account of their brevity, and the fact
of their being written to private individuals, we are
not to expect many references to them in the writings
of the Fathers, and yet they are not without external
attestation. The Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170) asserts
that John wrote at least two Epistles. Irenseus (a.d.
180) in two places refers to the Second Epistle and
ascribes it to John : "John, the disciple of the Lord,
has intensified their condemnation when he enjoins
us not to address to them (the heretical teachers) the
salutation God-speed ; for he says, ' He that bids them
God-speed is a partaker with their deeds.' " 2 And again,
1 Meyer on The Epistles to the Corinthians, on 1 Cor. xvi. 3, n.
2 Irenseus, Adv. Her., i. 16, 3.

266 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
" John, the disciple of the Lord, in his Epistle com
mands us to avoid them when he says, ' Many deceivers
are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh.' " 1 Both Epistles are con
tained in the Old Italic version (a.d. 180). Clemens
Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) speaks of the First Epistle as
" the larger Epistle," 2 evidently implying that he was
acquainted with at least another and shorter Epistle ;
and in the Adumbrationes, found in the Latin trans
lation of Cassiodorus, he observes : " The Second Epistle
of John, which is written to virgins, is very simple.
It was written to a Babylonian lady by name Electa."3
Origen (a.d. 230) mentions the two shorter Epistles of
St. John, but states that they wTere not generally ac
knowledged.4 Dionysius of Alexandria (a.d. 245) was
also acquainted with these two Epistles : " But neither,"
he observes, "in the Second nor Third Epistle ascribed
to John, though they are brief, is the name of John
prefixed."5 Cyprian (a.d. 248) refers to the Second
Epistle of John in his account of the Second Council
of Carthage.6 Eusebius (a.d. 325) mentions them, but
classes them among the antilegomenoi or disputed books.7
They are recognised by the Councils of Laodicea (a.d.
363) and of Hippo (a.d. 393), and the Third Council of
Carthage (a.d. 397).8
But the authenticity of these two Epistles rests
chiefly upon internal evidence. No possible motive
1 Irenseus, Adv. Her., iii. 16, 8. 2 Clement, Strom., ii. 15.
3 Clement, Opp., ed. Potter, p. ion. 4 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vi. 25.
5 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vii. 25. « Cyprian, De Her. Bapt.
7 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 25.
8 For external testimonies in favour of these Epistles see Introduction to
the Catholic Epistles, pp. 322, 339.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLES. 267
can be assigned for their forgery. They contain no
doctrinal statement, support no particular opinion, and
are addressed to no particular Church. The indefinite
designation of the writer, "the Presbyter," is also at
variance with the idea of forgery. Had they been
impositions, a more exalted title would have been as
signed to the author, in order to impart to them weight
and authority. The close resemblances in point of
style and thought of the Second Epistle to the First
is a presumption that both proceeded from the same
author. It has been observed that not less than seven
or eight out of the thirteen verses of the Second Epistle
are found in the First.1 On the other hand, the Second
and Third Epistles are so identical in style, form, and
contents, that they are almost universally acknow
ledged to have proceeded from the same author. The
addresses are alike : " The elder to the elect lady
and her children, whom I love in the truth" (2 John
1) ; " The elder to Gaius, the beloved, whom I love in
truth" (3 John 1). The author expresses the same
satisfaction with the conduct of his converts : "I
rejoiced greatly that I have found certain of thy
children walking in the truth " (2 John 4) ; " Greater
joy have I none than this, to hear of my children walking
in the truth" (3 John 4). And the Epistles conclude
in the same manner : " Having many things to write
unto you, I would not write them with paper and ink,
but I hope to come unto you and speak face to face"
(2 John 12); "I had many things to write, but am
unwilling to write them with ink and pen, but I hope
1 De Wette's Einleitung in das N. T., p. 404 (Eng. trans., p. 362).

268 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
shortly to see thee, and we shall speak face to face"
(3 John 13, 14).
The Johannine authorship of these Epistles has, how
ever, been frequently questioned. Eusebius mentions a
certain person called " John the Presbyter," who lived
at Ephesus at the close of the Apostolic times, and
whom he distinguishes from John the Apostle. Now
in consequence of the title "the Presbyter" (0 -npeo-fiv-
repos) being attached to these Epistles, they have been
ascribed to this individual. Thus Jerome says, "John
wrote one Epistle which is approved by all ecclesiastics
and learned men ; but the other two, at the beginning
of which is ' the Presbyter,' are said to have been
written by John the Presbyter, whose sepulchre is at
this day shown at Ephesus." 1 This opinion is held by
many theologians of the present day, belonging both
to the negative and to the positive school of criticism.2
The evidence for the existence of such a person as
John the Presbyter, a contemporary of John the Apos
tle, depends almost entirely on an inference drawn by
Eusebius from an ambiguous statement preserved in
his history of the Apostolic Father Papias (a.d. 120).
Papias, speaking of the care which he took in collecting
the traditions of the Apostolic age, says, " If I met with
any one who had been a follower of the Presbyters, I
made it a point to inquire what were the declarations
of the Presbyters : what was said by Andrew, or by
Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by
John, or by Matthew, or any of the Lord's disciples ;
1 Jerome, Vir. Illustr., chap. ix.
2 Grotius, Bretschneider, Credner, Wieseler, Ebrard. See Ebrard's
Commentary on St. John's Epistle, pp. 363-376.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE EPISTLES. 269
and what Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples
of the Lord, say; for I do not think that I derived, so
much benefit from books as from the living voice of
those who are still surviving."1 On this statement
Eusebius remarks, " It is proper to observe that the
name of John occurs twice. The one John he mentions
with Peter and James and Matthew and the other
Apostles ; but, in a separate part of his discourse, he
ranks the other John with the rest not included in the
number of Apostles, placing Aristion before him. He
distinguishes him plainly by the name of Presbyter."
Hence Eusebius infers that Papias alludes to two Johns —
John the Apostle and John the Presbyter. Dionysius,
the Bishop of Alexandria (a.d. 245), had also stated that
there were two tombs at Ephesus, each bearing the
name of John ; 2 but he makes no direct allusion to an
individual known by the name of John the Presbyter.
In short, prior to Eusebius, except it be in this
statement of Papias, and possibly in the statement of
Dionysius, there is no mention of such a person.
The inference of Eusebius from the statement of Papias
has been called in question ; and it has been argued
that not two persons of the name of John are mentioned,
but only John the Apostle, who is twice named.3 It
is to be observed that Papias 'applied the title "Presby
ter" to the Apostles named by him. In the first clause
he speaks of what was said (inrev) by them, consequently
of those traditions which he received at second-hand ;
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 39. 2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vii. 25.
3 So Riggenbach, Keim, Farrar, Plummer, Warfield, Salmon, and Bishop
Alexander. On the other hand, Bleek, Diisterdieck, Gebhart, Huther,
Westcott, and Bishop Lightfoot admit the existence of John the Presbyter.

270 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
and in the second clause of what they say (Xe'yovo-i),
consequently of those traditions which he received from
contemporaries. From John he received traditions of
both kinds; reports of what he said when the other
Apostles were alive, and of what he says now at the
time Papias wrote. It is also to be observed that Papias t
does not call Aristion a Presbyter, but assigns this
name only to John, so that, although placed last, the
name distinguishes him. This explanation is not free
from objection, but it is plausible ; and it is certain
that there is no mention of John the Presbyter, as
distinguished from John the Apostle, in the writings
of any of the Fathers before the time of Eusebius.
Irenseus states that Papias was a hearer of John the
Apostle and a disciple of Polycarp,1 not the disciple of
John the Presbyter, as Eusebius supposes. Besides, the
title " Presbyter " being official, was common to many,
and could not designate an otherwise obscure indivi
dual ; there were many Presbyters belonging to the
Church of Ephesus.2 II. — The Persons Addressed.
The Second Epistle is addressed to "the elect lady
and her children." 3 Who is meant by " the elect lady "
is a question which has given rise to different opinions.
1 Irenseus, Adv. Her., v. 33, 4.
2 For this ascription of these two Epistles to John the Presbyter, see
Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, pp. 328-331. See also an able article
on John the Presbyter by Professor Salmon in Smith's Dictionary of
Christian Biography, vol. iii. p. 398 ff.
3 itcKeKTrj Kvplq Kal rois renvois avrrjs.

THE PERSONS ADDRESSED. 271
Some suppose that it is a metaphorical designation of
the Catholic Church ; 1 an opinion which is refuted by the
Apostle mentioning his intention of visiting her. Others
think that some -particular Church is meant ; 2 but there
is no reason to assign a figurative meaning to the
expression. Others, thinking that a particular lady is
mentioned, suppose that her name was Electa — " the
lady Electa"3 — an opinion which has the support of
Clemens Alexandrinus; and others think that her name
was Kyria, " the elect Kyria," a common female name
among the Greeks, being the feminine of Cyrus/ It is
best, however, to render the words indefinitely as in our
version, " the elect lady," the name not being given.6
Along with the lady are mentioned her children. This
Epistle, then, was addressed to some unknown Christian
lady and her family, resident probably in the neigh
bourhood of Ephesus.
The Third Epistle is addressed to a certain Gaius.6
There are three of this name mentioned in the New
Testament : Gaius of Corinth, one of the converts whom
Paul himself baptized (1 Cor. i. 14); Gaius of Derbe,
one of those who accompanied St. Paul on his last
journey to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 4) ; and Gaius of Mace
donia, who was with Paul during the tumult at Ephesus
(Acts xix. 29). Each of these has been identified by
1 Huther, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Weiss, Salmon.
2 The opinion of Bishops Lightfoot and Wordsworth.
3 So Wetstein, Grotius, and Bishop Middleton.
4 The opinion of De Wette, Guericke, Bleek, Neander, Olshausen, Ebrard,
and Bishop Alexander.
6 So Braune, Farrar, Plummer, Meyrick, [and the New Testament
Revisers. 6 Tata> rea dyarrrjTa.

272 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
different writers with the person to whom the Third
Epistle of John was addressed. A fourth Gaius, men
tioned in the Apostolic Constitutions as being appointed
Bishop of Pergamum by John,1 has also been fixed upon,
on account of his connection with John, and on account
of the proximity of Pergamum to Ephesus. All these are,
however, mere arbitrary suppositions ; Gaius, the same
as the Latin Caius, is one of the most common names
among the Greeks and Romans. The Gaius of this
Epistle does not appear to have been a presbyter or
office-bearer in any church, but, like Philemon, to whom
Paul wrote, a Christian layman of influence. He is
commended by the Apostle for his hospitality toward
certain brethren and itinerant evangelists. " Beloved,
thou doest a faithful work in whatsoever thou doest
toward them that are brethren and strangers withal;
who bare witness to thy love before the Church ;
whom thou wilt do well to set forward on their journey
worthily of God" (3 John 5, 6).
III. — The Designs of the Epistles.
The design of the Second Epistle was to express the
Apostle's pleasure at finding the children of the lady to
whom he writes walking in the truth. He had met
with some of her children at Ephesus, and was greatly
impressed with their Christian conduct ; and he com
municates his approval and the pleasure which he felt
to their mother. He also expresses his intention of
shortly paying her a visit. But the chief design of the
1 Const. Apos., vii. 46.

THE DESIGNS OF THE EPISTLES. 273
Epistle appears to be to warn the elect lady against the
reception of heretical teachers ; and not to allow her bene
volence to be imposed upon by those who went about
propagating erroneous opinions : " If any one cometh
to you and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not
into your house, and give him no greeting ; for he that
giveth him greeting partake th in his evil works " (2 John
10, 11). The twofold character of the Apostle, his love
and his hatred of that which is evil, is here seen.1
The design of the Third Epistle is entirely different.
As the design of the Second Epistle was to forbid the
reception of heretical teachers, so the design of the
Third Epistle was to commend the reception of travel
ling evangelists. John had sent certain members of the
Ephesian Church as evangelists, with a certificate or
letter of recommendation to the Church to which Gaius
belonged. Diotrephes, who appears to have occupied an
official position in that Church, repudiated the Epistle
and the authority of the Apostle, rejected the brethren
sent by him, and threatened with excommunication
those who received them. Gaius, on the contrary, an
influential layman, received them, and treated them
with hospitality, and probably by pecuniary aid brought
them on their journey. On their return to Ephesus
these evangelists reported to the Apostle the reception
which they met with. Hence the occasion of this letter,
wherein the Apostle severely reprimands the haughty
1 " We," observes Bishop Alexander, " very often look upon heresy or
unbelief with the tolerance of curiosity rather than of love. At all events,
the Gospel has its intolerance as well as tolerance. St. John certainly had
this. His denunciations have had a functioh in Christendom as well as
his love." — The Epistles of St. John, p. 290.^
• S

274 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
and overbearing conduct of Diotrephes, and praises the
generosity and kindness of Gaius.
The character of Diotrephes is vividly described ; he
stands before us as the type of all haughty and over
bearing ecclesiastics: "I wrote somewhat unto the
Church ; but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre
eminence among them, receiveth us not. Therefore, if
I come, I will bring to remembrance his works which
he doeth, prating against us with wicked words ; and
not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive
the brethren, and them that would he forbiddeth, and
casteth them out of the Church" (3 John 9, 10). Dio
trephes occupied an official position in the Church ; he
could exercise the power of preventing the reception of
those itinerant evangelists. In all probability he was
one of the presbyters of the Church, or, if a modified
episcopacy then existed, its bishop. He is not cen
sured for heretical opinions ; there is nothing in the
Epistle to intimate that he had imbibed the errors of
the Doceti ; it is for his conduct that he is censured, for
exercising his episcopal power in an imperious manner,
even in opposition to John himself. When we consider
the opposition that Paul met with from false teachers, it
is not to be wondered at that Diotrephes should have the
audacity to resist the authority of the Apostle John ;
and most certainly the class of which Diotrephes is the
representative is not extinct in the Christian Church.
Contrasted with Diotrephes is a certain Demetrius :
"Demetrius hath the witness of all men and of the
truth itself; yea, we also bear witness, and thou
knowest that our witness is true " (3 John 1 2). Some

THE DESIGNS OF THE EPISTLES. 275
suppose that Demetrius was one of those itinerant
evangelists whom Diotrephes had cast out, or one of
those who would have received the brethren, but whom
Diotrephes prevented ; but it is more probable that he
was another evangelist whom John now sent to Gaius
with this letter of recommendation.
In the Apostolic times it would appear that evan
gelists were sent forth by the Apostles or by the
Churches, either to act as missionaries in the conversion
of the heathen, or to arouse and confirm believers in
the faith. Timothy and Titus appear to have been
such evangelists ; and so also were Epaphras, Aristarchus,
Trophimus, Tychicus, and many of the disciples of PauL
These itinerant evangelists were of different characters.
Some were false apostles, and introduced pernicious
errors ; and some were covetous men, who made gain
of preaching the Gospel (2 Cor. xi. 13; 1 Tim. vi. 5).
Others were true apostles, faithful ministers of Christ.
Hence great care was to be exercised in judging
them ; some were to be rejected, and others were to
be received. And we have this difference of treatment
stated in these two Epistles. John exhorts the elect
lady not to receive into her house those who brought
not the true doctrine (2 John 10), whilst he exhorts
Gaius to receive and entertain those sent by him,
because "for His name's sake they went -forth, taking
nothing of the Gentiles" (3 John 7). Eusebius gives
the following account of these itinerant evangelists : —
" Most of the disciples at that time (the early days of
the Church), animated with a more ardent love of the
divine word, had first fulfilled the Saviour's precept by

276 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
distributing their substance to the needy. Afterwards
leaving their country, they performed the office of
evangelists to those who had not yet heard the faith,
whilst, with a noble ambition to proclaim Christ, they
also delivered to them the books of the Holy Gospels.
After laying the foundation of the faith in foreign
parts as the particular object of their mission, and
after appointing, others as shepherds of the flocks,
and committing these to the care of those that had been
recently introduced, they went again to other regions
and nations with the grace and co-operation of God." x
These evangelists were furnished with letters of recom
mendation similar to this Third Epistle of John, which
was a letter of recommendation to the evangelist
Demetrius. But, besides these letters, the Churches
were empowered to judge of their qualifications. In
that remarkable document, the Didache-,2 recently dis
covered, and which is supposed to belong to the close
of the Apostolic age, regulations are laid down for the
reception or rejection of these travelling evangelists.
The doctrine of the evangelists was to be tested ; they
must preach the pure Gospel : " Whosoever comes and
teaches you all things before spoken, receive him. But
if the teacher turn aside and teach another teaching,
so as to overthrow this, hear him not ; but if he teach
so as to promote righteousness and the knowledge of
the Lord, receive him in the Lord."3 The motive of
their conduct was to be tested ; they must not be
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 37.
2 AiSa^i) tS>v BaSeica dnoaToXcov. This work is referred to by Eusebius,
Hist. Eccl, iii. 25, and called by him rav anoa-rokav at Xeyop.evai di8axal.
3 Didache', c. xi. 1,2.

THE DESIGNS OF THE EPISTLES. , 277
actuated by mercenary motives, making a gain of
godliness: "Let every.apostle that cometh to you be
received in the Lord. But he shall not remain longer
than one day ; if, however, there be need, then the
next day; but if he remain three days, he is a false
prophet. And when the apostle departs, let him take
nothing except bread enough till he lodge again ; but if
he ask for money, he is a false prophet. Whosoever says
in the spirit, Give me money or any other thing, ye
shall not listen to him ; but if he bid you give to others
that lack, let no one condemn him." x Sloth also was
to be discountenanced in these evangelists ; if they
remained in a place, they must work. " Let every one
that cometh in the Lord's name be received, but after
ward ye shall test and know him. If he who comes is
a wayfarer, help him as much as you can ; but he shall
not remain with you longer than two or three days,
unless there be necessity. If he wishes to settle with
you, being an artisan, let him work, and so eat ; but if
he have no trade, provide according to your understand
ing, that no idler live with you as a Christian ; beware
of him." I These regulations refer to the reception of
strangers in general, but with special reference to the
reception of evangelists.
We have in these two Epistles of John, taken in
connection with this almost contemporary document,
the Didache-, a view of the ecclesiastical organisation
as it existed at this period. In the Apostolic times
there were especially two orders — bishops and deacons.
1 Didache, c. xi. 4-6, 12.
2 Idem., c. xii. 1-5 ; see Schaff's The Oldest Church Manual, pp. 199-205.

278 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
Bishops and presbyters were different names for the
same order ; it was not until the close of the Apostolic
era that they were distinguished. It would also appear
that every Church had a plurality of presbyters ; congre
gational episcopacy was a subsequent development. So
also in the Didache" there is mention only of bishops and
deacons, not of bishops, presbyters, and deacons : " Elect
therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of
the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and
truthful and approved ; for they too minister to you the
ministry of the prophets and teachers." 1
But besides these two local or congregational orders
attached to each particular Church, there was in Apos
tolic times a third order, that of itinerant evangelists,
who were attached to no particular Church, but went
from place to place preaching the Gospel. The order of
the evangelist appears to be as scriptural as that of a
bishop or deacon. Paul mentions it when enumerating
the ministerial offices : " He gave some to be apostles,
and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some
pastors and teachers " (Eph. iv. 1 1 ). The offices of
apostle and prophet may have passed away with the
miraculous gifts conferred on the Church, but there is
no reason to suppose that the office of evangelist has
ceased.2 Mention is made in the New Testament of
those who occupied this office, as Timothy and Titus.
"Do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. iv. 5), writes
Paul to Timothy. And Philip the deacon is called
the evangelist : " We entered into the house of Philip
1 Didache", c. xv. 1.
2 " The evangelists," observes Schaff, " seem to have been an order of
ministers standing between the Apostles and pastors and teachers."

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 279
(rov ivayyeXiarov) the evangelist " (Acts xxi. 8). There
are distinct traces of this office in the two later Epistles
of John, and it is fully recognised in the Didache' and
in the writings of the Fathers.1 The duties of the
evangelist were chiefly to diffuse the Gospel among the
heathen, and hence it was an office somewhat similar to
that of the modern missionary. But it would also
appear from this Third Epistle of John, and from the
missions of Timothy and Titus, that the evangelist was
sent to Churches already established to arouse believers
and to confirm them in the faith. He was attached
to no particular congregation, but was an itinerant
preacher.2 IV. — Time and Place of Writing.
In both these Epistles the Apostle promises a visit ;
in the one to "the elect lady," and in the other to
" Gaius, the beloved." John, during his long residence
of more than thirty years in Ephesus, was accustomed
to make journeys of episcopal visitation. Eusebius
mentions that he undertook the superintendence of the
Churches of Proconsular Asia, and thus he himself did
the work of an evangelist, "About this time the
beloved disciple of Jesus, John the Apostle and evange-
1 Eusebius calls Pantsenus an evangelist ; and he observes, " There were
even yet many evangelists of the Word, who were ardently striving to
employ their inspired zeal after the Apostolic example, to increase and
build up the Divine Word."— Hist. Eccl, v. 10.
2 Hatch's Bampton Lectures, " The Organisation of Early Christian
Churches," pp. 44, 45. It appears to be of special importance in our times,
with our overgrown populations and our so-called lapsed masses, when
many are living as heathens in this Christian country, that the office of
evangelist should be revived.

280 THE PRIVATE LETTERS OF JOHN.
list, still surviving, governed the Churches of Asia, after
his return from exile on the island of Patmos and the
death of Domitian."1 So also in a passage already
quoted, Clemens Alexandrinus states that John was
accustomed to visit the neighbouring Churches of the
Gentiles. It is improbable that these journeys of visita
tion were deferred until after his return from Patmos,
when John was old and infirm ; rather they may have
been continued throughout his whole residence in Ephe
sus. When he was about to write these Epistles, he was
on the eve of starting on one of these journeys. We
are in entire ignorance of the residence of the "elect
lady " and of Gaius, whether in the same, or, as is more
probable, in different cities ; but doubtless it was in the
neighbourhood of Ephesus, in one or other of the cities
of Proconsular Asia. The time of writing these letters was
during the Apostle's residence in Ephesus, but whether
before or after his return from Patmos cannot be deter
mined. His ability to make journeys of visitation
would argue in favour of an earlier date; whilst the
condition of the Church, and especially the mention of
the Doceti, who did not appear until near the close of
the Apostolic era, are in favour of a later date. There
is no reason to doubt that the place of composition was
Ephesus, the centre of the Apostle's activity during the
last thirty years of his life.
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.

TPIE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Literature. — It is impossible to enumerate all the books, articles,
dissertations, and monographs which have been written on the
Apocalypse, either as a whole or on special topics. The following
are the most important works : — i. Introductions. — The Apocalypse
is treated more or less fully in the Introductions to the New Testa
ment of Eichhorn, Credner, Hug, Michaelis (translated by Bishop
Marsh), De Wette, Bleek, Mangold, Guericke, Davidson, Hilgenfeld,
Reuss, Holtzmann, Weiss, Weizacker, Farrar, Salmon. 2. Articles
in Encyclopaedias. — The"most important of these are by Davidson
in Kitto's Cyclopaedia ; Rev. W. T. Bullock in Smith's Biblical Dic
tionary ; Reuss in Ersch and Griiber's Biblical Dictionary ; Harnack
in the Encyclopaedia Britannica; and Warfield in Schaff 's Encyclo
paedia, based on Herzog. 3. Commentaries. — The most important
are those of Ewald (Leipzig, 1828); Liicke (Bonn, 1832); Heng-
stenberg (Berlin, 1842); Moses Stuart (Edinburgh, 1847); De
Wette (Leipzig, 1848); Ebrard (forming one of Olshausen's Com
mentaries, 1859); Alford (Greek Testament, new edition, 1862);
Volkmar (Zurich, 1862); Ewald (Die Johannische Schriften, Got
tingen, 1862); Diisterdieck (forming one of Meyer's series, Got
tingen, 1868; 3te Auflage, 1877); Wordsworth (Greek Testament,
second edition, 1875) ; Reuss (L7 Apocalypse, 1878) ; Lee (in Speaker's
Commentary, 1881); Milligan (in Schaff's Commentary, 1883, also
in the Expositor's Bible, 1889); Spitta (Halle, 1889); Randell (in
Pulpit Commentary, London, 1890); Simcox (in Cambridge Bible
for Schools and Colleges, 1890). 4. Special Works. — Among these
may be mentioned the following : — Elliot's Horos Apocalypticae
(London, second edition, 1846); Dannemann, Wer ist der Verfasser
der Offenbarung Johannis (Hanover, 1841); Auberlen, Daniel und
die Offenbarung Johannis (Edinburgh, 1856, translation); Walde-
grave's Bampton Lectures for 1850 ; Wordsworth's Hulsean Lectures,
second edition, 1849; Bleek, Vorlesungen uber d. Ap., 1862 (English
translation, 1875); Renan's L' Antichrist, 187.3; Gebhert's Der
281

282 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Lehrbegriff der Ap., 1877 (English translation, 1878); Volter, Die
Entstehung der Apokalypse, 1882 ; Milligan's Baird Lectures, 1885.
Other books are mentioned when treating of the different systems of
interpretation and of the Millennium.

The Title.
The title given to this book in the textus receptus is
'A7roK:aAi>\J/-4y 'lwdwov rov QeoXoyov ; but the preponderance
of manuscript authority is in favour of the abbreviated
form 'AxoK-aXu-v|rtf 'Iwdwov. The word cnroK&Xv^ris denotes
unveiling, uncovering, and is generally translated in
our versions revelation.1 It occurs so frequently in the
Epistles of Paul, that the term may be considered as
peculiarly Pauline. In general it denotes a disclosure
by God or Christ of truths which are in themselves
secret or unknown (Rom. xvi. 25 ; Eph. iii. 3). Thus
we read -ef " the revelation of the righteous judgment of
God," " the revelation of the sons of God " (Rom. ii. 5 ;
viii. 19). In both these passages it has an eschatological
reference to the disclosures of the last day, though the
word is not necessarily eschatological. The expression
a7ro/cdXu\J/-£? T^cro? Xpio-roG occurs in Gal. i. 12, and
a7ro/ca\inJ/-jc Kvpiov in 2 Cor. xii. i,2 in the sense that the
Gospel was imparted to the Apostle by the Lord Jesus
Christ : He was the Revealer. Similarly here a7ro/ca-
Av\|^c 'Irjo-ov Xpiarov denotes that Christ is the author or
bestower of the revelation. Here the reference is to
future events ; and hence " apocalypse " has come to be
1 Compounded of diro, from, and nakim™, to cover ; hence, to remove
the covering, to uncover.
2 Similar expressions are also used in 1 Cor. i. 7 ; 1 Peter i. 7, 13.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 283
used in a technical sense to denote a certain kind of
prophetical writings. Apocalyptic writings are distin
guished from those which are simply prophetical by
their predictions referring to the last days, and by their
preponderant use of symbols and visions. The Apoca
lypse of John is the only writing of this nature in the
New Testament, but it finds its analogy in the Old
Testament in the Book of Daniel, the Prophecies of
Zechariah, and the latter portion of the Prophecies of
Ezekiel.

I. — The Authenticity of the Apocalypse.
The references to the Apocalypse which have been
adduced from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers,
namely, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, and
Hermas, are too vague and uncertain to be relied on.
Some expressions in the Epistles of Ignatius and in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp may perhaps be allusions to the
Apocalypse.1 The nearest approach to a distinct resem
blance is in the Visions of Hermas ; but it is doubtful
whether the resemblance is not rather to the Book of
Daniel.2 The first definite reference is that made by Papias
(a.d. 120). According to two commentators on the
Apocalypse, Andreas, belonging to the fifth century,
and Arethas, belonging to the sixth, both Bishops of
Csesarea in Cappadocia, Papias referred to the Apoca
lypse, and regarded it as an inspired writing. Thus
1 Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, pp. 296-300 ; Charteris' Canonicity,
pp. 336-338 ; Elliot's Hore Apocalyptice, vol. i. pp. 15-20, 2nd edit.
2 Lardner's Works, vol. i. p. 311 ff., 4to edition.

284 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Andreas says, "Concerning the inspiration of the book
(the Apocalypse, irep\ rod Qeoirvevcrrov r>js f3i{3\ov), it is
not necessary to say anything, since those blessed men,
Gregory the Theologian, Cyril, as also the ancients
Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius, and Hippolytus, testify to
its credibility." 1 From these words it is evident that
Papias regarded the Apocalypse as an inspired writing,
and most probably as the writing of the Apostle John,
to whom it was at an early age assigned. And this is
the more credible as Papias would find some foundation
for his strong Chiliastic views in the account which the
Apocalypse gives of Christ's reign with His saints for
a thousand years. To this it has been objected that
Eusebius makes no mention of this opinion of Papias ;
but this objection is not of much weight, as Eusebius
was under no necessity to state the peculiar views of
Papias, especially as he was prejudiced against them,
and had a low estimate of his ability ; and as an argu-
mentum e silentio, it is very precarious.
The Apocalypse is directly assigned to John by Justin
Martyr (a.d. 147). Eusebius tells us that Justin " men
tions the Revelation of John, plainly calling it the
work of the Apostle, in his discussion with Tryphon." 2
Accordingly, in the dialogue with Tryphon we have the
following words: "Further, there was a certain man
with us whose name is John, one of the Apostles of
Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made
to him, that those who believed on Christ would dwell
a thousand years in Jerusalem, and that thereafter the
1 Andreas, Proleg. in Apoc, quoted in Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung,
p. 300.
2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iv. 18.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 285
eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would
take place."1 This testimony is important, not only on
account of its early date, but also because Justin, though
frequently adverting to the other books of Scripture,
refrains from mentioning the names of their authors.
Besides, as Weiss remarks, " Justin's direct statement
that it was written by John, one of the Apostles of
Christ, is the more important, since his residence wa's in
Palestine, and he had learned in his travels to know the
Alexandrian and Roman Churches, as also those of Asia
Minor, where the book had its origin, and therefore
represented the tradition of the whole Church of the
second century." 2
Eusebius, in giving a list of the numerous works of
Melito (a.d. 1 70), mentions a treatise on the Apocalypse
of John ; 3 and Jerome tells us that Melito wrote a book
concerning the devil and concerning the Apocalypse.4
The testimony of Melito is the more important as
he was Bishop of Sardis, one of the seven Asiatic
Churches. The celebrated Muratorian Canon (a.d. 170) has the
following reference to the Apocalypse: "John in the
Apocalypse, though writing to the seven Churches,
speaks to all." 5
Eusebius informs us that Apollonius (a.d. 170) in
his refutation of Montanism, made use of proofs from
1 Dial, cum Try phone, c. Ixxxi.
2 Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T., p. 360 ; Eng. trans., vol. ii. p. 51.
3 Hist. Eccl, iv. 26.
4 Hieron, De Vir. Illuslr., c. xxiv.
5 " Et Joannes enim in Apocalypsi licet septem Ecclesiis scribat, tamen
omnibus dicit."

286 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
the Apocalypse of John.1 The Apocalypse was one of
the books of Scripture on which the Montanists relied,
yet Apollonius uses it in arguing against their views.
This early use of the Apocalypse by orthodox and
heretics alike strengthens the argument in favour of its
genuineness. Eusebius also informs us that Theophilus, Bishop of
Antioch (a.d. 170), in a work which has the title
" Against the Heresy of Hermogenes," " makes use of
testimonies from the Apocalypse, besides other cate
chetical works." a
In the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and. Lyons
(a.d. 180) there are several unmistakable citations from
the Apocalypse. Thus of Vettius Epagathus it is said,
" He was a true disciple of Christ, following the Lamb
wherever He goes" (Rev. xiv. 4). The persecution
of the Christians occurred that " the Scripture might
be fulfilled, which says, Let the wicked be wicked
still, and the righteous be righteous still" (Rev. xxii.
11); and Christ is called "the true and faithful
witness, and the first-begotten of the dead" (Rev. iii.
14; L 5)-3
In the writings of Irenseus (a.d. 180) there are nume
rous references to and citations from the Apocalypse.
"John," he says, "the disciple of the Lord, when be
holding the glorious advent of His kingdom, says in the
Apocalypse, I turned to see the voice that spake with
me, and being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks." *
And again : "In a still clearer light has John, in the
1 Kixp^rai paprvplais dwo rrjs 'ladvvov drroKakv^reas. Eusebius, Hist.
E--cl, v. 18.
2 Idem, iv. 24. 3 Idem, v. 1. 4 Adv. Her., iv. 20, 1 1.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 287
Apocalypse, indicated to the Lord's disciples what shall
happen in the last days, and concerning the ten kings
which shall arise, among whom the empire which now
rules the world will be partitioned." x And there is also
the notable passage in which Irenseus discusses the
number of the beast.2 The testimony of Irenseus in
favour of the Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse is
important, as Irenseus was the disciple of Polycarp, who
was the disciple of John.
Clemens Alexandrinus (a.d. 190) writes: "And al
though here upon earth he (the true presbyter) be not
honoured with the chief seat, he shall sit on one of the
four-and-twenty thrones, judging the people, as John
says in the Apocalypse." 3
Tertullian (a.d. 200) says : " Now the Apostle John
in the Apocalypse describes a sword which proceeded
from the mouth of God as a sharp two-edged sword."4
" We have also John's foster churches. For although
Marcion rejects the Apocalypse, the order of bishops,
when traced up to their origin, will yet rest on John
as their author." 5 And again : " We acknowledge that
a kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence ; inas
much as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand
years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem let down
from heaven. This Ezekiel had knowledge of, and the
Apostle John beheld." 6
Hippolytus (a.d. 220), a disciple of Irenseus, wrote
"An Apology for the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John,
1 Adv. Her., v. 26, r. 2 Idem, v. 30, 1.
3 Stromata, vi. 13. * Contra Marcion; iii. 14,
6 Idem, iv. 5. 6 Idem, iii. 24.

288 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
the Apostle and Evangelist," 1 and in his treatise on
Christ and Antichrist he says, " Let us now see whether
John has spoken to the same effect. For he sees, when
in the isle Patmos, a revelation of awful mysteries, which
he recounts freely and makes known to others." '
Origen (a.d. 230), although strongly opposed to Chili-
asm, yet maintained the genuineness of the Apoca
lypse. " What shall we say of him who reclined on the
breast of Jesus, I mean John ? who has left one Gospel,
in which he confesses that he could write so many that
the whole world could not contain them. He also wrote
the Apocalypse, commanded, as he was, to conceal and
not to write the voices of the seven thunders." 3 And
again, " That you may understand that the omnipotence
of the Father and the Son is one and the same, as God
and the Lord are one and the same with the Father,
listen to the manner in which John speaks of Christ in
the Apocalypse : Thus saith the Lord God, which is
and which was and which is to come, the Almighty." 4
In early Christianity there were, however, certain
opposing testimonies. The authenticity of the Apoca
lypse was disputed by certain heretical sects. The Mar-
cionites called it in question on account of its supposed
Jewish tendencies ; and the Alogi, a rationalistic and
anti-Montanist sect of the second century, ascribed it
1 Canon Paschal. Jerome, among the writings of Hippolytus, mentions
one on the Apocalypse ; and on a marble monument of Hippolytus, dug
up near Borne in 1551, a list of his writings is engraved, and one of them
is on the Gospel of St. John and the Apocalypse. Lardner's Works, vol. i.
p. 499.
2 Hippolytus, De Christo et Antichristo, § 36.
3 Origen, In Johan., torn. i. 14 ; Euseb., Hist. Eccl, vi. 25.
4 Origen, De Pri/ncipiis, i. 2, 10.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 289
and all John's writings to Cerinthus.1 No weight can
be placed on the opinions of those heretics, as their
objections arose from their peculiar dogmatic views.
In the writings of Caius of Rome (a.d. 211), preserved
by Eusebius, we have the following statement : — " But
Cerinthus too, through revelations written, as he would
have us believe, by a great Apostle (oY a,ro/caAin^eiw <5>? wo
a-jrocrrdXov p.eya\ov yey pafifxivaiv), lyingly asserts that mar
vellous revelations have been made to us through com
munications made to him by angels ; alleging that after
the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth,
and that men dwelling in Jerusalem are again to be
subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy
to the Divine Scriptures, with an intention to deceive,
he said that there would be a space of a thousand years
for celebrating nuptial festivals."2 It is doubtful what
is meant by " revelations written by a great Apostle."
Some assert that there is here no reference to the Apo
calypse ; 3 but the probability is that the Apocalypse is
intended, especially as there is mention of the reign of the
saints in Jerusalem, and a reference to the millennium.
But the chief objector is Dionysius of Alexandria
(a.d. 250), the disciple of Origen and his successor in the
catechetical school of Alexandria. In consequence of the
extravagances of the Chiliasts, who derived their tenets
from the Apocalypse, he called in question its Apostolic
authorship. His opinion, expressed in a treatise entitled
irepl iirayyeXiwy, was that the author was some other
person of the name of John, not the Apostle. " That it
1 Epiphanius, Her., 51. 2 Euseh., Hist. Eccl, iii. 28.
3 So Hug in his Introduction to the New Testament ; Weiss' Einleitung,
10, 4 ; translation, vol. ii. p. 52, note.

290 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
is a John," he observes, "who wrote these things, we must
believe, as he says it ; but what John, it is uncertain.
For he has not said that he was, as he often does in
the Gospel, the beloved disciple of the Lord, neither
the one leaning on His bosom, nor the brother of James,
nor that he himself saw and heard what the Lord did
and said. For certainly he would have said one of
these particulars, if he wished to make himself clearly
known." 1 The objection of Dionysius is chiefly founded
on dogmatic considerations in opposition to the Chiliasts,
supported indeed by internal criticism of the style and
contents of the Apocalypse compared with the Gospel
of John. To this latter objection we shall afterwards
advert ; but meanwhile we would only remark, with
regard to the former, that his assertion comes too late,
and rests on too subjective grounds to overthrow the
external evidence in favour of the Johannine authorship.
Eusebius, evidently sympathising with the remarks
of Dionysius, and being strongly opposed to Chiliasm,
speaks in several places of his history doubtfully of
the authenticity of the Apocalypse. "The opinions
respecting the Apocalypse," he observes, "are greatly
divided. But we shall in due time give a judgment on
this point from the testimony of the ancients." 2 In his
catalogue of the books of the New Testament he says,
"Moreover, if it should appear right, the Apocalypse
of John, which some, as before said, reject, and others
rank among the genuin e " (ofnoXoyov/utivois). 8 And he leans
to the opinion that the author was not John the Apostle,
but John the Presbyter. "It is probable that the
» Euseb., Hist. Eccl, vii. 25. 2 Idem, iii. 24. 3 Idem, iii. 25.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 291
second (the presbyter John), if it be not allowed that
it was the first (the Apostle John), witnessed the Apoca
lypse, which is current under the name of John." 1
The omission of the Apocalypse in the Peshito,
and probably also in the Philoxenian version, is con
sidered as the strongest objection, showing that it was
not recognised as a canonical book by the early Syrian
Church. Some hold that the Peshito is only a revised
edition of an original Syriac, which contained the
Apocalypse and the other omitted books.2 Weiss ob
serves that the exclusion of the Apocalypse from the
Peshito was not because it was rejected as a book which
did not contain a genuine revelation, but because, on
account of its obscurity, it was not considered edifying
for reading in churches. With regard to the Philoxenian
Syriac, it is still a matter of dispute whether it did or
did not contain the Apocalypse.3
Such is the external evidence for and against the
Johannine authorship of the Apocalypse. The testi
monies in favour are early, clear, and consecutive, whilst
the contrary testimonies, with the exception of the
omission of the Apocalypse in the Syriac versions, pro
ceed from subjective considerations, or are due to doc
trinal bias. So far as the external evidence goes, we
may regard it as conclusive in favour of the Johannine
1 Euseb., Hist. Eccl., iii. 39.
2 See Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 348-351, trans
lation. ' See Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. iv. p.
433 and p. 1020 ; Mangold's Einleitung N. T. von Bleek, p. 934 ; Dr. Ban-
dell in his admirable Introduction to the Bevelation in the Pulpit Com
mentary, p. xv. ; Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testa
ment, p. 241, 1st edit. ; p. 325, 3rd edit.

292 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
authorship. " Enough," observes Dr. Davidson, " has
been given to show that the Apostolic origin of the
Apocalypse is as well attested as that of any book in
the New Testament. How can it be proved that Paul
wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, for example, on the
basis of external evidence, if it be denied that the
Apostle John wrote the closing book of the canon ?
, With the limited stock of early ecclesiastical literature
that survives the wreck of time, we should despair of
proving the authenticity of any New Testament book if
that of the Apocalypse be rejected." l But if there be
truth in this statement, it applies with equal force to
the Fourth Gospel ; for the testimonies of the Fathers
in favour of these two books are nearly equal in value,
whilst the Syriac version omits the Apocalypse, but
contains the Gospel.2
The internal evidence is not so strong as the external,
but it is not without weight. The author in four places
expressly calls himself John. He introduces the Apoca
lypse by saying that God "sent and signified it by His
angel to His servant John" (i. i). He mentions him
self in his address to the Asiatic Churches : " John to
the seven Churches which are in Asia" (i. 4). He
speaks of himself as " I, John " (i. 9) ; and at the close
of the book he appeals to his testimony as that of an
eye-witness : " I, John, am he that heard and saw these
things" (xxii. 8). All these statements point to John,
1 Davidson's Introduction to the Study of the New Testament, vol. i.
pp. 318, 319, 1st edit. ; vol. i. p. 34;, 2nd edit. The same statement
occurs in his article on the Revelation in Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical
Literature. 2 The theologians of the Tubingen school in general recognise the Johan
nine authorship of the Apocalypse, whilst they reject the Gospel.

AUTHENTICITY OF THE APOCALYPSE. 293
the beloved disciple of the Lord. In conformity with
his practice in his other writings (John xix. 35 ; 1 John
i. 1), he declares himself to be an eye-witness " who
bear witness of all things that he saw " (i. 2) ; and
he assumes an apostolic authority over the Churches
of Asia. " An unknown John," observes Hilgenfeld,
" whose name has disappeared from history, leaving
hardly any trace behind it, can scarcely have given
commands in the name of Christ and the Spirit to the
seven Churches."1
To this it has been objected that the fact of John's
naming himself is opposed to his authorship, as it is
contrary to his practice in his other writings. Thus
Dionysius observes : " John never speaks as of himself
(in the first person), nor as of another (in the third), but
he who wrote the Apocalypse declares himself imme
diately at the commencement." 2 But there is nothing
in this objection. In calling himself John at the com
mencement of an apocalyptic book, he only follows the
example of Daniel.3 Others affirm that the writer ex
pressly excludes himself from the number of the Apostles.
Thus the apostles and prophets are represented as already
in a glorified condition : " Rejoice over her, thou heaven,
and ye saints, and ye apostles, and ye prophets " (Rev.
xviii. 20). But these words are rhetorical, and are not
to be strained ; there is nothing in them opposed to their
being the utterance of the apostolic seer. So also it is
said that the New Jerusalem had twelve foundations, and
on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the
1 Hilgenfeld's Einleitung in das N. T., p. 448.
2 Euseb., Hist. Eccl, vii. 25. 3 "I, Daniel," Dan. vii. 15 ; x. 2, 7.

294 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Lamb (Rev. xxi. 14); and it is argued that this would
be contrary to the modesty of the Apostle, if he were
the author of the book. But such an argument is
frivolous. Paul, in his Epistles, makes similar asser
tions : he speaks of believers being built on the founda
tion of apostles and prophets, and of the revelation
being made known unto the holy apostles and prophets
by the Spirit (Eph. ii. 20 ; iii. 5).
But the author of the Apocalypse must not only have
been a person of great importance in the Apostolic
Church, but in intimate relations with the Churches of
Proconsular Asia. He is acquainted with their history,
their necessities, their spiritual condition, their trials.
And, as we have elsewhere seen, it is the testimony of the
Fathers, without any reference to the Apocalypse, that
the Apostle John spent his latter years at Ephesus, and
was accustomed to visit the neighbouring Churches.
And further, the author was in the island of Patmos
when he received the revelations ; and, as we have -seen,
the early Fathers inform us that John was banished to
this island in the reign of Domitian. On this, however,
we do not lay great stress, as the mention of Patmos in
the Apocalypse may have given rise to the tradition of
the Apostle's banishment to that island.1
II. — Objections to its Authenticity.
As we have seen, in consequence chiefly of the Mon-
tanists and Chiliasts, who derived their opinions from
the Apocalypse, there were early objections to this book
1 See supra, p. 58.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 295
from purely dogmatic reasons. It was, however, adopted
in the fourth century as a canonical book by the Christian
Church, and its authenticity was not again questioned
until the time of the Reformation. Erasmus expressed
his doubts as to its genuineness ; and Zuinglius refused to
accept its authenticity in controversy. Luther attacked
it in strong and vehement language. "There are
many reasons," he observes, "why I regard this book
as neither apostolical nor prophetic. First and chiefly,
the Apostles do not make use of visions, but prophecy
in clear and plain language, as do Peter, Paul, and
Christ also in the Gospel. There is no prophet in the
Old Testament, not to mention the New, who treats of
visions throughout, so that the fourth Book of Esdras
is almost equal to it in my estimation, and certainly I
cannot perceive that it proceeded from the Holy Spirit.
Let every man think of it as his spirit prompts him.
My spirit cannot adapt itself to the book ; and it is
reason enough for me why I should not esteem it very
highly, that Christ is neither taught in it nor acknow
ledged, which above all things an Apostle is bound to
do, for He says, ' Ye shall be my witness.' " x Certainly
every one must see that such language is unwarranted
and indefensible, for there are few books in the New
Testament in which Christ is more acknowledged and ex
alted. In subsequent editions Luther modifies, though
he does not retract, his views. Calvin received the
Apocalypse as the work of the Apostle John, but he
abstained from commenting on it on account of its
mysterious character. Afterwards the Apocalypse was
1 Preface to the first edition of his German New Testament, 1522.

296 THE APOCALYPSE OF^JOHN.
generally received by the Church, until comparatively
recent times, without any serious attacks being made
on it.
The great objection against the Johannine authorship
of the Apocalypse is one of internal criticism. It is
argued that the language and style, the character and
spirit, and the system of doctrine of the Apocalypse are
so entirely dissimilar to the Gospel and Catholic Epistles
of John, that these works cannot have proceeded from
the same author. Accordingly a great variety of opinions
on this point exists. These may be classified as follows.
Some (Eichhorn, Hug, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Guericke,
Hofmann, Luthardt, Danne'mann, Gf det, Alford, Elliot,
Salmon, Simcox) suppose the dissimilarity is not so
great, but that the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apoca
lypse may all have been written by the same author,
the Apostle John. Others, especially those belonging
to the Tubingen school (Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Kostlin,
Hilgenfeld, Krenkel, Davidson) maintain that the Gospel
and Epistle are by an unknown author, and the Apoca
lypse by John. Others (Schleiermacher, Liicke, Credner,
Bleek, Ewald, De Wette, Neander, Diisterdieck) affirm
the converse, that the Gospel and Epistle are by John,
and the Apocalypse by some unknown author. And
others (Keim, Volkmar, Scholten, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer,
Hausrath, Hoekstra, Harnack, Weizacker) reject both
the Gospel and the Apocalypse.
Those who deny the Johannine authorship of the
Apocalypse vary in their opinions as to its author. We
have seen that the early objectors, the Alogi, and
possibly Caius, assigned it to the heretic Cerinthus;

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 297
an extravagant opinion not entertained by any in the
present day. Hitzig1 supposed that the author was
John, surnamed Mark, to whom the Second Gospel is
attributed, and in this opinion he is followed by Weisse,
and partially by Hausrath and Spitta. The most com
mon opinion is that suggested by Dionysius2 and
Eusebius, that the author is John the Presbyter : this
has been adopted by Credner, De Wette, Bleek, Ewald,
Mangold, and Diisterdieck. Others think that it was
the production of an anonymous disciple of John.
Renan thinks that it was written by one of the Apostle's
disciples, and that it afterwards received his sanction
and approval.3 Harnack supposes that it was written by
an unknown Christian of Asia Minor, and that the name
of John is a later interpolation, in order to ascribe the
book to the Apostle John.4 Pfleiderer considers it " in
the highest degree probable that the author of the Apo
calypse was a Jewish Christian of Rome, who had come
into Asia Minor, perhaps in his flight from the Neronian
persecution, had made the acquaintance of the Churches
there, and now, when the fall of Jerusalem was approach
ing, turned his prophetic eye both in that direction and
also towards Rome, so that the burning recollection of
the days of terror in Rome under Nero became in his
mind the symbol of the coming judgment upon the
proud and sinful Babylon." 5 And Scholten and others
assert that it is wholly spurious, the work of a forger,
1 Hitzig, Ueber Johannes Marcus und seine Schriften.
8 Dionysius only suggested another John ; Eusebius named him more
specifically John the Presbyter. See Holtzmann's Einleitung, p. 410..
3 Renan's L' Antichrist, Introduction, p. xii. (Translation, p. xvi.).
4 Article on the Revelation in the Encyclopedia Britannica.
6 Pileiderer's Hibbert Lectures for 1885, p. 154.

298 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
like those Apocalyptic writings then current, such as
the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the
Assumption of Moses.
Baur, Pfleiderer, Keim, Renan, and Volkmar suppose
that there is a strong anti-Pauline element in the
Apocalypse. Baur, whilst he admits the authorship of
John, asserts that the Apocalypse was written expressly
against Paul. " There can be little doubt," he observes,
" that the writer had the Apostle Paul himself before
his eye as the originator of the doctrine out of which a
spurious Christianity had sprung." Paul, according to
Baur, is alluded to when the writer speaks of those who
say that they are apostles and are not, but have been
found to be liars.1 The same opinion is maintained by
Pfleiderer,2 and is expressed in the most unwarranted and
offensive terms by Renan.3 According to Volkmar, the
Apocalypse was designedly written as a protest against
Paul by a writer who sheltered himself under the name
of John. Paul is referred to when the writer mentions
those who held the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak
to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel,
to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornica
tion (ii. 14). He gravely asserts that Paul or Paul-
inism is meant by the second wild beast, whom he
identifies with the false prophet.4 We almost feel that
1 Baur's Die christliche Kirche, vol. i. p. 81 ff. ; translation, vol. i. p. 85 ff.
" Pfleiderer's Hibbert Lectures, p. 156.
3 " John the Apostle," he observes, " appears to have been, after James,
the most ardent of the Judseo-Christians ; the Apocalypse, on its side,
breathes out a terrible hatred against Paul, and against those who were
relaxed in their observance of the Jewish law." — L Antichrist, Introduc
tion, p. xiii. translation.
4 Volkmar, Offenbarung Johannes, pp. 205-208.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS A UTHENTICITY. 299
we owe an apology for mentioning a theory so extrava
gant and so unsupported by evidence.
During recent years a theory suggested by older
writers has been revived, namely, that the Apocalypse
is a compilation of several documents written by several
authors, and put together by an editor or redactor ; x
but there is a difference of opinion as regards both the
number and the nature of these documents. Volter
supposes that the original Apocalypse with supplement
was written by the Apostle John, but that it underwent
three revisions, and received three series of interpola
tions, ascribed to the times of Trajan, Hadrian, and
Antoninus Pius.2 Vischer considers the groundwork to
be not of Christian, but of Jewish origin, and that it
was translated by an unknown Christian from the origi
nal Hebrew into Greek, with several additions and
adaptations to Christianity.3 Spitta supposes that it
was composed of three or four documents ; a Christian
original Apocalypse, written about a.d. 60, probably by
John Mark ; a Jewish Apocalypse, written when Caligula
attempted to introduce his statue into the Temple ; a
second Jewish Apocalypse, written when Pompey con
quered Judsea ; and the additions of the redactor inter
spersed throughout the work, written in the reign of
Trajan : the vision of the seals belonged to the Christian
Apocalypse, the vision of the trumpets to the first
Jewish Apocalypse, and the vision of the vials to the
1 This view of the composite nature of the Apocalypse appears first to
have been advanced by Vogel, Commentationes VII. de Apoc. Joan., 181 1-
1816. 2 Volter, Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, 1882, 2nd edit, 1885.
3 Vischer's views were published with the sanction of Harnack, which
gives to them their importance.

300 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
*
second Jewish Apocalypse.1 Weyland, a Dutch theo
logian, supposes that the Apocalypse was composed of
two Jewish Apocalypses, the one written after the defeat
of Cestius Gallus, and the other after the destruction of
Jerusalem by Titus, afterwards fused and interpolated
by a Christian redactor in the reign of Trajan. Dr. Sim-
cox suggests that chapter xvii. might be a vision really
seen by John, or some one else in Nero's time, and
incorporated by him, or by a contemporary, or later
editor, in the Revelation. He supposes that one part
of the Apocalypse was written in the time of Nero, and
another part in the time of Domitian, and that this will
account for " the conflict between external and internal
evidence as to date." 2 Weizacker considers the Apoca
lypse to be composed at different times, partly in the
reign of Galba or Vespasian and partly in the reign
of Hadrian, and the different parts to be united by a
redactor.3 We now proceed to consider in detailthe chief objec
tions which have been brought against the Johannine
authorship of the Apocalypse, or rather against the
opinion that John was the author both of the Fourth
Gospel and of the Apocalypse.
i. The main objection arises from the dissimilarity in
the language and style of the Apocalypse to that of John's
1 Spitta, Die Offenbarung des Johannes untersucht von Friedrich Spitta,
published in 1889. See review of this work in the Theologische Literatur-
zeitung, by Weizacker, for 20th September 1890.
2 Article entitled " The New Theory of the Apocalypse," in the Expo
sitor for 1887, third series, vol. v. p. 442. In his Commentary, recently
published, however, he maintains the unity of the' Apocalypse, and asserts
that it was written shortly after the death of Nero.
3 Weizacker's Apostoliches Zeitalter, 1890, pp. 506-510.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS A UTHENTICITY. 301
Gospel and the Catholic Epistles. - This objection was
adduced by Dionysius of Alexandria, who had the saga
city to remark the dissimilarity between those writings.
" We may," he observes, " notice how the phraseology
of the Gospel and the Epistle differs from the Apoca
lypse. For the former are written not only irreprehen-
sibly as regards the Greek language, but are most elegant
in diction, in the arguments, and the whole structure of
the style. . . . But I perceive that the dialect and lan
guage (of the writer of the Apocalypse) is not very accu
rate Greek, but that he uses barbarous idioms, and in some
places solecisms which it is now unnecessary to select." J
It is argued that the Greek of the Apocalypse is more
faulty and less pure than that of the Gospel ; that many
of the favourite words and phrases, peculiar to the other
writings ascribed to John, are either wanting in the
Apocalypse or are very rare ; that, conversely, many of
the favourite expressions of the Apocalypse are not to
be found in the Gospel and in the Epistle ; and that
the style of the Gospel is abstract and calm, while that
of the Apocalypse is pictorial and impassioned. Lists
of these dissimilarities are given in the various commen
taries on the writings of John ; 2 and the inference is
drawn by many distinguished theologians of all classes
of opinion that they are sufficient to prove a difference
of authorship. In the well-known language of De
Wette, so often quoted : " From all this it follows that
1 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vii. 25.
2 Credner's Einleitung, pp. 729-732 ; Davidson's Introduction to the New
Testament, vol. iii. pp. 562-571 ; De Wette, Einleitung in das N. T., pp.
418, 419 ; Lee's Commentary on the Apocalypse in Speaker's Commentary,
vol. iv. pp. 450-460; Reynold's Introduction to Commentary on John's
Gospel in Pulpit Commentary, p. 75.

302 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
no conclusion of modern criticism is so firmly established
as this, that if the Apostle John wrote the Fourth
Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, he did not write
the Apocalypse ; or that if the Apocalypse is his work,
he is not the author of the other writings." 1
Now, it is at once admitted that such a dissimilarity
of language and style does exist, although not to the
extent which some writers affirm. The Greek of the
Gospel and the Epistles, though by no means faultless,
is much purer and less Hebraistic than that of the
Apocalypse, and the form and subject-matter of those
writings are entirely different. Many of the miscon
structions are evidently intentional ; 2 for example, in
the sentence, diro 6 &v Kai 6 yv kou 6 ip-^o/uievos (i. 4), it
does not follow that the author did not know that the
proposition 0.7™ governed the genitive, and that fr was
not a participle, but he puts the words in the nominative,
because the clause is regarded as a proper name, being
the translation of Jehovah.
Various causes have been assigned to account for this
dissimilarity in language and style. Some account for the
difference, as regards the purity of the Greek, by affirming
that a considerable time elapsed between these writings ;
that the Apocalypse was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem in a.d. 68, and the Gospel more than twenty
years after, about a.d. 88, and that in the interval John
acquired a better knowledge of the Greek language.
1 De Wette's Enleitung in das N. T, p. 422, and in the English transla
tion, p. 378. De Wette compares the difference between the Fourth Gospel
and the Apocalypse to the difference between Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
2 Eor an exhaustive list of solecisms or deviations from the ordinary
rules of Greek grammar, see the Rev. T. Randall's Introduction to Com
mentary on Revelation in Pulpit Commentary, pp. xxiii.-xxvi.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 303
" John," observes Dannemann, " as long as he lived in
Palestine, used chiefly the Jewish language, so that his
knowledge of Greek must have been developed from the
time that he settled in Greek countries. If John wrote
a book in the year 68, when the Apocalypse was com
posed, it would be more Hebraistic than his Gospel and
First Epistle, which were not written until after the year
80." 1 So also Bishop Lightfoot remarks : " A lapse of
more than thirty years spent in the midst of a Gentile
population will explain the contrast of language and
imagery between the Apocalypse and the later writings
of John, due allowance being made for the difference of
subject." 2 Now, provided the difference of time between
the composition of the Apocalypse and that of the Gospel
be admitted, there is great force in this answer to the
objection. John could not be so well acquainted with
the Greek language when he wrote the Apocalypse as he
afterwards became when he wrote the Gospel. The
answer of Bleek to this, that John must have been well
advanced in years when he wrote the Apocalypse, and
that it is scarcely likely that his whole Greek style should
have changed its character so essentially as it must have
done if he, the author of the Gospel and Epistles, was
also the author of the Apocalypse,3 is without force, be
cause the environment of John was entirely changed.
Up to the time when he wrote the Apocalypse he spoke
chiefly Hebrew, afterwards he spoke chiefly Greek.
1 Dannemann, Wer ist der Verfasser der Offenbarung Johannes ? a work of
great critical insight.
2 Lightfoot on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 346 ; see also Simcox on
the Revelation of St. John, Introduction, pp. 30-32.
3 Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 127.

304 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Formerly he lived almost entirely in Palestine, afterwards
he lived in the Greek city of Ephesus.1 It is also affirmed
that the anomalies in the Apocalypse could not have
arisen from any defective knowledge of Greek, because
throughout the work the author shows himself to have
ample command of the resources of that language. This
to a certain extent is true ; and we shall be able to
account, from other considerations, for the Hebraistic
character of the Apocalypse. But where this reason
does not hold good, the above explanation may account
for linguistic anomalies. Of course, if a lapse of a con
siderable time between the composition of the Apoca
lypse and the Gospel be not admitted, if both be con
sidered as works of the later years of John, the above
argument is deprived of its force.2
Another cause of dissimilarity of style is the differ
ence in the subject-matter and character of the works.
A change in the nature of a work creates a correspond
ing change of style. An author who writes a history
employs a different style in writing a poem or a
philosophical dissertation. The Apocalypse is a pro
phecy, the prevision of the future ; the Gospel is a
history, the recollection of the past. The Apocalypse
is, as regards its form, a series of visions communicated
to the Apostle; the Gospel is chiefly a record of the
1 "There would," observes Professor Salmon, "have been fairground for
suspicion if there had been no superiority over the Greek of the Apoca
lypse in a book written after a score of years, during which the author was
speaking little or no Aramaic, and must have been habitually speaking
Greek." — Introduction to the New Testament, p. 386.
2 Those who hold that the Apocalypse was composed in the reign of
Domitian cannot have recourse to the above argument ; and so far the
evidence in favour of the identity of authorship is weakened.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 305
discourses of the Lord with His familiar disciples. In
the one the imagination is elevated ; in the other the
memory is exercised. The spirit in which these works
were written is very different. In writing the Apoca
lypse, the author was in a state of ecstasy ; he was, like
Paul, caught up to the third heavens ; a prophetic fire
burned within him ; visions and revelations from God
were imparted to him ; his enthusiasm was kindled.
In writing the Gospel and the Epistle, on the other
hand, the author was calm and collected ; the inspira
tion imparted to him, although of a most elevating
nature, was not ecstatic ; he wrote in full self-conscious
ness. As Guericke well expresses it, the Gospel of John
was conceived and written, iv rZ vol, in the understand
ing ; the Apocalypse, on the other hand, iv t«5 irvevudn,
in the spirit.1
The strong Hebraistic character of the Apocalypse
may in a great measure be accounted for by its being
written after the model of, and in conformity to the
Old Testament Prophecies. There is a strong resem
blance between it and the Apocalyptic prophets, espe
cially Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah.2 The references
to these books and the imitations of them are nume
rous. There is the same attention to mystic numbers,
the same prophetic symbols of horsemen, vials, living
creatures or cherubims, lamps, horns, and beasts. Illus
trations from the Old Testament history pervade the
whole book ; the doctrine of Balaam, the whoredoms of
Jezebel, the great river Euphrates, the great city Baby-
1 Guericke, Neutestamentliche Isagogik, p. '534.
2 To this subject we refer in a special Dissertation. V

306 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Ion, Gog and Magog, Sodom and Egypt, are examples
which colour the Apocalypse. It is perhaps the most
Hebrew book of the New Testament. The result is that
a strong Hebraistic colouring is given to its style and
diction. On the other hand, the Gospel is wholly per
vaded with the spirit of the New Testament, and
although there is internal evidence that it was the
work of a Jewish Christian, yet there is a comparative
want of Hebraisms. The Hebraisms of the Apocalypse
were in a great measure intentional, and arose from
its designed conformity to the prophecies of the Old
Testament.1 But although there are dissimilarities between the
Apocalypse and John's Gospel and Epistles — dissimila
rities which may at least be partially accounted for —
there are also striking similarities, which go to prove
identity of authorship, or at least to weaken the force
of the objection drawn from the dissimilarities. One
important link connecting these writings is the applica
tion of the term Logos to Jesus Christ. This term is
undoubtedly Johannine ; it is not elsewhere employed.
in Scripture, and yet it occurs in the Apocalypse:
"He is arrayed, in a garment sprinkled with blood;
and His name is called the Word of God" (6 Ao'70? rod
Qeov) (Rev. xix. 13). So also the word "the Lamb,"
as denoting not merely the emblem or symbol of Christ,
but Christ Himself, is peculiar to John ; as when in the
Gospel it is said, " Behold the Lamb of God," and in
the Apocalypse, " I saw in the midst of the throne and
1 See Godet's Commentary on John's Gospel, vol. i. pp. 244, 245, English
translation.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 307
of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the
elders, a Lamb standing as though it had been slain "
(Rev. v. 6). It is true that the Greek word is different,
6 dftvos being used in the Gospel and to dpvlov in the
Apocalypse ; but the idea that Jesus Christ is the Lamb
is common to both. The word d\i]Qivo?, " that which
is true," is used ten times in the Apocalypse, nine
times in the Fourth Gospel, four times in the Epistle,
and only once in the Pauline Epistles. So also "he
that overcometh " (b vikwv), a favourite expression in the
Epistle, is of frequent occurrence in the Apocalypse, as
in the conclusion of the Epistles to the Seven Churches
and elsewhere throughout the work : " He that over
cometh shall inherit all things " (Rev. xxi. 7). The verb
o-Kxivdw, " to tabernacle," only found in the Johannine
writings, is used in the Gospel, with evident reference
to the Shekinah, of the Logos tabernacling among men
(John i. 14), and is four times employed iu the Apoca
lypse with reference to God : " Behold the tabernacle
of God is with men, and He shall dwell (tabernacle)
with them" (Rev. xxi. 3). The prophecy of Zechariah
concerning the piercing of the Messiah is quoted both
iu the Gospel and in the Apocalypse, with this remark
able peculiarity, that the verb employed is the same in
both, i^eKevrno-av, and differs from the verb used in the
Septuagint.1 1 Compare Rev. i. 7 with John xix. 37 and Zech. xii. 10. See Alford's
Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, pp. 226-229 ; Davidson's Introduc
tion to the New Testament, vol. iii. pp. 552-559 ; Dannemann's Offenbarung
Johannes, pp. 31-35 ; Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 277-
282 ; Milligan's Baird Lectures, pp. 270-273 ; Vincent's Word Studies in
the New Testament : the Apocalypse. But especially the reader is referred
to the work by the Rev. Howard Evans, entitled St. John the Author of the

308 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
2. It has also been objected that not only are the
language and style of the Fourth Gospel and of the Apo
calypse entirely different, but the spirit which pervades
them is wholly dissimilar. The Fourth Gospel and the
Epistle are pervaded with the spirit of love ; whereas the
Apocalypse is stern throughout, almost vindictive, and
full of denunciations against the enemies of Christ. " A
Jewish spirit of revenge," observes Volkmar, " breathes
throughout the whole Apocalypse, invoking thunder,
hail, and pestilence on Rome. The great wine-press of
the wrath of God shall be trodden down, so that blood
flows for forty miles up to the horses' bridles ; and as
often as a vial of wrath is poured out, the voice of
jubilee sounds."1
Certainly such a difference must be admitted, but
this difference does not necessitate a difference of author
ship. We have had frequent occasion to remark that
John's character possessed these two characteristics, a
spirit of love and a spirit of hatred to evil, and that the
more ardent the Apostle's love to Christ, the greater is
his hatred to Antichrist. John was at once the beloved
Fourth Gospel. There he gives numerous lists of similarities of expression
between the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse, showing that the funda
mental doctrines of the two works are identical ; that the imagery is to a
considerable extent the same ; that the root-ideas are identical, and that
the phraseology and style are in many points identical. In an Appendix
he gives a long list of phrases, identical or similar, occurring in these works.
pp. 118-132. "Besides," he observes, "at least 100 words common to the
two writings, there are from 150 to 200 identical or similar phrases or
combinations of words which occur in the Apocalypse and Fourth Gospel.
Many of these are characteristic expressions not to be found elsewhere
throughout the whole of the New Testament" (pp. 76, 77).
1 Volkmar's Offenbarung Johannes, p. 26. The same objection is also
urged by Dusterdieck, but in more moderate terms, Handbuch iiber die
Offenbarung Johannes, p. 73.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 309
disciple who leant upon the bosom of the Saviour, and
the Son of Thunder, who wished to call down fire from
heaven upon those who rejected Him. Besides, the
subject-matter of these writings is entirely different.
The Gospel treats of the love of God — Christ appears as
the Saviour of the world ; whilst the Apocalypse treats of
the justice of God — Christ appears as the Judge of the
world. It must also be remembered that the Apocalypse
is imbued with the spirit of the ancient prophets, and
therefore exhibits all the severity of the prophetic lan
guage ; it is full of denunciations against the enemies of
Christ and His people. But although the idea of retri
bution predominates in the Apocalypse, yet the spirit of
love is not wanting ; the justice of God is united with
His mercy. The mercy of God pervades the Epistles to
the Seven Churches : " As many as I love I rebuke and
chasten ; " and especially does the love of God shine forth
in the rewards to be bestowed on -all His faithful people,
when He shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and
when God Himself shall be with them and be their God.
Although in the Apocalypse Christ is represented as
seated on the throne of judgment, yet the rainbow of
mercy encircles that throne (Rev. iv. 3).
3. It has also been affirmed that the doctrine taught
in the Apocalypse is different from that taught in the
Johannine Gospel and Epi sties. ' ' Thus in eschatology the
Apocalypse has a first and second resurrection. In like
manner the idea of Antichrist differs in the Apocalypse
and First Epistle of John. The Antichrist of the former
is a notable instrument of Satan, but the Antichrist of
the latter is a concentration of many Antichrists, one

3ro THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
who destroys Christianity from within by corrupting its
fundamental faith." 1
This objection is, however, not much insisted upon.2
The Apocalypse treats chiefly of eschatological points,
and therefore there is in this department a much fuller
development than in the Gospel and the Epistle ; but
there is no contrariety between them. Antichrist is
represented in the Epistle as one (6 avrlxpio-Tos), and the
many Antichrists (avrlxpio-roi •n-oXkol) are his precursors
( i John ii. 1 8). In all the writings ascribed to John, God
is represented as the Living One, the source of all life.
Christ is in the Apocalypse as well as in the Gospel a
supernatural being, as the First and the Last, the Holy
and the True, the object of religious worship, and the
Word of God. His death is an atonement for sins ; He
is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world ; He
has redeemed us unto God with His blood ; He has
washed believers and made them white in His blood.
The world is represented in the Epistle as the enemy
of God ; and in the Apocalypse " all the world worships
the beast" answers to the declaration in the Epistle
"the whole world lieth in wickedness." There is also
in the Apocalypse the same contrast between Christ and
Satan, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, love and
hate, the world and the Church, which meets us in the
Gospel and in the Epistle. Indeed, the Apocalypse may
be considered as the closing act of the drama of this
1 Article on the Revelation by Dr. S. Davidson in Kitto's Encyclopedia
of Biblical Literature, vol. iii. p. 666.
2 Even Kbstlin observes : " It is confirmed from all quarters that John's
system of doctrine is in great part a spiritualisation of that of the Apoca
lypse." — Johannischer Lehrbegriff, p. 4.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS AUTHENTICITY. 311
mighty conflict which has been carried on from the fall
of man, which was seen in Christ's contests with evil,
which still rages on earth, and which shall finally termi
nate in Christ's great victory over Satan and all the
powers of darkness — a conflict which is prominently
brought forward in the Gospel and the Epistle.1
We have thus examined the objections arising from
the dissimilarities of style and language, and the dif
ferences of spirit and doctrine between the Apocalypse
and the Fourth Gospel and the Epistles ; and although
we admit these dissimilarities and differences, yet we
do not think that they are of so strong or decided a
character as to necessitate us affirming a diversity of
authorship. The difference in doctrine is slight, and is
fairly accounted for by the apocalyptic nature of the
Revelation. The difference in spirit is more manifest,
but is also accounted for by considering the subject-
matter of the writings. The differences in language
and style are still greater, but are lessened by consider
ing the different circumstances under which these works
were written, and the necessary influence of his Old
Testament models on the author of the Apocalypse, and
are to a considerable extent counterbalanced by un
doubted and peculiar similarities. We do not, then,
consider these differences to be of such a nature as to
overthrow those strong and convincing testimonies,
which assert that the Apostle John was the author of
1 On the identity of the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel and the Apoca
lypse, see Luthardt, John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 260-274, and
especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, pp. 304-41 1, English
translation, T. & T. Clark ; Lechler's Apostolisches Zeitalter, pp. 228-232,
2nd edit. ; English translation, vol. ii. pp. 207-217.

3i2 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
the Apocalypse. The assumption that John was the
author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Epistles which
bear his name does not contradict the assertion that
the visions of the Apocalypse were also imparted to
him. III. — To whom Addressed.
The Apocalypse is addressed to the Seven Churches
of Asia : " What thou seest write in a book, and send
it unto the seven Churches ; unto Ephesus, and unto
Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and
unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea"
(Rev. i. n). This group of Churches were all in
proximity to each other, and, though the words rah. iv
'Ao-ia, of the textus receptus are not genuine, belonged
to the province of Asia (Rev. i. 4). By Asia is meant
not the continent of Asia, but the comparatively small
country of Proconsular Asia, nearly equivalent to the
ancient kingdom of Pergamum, which was gifted to the
Roman republic by its last monarch, Attalus Phila-
delphus. It comprised the ancient districts of Lydia,
Caria, Mysia, and part of Phrygia, and possessed many
large and flourishing cities. John, being resident for
many years in Ephesus, had easy access to the Churches
of Asia, and, as we learn from Eusebius,1 exercised an epis
copal superintendence over them. Only seven Churches
are named, but we know that other Churches existed in
that populous region ; in all probability Christianity
had gained an extensive footing in all the large cities of
the district. We learn from the Epistles of Paul that
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 29.

TO WHOM ADDRESSED. 313
there were Churches in Colossse and Hierapolis (Col.
iv. 13); we know from the Acts of the Apostles that
flourishing Churches were planted at Miletus and Alex
andria Troas (Acts xvi. 8, xx. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12); and
from the Epistles of Ignatius we may fairly assume
that there were at that time Churches in Tralles and
Magnesia. Only seven churches are named, probably
to preserve the symmetry of the work, as the number
seven pervades the whole book. The Seven Churches
are representative ; what was addressed to each was
addressed to all ; the same exhortations and encour
agements are applicable to the Christian Church at
large, though preserving the characteristics of each
particular Church. " What John addresses to one
Church," observes Victorinus, "he addresses to all.
Paul has first taught us that there are seven Churches
(alluding to the seven Churches to which his Epistles
are addressed), and that the seven Churches named
mean the Church Catholic ; and so John, that he
might observe the same method, did not exceed the
number seven."1
The first mentioned of the Seven Churches is Ephe
sus, the illustrious capital of Proconsular Asia, cele
brated for its magnificent buildings, its temple of Diana,
its theatre, its circus, styled by Pliny the "Light of
Asia," then in all its glory, but now a miserable vil
lage called Ayasalook.2 Smyrna, a city of Ionia, has
1 In Apocal, chap. i. "By the seven," observes St. Augustine, "is
signified the perfection of the Universal Church, and by writing to seven,
he shows the fulness of the one." The symbolical value of the number is
probably to be sought for in the seven days of creation.
2 See Discoveries at Ephesus, by J. T. Wood, 1877, containing an interest
ing account of the excavations carried on from 1863-74 at a cost of

3 14 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
for more than two thousand years been an important
commercial seaport ; it is at present one of the most
flourishing cities in the Levant, containing a popu
lation of 200,000, many of whom are Christians.
Pergamum or Pergamos, formerly the capital of the
kingdom of the same name, was celebrated for its school
of grammarians, its magnificent library of 200,000
volumes,1 and its famous temple of iEsculapius ; it is
still a considerable city, called Bergamah, with 20,000
inhabitants, of whom 3000 are Christians. Thyatira,
a city of Lydia, famous in ancient times for its purple
dyes,2 and still noted for the same commerce, exporting
large quantities of scarlet cloth, has a population of
18,000, about a third of whom are Christians. Its
modern name is Akhissar. Sardis, once the proud
capital of Lydia, the royal city of Croesus, is now
reduced to a small village, known by the name of Sart.
Philadelphia, also a city of Lydia, having received its
name from its founder, Attalus Philadelphus, is still a
considerable town, known by the name of Allahsher,
and possesses five Christian churches. Laodicea, a city
of Phrygia, on a tributary of the Menander, was de
stroyed by an earthquake in the reign of Nero, but
rebuilt with great splendour, and was evidently at the
time when the Apocalypse was written in a state of
worldly prosperity. Of all the seven Asiatic Churches,
it is the most ruinous ; its lukewarmness has proved its
;£i6,odo by the Trustees of the British Museum, and which resulted in the
discovery of the site and imposing remains of the great temple of Diana.
1 Removed to Alexandria by Mark Antony as a gift to Cleopatra, and
destroyed under the Caliph Omar.
2 Lydia, a seller of purple, was a native of Thyatira (Acts xvi. 14).

TO WHOM ADDRESSED. 315
destruction. " Nothing," says Hamilton, " can exceed
the desolation and melancholy appearance of the site of
Laodicea." 1
From the Epistles addressed to these Seven Churches
we learn something of their condition when the Apo
calypse was written. There is a symmetry in these
Epistles ; the Churches are first blamed for what evil is
in them, then commended for their good points, and a
promise is given to those who continue faithful. There
is a considerable difference among them : the Churches
of Smyrna and Philadelphia are entirely commended —
no faults are attributed to them ; whereas the Church
of Laodicea is wholly blamed — no words of praise are
bestowed upon it. The other four Churches of Ephesus,
Sardis, Pergamum, and Thyatira, are partly commended
and partly blamed. These Churches had evidently
existed for some time ; they had gone through a stage
of experience. Several of them had degenerated ; they
had left their first love and their early zeal had cooled.
The Churches were persecuted ; some of them were
tried and had tribulation ; and in the Church of Per
gamum, where Satan's seat is, in allusion perhaps to
the worship of iEsculapius, whose emblem was the
serpent, mention is made of Antipas, who had suffered
martyrdom (Rev. ii. 13). Heresies had arisen in these
Churches ; certain forms of Gnosticism had made their
appearance. In most of the Epistles reference is made
to internal corruptions; in the Epistles to Ephesus and
1 For further particulars on the Seven Churches see Winer's Biblisches
Realworterbuch; Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography ; Schaff's
Bible Dictionary; Hamilton's Seven Churches of Asia ; and Fellow's Journal
written in Asia Minor.

316 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Pergamum special mention is made of the Nicolaitanes ;
in the Epistle to Pergamum of those who held the
doctrine of Balaam ; and in the Epistle to Thyatira of
the woman Jezebel, who called herself a prophetess and
who seduced the servants of Christ.
IV. — Time and Place op Writing.
The date of the composition of the Apocalypse is a
subject of much discussion. The fact that the external
evidence is in favour of one date, and the internal
evidence in favour of another, makes it a matter of such
difficulty, that nothing positive can be determined.
There are two opinions, opposed to each other ; the one,
that the Apocalypse was composed shortly after the
death of Nero, in the reign of Galba or Vespasian,
A.D. 69 or 70 ; and the other, that it was composed at
the close of Domitian's reign, a.d. 96. A space of
twenty-six years intervenes between these dates.
The most prevalent opinion among theologians and
biblical critics in the present day is that the Apocalypse
was composed shortly after the death of Nero. The
most learned modern critics, belonging to different
schools of religious thought, with few exceptions, have
embraced this ^opinion.1 Different reasons have been
assigned ; those of one class of theologians have been
repudiated by another ; and though they all reach the
same conclusion, they do so by different roads.
1 This opinion is adopted by Wetstein, Michaelis, Credner, Liicke, Baur,
De Wette, Neander, Ewald, Guericke, Bleek, Moses Stuart, Gerhardt,
Auberlen, Dusterdieck, Renan, Reuss, Inimer, Weiss, Mangold, Holtzmann,
Samuel Davidson, Farrar, Westcott, Lightfoot, Stier, Salmon, Simcox,
Boyd Carpenter, &c, &c.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING., 317
The external evidence in favour of this view is
acknowledged by all to be weak ; indeed it is scarcely
worth mentioning. There is not the slightest trace of
it in the writings of the Fathers. The earliest direct
statement to this effect is a subscription attached to a
manuscript of a Syrian version of the sixth century,
published in Walton's Polyglot, that John was banished
to Patmos by Nero Csesar.1 This date is also mentioned
by Theophylact, who, however, did not live until the
eleventh century, and who also contradicts himself
by assigning the condemnation of John to Trajan.
The above opinion then rests wholly on internal evi
dence. It is urged by some theologians (Liicke, Bleek, Man
gold, Holtzmann, Dusterdieck, Moses Stuart) that there
is internal evidence in the book itself that it was written
whilst the Temple of Jerusalem was still standing. This
opinion is founded on the following statements in the
Apocalypse : " And there was given me a reed like unto
a rod; and one said, Rise, and measure the temple of
God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
And the court which is without the temple leave without,
and measure it not ; for it hath been given unto the
nations ; and the holy city shall they tread under foot
forty and two months" (Rev. xi. 1, 2). The dead bodies
of the two witnesses Wjere to lie in the street of the
great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt,
where also their Lord was crucified (Rev. xi. 8) ; and
1 According to Tertullian (De Prescript. Her., xxxvi.), John was sent into
banishment from Rome ; and as he mentions this along with the martyr
dom of Peter and Paul, it might be held that in Tertullian's opinion the
banishment occurred under Nero ; but the inference is too precarious.

318 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
mention is made ,of the beloved city (Rev. xx. 9).
From these statements it is argued that the Jewish
war was then in progress, and that although the city
might be destroyed, yet the Temple would be pre
served ; God would watch over and save His holy
house.1 But these expressions do not necessarily pre
suppose the existence of the Temple of Jerusalem. The
passage is symbolical, and the Temple here is typical of
the Christian Church. The measuring of the Temple of
God and the altar is, no doubt, for their preservation,
but, being symbolical, it does not necessarily imply that
they were then standing. Ezekiel in his visions was
similarly commanded to measure the Temple after its
destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. Besides, if the literal
interpretation be correct, if the author expected the
capture of the fore-court, but not of the Temple, the
event falsified the prediction, and thus proved that the
Apocalypse was no true prophecy.
But the chief argument for this early date is the
supposed designation of time in the account of the seven
heads of the beast, by which, according to many of the
advocates of this opinion, seven Roman emperors are
indicated. "The seven heads are seven mountains, on
which the woman sitteth : and they are seven kings ; the
five are fallen, the one is, and the other is not yet come ;
and when he cometh, he must continue yet a little while.
And the beast that was, and is not, is himself also an
eighth, and is of the seven, and he goeth into perdi
tion" (Rev. xvii. 9-1 1). It is here stated that five of
these kings are fallen (ol irivre eireo-av), that one is (6 eh
1 Diisterdieck's Offenbaring Johannis, pp. 54, 55.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 319
lo-n'e), that the seventh is not yet come (0 aXkos oiV&>
r[k6e) ; and to these is added an eighth, who is also of
the seven (avrbs o'ySoo'? ecrriv, Kal iic roav irrrd iortv). From
this it is argued that the Apocalypse was written in the
reign of the sixth Roman emperor ; and that, therefore,
if we could discover who he is, we could fix on the pre
cise time when it was composed. As to the identity of
this emperor, however, there is among these interpreters
a considerable difference of opinion. Some begin the list
with Julius Csesar, so that, according to them, Nero is the
sixth emperor.1 Others omit the three emperors Galba,
Otho, and Vitellius, whose united reign extended hardly
over a year, and who might be regarded as military
usurpers, so that, according to them, Vespasian is the
sixth emperor.2 But according to the general opinion
of these critics, the five emperors who are fallen are
Augustus, Tiberius, Caius Caligula, Claudius, and Nero ;
the sixth who now is, Is Galba, the reigning emperor ;
and the seventh, who is not yet come, is Otho, his suc
cessor, as Galba's reign was expected to be of short
duration on aecount of his extreme age.3 The eighth
emperor, " the beast who was and is not, and is of the
seven," is supposed to be Nero, whose death was not
credited, and who was expected to reappear in the East,
and to regain his throne by the assistance of the Par
thians. This opinion that Nero was not dead was current
in the Roman Empire, and several impostors arose who
personated that emperor. Tacitus tells us that the Par
thians were well nigh induced to take arms by the tricks
1 So Wetstein, Stuart, Bertholdt, Renan.
2 So Liicke, Bleek, Dusterdieck, Sinicox.
3 So Ewald, De Wette, Baur, Reuss, Hilgenfeld.

320 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
of a pretended Nero ; 1 and he mentions a false Nero, a
slave from Pontus, in the reign of Galba, who arrived at
the island of Cythnus, and, after having caused great
disturbance, was put to death by the Romans. " About
this time," he observes, " a report that Nero was still
alive, and on his way to the East, excited a false alarm
through Achsea and Asia." 2 And Suetonius informs us
that in the reign of Domitian an impostor gave himself
out for Nero, and that name secured for him such a
favourable reception among the Parthians, that it was
with difficulty they were prevailed upon to give him up.3
Mention is made in history of three impostors who per
sonated Nero ; one in Achsea and Proconsular Asia, in
the reign of Galba ; a second, also in Proconsular Asia, in
the reign of Titus ; and a third, protected by the Par
thians, in the reign of Domitian.4 In the fifth Sybilline
book, supposed to be written in the time of Hadrian,
the Antichrist Beliar is identified with Nero ; " and
toward the close of the third century, Victorinus, in his
exposition of the Apocalypse, identifies the beast rising
out of the sea with Nero : " Now that one of the heads
was wounded as it were unto death, in this he speaks of
Nero." 6 It is affirmed that John, or the author of the
Apocalypse, adopts this legend of Nero, and supposes
that Antichrist, the eighth head, and who also belonged
1 Hist, i. 2. 2 Hist., ii. 8. 3 Suet. Nero, 57.
4 Merrivale's History of the Romans under the Empire, vol. vii. p. 50. Per
haps the second and third pretender was the same person.
6 On the Sybilline Oracles and their probable age, see Drummond's
Jewish Messiah, pp. 10-16 ; Reuss in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie.
6 In Apos., chap. xiii. He gives the seven kings as follows : the five
who are fallen are Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, and Titus ; the sixth,
under whom the Apocalypse was written, is Domitian ; and the seventh,
who is yet to come, is Nerva ; and the eighth, Antichrist or Nero.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 321
to the seven emperors, was Nero revived from the dead.
They suppose that the whole Apocalypse is founded on
this legend, and that the kings of the East (Rev. xvi. 12)
are the Parthians, who were to assist Nero in regaining
his throne. Others, among these critics (Dusterdieck,
&c), deny that Nero is Antichrist.1 They suppose
that Nero reappeared not in person, but in spirit,
in the eighth emperor, Domitian. This emperor was
actuated by the same spirit : he also was a violent per
secutor of the Christians, and was regarded not only
by the Christians, but by the Romans, as another
Nero.2 Now certainly much ingenuity has been here displayed,
and there is, it is admitted, a plausibility about this inter
pretation of the seven kings, and of the eighth who was
and is not, and is of the seven ; but, in reality, it rests
on no foundation. It is a mere gratuitous assumption
to suppose that by the seven kings are denoted seven
Roman emperors. The term kings may have reference,
as in the Book of Daniel (Dan. vii. 17, 23), to which
the Apocalypse is assimilated, not to persons, but to
kingdoms or po wers. To apply the legend of the reappear
ance of Nero in the East to be restored to his throne by
the aid of the Parthians as the eighth king, is an ana
chronism, for this legend did not arise until the reign of
Domitian, when that pseudo-Nero appeared. A false
Nero indeed appeared in the reign of Galba, but he was
quickly slain, and had no connection with Parthia. It
1 Diisterdieck, Offenbarung, p. 57 and p. 526.
2 Eusebius observes that Domitian established himself as the successor of
Nero in his hatred and hostility to God. Eccl. Hist., iii. 17. Juvenal
speaks of Domitian as "the bald Nero." Sat. iv. 34, 35. X

322 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
was not until twenty years later that another supposi
tious Nero appeared in Parthia, and secured the assist
ance of the Parthians. Besides, this interpretation would
make the Apocalypse to be based on a mere legend, and
thus degrade the book from being an inspired prediction
to be a worthless production, founded on error and
falsehood. It is further argued that the number of the beast
points to Nero as Antichrist. " He that hath under
standing, let him count the number of the beast, for it is
the number of a man ; and his number is six hundred
sixty and six" (Rev. xiii. 18). This mystical number
exercised the thoughts and ingenuity of the Fathers.
Irenseus mentions a diversity in the reading ; instead
of the number 666, some copies, he observes, read 616,
a reading which actually occurs in Codex C. There is
no doubt, however, that 666 is the correct reading.
Irenseus suggests three interpretations : " The name
Evanthas (ivdvQai) contains the required number, but I
make no remark regarding it. Lateinos (Xaretvoi) has
the number 666, and is a very probable solution, this
being the name of the last kingdom (of Daniel). Teitan
(reirav) is also worthy of credit, for it has in itself the
predicted number, and is composed of six letters."1
Victorinus also considers that Teitan is a plausible solu
tion.2 Modern critics now generally consider that the
number denotes Caesar Nero written in Hebrew char
acters (1^3 "ipip).3 "The secret," observes Archdeacon
Farrar, "has been almost simultaneously rediscovered
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., v. 30, 3.
2 Victorinus, In Apoc, ch. xiii.
3 p=ioo, D=6o, 1 = 200, 3 = 50, ") = 2oo, 1 = 6, 3 = 50.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 323
of late years by Fritzsche in Halle, Benary in Berlin^ Reuss
in Strasburg, and Hitzig in Heidelberg.1
But such a supposition is entirely fanciful. We
would certainly expect that the name would be written,
not in Hebrew, but in Greek characters in a book
written in the Greek language. The Hebrew letter
yod is generally contained in the rendering of the word
Csesar, "l?^.2 Besides, we have to do with the number
of the beast, which is the Roman Empire, not with the
number of one of its heads. The fanciful applications
of the number are very numerous. Among persons
supposed to be indicated are Caius Caligula, Trajan,
Hadrian, Julian the Apostate, Genseric, Mahomet, Pope
Benedict IX., Luther, Calvin, Beza, and Napoleon Bona
parte. The word Lateinos (Xareivds),3 as suggested by
Irenaeus, is as plausible as any. As Professor Salmon
remarks, " There are three rules by the help of which I
believe an ingenious man could find the required sum in
any given name. First, if the proper name by itself will
not yield it, add a title ; secondly, if the sum cannot
be found in Greek, try Hebrew, or even Latin ; thirdly,
be not too particular about the spelling. For example,
if Nero will not do, try Csesar Nero. If this will not
1 Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 297, note. See also Bleek's
Ltctwres on the Apocalypse, p. 284 ; Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, p. 88.
The credit of priority belongs to Fritzsche (Annalen der gesammten theol.
LitteroUur, 1831), although little attention was paid to his discovery until
propounded by the other critics, six years later.
a "I do not," observes Bleek, "consider it (the above interpretation)
correct, because in Jewish writings both the name ]1"VJ, as well as -|D*p, is
written with a yod after the first consonant. It might have been probably
absent from the name of Nero, but not well from -\osp, since it is derived
from the Greek Kaurap." So also the opinion that the number of the beast
is Nero is not accepted by De Wette, Liicke, Bunsen, Dusterdieck.
3 X = 3o, a=i, 7=300, e=5, t=io, k = 5o, 0 = 70, s=200.

324 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
succeed in Greek, try Hebrew ; and in writing Kaisar
in Hebrew, be sure to leave out the yod, which would
make the sum too much by ten. We cannot infer much
from the fact that a key fits the lock, if it is a lock in
which almost any key will turn." 1
Some theologians (Dannemann, Lightfoot, Westcott,
Salmon), who are opposed to all these views and rea
sons, yet affirm the early date of the Apocalypse from
linguistic considerations. Their great argument is that
the difference between the Greek of the Apocalypse
and the Greek of the Fourth Gospel, if these books
proceed from the same author, can only be accounted
for on the supposition that a considerable interval of
time elapsed between the composition of these books.
When John wrote the Apocalypse he did not possess
such a knowledge of Greek as he afterwards' acquired
during his long residence in Ephesus.2 Thus, as West
cott observes, " it is not difficult to see that intercourse
with a Greek-speaking people would in a short time
naturally reduce the style of the author of the Apo
calypse to that of the author of the Gospel. It is,
however, very difficult to suppose that the language of
the writer of the Gospel could pass at a later time in
a Greek-speaking country into the language of the
Apocalypse." 3 There is undoubtedly force in this objec
tion. If we assign the Apocalypse to the reign of Galba
or Vespasian, we may find a reason for the linguistic
difference between it and the Fourth Gospel ; but if
1 Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, p. 300.
2 See supra, pp. 302-304.
3 Westcott, Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the Speaker's Commen
tary, pp. lxxxiv.-lxxxvii.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 325
we assign it to a later date — to the time of Domitian —
then we lose the argument for the identity of author
ship drawn from the lapse of time which intervened
between the composition of these books, and thus
increase the difficulty of proving such an identity. But,
on the other hand, it must be remembered that there
are other reasons that have been assigned for these
linguistic differences, such as the different natures of
the books and the different mental states of the author
at the time of writing.1
The other date assigned for the composition of the
Apocalypse is a.d. 95 or 96, shortly after the death
of Domitian. This opinion, though it has not the
same number of authorities in its favour as the other
opinion, has been adopted by such men as Lardner,
Hug, Hofmann, Van Oosterzee, J. P. Lange, Ebrard,
Hengstenberg, Alford, Elliott, Godet, Klieforth, Lee,
Wordsworth, Warfield, and Milligan.
The external evidence for it is much stronger than
for the rival opinion. We have here the important
testimony of Irenaeus. " If it were necessary that his
(Antichrist's) name should be distinctly revealed in
this present time, it would have been announced by
him who saw the Revelation. For it was seen not
very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the
close of the reign of Domitian." 2 This testimony of
Irenaeus is also twice alluded to by Eusebius in his
1 Professor Salmon suggests, as another way of accounting for the better
Greek of the Gospel, that John may have written the Apocalypse without
assistance, and may have had the help of an amanuensis in writing the
Gospel. 2 OuSe yap wpb rroWov xpovov empddrj, dWa. trxeSoi/ ern rrjs r)p.erepas yeveas
wpbs ra reXet rrjs Aop,eriavov dpxfjS. Adv. Haer., v. 30, 3.

326 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
History.1 Its importance consists in the nearness of
time when he wrote to the composition of the Apoca
lypse, and in the relation of pupil in which Irenseus
stood to Polycarp, the disciple of John. Indeed, this
statement is so clear and pointed, that it requires those
whose method of interpreting the Apocalypse constrains
them to assign its date to the reign of Galba or Ves
pasian, to employ the most desperate methods to explain
and neutralise it. Some suppose that the nominative
to the verb ecopdOij (it was seen) is not ctTO/raXi/^ty (the
revelation), but 'Iwdwijs (John) : " John was seen." But
this is a meaning that the words will not bear, as
cnroKaXv^ni is the immediate antecedent. Guericke sup
poses that Domitian, Aopenavov, is here not a substan
tive, but an adjective formed from Aofienos, " belonging
to Domitian," and that the reference is to Domitius
Nero, and not to the Emperor Domitian.2 But this
is a most improbable supposition. Domitius is a title
very rarely applied to Nero, and every reader would
understand that the Emperor Domitian is here meant.
Archdeacon Farrar can see no way of getting out of the
difficulty than by the bold assertion, "Irenseus may
have been misinterpreted ; but even if not, he may
have made a slip of memory and confused Domitian
with Nero." 3 Nor is this testimony of Irenseus single ;
it is confirmed by the testimony of other Fathers.
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 18 ; v. 8.
2 Guericke, Isagogik, p. 6i, note i.
3 Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 186. So also Weiss
observes, " It is manifestly an error, when, in opposition to this clear
testimony of the Apocalypse itself, Irenseus says that the Apocalypse was
seen towards the end of Domitian's reign." Einleitung, p. 384 ; transla
tion, vol. ii. p. 84.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 327
Clemens Alexandrinus, in the legend of John and the
robber, does not indeed mention Domitian, but states
generally that John returned to Ephesus after the
death of the tyrant ; but Eusebius, who gives the narra
tive, evidently understood that by the "tyrant" Clement
meant Domitian.1 Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau (a.d.
290), says, "When John said these things, he was in
the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by
Csesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse ; and
when at length grown old, he thought that he should
receive his release by suffering ; but Domitian being
killed, he was liberated." 2 Eusebius repeatedly assigns
this date to the Apocalypse : " About this time
John, the apostle and evangelist, governed the Church
of Asia after his return from exile on the island and
the death of Domitian."3 And so also Jerome says,
" John, having been banished in the fourteenth year of
Domitian to the island of Patmos, wrote the Apo
calypse/' 4
Nor is the internal evidence in favour of this date
without weight. The following points are worthy of
consideration : — 1. The Churches in Asia had evidently
existed for some time. Some of them had passed from
a state of religious fervour into one of lukewarmness
and indifference. The Church of Ephesus had left its
1 Hist. Eccl, iii. 23.
2 Victorinus, In 44jpff<r.,,chap. x.
3 Eusebius, Hist Eccl., iii. 23 ; iii. 20.
4 Jerome, Catal. Vir. Elustr., c. q. ; also Adv. Jovinianum, ii. 14. See
Kirchhoffer's Quellensammlung, pp. 327, 328. The reader is referred to
Elliott's Hora Apocalyptice,. vol. i. pp. 35-54. as containing the most ex
haustive discussion of the external evidence relating to the date of the
Apocalypse.

328 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
first love ; the Church of Sardis had a name to live,
but was dead ; the Church of Laodicea was lukewarm,
neither cold nor hot. 2. The ecclesiastical organisation
of the Church seems to have been further advanced
than it appears to have been from the Pastoral Epistles.
Each Church had now its own Bishop, who was regarded
as its representative, and to whom the other office-bearers
were subordinate ; for such, we think, is the most natural
interpretation of the phrase " the angel of the Church." x
3. Christians in general were exposed to persecution.
Mention is made of those who were slain for the word
of God (Rev. vi. 9). And whereas it may be said that
this is a prediction of future persecution, in the Epistles
to the Seven Churches there are traces of actual per
secution. The Church of Smyrna was tried and had
tribulation ; and in the Church of Pergamos mention
is made of Antipas, Christ's faithful martyr. This
state of matters is more in accordance with the persecu
tion under Domitian, which was general throughout the
Empire, than with the persecution under Nero, which
was an outburst of imperial fury, and confined chiefly
to Rome. 4. The Church was corrupted by heresies.
Mention is made of the Nicolaitanes, a licentious, here
tical sect of Jewish Gnostics, alluded to by Irenseus.
These heresies must have taken time to develop ; and
although there are undoubtedly traces of them in the
later Epistles of Paul, yet the description of them in
the Apocalyptic Epistles is more suitable to the close
1 Rev. ii. 1. "The Apocalypse," says Godet, "brings before us the
period of transition from the primitive Presbyterian constitution to the
monarchic organisation which is universally admitted to have prevailed iu
the second century." — Biblical Studies, p. 338.

TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. 329
of the Apostolic age. Heresy appeared in a state of
greater development than it does in the Epistles of
Paul.1 5. Laodicea is represented as in a prosperous
condition. This city was in the reign of Nero destroyed
by an earthquake. "The same year" (a.d. 62) writes
Tacitus, " Laodicea, one of the most famous cities of
Asia, having been prostrated by an earthquake, reco
vered its pristine glory from its own resources, and
without any relief from us." 2 In the Apocalypse the
members of the Laodicean Church are represented as
" rich and increased in goods " (Rev. iii. 1 7). Now this
prosperous condition of Laodicea suits better the time
of Domitian than that of Galba, as time' must be allowed
for its recovery.
Such are the arguments in favour of the two dates
which have been assigned to the Apocalypse. Although
perhaps no positive conclusion can be arrived at, yet,
notwithstanding that the first opinion has the greater
number of theologians and critics in its favour, we must
acknowledge that the preponderance of evidence, both
external and internal, is in favour of assigning the date
to the close of the reign of Domitian (a.d. 96).
There is not much difference of opinion as regards the
place of writing. The author himself tells us that he was
in Patmos, when the series of visions were imparted to
him (Rev. i. 9). The probability is that these visions
were written down soon after they were imparted ; and
1 Weizacker admits that the evidence of the prevalence of persecution
and of a late period in the development of Gnostic heresy is such as to
imply a date not earlier than Domitian, although he holds that a portion
of the book was written earlier. Apostolisches Zeitalter, pp. 510-512.
2 Tacitus, Annals, xiv. 27.

330 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
if so, the place of writing was Patmos. Some think
that the book was not written immediately, but that
the Apostle wrote it on his return to Ephesus.

V. — Design and Contents.
The nature and design of the Apocalypse is thus
stated in the book itself : " The revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God gave Him to show unto His servants, even the
things which must shortly come to pass, and He sent
and signified it by His angel unto His servant John."
And again : " Write therefore the things that thou
sawest, and the things which are, and the. things which
shall come to pass hereafter" (Rev. i. i, 19). The book
then was invested with a prophetic character; it was
written for the edification of the Church in all ages,
and not merely for the edification of the Seven Churches
of Asia ; it contained a record not only of the present,
"of the things which are" (d ela\u), but also of the
future, " of the things which shall come to pass here
after " (a fiiXXec yivirrQai fxera. ravra). To overlook this
predictive element, or to give it a subordinate place, is
to misconceive the nature of the book. The great fact
predicted is the final victory of Christ over all His
enemies. The conflict between good and evil — betweeu
the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan— is
throughout the book described in mystic terms. All ter
minates in the complete discomfiture of Satan, and in the
final subjugation, or destruction of all the enemies of
Christ. Connected with this is the advent of Christ —
His coming for the deliverance of His people (Rev. i. 7).

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 331
But the immediate advent of Christ is not here asserted.
It is true that it is said that the things predicted are
those which must shortly come to pass, and that the
time is at hand ; and toward the close of the book we
have the declaration, " Behold I come quickly " (Rev. i.
1, 3 ; xxii. 10, 20). But various times and seasons are
represented as intervening between the time that the
Apostle wrote and the future advent ; in one place a
period of a thousand years. Time is short when viewed
in the light of eternity,, in the sight of Him with whom
one day is as a thousand years. The great moral
design of the Apoealypse is to comfort and support
Christians under the trials and persecutions to which
they were exposed, by assuring them that these trials
were of short duration, and that their enemies would
at length be conquered and destroyed.1
The unity of the Apocalypse has been seldom ques
tioned. Grotius supposed that different parts of the
Apocalypse were composed by the same author at dif
ferent times* partly in Patmos and partly in Ephesus,
and thus endeavours to reconcile the different views
with respect to the time of writing. Vogel supposes
that it is not the work of one author, but that it was
written at different times by different persons, partly
by John the Apostle, and partly by John the Pres
byter, and In this manner accounts for the diversity of
opinion with regard to the author. Weizacker supposes
that the chief part of the work was written before the
destruction of Jerusalem, but that the Epistles to the
1 "If," says Godet, "the Gospels are principally intended to lay the
foundations of faith, and the Epistles to enkindle love, the Apocalypse
gives food for hope."

332 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Seven Churches are a later addition, whilst the pre
sence of the doctrine of the Logos makes it impossible
to ascribe the whole to the first century.1 We have
already adverted to the recent views of modern critics,
Volter, Vischer, and Spitta, who suppose the Apocalypse
to be a compilation of various documents, partly Jewish
and partly Christian, arranged by a redactor. There is
no foundation for any of these opinions. There are no
indications of separate authors ; a uniform style per
vades the whole book. The predictions are symmetri
cally arranged. The threefold visions — the seven seals,
the seven trumpets, and the seven vials — constitute the
body of the work ; and there is a sameness in the mode
of denouncing the judgments which proves the hand of
one writer.
The best general arrangement of the contents is that
given by Professor Warfield of Princeton. Prologue,
i. 1-8. (i.) The Seven Churches, i. 9 — iii. 22. (2.) The
seven seals, iv. i-viii. 1. (3.) The seven trumpets, viii.
2-xi. 19. (4.) The seven mystic figures, xii. i-xiv. 20.
(5.) The seven vials, xv. i-xvi. 21. (6.) The seven
fold judgment of the whore, xvii. i-xix. 10. (7.) The
sevenfold triumph, xix. 11 -xxii. 5. The epilogue, xxii.
6-1 2.1
1 Apostolisches Zeitalter, p. 504 ff.
3 SchafiPs Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, vol. iii. p. 2036. Perhaps
the sevenfold division of the sections, 4, 6, and 7, is somewhat fanciful.
Eichhorn considers it to be a dramatic poem in three acts. He gives the
following arrangement: — 1. The title, i. 1-3. 2. The prologue, i. 4-iii. 22.
3. The drama, iv. i.-xxii. 5. Act 1. The taking of Jerusalem, or the
triumph of Christianity over Judaism. Act 2. The taking of Rome, or the
triumph of Christianity over Paganism. Act 3. The New Jerusalem. 4.
The epilogue, xxii. 6-21. Einleitung in das N. T., vol. ii. § 188, p. 334 ff.
For a full statement of the contents of the Apocalypse, see especially Diis-

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 333
John commences his Revelation with the announce
ment of its design (i. 1-3). He then addresses the
Seven Churches of Asia, wishing them the apostolic
blessing of grace and peace from the Three Persons of
the Blessed Trinity,1 and closing with a doxology to
Christ (i. 4-8). The vision of the exalted Christ that
was imparted to him is next described (i. 9-20). Then
follow the Epistles of Christ to the Seven Churches in
Asia, in which He reproves, commends, exhorts, and com
forts them (ii.,iii.). Then follows the glorious description
of the throne of God, in whose right hand is the great
book of the future, sealed with seven seals (iv.-v. 1).
The Lamb in the midst of the throne is the only being
in heaven and on earth who is worthy to open that book
and to reveal its contents (v. 2-14). Then follows the
opening of six of the seven seals ; on the opening of the
first four, four horses appear, the emblems of victory,
war, famine, and pestilence ; on the opening of the fifth,
the martyrs are exhorted to patience ; and on the open
ing of the sixth, the signs of the coming of the Son of
Man are seen (vi.). The elect, both Jews and Gen
tiles, are then sealed in order to be preserved from*
the destruction which shall befall the world (vii.).
The opening of the seventh seal is followed by the
sounding of the seven trumpets ; plagues and pesti
lences, wars and famines on the earth, are announced
terdieck's Offenbarung, pp. 1-12 ; Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse, pp.
4-22 ; Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, pp. 243, 244 ;
Liicke's Offenbarung, pp. 6-21.
1 By "the seven Spirits which are before the throne" is meant not
seven angels, but the Holy Ghost, seven being the sign of perfection.
" Thou the anointing Spirit art, Who dost Thy sevenfold gifts impart."
See Dusterdieck in loco.

334 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
(viii.-ix.). An angel appears with a little book which
John is commanded to eat, and thus he is anew com
missioned to prophesy before peoples, and nations, and
tongues, and kings (x.). Then follow several remark
able visions. The first is that of the two witnesses
who prophesy clothed in sackcloth (xi.). The second is
that of the woman clothed with the sun and persecuted
by the dragon (xii.). The third is that of the beast with
seven heads and ten horns, rising out of the sea (xiii.
i-io). The fourth is that of the second beast with two
horns coming out of the earth (xiii. 1 1-18). The Lamb
then appears standing on Mount Zion, and an angel
proclaims the fall of Babylon, the great seat of Anti
christ, and the victory of Christ over all His enemies
(xiv.). Then follows the pouring out of the seven vials,
or the seven last plagues (xv., xvi.). Then succeeds the
vision of the mystic Babylon, the abode of Antichrist,
compared to a lascivious woman sitting upon a scarlet-
coloured beast (xvii.). Then the fall of Babylon is
described in terms similar to the description of the fall
of Tyre in the prophecies of Ezekiel (xviii.). Then fol
lows- the great victory of Christ and His people over the
beast and the false prophet (xix.). Then succeed the
Millennium, the last struggle between Christ and His
enemies, the general resurrection, the judgment, and the
complete victory of Christ and His people (xx.). Then
follows a description of the New Jerusalem and of the
eternal blessedness of the redeemed (xxi. -xxii. 18). The
Apocalypse closes with a special warning against those
who shall add to or diminish from the words of this
prophecy (xxii. 18-21).

DESIGN AND CONTENTS. 335
The structure of the Apocalypse is peculiar; in the
boldness of its symbols and in the sublimity of its con
ception, it is more remarkable than the prophecy of
Daniel, to which it is most nearly allied. There is a
luxuriance in the symbolism employed, and a fervid and
glowing imagination in the descriptions given. It makes
large use of the mystic properties of numbers. There
are "the time, and times, and half a time" (xii. 14),
which most probably denotes three years and a half, and
if so, correspond with the forty and two months (xi. 2),
and the one thousand two hundred and threescore days
(xi. 3). The number four 1 frequently occurs. There
are four living creatures before the throne ; four angels
standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the
four winds of the earth ; four angels loosed from the
Euphrates to vex the human race ; a voice issues from
the four corners of the altar ; Satan deceives the nations
which are In the four corners of the earth ; and the New
Jerusalem lieth four-square. But especially the number
seven2 predominates. The Apocalypse is addressed to
the seven Churches which are in Asia ; there are seven
candlesticks and seven stars ; there are seven seals, seven
trumpets, and seven vials ; seven thunders utter their
voices ; there are seven spirits before the throne ; the
Lamb has seven horns and seven eyes ; the beast has
seven heads ; there are seven mountains on which the
woman sitteth ; and there are seven kings.3 It would
1 Four is said to be the number of nature or of the world, of terrestrial
extension. ' Seven is asserted to be the number of perfection.
3 Besides these, the numbers two, three, and twelve are frequently
repeated.

336 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
also appear that the seals, the trumpets, and the vials
are all so connected that the sounding of the seven
trumpets corresponds with the opening of the seventh
seal, and the pouring out of the seven vials corresponds
with the sounding of the seventh trumpet.

VI. — The Text of the Apocalypse.
The manuscripts which contain the Apocalypse are
much fewer than those containing the other portions of
the New Testament. Erasmus, when he published his
Greek Testament, had only one manuscript of the Apo
calypse, and that an imperfect one, so that the last six
verses he himself supplied by translating them from the
Vulgate into Greek. Wetstein informs us that the Com-
plutensian editors had only one manuscript, and that
Robert Stephens had only two, and these imperfectly col
lated; audit is the edition of Stephens that forms the basis
of the textus receptus and of our Authorised Version, so
that no portion of the Greek New Testament requires
more corrections.1 The known manuscripts of the Apo:
calypse are reckoned at a hundred and twenty,2 some of
which are imperfect; whereas the manuscripts of the
Gospels are nearly ten times more numerous, being
eight hundred Greek manuscripts, besides four hundred
1 The English version of the Apocalypse, observes Archdeacon Lee,
" represents a Greek text which does not rest upon the same authority as
that of the other books of the New Testament." Speaker's Commentary,
vol. iv. p. 463.
2 By Scrivener in his third edition, at 122. A number of these MSS.
are written after the invention of printing ; many of them are also in a
mutilated form.

THE TEXT OF THE APOCALYPSE. 337
copies of lectionaries, containing lessons from the
Gospels. Notwithstanding this paucity of manuscripts, there
are ample materials to enable us to form a correct text
of the Apocalypse. The most important manuscripts
are four uncial ones : the Sinaitic, or Codex n, of the
fourth century ; the Alexandrian, or Codex A., of the
fifth century ; the Codex Ephraemi, or G, of the fifth
century ; 1, the so-called Codex Vaticanus, or B. of the
Apocalypse, of the eighth century,2 which, however, must
not be confounded with the celebrated Vatican manu
script B., which does not contain the Apocalypse in the
original hand ; and the Codex Porphyranus, or P., of the
ninth century.3 Besides these there are numerous cur
sive manuscripts : there are the versions especially of the
Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian,4 whilst the
Apocalypse is wanting in the Peshito ; and there are the
quotations from the Fathers, all of which are of import
ance in correcting the textus receptus, and in procuring a
correct text. From the labour which has been expended in
collating manuscripts and comparing versions and patris
tic quotations, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy
of the text which forms the basis of the revised edition.
1 Codex C. is defective ; it wants 171 verses of the Apocalypse, or about
eight chapters.
2 For a description of this Codex see Scrivener's Introduction to the Criti
cism of the New Testament, p. 140, 1st edit., p. 162, 3rd edit.
3 P. is a palimpsest brought to St. Petersburg by Porphyry, Bishop of
Uspensk, in 1862 ; it was printed by Tischendorf in 1869.
4 In both the Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, the
Apocalypse appears to have been excluded from the canon, and treated as
an appendix, as if of secondary importance. Scrivener's Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, 3rd edit., pp. 377, 388. " It seems clear," he
observes, " that the Apocalypse had not a place among the canonical books.
In the majority of cases it is contained in a separate manuscript." Y

DISSERTATION I.
LITERARY AFFINITIES OF THE APOCALYPSE.
Literature. — On this subject the following works may be men
tioned : — Fabrieius, Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T., and Codex Apo-
cryphus N. T.; Fritzsche, V. T. Pseudepigraphi Selecti; Jones On
the Canon (edit. 1832); Lee's Commentary on the Revelation in
Speaker's Commentary; Liicke, Einleitung in das Offenbarung Johannis
(1832); Moses Stuart's Commentary on the Apocalypse; Volkmar's
Handbuch der Einleitung in der Apocryphen; Hilgenfeld's Diejudaische
Apocryphen; Dillmann's Das Buch Enoch (1853), and Ascensio
Isaios (1877); Friedlieb, Oracula Sibyllina; Schiirer's Jewish People
in the Time of Jesus Christ, division ii. vol. iii. ; Auberlen, Daniel und
die Offenbarung Johannis; Godet's Biblical Studies; Milligan's Baird
Lectures (1885); Articles by J. W. Deane in Theological Monthly;
Article on Apocalyptic Literature by Dr. S. Davidson in Encyclo
paedia Britannica; Drummond's Jewish Messiah (London, 1877);
Article on Pseudepigraphen des Alien Testaments by Dr. Dillmann,
in Herzog und Plitt's ReaLEncyklopddia ; Article by Dr. Wright on
Spurious Revelations in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature.
We have defined apocalyptic writings to be predictions
referring to the last things, imparted in the form of
visions and symbolical representations. Such writings
are chiefly confined to Jewish and Christian literature,
and are almost entirely wanting in Pagan literature.
Apocalypses, in general eschatological discourses, as
regards their manner, abound in material images and
symbolical representations taken from the animal world
or from the operations of Nature. Kings and kingdoms
are represented under the symbolism of monstrous
338

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 339
animals, and historical events, such as wars, famines,
and pestilences, under the symbolism of the eclipsing of
the sun or the falling of the stars. To understand the
specific literary character of apocalyptic writings, we
have only to compare the prophecies of Isaiah with the
visions of Zechariah, or the predictions of Paul with
those of John. Most of these writings originate in times
of national distress, and their scope and object is to
support the people under calamity with the prospect of
ultimate deliverance and the expectation of a period of
glory and victory. " They owe their origin," observes
Schiirer, " on the one hand, to a pessimistic view of
the present, and, on the other hand, to an intense faith
in the glorious future of the people." 1 Hence there is
a great similarity in apocalyptic writings. There is
an arch-enemy, the Beliar of the Jews or the Antichrist
of the Christians, to be overcome ; there is a great de
liverer, the Messiah, who leads the people to victory ;
and there is a future state of prosperity, the Millennium,
which is in store for them. Thus, for the sake of illus
tration, in the time of the Maccabees, during the struggle
with the Syrian kings, and especially when the Jews
were suffering under the persecution of Antiochus Epi
phanes, apocalyptic writings appeared foretelling victory,
proclaiming a deliverer in the person of the Messiah,
and announcing a period of glory and happiness.2 And
1 Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Christ, division ii. vol. iii.
p. 47, English translation. Liicke defines Apocalyptik to be " the subject-
matter of the revelation, as well of the Old as of the New Testament,
respecting the end of all things."
2 In these writings Antiochus Epiphanes is the type of Antichrist, as in
Christian apocalyptic writings it is Nero. Some of the Sibylline Oracles
probably belong to this period.

340 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
during the subsequent critical periods of their national
history, when Pompey invaded their country, and forced
his entrance into the holy of holies, or when the Hero-
dian family, an alien race, especially when Herod the
Great tyrannised over the people, or when the great
Jewish war broke out, and the Jews were engaged in
a death struggle with the Roman armies, their courage
and faith were preserved, and rose to a high pitch of
fanaticism, by the diffusion of apocalyptic literature,
which foretold the destruction of their enemies, effected
by the advent of the Messiah and the establishment of
His kingdom.
The later prophecies of the Old Testament are for the
most part apocalyptic. " The apocalyptic vision," says
Godet, " is the last form in which the prophecy in the
Old Testament clothed itself."1 The Jews having
undergone a cruel captivity in Babylon, and being
exposed, even after their return, to the attacks of un
scrupulous enemies, the conditions were present in
which the apocalyptic spirit naturally takes its rise.
Belonging to this class of writings are the Book of
Daniel, the earlier and later prophecies of Ezekiel, and
the greater portion of the prophecies of Zechariah ;
these are eschatological in their nature, and abound in
visions and symbolical representations. In the period
intervening between the commencement of the struggle
of the Maccabees and the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans under Titus, there was a rich Jewish lite
rature, chiefly of an apocalyptic nature, the remains of
which have survived to our days. These works are
1 Godet's Biblical Studies,^. 291.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 341
pseudonymous, purporting to be the writings of the
saints of the Old Testament, as Enoch, Moses, Isaiah,
Baruch, and Ezra. The Book of Enoch, quoted by
Jude, frequently alluded to by the Fathers,1 and, after
having been lost for more than a thousand years,
discovered towards the close of last century by Bruce,
the Abyssinian traveller, is an apocalyptic work of con
siderable merit, containing some sublime descriptions.
It is a record of the struggles of the Jews under the
Maccabees, and contains several Messianic statements.
It is a composite work, embracing several documents of
unequal merit, written at different times, but is generally
believed to be pre-Christian, the different parts being
composed between the reign of John Hyrcanus and
the early days of Herod the Great.2 The Assumption
of Moses (dvd\rj\}rt,i Mmvae'ai), from which, according to
Origen, Jude borrowed his account of the contention
between Michael the archangel and the Devil about the
body of Moses,3 and which is frequently referred to by
the Fathers,4 was discovered in a fragmentary state in
1 86 1 by Ceriani in the Ambrosian Library of Milan,
and was published by him.5 It is evidently the work of
a Jewish zealot, as it attacks the Pharisees and the
1 It is alluded to or quoted by Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenoeus,
Tertullian, Origen, Anatolius, and Augustine.
2 The Book of Enoch was translated by Laurence in 1821, by Dillmann
in 1853, and by Schodde in 1881. For an account of it, see the author's
Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Dissertation on the Book of Enoch, pp.
386-408 ; and articles on it by the Rev. J. W. Deane in the Theological
Monthly for July and October 1890.
5 Origen, De Principiis, iii. 2, I.
* Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, Nicephorus,
GScumenius. 6 Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana ex Codicibus presertim Bibliothecm
Ambrosiane.

342 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Maccabean princes. It promises a Messianic deliverance
under a mysterious person called Taxo ; and must have
been written after the death of Herod the Great, the
length of whose reign is accurately stated, but before
the Jewish war, of which it makes no mention. ,Ewald
thinks that the book was written a.d. 6, after the re
bellion of Judas the Gaulonite, who, he supposes, is
meant by Taxo ; whilst Hilgenfeld assigns it to the
reign of Claudius.1 The so-called fourth Book of
Esdras,2 included in the Apocrypha, and added as an
appendix to the Roman Vulgate, and frequently alluded
to by the Fathers,3 contains an allegorical account of
the dominion of the Romans under the symbol of an
eagle with three heads and twelve wings, which was
destroyed by the Messiah under the symbol of a lion.
It is a Jewish document, but has evidently been inter
polated by a Christian hand. There is great uncertainty
as to its date ; Drummond supposes that it was written
in the last quarter of the first century, Ewald refers it
to the time of Titus, Dillmann and Schiirer to the reign
of Domitian, and Volkmar as late as the time of Nerva.4
The Revelation of Baruch, found in a Syriac text, was
1 See Drummond's Jewish Messiah, pp. 74-84 ; an article on the Assump
tion of Moses by Rev. W. J. Deane in the Monthly Interpreter for 1885 ;
and Gloag's Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, pp. 373-386. For the Latin
text of the work see Volkmar's Mose Himmelfahrt, and Hilgenfeld's Messiah
Judmorum. 2 So called because the canonical Ezra was counted as the first, the Book
of Nehemiah as the second, the Greek Esdras of the Apocrypha as the
third, and this book, found only in a Latin version, as the fourth.
3 Irenseus, Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus.
4 See Drummond's Jewish Messiah, pp. 84-117 ; Schiirer's Jewish People
in the Days of Christ, division ii. vol. iii. pp. 93-114 ; Lticke's Offenbarung,
section xiii. pp. 78-115; Volkmar's Handbuch der Einleitung in die
Apocryphen.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 343
brought to light by Ceriani, who published a Latin
version of it in 1866. It was from this book that
Papias derived several of his chiliastic ntftions. " There
can be no doubt," observes Drummond, " that it was
written by a non- Christian Jew. Though it is rich in
Messianic passages, I have not observed a single
expression which betrays a Christian hand." It is
supposed to have been written about a.d. 72. x The
Sibylline oracles, frequently referred to by the Fathers,
are partly Jewish and partly Christian productions. Of
these there are reckoned fourteen books. The third
Sibylline book is the most important ; it has generally
been considered to be a Jewish Apocalypse, and has
been assigned by some to a date as early as B.c. 124,
whilst others make it a century later (b.c. 40-30). 2
The Testimony of the Twelve Patriarchs, which some
affirm to be a Jewish work with Christian interpola
tions, and others, with greater probability, to be wholly
a Jewish Christian work, is full of Messianic passages,
and has been assigned to the reign of Hadrian (a.d. i 35).3
In addition to those enumerated, the names of over a
dozen similar writings, which are now lost, have been
preserved by the Fathers.4
1 See Drummond's Jewish Messiah, pp. 11 7-1 32; Schiirer's Jewish
People, division ii. vol. iii. pp. 83-93 ; Ewald's Gesch. des Volkes Israel, vol.
vii. pp. 83-87 ; Deane in Monthly Interpreter, April 1885, pp. 451-461.
* Drummond's Jewish Messiah, pp. 10-16 ; Schiirer's Jewish People, divi
sion ii. vol. iii. pp. 271-292 ; Freidlieb, Oracula Sibyllina; Hilgenfeld, Die
judaischeApok..; Moses Stuart's Commentary on the Apocalypse, pp. 67-83.
3 It is alluded to by Origen, Jerome, and Nicephorus. It was first
brought to the knowledge of the Western Church by Robert Grosseteste,
Bishop of Lincoln. A translation of it is given in Clark's Ante-Nicene
'Fathers, attached to the second volume of the works of Lnctantius.
* Fabricius' Codex Pseudepigraphus V. T. ; Schiirer's Jewish People,
division ii. vol. iii. pp. 126-127.

344 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
The question arises, Are there any resemblances in the
Apocalypse of John to the pre-Christian Jewish Apoca
lypses which would lead us to infer that John borrowed
frona them or was indebted to them ? This question we
answer in the negative, for, except in general points, such
as the enemy, the deliverer, and the Millennium, which are
common to all apocalyptic writings, there is, so far as
we can see, no evidence that John was indebted for his
symbolism to these Jewish apocalyptic writings. The
only possible exception to this remark is the " Book of
Enoch," from which Ewald thinks that the author of
the Apocalypse derived several of his symbols. Many
expressions are the same in both writings. Thus in the
Book of Enoch the Messiah is represented not as the
ideal King, but as the Son of Man ; the Lord is seen
with the hair of his head as white as wool ; an angel
accompanies Enoch in his journeys as his interpreter,
and explains to him the future ; the doctrine of the
angels is in several respects similar to that contained in
the Apocalypse ; they are employed as the ministers of
the divine vengeance, or else as the defenders aud helpers
of the righteous ; they are known by distinctive names,
and among them Michael is specially mentioned. But
these undoubted similitudes are accounted for, not by
supposing that John borrowed his figures and symbols
from the. Book of Enoch, but that both derived their
illustrations from the prophecies of Daniel. The Book
of Enoch is formed after the model of Daniel, and the
Apocalypse also undoubtedly borrows largely from the
same source ; all the points mentioned as common to the
two writings are found in the Book of Daniel.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 345
But there are not only Jewish, but also numerous
Christian apocalyptic writings, and the resemblance
between them and the Apocalypse of John is very
marked and evident, proving that they were formed
after the model of that book. In the second and third
centuries numerous apocalyptic books are mentioned
under the pseudonymous names of prophets and apostles.
We read of the Apocalypse of Peter, the Revelation of
Paul, the Revelation of Bartholomew, the Revelation of
Thomas, the Revelation of Stephen, the Apocalypse of
Mary, of which hardly anything has been preserved but
the names.1 Several of the Sibylline books are also of
Christian origin. The Ascension of Isaiah (dvafSanicov
'Ho-alov), alluded to by Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and
Epiphanius, repeatedly mentioned by Origen, and ad
verted to by Jerome as Ascensio Isaise, after having been
lost for centuries, was discovered in an Ethiopic manu
script, and published by Archbishop Laurence in 1819.2
It consists of two parts, and indeed of two different
works. The first part contains an account of the martyr
dom of Isaiah, and is generally supposed to be of Jewish
origin with Christian interpolations. The Antichrist or
Berial is in the form of a matricidal king, evidently Nero.
The second part is of Christian origin, and is docetic
in its tendency ; it professes to be a vision imparted to
Isaiah of Christ from His birth to His crucifixion. The
1 Fabricius in his Codex Apoc. N. Test, 1713-22, gives an account
of twelve apocryphal Apocalypses. See also Jones On the Canon, vol. i.
pp. 26-33, e(J. 1827, where a list of Christian apocryphal books is given, and
the authorities for them stated. Lucke's Einleitung in die Offenbarung
Johannis, 1832, pp. 22-155. ,
2 Ascensio Isaim Vatis, opusculum pseudepigraphum cum versione Latino,
Anglicanaque publici juris factum.

346 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
probable date- of the work is about the close of the second
century.1 There is in it the following striking allusion
to Rev. xix. 10 : "And I fell upon my face to worship
him, but the angel who conducted me stopped me, say
ing, Worship not either an angel or the throne of him
who is in the sixth heaven, whence I am sent to conduct
thee, until in the seventh heaven I bid thee. . . . Imme
diately the angel who conducted me said to me, Worship
Him, and I worshipped and adored Him." 2
There is also extant a spurious Apocalypse of John,
being an extravagant imitation of the genuine Apoca
lypse. Its title is similar to that of the Apocalypse as
found in Some manuscripts : aTTOKaXv-tyis rov dyiov dvocrroXov
Kal evayyeXiarbv 'loyavvov rov deoXoyov. It is first mentioned
by Theodosius the Grammarian, but we are ignorant
when he lived ; probably it belongs to the fifth century.3
The Apocalypse is in itself worthless, and is mentioned
only as being formed after the Revelation of John. Its
general contents are as follows : John, after the ascen
sion of Christ, goes to Mount Tabor. He entreats the
Lord for a revelation of the advent of Christ, and of the
fate of the earth and heaven. After a fast of seven
days, he is conveyed in a bright cloud to heaven, and
he hears a voice saying, " Holy John, hear and under-
1 See Schiirer's Jewish People, vol. iii. pp. 141-146 ; Liicke's Offen
barung, pp. 125-141 ; Moses Stuart's Commentary on the Apocalypse, -pp.
28-36. Article on Spurious Revelations in Kitto's Cyclopedia, vol. iii.
pp. 676-678. The best edition is Dillmann's Ascensio Isaie, 1877.
2 Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 662.
3 After having been lost for a long time, it was published by Birch from
two Greek manuscripts in his Auctarium. See Kitto's Cyclopedia, vol.
iii. p. 680. There is a translation of it in Clarke's Ante-Nicene Fathers, in
the volume containing Apocryphal Gospels, &c, pp. 492-504.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 347
stand." The heavens are opened, and a stream of light,
brighter than the rays of the sun, is poured upon him.
He beholds a book sealed with seven seals, as thick as
seven mountains, and so long that no man can measure
it. This is the book of the future. John desires to know
its contents. He is informed that there will first be a
superfluity of corn and wine, and then a famine. Anti
christ will appear in a fearful form, and will reign for
three years. After this the two witnesses, Enoch and
Elijah, will appear to expose his deceits, but they will
perish. Then will all men upon the earth die. The
Lord will appear, and will send forth His angels, Michael
and Gabriel, who will sound their trumpets, and call the
dead to life. All human beings will be caught up in the
clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Then the heavens
will be opened, and the New Jerusalem will descend as
a bride adorned for her husband. Then Christ will
descend in glory, accompanied with myriads of the
heavenly host. All men and evil spirits, together with
Antichrist, will stand before His tribunal. The Lamb
will open the book of seven seals. Judgment will fall
upon the evil spirits of Antichrist, and they will be cast
into outer darkness, into a pit so deep that a heavy
stone thrown into it will take three years before it
reaches the bottom. The unbelieving heathen will be
cast into Hades, and the Jews who crucified the Lord
will be condemned to Tartarus. With regard to Chris
tians, the angels will separate the righteous from the
sinners : the righteous will be placed at the right hand
of the Judge, and will shine as the sun and the stars,
whilst the wicked will be cast into outer darkness. The

348 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
righteous, with the holy angels, will live on earth, which
will be converted into Paradise. Then all wickedness,
all toil, all earthly vicissitudes will vanish.1
But whilst the Apocalypse owes nothing to Jewish
pseudonymous apocalyptic writings, and whilst it forms
the groundwork of Christian Apocalypses, on the other
hand it bears a very close relation to the apocalyptic
writings of the Old Testament ; it is in a great measure
modelled after their form, and presents numerous resem
blances to them. As Professor Milligan remarks : " It
is a perfect mosaic of passages from the Old Testament,
at one time quoted verbally, at another time referred t,o
by distinct allusion." 2 The same material images, the
same symbols, the same mystic numbers, the same
visions which occur in the Apocalypse are found in
the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel, Ezekiel, and
Zechariah : what are there found separately are here
combined. So also the references to the history of the
Old Testament are numerous, and pervade the whole
book. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of the false
prophet Balaam ; the corrupter of the Church of Thyatira
is that woman Jezebel ; the leader of the angelic host is
Michael the archangel ; the arch-enemy is that old Ser
pent who is called the Devil and Satan ; the adversaries
of the Church are the innumerable hordes of Gog and
Magog, or Babylon ; the two witnesses suggest Moses
and Elias; the song of Moses after the destruction of
the enemies of Israel at the Red Sea is sung along with
the song of the Lamb in the courts of the heavenly
1 See Liicke's Offenbarung, § 18, 146-152; Moses Stuart's Commentary
on the Apocalypse, pp. 94-96 ; Clarke's Ante-Nicene Fathers, Apocryphal
Revelations. 2 Milligan, Baird Lectures for 1885, p. 76.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 349
temple ; and heaven itself is substantially the Paradise
of Genesis restored.1 Hence one important rule for the
interpretation of this mysterious book is the careful
study of the apocalyptic predictions of the Old Testa
ment; to examine into the figures and symbols and
numbers therein contained, and to seek in them the key
for unlocking the mysteries of the Apocalypse.
The book which bears the closest resemblance to the
Apocalypse, and after which it appears to be in a con
siderable measure formed, is the Book of Daniel.2 This
book forms the groundwork not only of. the Apocalypse
of John, but of the apocalyptic literature of the Jews.
The same symbols of living creatures of monstrous forms
are found in most of these .works, as the bulls and
ravenous birds of the Book of Enoch, and the eagle and
the lion of Fourth Esdras. In the Apocalypse the de
scription of the throne of God and the glorious appear
ance of the Son of Man, the interposition of the angels,
the mystic numbers, the description of the beast coming
out of the sea, the statement concerning the arch-enemy
and persecutor of the Church, the reference to the diffe
rent kings and kingdoms, all have their counterparts
in the prophecies of Daniel. We subjoin a list in
parallel columns of those passages in which the resem
blances most strikingly appear : to quote them all would
occupy too large a space.
" Behold He cometh with the " I saw in the night visions, and
clouds, and every eye shall see behold there came with the clouds
Him."— Rev. i. 7. of heaven one like unto a Son of
Man." — Dan. vii. 13.

1 See super, p. 305.
2 See Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenb. Joh. Basel, 1854.
Eng. translation, 1856.

35°

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.

" One like unto a Son of Man,
clothed with a garment down to the
foot, and girt about at the breasts
with a golden girdle. And His head
and His hair were white as white
wool, white as snow ; and His eyes
were as a flame of fire, and His feet
like unto burnished brass, as if it
had been refined in a furnace ; and
His voice as the voice of many
waters." — Rev. i. 13, 14.
" And I heard the voice of many
angels round about the throne, and
the living creatures, and the elders,
and the number of them was ten
thousand times ten thousand and
thousands of thousands." — Rev. v.

" Behold a man clothed in linen,
whose loins were girded with pure
gold . . . and his eyes were as lamps
of fire, and his arms and his feet
like in colour to burnished brass,
and the voice of his words like
the voice of a multitude. . . . His
raiment was white as snow, and the
hair of his head like pure wool." —
Dan. x. 5, 6 ; vii. 9.
" Thousand thousands ministered
unto him, and ten thousand times
ten thousand stood before him." —
Dan. vii. 10.

"And the angel which I saw
lifted up his right hand to heaven,
and sware by Him that liveth for
ever and ever . . . that there shall
be time no longer." — Rev. x. 5, 6.
"And there was war in heaven,
Michael and his angels going forth
to war with the dragon." — Rev. xii.7.
"A time and times and half a
time." — Rev. xii. 14.
" And I saw a beast coming out
of the sea, having ten horns and
seven heads, and on his horns ten
diadems, and on his heads names of
blasphemy. And the beast which
I saw was like unto a leopard, and
his feet were as the feet of a bear,
and his mouth as the mouth of a
lion." — Rev. xiii. 1, 2.
"The ten horns which thou sawest
are ten kings." — Rev. xvii. 12.

"And the man clothed in linen
. . . when he held up his right
hand to heaven, and sware by Him
that liveth for ever and ever, that it
shall be for a time, times, and a
half." — Dan. xii. 7.
"At that time shall Michael stand
up, the great prince which standeth
for the children of thy people." —
Dan. xii. 1.
"A time and times and half a
time." — Dan. vii. 25 ; xii. 7.
" Four great beasts came up from
the sea, diverse one from another.
The first was like a lion . . . an
other beast, a second, like to a bear
. . . another like a leopard. . . . After
this I saw behold a fourth beast,
terrible and powerful, and strong
exceedingly . . . and it had ten
horns." — Dan. vii. 3-7.1
" And as for the ten horns, out of
this kingdom shall ten kings arise."
— Dan. vii. 24.

1 In the Apocalypse there is one beast, whilst in Daniel there are four ;
but the beast of the Apocalypse combines the natures of the first three
beasts, the lion, the bear, and leopard ; whilst no designation is given to
the fourth beast of Daniel.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 351
"And I saw the dead, the great "The judgment was set, and the
and the small, standing before the books were opened." — Dan. vii. 10.
throne, and the books were opened."
— Rev. xx. 12.
Next to the Book of Daniel, the Apocalypse bears the
closest resemblance to the apocalyptic visions in the
prophecies of Ezekiel. The four living creatures are
just the cherubim of Ezekiel ; the tree of life growing
beside the water of life is taken from the vision of the
waters of the sanctuary ; the fall of Babylon is described
iu language borrowed from the description of the fall of
Tyre ; and the last struggle of the Church with its great
adversary is described as the invasion of Gog and Magog.
The following is a list of the most remarkable resem
blances : —
" And before the throne as it were "Over the head of the livin"
a glassy sea, like unto crystal." — creatures there was the likeness of a
Rev. iv. 6. firmament, like the colour of the
terrible crystal." — Ezek. i. 22.
"And in the midst of the throne, "And out of the midst thereof
and round about the throne, four came the likenesses of four living
living creatures, full of eyes before creatures. ... As for the likeness of
and behind. And the first creature their faces, they had the face of a
was like a lion, and the second crea- man, and they four had the face of
ture like a calf, and the third crea- a lion on the right side ; and they
ture had the face as of a man, and four had the face of an ox on
the fourth creature was like a flying the left side ; they four had also
eagle."— Rev. iv. 6, 7. the face of an eagle." — Ezek. i. 5,
io.1
" Hurt not the earth, neither the " Set a mark on the foreheads of
sea nor the trees, till we shall have the men that sigh and that cry for
1 In the Apocalypse the four living creatures are each different, whilst
in Ezekiel they are the same, each with four different faces : the man, the
lion, the calf or ox, and the eagle are contained in each description.
These four are transformed into the symbols of the Four Gospels, Matthew
the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. See Victorinus,
In Apoc. on Rev. iv. 7-10. With Irenseus John is the lion and Mark the
eagle. Adv. Her., iii. 11. 8.

352

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.

sealed the servants of our God on
their foreheads." — Rev. vii. 3.

"And I went unto the angel,
saying unto him that he should
give me the little book. And he
saith unto me, Take it and eat it up ;
and it shall make thy belly bitter,
but in thy mouth it shall be sweet
as honey." — Rev. x. 9.

"And there was given me a reed
like unto a rod ; and one said,
Rise and measure the temple of
God."— Rev. xi. 1.
"Satan shall come forth to de
ceive the nations which are in the
four corners of the earth, Gog and
Magog, to gather them together to
the war : the number of whom is
as the sand of the sea." — Rev. xx. 8.
" Having twelve gates . . . and
names written thereon, which are
the names of the twelve tribes of
the children of Israel : on the east
were three gates ; and on the north
three gates ; and on the south three
gates ; and on the west three gates."
— Rev. xxi. 12, 13.
"And he showed me a river of
water of life, bright as crystal, pro
ceeding out of the throne of God
and of the Lamb in the midst of the
street thereof. And on this side of
the river and on that was the tree
of life, bearing twelve manner of
fruits, yielding its fruit every
month, and the leaves of the tree
were for the healing of the nations."
— Rev. xxii. 1, 2.

all the abominations that be done
in the midst thereof .... Go ye
through the city after him and
smite, but come not near any man on
whom is the mark." — Ezek. ix. 4, '6.
"And he said unto me, Son of
man, eat this roll .... So I opened
my mouth, and he caused me to eat
the roll. And he said unto me,
Son of man, cause thy belly to eat,
and fill thy bowels with this roll
that I give thee. Then did I eat
it, and it was in my mouth as honey
for sweetness." — Ezek. iii. 1-3.
" And there was a man . . . with
a line of flax in his hand and a
measuring reed." — Ezek. xl. 3.1
" Son of man, set thy face toward
Gog, of the land of Magog. . . .
Thou shalt be like a cloud to cover
the land, thou and all thy hordes,
and many peoples with thee." —
Ezek. xxxviii. 1, 9.
"And the gates of the city shall
be after the names of the tribes of
Israel ; three gates northward . . .
and at the east side . . . three gates
. . . and at the south side . . .
three gates . . . and at the west side
. . . three gates." — Ezek. xlviii. 31-
34- "And he brought me back to
the door of the house, and behold
waters issued out from under the
threshold of the house eastward.
. . . And by the river upon the
back thereof, on this side and on
that side, shall grow every tree for
meat ... it shall bring forth new
fruit every month . . . and the
fruit thereof shall be for meat, and
the leaf thereof for healing." — Ezek.
xlvii. 1, 12.

1 See also Zechariah ii. 1, 2.
the measurement of the Temple.

The reference in Ezekiel is clearly to

LITERARY AFFINITIES.

353

There are also marked resemblances to the prophecies
of Zechariah. The four horsemen in the vision at the
opening of the first four seals, the two witnesses who
are the two olive-trees, and the two candlesticks stand
ing before the God of the earth, and the description of
the woman sitting upon the scarlet-coloured beast, bear
a close resemblance to the visions found in the pro
phecies of Zechariah. The seven golden candlesticks
resemble the seven-branched candlestick which Zecha
riah saw in vision (Rev. i. 12 ; Zech. iv. 2). We sub
join a list of the most remarkable resemblances.

"Every eye shall see Him, and
they which pierced Him." — Rev. i. 7.
" And I saw, and behold a white
horse, and he that sat thereon had a
bow. . . . And another horse came
forth, a red horse. . . . And I saw,
and behold a black horse. . . . And
I saw and behold a pale horse." —
Rev. vi. 2-8.
"And I will give unto my two
witnesses, and they shall prophesy
. . . These are the two olive-trees
and the two candlesticks standing
before the Lord of the earth." —
Rev. xi. 3, 4.
"And they gathered them to
gether unto the place which is
called in Hebrew Har-Magedon." —
Rev. xvi. 16.
"And I saw a woman sitting
upon a scarlet-coloured beast, full
of names of blasphemy." — Rev.
xvii. 3.

"They shall look unto Me whom
they have pierced." — Zech. xii. 10.
"And in the first chariot were
red horses ; and in the second
chariot black horses ; and in the
third chariot white horses ; and in
the fourth chariot grisled bay
horses." — Zech. vi. 2, 3.
" What are these two olive-trees
upon the right side of the candle
stick and upon the left side thereof 1
. . . These are the two sons of oil,
that stand by the Lord of the whole
earth." — Zech. iv! 11, 14.
"In that day shall there be a
great mourning in Jerusalem, as the
mourning of Hadadrimmon in the
valley of Megiddon." — Zech. xii. 1 1.
" This is a woman sitting in the
midst of the ephah. And he said,
This is Wickedness." — Zech. v.
7.8.1

But besides these apocalyptic books of the Old Testa
ment, from which the visions and symbols are taken,
1 On the resemblance between the woman in the Apocalypse and the
woman in Zechariah see Wordsworth's Hulsean Lectures, pp. 405, 406.
Z

354 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
and where the resemblances are clear and unmistakable,
there are other prophetical books, the visions contained
in which are evidently referred to. For example, there
are several references in the Apocalypse to the pro
phecies of Joel. Thus, at the opening of the sixth seal,
we read that " there was a great earthquake, and the
sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the whole
moon became as blood, and the stars of the heaven fell
unto the earth." Here there is a marked resemblance to
the words of Joel : " The sun shall be turned into dark
ness, and the moon into blood, before the great and ter
rible day of the Lord come." 1 The vision of the locusts
issuing from the abyss with shapes like unto horses pre
pared for war, is similar to the locusts in the prophecy
of Joel, the appearance of which was also as the appear-
auce of horses.2 And the announcement of the great
harvest of the earth is expressed in language similar to
that of Joel. In the Apocalypse we read : " Send forth
thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of
the earth ; for her grapes are fully ripe ; " and in Joel :
" Put ye in the sickle, for the harvest is ripe : come,
tread ye ; for the winepress is full, the fats over
flow." 3
The resemblances to the prophecies of Isaiah are also
numerous. The vision of the glory of God in heaven bears
a striking resemblance to the similar vision imparted to
Isaiah. In both there is the threefold ascription of praise,
" Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty." The living
creatures having each of them six wings answer to the
1 Rev. vi. 12, compared with Joel ii. 31 ; iii. 15.
2 Rev. ix. 3, 7, compared with Joel ii. 4.
3 Rev. xiv. 18, compared with Joel iii. 13.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 355
seraphim, each of which also had six wings.1 The bless
edness of the redeemed is expressed in similar terms.
In the Apocalypse we read : " They shall hunger no
more, neither thirst any more ; neither shall the sun
strike on them, nor any heat ; " and in Isaiah : " They
shall not hunger nor thirst ; neither shall the heat nor
sun smite them." 2 So also the description of the new
heavens and the new earth has its counterpart in Isaiah :
" Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth ; and
the former things shall not be remembered, nor come to
mind." 3 And especially the glorious description of the
New Jerusalem is expressed in both books in terms so
similar that we are constrained to believe that the Apoca
lypse contains an adaptation of the language of Isaiah :
" And the city hath no need of the sun, neither of the
moon to shine upon it ; for the glory of God did lighten
it, . . . and the nations shall walk amidst the light
thereof; and the kings of the earth do bring their glory
into it. And the gates thereof shall in no wise be shut
by day; and they shall bring the glory and honour of the
nations into it, and there shall in no wise enter into it
anything that is unclean." In similar terms does Isaiah
predict the blessedness of God's people : " Arise, shine,
for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen
upon thee. . . . And nations shall come to thy light,
and kings to the brightness of thy rising. . . . Thy
gates also shall be open continually ; they shall not be
shut day nor night ; that men may bring unto thee the
wealth of the nations. . . . The sun shall be no more
1 Rev. iv. 8, compared with Isaiah vi. 2, 3.
5 Rev. vii. 16, compared with Isaiah xlix. 10.
8 Rev. xxi. 1, compared with Isaiah lxv. 17.

356 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon
give light unto thee ; but the Lord shall be unto thee
an everlasting light. . . . Thy people also shall be all
righteous, they shall inherit the land for ever." J
It has been observed that there is a striking resem
blance between the Apocalypse' and the eschatological
discourse of our Lord in the twenty-fourth chapter of
Matthew.2 The resemblance, however, is not so marked
as is that to the apocalyptic books of the Old Testament,
and is chiefly confined to the sixth chapter. The inci
dents occurring at the opening of the seven seals remind
us of the words of our Lord : " Nation shall rise against
nation, and kingdom against kingdom (war, second seal),
and there shall be famines (third seal), and pestilences
(fourth seal), and earthquakes in divers places (sixth
seal). All these are the beginning of travail. Then
shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill
you ; and ye shall be hated of all nations for My name's
sake (persecution, fifth seal). . . . And this gospel of
the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a
testimony unto all the nations (first seal), and then shall
the end come." 3 In the Apocalypse the judgments of
God are described as convulsions in the heavenly bodies.
" And the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the
whole moon became as blood, and the stars of the
heaven fell unto the earth." And the same illustration
is employed by our Lord : " Immediately after the tri
bulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and
the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall
1 Rev. xxi. 23-27, compared with Isaiah Ix. 1, 3, 11, 19, 21.
2 Milligan's Baird Lectures, pp. 42-58.
3 Matt. xxiv. 7-9, 14. See Godet's Biblical Studies, pp. 308, 309.

LITERARY AFFINITIES. 357
fall from heaven." 1 And so also the prediction of Anti
christ, and especially of the false prophet who doeth
greatsigns, so that he deceiveth them that dwell upon
the earth, is analogous to what our Saviour tells us iu
His eschatological discourse : " There shall arise false
Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs
and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even
the elect." 2
1 Rev. vi. 12, 13, compared with Matt. xxiv. 29.
a Rev. xiii. 14, compared with Matt, xxiv, 24,

DISSERTATION II.
SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION.
Professor Harnack makes the extraordinary assertion
that the Apocalypse is the most intelligible book of the
New Testament. His words are : " The book of the
New Testament called the Revelation of John, so long
passed for the most obscure and difficult document of
early Christianity, that scholars hesitated to apply to
it the historico-critical method of investigation. Since
this hesitation has been overcome, it appears that the
matter of the book is neither obscure nor mysterious,
although many special points still remain to be cleared
up. Without being paradoxical, we may affirm that the
Apocalypse is the most intelligible book of the New
Testament."1 Of course this assertion proceeds on
Harnack's assumption that the Apocalypse is an anony
mous writing, based on the legend that Nero was to
appear, and, with the assistance of the Parthians, regain
possession of the imperial throne ; though, even on this
assumption, the assertion of its intelligibility is not
borne out by an examination of its contents. But on
the assumption that the Apocalypse is the genuine work
of the Apostle John, this assertion is at once extravagant
and false ; we have every reason for affirming the direct
1 Encyclopedia Britannica, article " Revelation."
3S8

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 359
opposite, namely, that the Apocalypse of John is the
most obscure and enigmatical book of the New Testa
ment; that its meaning is concealed under a veil of
mystery, and that this veil, though often attempted to
be removed, has unto this day never been uplifted. The
expositions which have been advanced are very numer
ous ; x no book of Scripture has been more commented on ;
the fact that it professes to be a revelation of the future
has excited human curiosity, and its mystic visions have
afforded matter for the ingenuity of those who seek to
penetrate into the mysteries of futurity. These exposi
tions have not only been numerous, but so discordant
that not two of them agree on all points ; the most
different meanings have been attached to the apocalyptic
scenes and visions. The language of the book is highly
symbolical, and the rules for symbolical interpretation
have not as yet been properly determined. And if the
greater part of the prophecy remains unfulfilled, of
course its meaning must to some extent at least be un-
discoverable ; for, as Irenseus justly remarks, "Every
prophecy before its fulfilment is to men full of enigmas
and ambiguities." 2 In short, notwithstanding the numer
ous treatises which have been written, the true meaning
of the Apocalypse has not yet been discovered ; it is a
cryptogram of which the key has not been found.
Some critics deny that the Apocalypse is a prophecy
at all. They regard it either as having reference to
1 " The number of the expositions of the Apocalypse," observes Godet, " is
almost past calculation." — Biblical Studies, p. 34 1 . A list of these expositions
is given by Professor Warfield in Schaff's Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology,
vol. iii. pp. 2037, 2038.
2 Irenseus, Adv. Her., iv. 26, 1.

360 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN,
events which were already past at the time when the
author wrote, or as a poetical work not intended to be
rigidly interpreted. Some affirm that it is a statement,
couched in apocalyptic language, of the condition of the
world and of the occurrences at the time of its com
position, without any reference to the future. Grotius
supposes that the whole Apocalypse, as far as chap, xi.,
refers to the affairs of the Jews, and as far as chap, xx.,
to the affairs of the Romans from the reign of Claudius
to that of Vespasian, and after that as far as the end,
1o the flourishing state of the Church.1 Eichhorn
supposes it to be a sacred drama, somewhat similar
to the Song of Solomon, and not intended to be a
prediction; the prophetical element being the mere
garb with which the drama is clothed.2 And Dr.
Davidson, in the early edition of his Introduction to
the New Testament, and in his article on the Revela
tion in Kitto's Cyclopaedia, supposes it to be a poem
which has little reference to any future occurrences,
except the broad fact of the second coming of Christ.
"The book," he observes, "may be called a prophetic
poem. As the predictions of the Hebrew prophets were
generally written in the poetical style, so those of
John, the only one of the Apostles who claims the name
of prophet in the old sense, are essentially poetical.
... If the book be a prophetic poem, its descriptions
are of a general character, expressive only of the nature
1 " Pertinent heec visa ad res Judseorum usque ad finem cap. xi.; inde ad
res Romanorum usque ad finem cap. xx.; deinde ad statum ilorentissimum
Ecclesie* ad finem usque." — Comm. on Cap. IV. Hammond and Le Clerc
follow Grotius.
3 Einleitung in das N. T., vol. ii. p. 334. 'm

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 361
and magnitude of the subject. Great exactness and a
formal display of minute circumstances should not be
looked for in them. The imagery is varied and copious,
well fitted to strike and impress the reader's mind ;
but it should always be remembered that it is poetic
imagery. It appears to us very unlikely that the his
tory of the universal Church is depicted." 1 Of course, if
this is the case, if the predictive element is eliminated
or reduced to an infinitesimal quantity, the Apocalypse
loses all the value which the Church has hitherto
attached to it, and sinks to the level of a fantastic
writing. This idea, however, cannot be accepted, as it
is in direct contradiction with the declarations of the
book itself.
Some general rules on which the interpretation of the
Revelation must proceed may be given, which, though
they may not be sufficient to solve the problem, may at
least save us from error and extravagance. 1. The pre
dictive character of the Revelation must be maintained.
The book professes to be a revelation of the future : it
is the only prophetical book of the New Testament. It
is " the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him
to show unto His servants, even the things which must
shortly come to pass" (Rev. i. 1). This essential ele
ment must not be lost sight of ; whatever other uses the
Apocalypse may be intended to subserve, it must be
regarded as prophetical — a revelation of the future. 2.
The Revelation must be interpreted according to the
analogy of the apocalyptic portions of the Old Testa-
1 Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. iii. p. 627 ; Kitto's
Cyclopedia, article " Revelation ; " see also Davidson's Introduction to the
Study of the New Testament, vol. ii. p. 281 ff.

362 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
ment. We have already seen that it is formed after the
model of the apocalyptic writings of Daniel, Ezekiel, and
Zechariah : the same symbols, the same mystic numbers,
the same visions occur. The careful study of the apoca
lyptic symbols of the Old Testament therefore forms the
key for the understanding of the symbols of the Apoca
lypse. The beasts of the Apocalypse, for example, must,
as regards their symbolical meaning, bear a resemblance
to the similar beasts mentioned in the Book of Daniel ;
and the four living creatures must resemble the four
cherubim of Ezekiel. 3. We must investigate the rules
of symbolical interpretation. This is a department of
hermeneutics which has been too little examined.1 Some
of the symbols are explained in the Apocalypse itself; the
seven stars are the seven Churches ; the mystic Babylon
is Rome, that ruleth over the kings of the earth ; the
waters, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multi
tudes, and nations, and tongues (Rev. i. 20 ; xvii. 1 8,
15); and the meaning of other symbols may be disco
vered by referring to the sense in which they are used
in the Old Testament.2 So also the mystic numbers,
especially three, four, seven, and twelve, have all their
meaning.3 The earth and the sea have each their sym
bolical interpretation. According to most expositors,
the woman who gives birth to the man-child is an
emblem of the true Church, and the woman seated on
the scarlet-coloured beast the emblem of the Church in
1 See Davison On Prophecy ; Fairbairn's Hermeneutics.
2 See, for a list of symbols which have been explained, Lee's Com
mentary on the Revelation in the Speaker's Bible, vol. iv. pp. 468-472.
3 On symbolical numbers, see Lee's Commentary, pp. 472-486 ; Moses
Stuart On the Apocalypse, p. 101 ff., "Numerosity of the Apocalypse."

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 363
a state of degeneracy.1 So far as the meaning of these
symbols can be discovered, they must be consistently
carried out. 4. The general scope and intention of the
Apocalypse must always be borne in mind. It refers to
the second advent of Christ. It is a prediction of the
great conflict between good and evil, of the signs which
shall precede the advent, of the final victory of Christ,
and of the everlasting establishment of His kingdom in
the new heavens and the new earth. The book opens
with the announcement, "Behold, He cometh with clouds,
and every eye shall see Him ; " and it closes with the
declaration, "Behold, I come quickly" (Rev. i. 7, xxii.
1 2). 5. It has been laid down as a rule of interpre
tation that the Apocalypse should be interpreted with
reference to our Lord's prophetic discourse.2 That dis
course embraced not only the destruction of Jerusalem,
but the signs which shall precede the coming of the
Son of Man and the end of the world. These signs
of the advent, wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes,
according to our Lord's discourse, are repeated in the
Book of Revelation. The one discourse is the revelation
of Christ given when in this world ; the other the revela
tion of Christ given after His ascension into heaven : in
both cases the Speaker is the same.
It is impossible to give a strict classification of the
various systems of interpretation : one system runs into
another, so that it is difficult to assign the views of an
interpreter to any particular system. We can only
advert to the best-known systems of interpretation.
1 On this point see Alford, in loco, and Auberlen, Rev. xii. 1, 2 ; xvii. 3.
8 See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, pp. 249, 252.

364 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
These are four : the Praeterist, the Historical, the
Futurist, and the Spiritual.1
I. According to the Prseterist, the Apocalypse has
already received its fulfilment, or rather realised its
meaning ; the key to its interpretation is to be found
in the history of the past. This system, with various
modifications, has been adopted by* Hug, Ewald, De
Wette, Liicke, Bleek, Moses Stuart, Volkmar, Reuss,
Renan, Krenkel, Dusterdieck, Weizacker, Weiss, Frede
rick Maurice, and Farrar.2
The opinions of those who affirm that the predictions
of the Apocalypse have already been accomplished admit
of considerable variety. Some regard the Apocalypse
in the fullest sense of the term as a prophecy extending
from the time that the Apostle wrote to the establish
ment of Christianity under Constantine, at which period
the Millennium commenced. Others suppose that the
Apocalypse relates entirely to the events which hap
pened or which were expected to happen in the Apostle's
day ; he does not see beyond his own horizon. Accord
ing to them, the references are entirely to the destruction
of Jerusalem and the then condition of the Roman Empire.
The denunciations in the book have regard to the ex
pected destruction of pagan and persecuting Rome. The
1 The ordinary German classification of systems of interpretation is as
follows : — Zeitgeschichtlich = Prseterist ; Kirchengeschichtlich = Histori
cal ; Endgeschichtlich = Futurist ; Reichgeschichtlich = Spiritual.
2 Hug's Introduction to New Testament ; Ewald's Die Johann. Schriften,
vol. ii. ; De Wette's Offenbarung Johan. ; Liicke's Offenbarung ; Bleek's Lec
tures on the Apocalypse; Moses Stuart's Commentary on the Apocalypse;
Volkmar's Offenbarung Johannis; Reuss, L' Apocalypse ; Renan's L' Anti
christ ; Krenkel's Der Apostel Johannes ; Diisterdieck's Offenbarung Johan
nes; Weizacker, Das Apostolische Zeitalter; Weiss, Einleitung in das N. T.;
Farrar's Early Days of Christianity ; Maurice On the Apocalypse.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 365
book, it is asserted, was written during the course of
the Jewish wrar. The Romans were to conquer Jerusa
lem, but the Temple and the altar were to be preserved.1
The beast which came out of the sea having seven heads
and ten horns (Rev. xiii. 1) was Nero, who, according
to the popular opinion of those times, and which opinion
the author adopted, was not really dead, but would
again appear. The kings of the East and the horsemen
(Rev. xvi. 12; ix. 9) were the Parthians, by whose aid
Nero would be restored to his kingdom. Nero was to
•reign as Antichrist for three years and a half, to destroy
Rome, to establish a universal monarchy, and to perse
cute the Christians. According to Archdeacon Farrar,
the Nero legend is the key to the understanding of the
book.2 It is unnecessary to state this theory at length,
as we have already adverted to it in discussing the date
of the Apocalypse.
But whilst among those interpreters, who adopt the
praeterist view, there is a unanimous consent of opinion
that the first beast who arose out of the sea is Nero
revived as if from the dead, the greatest diversity of
opinion prevails regarding the second beast. " And I
saw another beast coming up out of the earth ; and he had
two horns like unto a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
And he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast in
his sight" (Rev., xiii. n, 12). There is no contem
porary historical character, no second Nero, to whom
this description can with any show of plausibility apply.
Accordingly, the most extraordinary meanings have
1 Thus Rev. xi. 1, 2, is interpreted.
2 Expositor, vol. i., second series, p. 335.

366 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
been attached to this vision. Some (Volkmar) conceive
the second beast to be the Apostle Paul j1 others (Farrar),
Vespasian;2 others, Titus; others (Krenkel), Josephus;
others, Tiberius Alexander; others (De Wette), the
Roman augurial system ; others (Reville), Simon Magus ;
others (Weizacker), the worship of Caesar, with its idolatry
and charlatanry.3 All that is related in the book must
be brought into correspondence with the history or
legends of the time in which John lived.
It is not denied that there are in the Apocalypse
references to the existing state of matters when John
wrote the book. The persecutions which the Church
suffered under Nero or Domitian are probably adverted
to (Rev. vi. 9-1 1) ; but it is most erroneous to suppose
that the whole Apocalypse was limited in its predictions
to the then present and immediate future. According
to that system the Apocalypse contains no prophecy,
but merely a symbolical description of the age in which
the author lived and wrote ; the book is reduced to the
same rank and level with the Book of Enoch, the Assump
tion of Moses, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and other apoca
lyptic Jewish works. Nay, the whole Revelation of
John is founded on a gross error and extravagant legend
about Nero. The events which within a few years
occurred falsified all the predictions advanced. The
Temple was not preserved, but destroyed by the Romans.
Nero did not appear and destroy Rome J on the contrary,
the Roman Empire under the Flavian dynasty was
1 Volkmar's Offenbarung, pp. 205-208.
2 Farrar's Early Days of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 301 ff. ; Expositor, second
series, vol. ii. p. 161 ff., " The False Prophet of the Apocalypse."
3 Weizacker, Apoc. Zeitalt, p. 515.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 367
established on a firmer foundation. The Parthians did
not at that time invade the Roman Empire. As Liicke
is constrained to confess, " The prophecy was not ful
filled in its original* sense, and will never be fulfilled
in such a sense." x A book containing predictions which
events so quickly falsified could not possibly have so
far imposed upon the Church as to be considered a
Divine prophecy, and be so highly esteemed as to be
regarded as an inspired writing, and attributed to the
Apostle John. Much less could it have been written
by the inspired Apostle, especially by him who is the
author of the Fourth Gospel. Certain it is that no such
idea as the Nero legend is to be found in the writings
of the Fathers in connection with the Apocalypse.
" This theory," observes Dr. Marcus Dods, " involves
the enormous assumption that a book which had pre
dicted the return of Nero as eighth emperor, his
destruction of Rome, the taking of Jerusalem, but pre
servation of the Temple, and which in all these parti
culars was falsified almost as soon as published, was
yet accepted by the Church as inspired and apostolic." 2
1 Quoted by Auberlen, Daniel and the Revelation, p. 389.
8 Introduction to the New Testament, p. 242. As Professor Salmon well
puts it :  " According to this theory, John does not, like some pretenders
to the gift of prophecy, make himself pretty safe by postponing to some
tolerably distant future the_ date when his prophecy is to come to pass.
He undertakes boldly to foretell the event of the great military operation
of his time. For a parallel case we should imagine Victor Hugo or some
other French prophet, in Christmas 1870, issuing a prediction that Paris
should to a certain extent be taken, and a third part of the city burnt,
but that the Germans should not get the mastery over the whole, for that
there would be an uprising of the other German nations against the Prus
sians, along with the total destruction of the city of Berlin, to the great
joy of Europe. We can imagine some one mad enough to make such a
prophecy as this ; but if so, can we imagine that a prediction so wild and

368 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
II. The system of interpretation called the Historical
or the Continuous-Historical, and which supposes that
the Apocalypse contains a prophetical history of the
Christian Church, is the one which was formerly gene
rally adopted by Protestants. Its principal advocates
are Bengel, Vitringa, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton,
Hengstenberg, Davison, Gaussen, Elliott, Keith, Bicker-
steth, Birks, and Bishop Wordsworth.1
According to this system, the Apocalypse is really
what in the opinion of these critics it professes to be —
a revelation of the future history of the Church of Christ.
Future events are described in mystic terms and symbo
lical visions. Two different views of the prophecy are
taken. Some suppose that the Apocalypse is a regu
larly progressive narrative of events in the history of
the Church from the time that John wrote in the reign
of Domitian down to the consummation of all things ;
whilst others think that the descriptions are synchronous
— that the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the
seven vials recapitulate the same events under different
aspects.2 According to the historical system of inter
pretation, we are living in the great scheme of prophecy ;
a considerable part of the Apocalypse has been fulfilled
so unfortunate should make the reputation of the prophet, and that the
book which contained it should live for generations as an inspired docu
ment ] " — Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 292, 293.
1 Bengel and Vitringa's Commentaries ; Sir Isaac Newton On Prophecy ;
Bishop Newton's Works; Hengstenberg, Die Offenbarung Johan. ; Davison
On Prophecy ; Gaussen, Daniel le ProphUe ; Elliott's Hore Apocalyptice ;
Keith On Prophecy ; Bickersteth and Birk's various writings ; Words
worth's Hulsean Lectures for 1849, and Greek Testament
2 According to Dusterdieck, this theory was made famous by Augustine
and developed by Vitringa, and is held in a modified form by Hofmann
¦and Hengstenberg.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 369
since the Apostle wrote ; a great part yet remains to
be accomplished. Most of these interpreters suppose
that the most important facts in the history of the
Church and of the world, such as the downfall of the
Pagan Roman Empire, the establishment of Christianity
under Constantine, the rise and the corruptions of
Popery, the spread of Mahometauism, and the excesses
of the French Revolution, are here foretold.
It would be* impossible to give anything like a sketch
of the principal theories of those who adopt the historical
system of interpretation. We can only mention the
most noted, without entering into details. Bengel, illus
trious for his erudition, his exquisite felicity of expres
sion, and his piety, was among the first who gave a
detailed account of the Apocalypse, following the course
of history. He supposed the Apocalypse to be a predic
tion of the corruption of Popery, and by a complicated
process of calculation he came to the conclusion that
the Millennium would commence in the year 1836.
"Should," he says, "the year 1836 pass without bring
ing remarkable changes, there must be some error iu
my calculation." 1 Hengstenberg, who, however, may be
almost classed among the Prseterists, understands by the
woman who gave birth to the man-child " the one inse
parable Church of the old and new covenants." He
interprets the beast coming out of the sea as the world-
power opposed to Christ; the seven heads are seven
kingdoms or powers ; the five which are fallen are the
Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian
1 For a statement of Bengel's system of interpretation, see Auberlen's
Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 365 ff.
2 A

370 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
empires; the sixth, which then was, is the Roman empire ;
and the seventh, which was yet to come, is the German
empire. " The commencement of the millennial king
dom," he observes, " coincides with the Christianisation
of the Germanic nations, and the Millennium itself is
identical with the German empire, which lasted a thou
sand years." The loosing again of Satan refers to out-
present time, especially since the year 1848, the period
of Gog and Magog, in which we are living.1 Elliott,
in his Horce Apocalypticce, for long considered the most
learned and masterly exposition of the Apocalypse in
modern times, gives a minute account of the different
visions from an anti-Papal standpoint. The woman is
the true Church, and the dragon who persecutes her is
the Pagan Roman Empire. The man-child whom she
bears is Constantine and his successors. The beast
rising out of the sea is identical with the dragon ; the
seven heads are the seven forms which the government
of Rome assumed ; 2 the eighth head is the Papal power
or Antichrist, identical with the little, horn in Daniel's
vision, and with the man of sin in Paul's Epistle to the
Thessalonians ; the ten horns are the ten nations which
arose out of the ruins of the Roman Empire ; the second
beast, with its form as a lamb and its voice as a dragon,
identical with the false prophet, is " the papal clergy
united under the Pope in his ecclesiastical character of
the Western patriarch, and acting so as to support him in
1 Hengstenberg's Commentary on the Apocalypse. For a succinct sketch
of his views see Auberlen's Daniel and the Revelation, p. 409, and Bleek's
Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 67.
2 Elliott's Hore Apocalyptice, vol. iii. p. 98, 2nd edit. These seven,
forms are kings, consuls, dictators, decemvirs, military tribunes, emperors,
and the new imperial form introduced by Diocletian.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 371
his different and far loftier character of Christ's Vicar
on earth, or Antichrist ; " 1 the first five vials are the
excesses of the French Revolution and the conquests of
Napoleon. Such an attempt to ascribe to the Apocalypse a con
tinuous prophetical history is natural, and apparently in
accordance with the nature of the book, but it has led to
the most extravagant assumptions. The views expressed
by these interpreters are discordant ; they are always
contradicting and correcting each other ; scarcely two of
them agree in the meaning of any particular vision, and
this discordance of opinion destroys our reliance on the
soundness of this method of interpretation. " How,"
asks Godet, " can we feel any confidence in this method
of interpretation when we see, for instance, one and the
same vision — that of the locusts with the tail of a scor
pion — interpreted by some of the Arabian invasion of
the seventh century ; by others of the incursion of the
Persians under Chosroes ; by a third party of the intro
duction of the Talmud among the Jews ; and by others
again of the establishment of monasticism ? Is not the
arbitrariness which gives birth to such a method of inter
pretation most glaring? and can we help asking our
selves what object the Holy Spirit could have had in
view in writing, according to the malicious expression of
ReVille, ' a history of the Church in riddles.' " 2 Besides,
whilst they assert that much of the. Apocalypse has
received its fulfilment, yet this does not render the pre
diction clearer. In this case the fulfilment of prophecy
1 Hore Apocalyptice, vol. iii. p. 160.
2 Godet's Biblical Studies, p. 358.

372 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
cannot be adduced as an argument either to convince
gainsayers or to confirm the faith of the believer. We
cannot bring forward the predictions of the corruptions
of Popery or of the excesses of the French Revolution in
the Apocalypse, in the same manner and with the same
force as we bring forward the Messianic predictions
of the Old Testament.1 The resemblance between the
prediction and its fulfilment is by no means so clear as
to convince the intelligent doubter. Sometimes also the
most trifling and transient events are supposed to be
referred to ; as, for example, the long hair and turbans of
the Saracens, the horse-tails worn by the Turkish pashas,
and the three frogs in the old arms of France.2 On the
other hand, events of the greatest importance in the
history of the Church and of the world are omitted
in the Apocalypse, as the future of the great Eastern
Church, the discovery of America, the invention of print
ing, the conversion of the heathen. An inspired pro
phecy, purporting to give a history of the Christian
Church, would hardly have omitted events which had
such an important influence upon its destiny.
III. The Futurists take the opposite view to the
Prseterists ; they regard the predictions of the Apo
calypse as still unfulfilled. This system has not many
supporters ; it has been embraced by Dr. Maitland,
1 " We point the infidel," says Muitland, " to the captive Jew and the
wandering Arab ; but who challenges him with the slain witnesses 1 We
set before him the predicted triumphs of Cyrus ; but do we expect his con
version from the French Revolution and the conquests of Napoleon 1 We
send him to muse on the ruined city of David, and to search for the deso
late site of Babylon ; but who builds his argument on the opened seals of
the Apocalypse?" — First Enquiry, p. 71.
3 Elliott's Bore Apocalyptice, passim.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 373
Dr. Todd, Mr. Burgh, R. W. Newton, and Isaac
Williams.1 According to the Futurists, the whole Apocalypse,
with the exception of the epistles to the Seven Churches,
has yet to be fulfilled : it belongs to the domain of
unfulfilled prophecy ; and therefore all attempts to dis
cover its meaning from the past history of the Church
are visionary and vain. The book is a prediction of
the second coming of the Lord, and the whole prophecy
has reference exclusively to that event. It states
the signs which will herald the Parousia. " We are,"
observes Dr. Todd, " to look for the fulfilment of its
predictions neither in the early persecutions and heresies
of the Church, nor in the long series of centuries from
the first preaching of the Gospel until now, but in the
events which are immediately to precede, to accom
pany, and to follow the second advent of our Lord
and Saviour." 2 Those who adopt this system give a
literal interpretation to the Apocalypse, and overlook
in a great measure its symbolical character. The times
stated — the three days and a half and the forty and
two months — are to be understood literally. The
temple is the Temple of Jerusalem, which is to be
rebuilt and its worship restored. Mount Zion, on
which the Lamb stands, is the mount in Jerusalem on
which Christ is to appear at the second advent and
erect His throne. Some even go the length of asserting
1 Maitland's The Apostles' School of Prophetic Interpretation; Todd,
Six Discourses on the Apocalypse ; Burgh, Exposition of the Book of Revela
tion ; Newton, Thoughts on the Revelation ; William's Enquiry, &c. ; also
in a modified form by Klieforth, Erklarung, &c.
2 Discourses on the Apocalypse, p. 68.

374 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
that Babylon is not to be taken as a figurative desig
nation of Rome, but literally for the city on the
Euphrates. Those who adopt this system are believers
in the personal reign of Christ and in the resurrection
of the saints at the Millennium.
This system gives prominence to the advent of
Christ as the great theme of the Apocalypse, and so far
is correct. All the scenes and symbols and visions of
the Apocalypse are the preparations for and the fore
runners of the advent. But the whole history of the
Christian Church from its commencement points to this
event as the great climax ; all lead up to that fulness
of time when Christ shall again appear. This system
of interpretation deprives the book of much of its
present use. According to this theory, it is a book of
the future, not of the present. Besides, it is evident
that the Apocalypse does not refer only to the distant
future ; it refers to the near, as well as to the remote.
It professes to be a revelation of the things which must
shortly come to pass ; a blessing is pronounced on those
who hear and read the words of this prophecy, because
the time is at hand ; the Lord God sent His angel
to show unto His servant the things which must
shortly be done ; John is commanded not to seal the
sayings of the prophecy of this book, for the time is
at hand ; and He which testifieth these things saith,
"Surely I come quickly" (Rev. i. i, 3 ; xxii. 6, 10, 20).
Besides, the extreme literalism which this system of
interpretation involves leads to the most fanciful and
extravagant suppositions. The whole facts adverted
to in the Apocalypse until the commencement of the

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 375
Millennium and the personal reign of Christ are crowded
into a short space of time.
IV. The fourth system of interpretation is that
which gives to the Apocalypse a spiritual meaning.
According to this view, the Apocalypse is not a pro
fessed detailed history of the future, but only a con
spectus of the great epochs and of the governing
principles in the development of the kingdom of God
in its relation to the kingdoms of this world. This
view of the Apocalypse is comparatively modern, but is
perhaps in our days the most prevalent opinion among
those who do not adopt the rationalistic interpretation.
It has been embraced by Archdeacon Lee, Bishop Boyd
Carpenter, Vaughan, Randall, Milligan, Warfield, and
Simcox ; x and to these may be added Alford, Ebrard,
Hofmann, Auberlen, and Godet,2 who have more or less
adhered to this system.
According to this system, the Apocalypse has refer
ence to all times. The particular visions do not receive
single and definite fulfilments, but may be fulfilled at
different times ; they have, as Lord Bacon observes,
"springing and germinant developments." For ex
ample, the apocalyptic beasts do not exclusively denote
Rome, either Pagan or Papal, but generally the enemies
of Christ — the world-power throughout all ages opposed
1 Archdeacon Lee's Commentary in the Speaker's Commentary; Bishop
Boyd Carpenter On the Revelation; Vaughan's Practical Commentary;
Randall, Introduction to the Revelation in the Pulpit Commentary;
Milligan, Baird Lectures for 1885, and Exposition of the Apocalypse; War-
field in Schaff's Encyclopedia, art. " Bevelation ; " Simcox On the Revelation
of St. John.
2 Alford's Greek Testament; Ebrard On the Revelation in Olshausen's
series ; Hofmann's Schriftbeweiss, and Weissagung und Erfiillung ; Auber
len, Daniel and the Revelation ; Godet's Biblical Studies.

376 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
to Christ. The whole book refers to the great conflict
between good and evil, between the Church and the
Devil, between Christ and Antichrist, carried on in all
ages. The revelations contain the disclosures of what
happen at all times in the history of the Church ; the
predictions admit of a variety of applications. The
book is designed to teach us the spiritual history' of
the Church of Christ, to wrarn us of those spiritual
dangers to which we are exposed, to inform us of the
spiritual trials to which we are liable, to describe the
great contest with evil, and to comfort us with the
assurance of the final victory of Christ over all the
powers of darkness, when the Devil and the false
prophet will be cast out, and when Christ's people
shall be saved and glorified. " The Book of Revela
tion," observes Ebrard, " does not contain presages of
contingent, isolated events ; but it contains warnings
and consolatory prophecies concerning the great leading
forces which make their appearance in the conflict
between Christ and the enemy. So full are its contents,
that every age may learn therefrom ' more and more
against what disguises of the Serpent one has to guard
oneself, and also how the afflicted Church at all times
receives its measure of courage and consolation." 1
Those who adopt the general principles of this system
differ greatly as to its details. Hofmann, who perhaps
belongs rather to the Futurist class of interpreters, dwells
much upon the great struggle between Christ and the
Wicked One, which will become more and more violent
until the Advent. The first beast is the world-power
1 Ebrard's Commentary on the Revelations.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 377
attacking the Church from without, and the second
beast is heresy or false doctrine, attacking the Church
from within. He understands Babylon to be Rome, and
the seven kings to be not Roman emperors, but seven
different forms of the world-power.1 The great proto
type of Antichrist is Antiochus Epiphanes, as declared
in the Apocalypse of Daniel.2 Godet, whilst he gives a
spiritual interpretation to the 'Apocalypse, yet believes
in a personal Antichrist, who shall be a Jewish Messiah
set up by carnal Israel in opposition to the Messiah of
God. " This personage will be an Israelite, who shall
consent to that act of felony to which Jesus would not
consent, that of doing homage to the sovereignty of the
prince of this world, in order that he might receive
from his hands universal empire." 3 Alford, whilst he
holds that particular predictions have been fulfilled at
different times and in different ways, yet frequently gives
to particular visions specific meanings. He regards
the beast coming out of the sea as the secular power
antagonistic to the Church of Christ ; and the second
beast as "the sacerdotal persecuting power leagued
with, and the instrument of, the secular ; professing to
be a lamb, but in reality being a dragon ; persecuting
the saints of God ; the inseparable companion and
upholder of despotic and tyrannical power. This in all
1 Namely, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Antiochus Epiphanes, the
five who have fallen ; Rome, the sixth, which now is ; and the seventh,
the German Empire. The eighth is Antichrist, or Antiochus Epiphanes
* returning from the abyss.
2 Weissagung und Erfilllung. For Hofrnann's view see Auberlen's
Daniel and the Revelations, pp. 398-407 ; Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse,
pp. 65, 66 ; Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T., p. 367.
3 Godet's Biblical Studies, Essay upon the Apocalypse, p. 373.

378 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
its forms, Pagan, Papal, and in so far as the Reformed
Churches have retrograded towards Papal sacerdotalism,
Protestant also, I believe to be that which is symbolised
under the second wild beast."1
There is much truth in this system. The Apocalypse
is certainly designed to support believers under all their
trials and conflicts, with the assurance that the good
shall finally prevail and that Christ shall overcome all
His and our enemies. But the great objection to this
system is that it leaves every one to interpret the book
according to his own fancy ; one can put into it any
meaning he pleases, and thus prophecy becomes of
private interpretation.2 The most obvious statements
are explained away. Thus we are expressly told that
the woman seated on the scarlet - coloured beast is
Rome. " The seven heads are seven mountains, on which
the woman sitteth." " The woman whom thou sawest
is the great city, which reigneth over the kings of
the earth" (Rev. xvii. 9, 18). No explanation can be
clearer or more definite. Yet this has to be explained
away, and other meanings besides Rome have to be
attached to the vision.3 Besides, according to this view,
the Apocalypse ceases in a great measure to be a
prophecy, or at least the predictive element in it is
obscured, although it is evident, from the express
declarations of the book itself, that it is a revelation of
the things that are to come to pass. " The Apocalypse,"
1 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, p. 257.
2 " No prophecy of Scripture is of private interpretation " (2 Peter i. 20).
3 " That we are here to confine ourselves to Rome, either Papal or Pagan,
or both, or that we are even to think primarily of them, as is done by dif
ferent classes of historicalinterpreters, can hardly be admitted."— Milligan.

SYSTEMS OF INTERPRETATION. 379
observes Professor Milligan, " contains no continuous
history of the Church from the beginning to the end of
her historical course. It is not a mere revelation of
events that are immediately to precede the second coming
of the Lord. It is no mere prophecy of the early doom
of those enemies of Christian truth whom the Seer saw
around him. The book is not predictive. It contains
no prediction that is not found in the prophecies of
Christ. It gives no knowledge of the future that is not
given first by our Lord, and then by others of His
inspired Apostles." J Dr. Milligan admits the book to
be so far prophetical that it deals with great principles
which may find many fulfilments, but he does not
think that any of these special fulfilments were in the
mind of the sacred writer.2 Certainly, if this is the
case, the Christian Church has been mistaken from the
beginning ; for however diverse may have been the
meanings given to this mystic book, the Church in
general has always regarded it as prophetical — a prophecy
of the future of the Church in its relation to the world.
Our inability to understand its meaning, and the glar
ing mistakes in interpretation which have been made,
do not deprive it of its predictive character.
1 Baird Lectures for 1885, pp. 187, 188 ; see also Auberlen, Der Prophet
Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, as the chief German exponent of this
system of interpretation.
2 No writer in recent times has expended so much time and thought
on the Revelation as Dr. Milligan. His views, as detailed in his Baird
Lectures, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse in Schaff's Popular Com
mentary of the New Testament, in his recent exposition of the Book of
Revelation in the Expositor's Bible, and in numerous articles in the Expo
sitor, merit careful consideration, as the opinions of an accomplished
theologian. ,

DISSERTATION III.
THE MILLENNIUM.
Literature. — The chief works on the Millennium are the follow
ing : — Joseph Mede, Clavis Apocalyptica, 1 6,2 7 ; Bengel's Gnomon
Novi Testamenti, 1742; Bishop Newton's Dissertations on the Pro
phecies, 1 751; Corrodi, Geschichte des Chiliasmus; TJrwick, Second
Advent of Christ, 1839; Elliott's Horoe Apocalypticos, 2nd edit.
1846, 5th edit. 1862; Wordsworth's Hulsean Lectures for 1848;
Brown on The Second Advent, 1846; Bickersteth's Glory of the
Church; Cumming's Apocalyptic Sketches, 1849; Molyneux's Israel' s_
Future and The World to Come ; Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse ;
Waldegrave's New Testament Millenarianism, Bampton Lectures,
1855; Auberlen, Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, translated
1856; Koch, Das tausendjdhrige Reich, i860; Archdeacon Lee on
the Revelation in the Speaker's Commentary, Excursus on the
Millennium, pp. 808-814; Milligan, Bampton Lectures for 1885,
and Exposition of the Book of Revelation ; Bishop Boyd Carpenter
on the Revelation in Bishop Ellicott's Commentary; article on
Chiliasm by Semisch in Herzog's Meal- EncyMopddie.
No department of exegesis is more difficult than the
interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. The language
in which prophecy, especially apocalyptic prophecy, is
couched is generally highly figurative. Spiritual realities
are represented by images taken from the material
world ; kings and kingdoms are figured by the hiero
glyphic pictures of animals ; and the rise and fall of
dynasties are described by variations in the heavenly
bodies. The fulfilment is in general the only key to
380

THE MILLENNIUM. 381
the interpretation ; without this, prophecy is necessarily
obscure. Hence, if we endeavour to interpret an un
fulfilled prophecy with any degree of minuteness, it is
almost certain that we shall fall into extravagance and
error ; we can only judge what is its general import,
and even then our judgment is frequently only a conjec
ture. We have a signal example of this uncertainty of
exposition in the Jewish interpretation of their Messianic
prophecies. The Jews in their Scriptures had numerous
and varied prophecies concerning the Messiah ; and yet
we know from history how mistaken they were in their
interpretation of these prophecies. They interpreted
what was meant to be figurative and spiritual as if it
were literal ; and instead of a suffering Messiah, they
expected a mighty Conqueror, who should free them
from bondage, oppression, and wrong, sit on the throne
of David, and restore to them the palmy days of
Solomon. The event showed how opposed the fulfil
ment was to their interpretation ; how greatly they
mistook the nature of the prophecy.1 This notable
instance certainly rebukes all dogmatism in the an
nouncement of our peculiar views, and should teach
us caution and modesty in our study of unfulfilled
prophecy. The notion of a millennium (mille anni) or Chilia<m
(xlXta err)) is not peculiar to Christianity. Traces of it
are to be found in heathen writers who lived before the
1 And yet, according to certain writers, the Jews, in giving a literal
interpretation to their prophecies, were not mistaken ; tlieir error consisted
• in attending only to those prophecies which had reference to the pre-
millennial advent, and overlooking those prophecies which referred to the
first coming of the Messiah.

382 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
Christian era. The golden age among the heathen was
in general placed in the distant past, but some looked
forward to its return in the future history of the world.
We find traces of this in the writings of Plato, especially
in the Phasdrus and in the Republic.1 But especially
the celebrated fourth eclogue of Virgil, whether the idea
is taken from the Sibylline verses, or, as some think,
from the prophecies of Isaiah, describes in glowing terms
the future reign of peace and plenty.
The Jews also had their Millennium ; their golden age
was not placed, as it was by the heathen generally, in
the past, but in the future ; they looked forward to an
era of national glory and bliss— the era of the Messiah.
Different views are entertained by them as to its dura
tion. Some supposed that the reign of the Messiah
would be perpetual — that His kingdom would have no
end ; 2 and there is an allusion to this idea in the words
of the Jews to Jesus : " We have heard out of the law
that the Christ abideth for ever" (John xii. 34). Others
conceived that it would last only forty years, analogous
to the forty years' journey of the Israelites in the
wilderness ; and others, for four hundred- years, being
the length of their sojourn in Egypt.3 But, in general,
the reign of the Messiah was regarded as lasting for a
thousand years.4 They interpret the words of the
Psalmist, " a thousand years are in Thy sight but as
yesterday when it is past" (Ps. xc. 4), as a declaration
1 Phadrus, 249 (Jowett's trans., vol. i. p. 583); De Republ, x. 615, 621
(Jowett's trans., vol. ii. pp. 458, 464).
2 Schiirer gives as references Sibyll., iii. 76 ; Psalt. Sol., xvii. 4 ; Enoch,
lxii. 14.
3 Talmud, Sanh., 99 ; 4 Esdras, vii. 28, 29. 4 Sanh., 77.

THE MILLENNIUM. 383
that a day of the Lord is equal to a thousand years. So
also they regarded the Millennium as the sabbatical
rest of the world. They considered the week of creation
as if each day constituted a thousand years, and conse
quently the seventh day was the Millennium, or the
Sabbath of creation. In the apocalyptic books of the
Jews there are various references to this glorious future.1
Thus in the Book of Enoch we read : " In those days
the whole earth will be administered with justice, and
will be planted with trees of blessing. And all the trees
of desire will flourish, and the vine will bear fruit in
abundance. And of the seed which is sown, one measure
will bear ten thousand, and one measure of olives will
produce ten presses of oil. . . . And all the children of
men shall become righteous, and all nations shall praise
and worship Me. And the earth will be cleansed from
all corruption, and all sin, and all punishment, and all
torment ; and I will never again send a flood upon it,
from generation to generation, to all eternity." 2 Similar
statements are to be found in the Apocalypse of Baruch,
to which we will afterwards have occasion to refer. So
also in the rabbinical writings there are many references
to the Millennium. Thus the Bereschith Rabba, as
quoted by Whitby, makes the following statement : " If
we expound the seventh day of the seventh Millennium,
which is the world to come, the exposition is, 'He
blessed it,' because that in the seventh Millennium all
1 For a systematic presentation of the old Jewish doctrine of the Mes
sianic reign, see Schiirer, Jewish People in the Times of Christ, Division ii.
vol. ii. pp. 154-187, English translation.
2 Das Buch Henoch, x. 18-22 ; Dillmann's Buch Enoch, p. 6 ; Schodde,
The Book of Enoch, p. 71.

384 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
souls shall be bound up in the bundle of life. So onr
Rabbins of blessed memory have said in their commen
taries on ' God blessed the seventh day,' the Holy Ghost
blessed the world to come, which beginneth in the
seventh Millennium." x So also Rabbi Salomon writes :
" It is fixed that the world shall stand for six thousand
years, according to the number of the days of the week ;
but on the seventh day is the Sabbath, and during the
seventh Millennium the world is at rest." 2
In the Apocalypse we have a description of the Chris
tian Millennium. After the destruction of Antichrist
and the false prophet, a mighty angel shall descend from
heaven, and shall lay hold on Satan, and confine him
for a thousand years. During this long period his influ
ence will be sensibly restrained ; he shall not be per
mitted to deceive the nations ; the world will become
the abode of holiness and peace. The souls of the
martyrs and of those who have not worshipped the
beast will live and reign with Christ. At the close of
the Millennium Satan will be loosed out of his prison ;
there will be a strong reaction in favour of impiety ; he
and his confederates will make war with the saints, and
endeavour to wrest the kingdom out of their hands ; but
fire will come down from heaven and destroy them.
After this shall follow the general resurrection and the
judgment (Rev. xx.).
The idea of a millennial reign of Christ with His
risen saints on earth was very prevalent among the
Fathers of the second century ; indeed, it might almost
1 Whitby on Heb. iv. 9.
2 Quoted by Archdeacon Lee, Speaker's Commentary, N. T., vol. iv. p.
809.

THE MILLENNIUM. 385
be considered to be at that period an adopted doc
trine of the Christian Church. There is no reference
to it in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.1 The first
reference is the following, from the apocryphal Epistle
of Barnabas (a.d. 100?): "Attend to the meaning of
the expression, ' He finished it in six days.' This im
plies that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand
years, for with Him one day is as a thousand years.
Therefore in six days, that is in six thousand years, all
things will be finished. But on the seventh day He
rested. This meaneth, when His Son, coming, shall judge
the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon
and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh
day." J The millennial idea is here taken rather from the
opinions of the Jews than from the Apocalypse. Papias
(a.d. 1 20) may be considered as the originator of the
patristic notion of the Millennium. Eusebius, who was
evidently biassed against him on account of his millenarian
views, observes that " he gives accounts which he received
from unwritten traditions, and from certain strange para
bles of our Lord and of His doctrine, and other fabulous
matters. In these he says there would be a certain Millen
nium after the resurrection, and that there would be a
corporeal reign of Christ on this earth, which things he
appears to have imagined, as if they were authorised by
the apostolic narrations, not understanding those matters
which they propounded mystically in their represen
tations."3 Irenseus, howTever, formed a very different
1 Unless, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas and the sayings of Papias be
considered as among the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
2 Barnabas, Ep., ch. xv.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 39.
2 B

386 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
opinion of Papias, and evidently embraced his Chiliastic
views. He gives the following strange tradition, which
Papias states that he heard from John, as to the escha
tological teaching of our Lord : " The days will come
in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand
branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and
in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in each shoot ten
thousand clusters, and in each cluster ten thousand
grapes, and each grape when pressed will give five-and-
twenty measures of wine." 1 Words very similar to
these have been found in the Jewish Apocalypse of
Baruch,2 so that apparently Papias mistook the words
of Baruch for a traditionary saying of Christ. Justin
Martyr (a.d. 147) also adopted Chiliastic views. "I and
others," he observes, " who are right-minded Christians,
are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead,
and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be
built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel
and Isaiahrand others declare." 3 And again in a pas
sage already quoted : " There was a certain man with
us whose name was John, one of the Apostles of Christ,
who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him
that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a
thousand years in Jerusalem ; and that thereafter the
1 Irenaeus, Adv. Heres., v. 33, 3.
2 See supra, p. 243. The words which Papias gives are found in chap.
xxix. " Papias," observes Lee, " must plainly have borrowed from the
'Apocalypse of Baruch,' or both must have borrowed from an earlier
writer." The following is the passage in Baruch : " The earth shall yield
its fruits, one producing ten thousand, and in one vine shall be a thousand
branches, and one branch shall produce a thousand bunches, and one
bunch shall produce a thousand grapes, and one grape shall produce a
measure of wine." — Drummond's " Jewish Messiah," p. 349.
3 Justin Martyn, Dial, cum Tryph., ch. lxxx.

THE MILLENNIUM. 387
general resurrection and judgment of all men would
take place."1 He however observes : "There are many
Christians of pure and devout minds who do not admit
this."2 Irenaeus (a.d. 180) was a decided Millennarian,
and appears to have adopted the views of Papias, for
whom he expresses a high regard.3 Tertullian (a.d. 200),
after he became a Montanist, was an ardent supporter
of Chiliastic views. " We confess," says he, " that a
kingdom is promised to us upon the earth, although
before heaven, only in another state of existence ; inas
much as it will be after the resurrection for a thousand
years in the divinely-built city of Jerusalem brought
down from heaven. . . . After the thousand years are
over, within which period is completed -the resurrection
of the saints, who rise sooner or later according to their
deserts, then will ensue the destruction of the world and
the conflagration of all things at the judgment." * And
even as late as the beginning of the fourth century,
Lactantius (a.d. 306) writes: "Since God, having
finished His works, rested the seventh day and blessed
it, at the end of the six thousandth year all wickedness
must be abolished from the earth, and righteousness
shall reign for a thousand years ; and there will be tran
quillity and rest from the labours which the world has
long endured." 5 And in another place he writes : " The
earth shall open its fruitfulness, and of its own accord
produce fruits in abundance ; the rocks shall drop with
honey ; streams of wine shall run down, and rivers with
milk ; the earth itself shall rejoice and all nature exult,
1 Justin Martyr, Dial, cum Tryph, chap, lxxxi.
2 Idem, chap. lxxx. 3 Irenaeus, Adv. Heres., v. 33.
4 Tertullian, Adv. Marcion, iii. 24. 6 Lactantius, Instil, vii. 14.

388 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
being rescued and set free from the dominion of evil and
impiety, from guilt and error."1
Chiliasm was also embraced by various heretical sects
outside the Church. The Montanists, by reason of their
rigidly literal interpretation of the Scriptures, were
Chiliasts ; they believed in the thousand years' reign of
Christ with His saints. So also several of the Gnostic
sects, especially those of Jewish origin, adopted Chili
astic views. Cerinthus taught a sensual Millennium.
According to him, it was to consist of sensual pleasures
and earthly delights, somewhat similar to the paradise
of Mahomet. " Cerinthus," observes Caius, " through
revelations, written as he would have us to believe by a
great apostle, brings before us marvellous things, which
he pretends were shown him by angels, asserting that
after the resurrection there would be an earthly king
dom of Christ, and that men dwelling in Jerusalem are
again to be subject to desires and pleasures. Being also
an enemy to the Divine Scriptures, and with a view to
deceive men, he said that there would be a space of a>
thousand years for celebrating nuptial festivals."2 So
also Dionysius of Alexandria observes : " One of the doc
trines that Cerinthus taught was that Christ should have
an earthly kingdom ; and as he was a voluptuary and
wholly sensual, he conjectured .that it would consist in
those things which he so eagerly desired, in the gratifi
cation of his sensual appetites, in eating, and drinking,
and marrying." 3 Although we have only the opinions
of Cerinthus as given by his opponents, yet there is no
1 Lactantius, Institut, vii. 24.
2 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, iii. 28, vii. 25.
3 Idem, vii. 25.

THE MILLENNIUM. 389
doubt that his Gnosticism was of a licentious character,
and that the Millennium which he taught was a state of
sensual pleasures.
The views held by the primitive Church varied. Some
of the Fathers, as Justin Martyr, Irenseus, and the sect
of the Montanists adopted a spiritual view of the Millen
nium ; that Christ would reign on earth with His redeemed
people for a thousand years ; that righteousness, and
peace, and truth would everywhere prevail ; and that
the world would be inhabited by holy beings. But, in
general, the notion was sensuous — a Millennium of earthly
prosperity and happiness ; that during this period the
saints would enjoy in abundance the good things of this
world, fare deliciously, plant vineyards, and eat the
fruits thereof. Such were the opinions of Papias and
Lactantius, and still more degrading were those of the
Jewish Gnostics. The effect of such a notion was pre
judicial to the purity of the Church ; it promoted among
Christians, who were then oppressed with persecution, an
ardent desire for worldly happiness ; it held forth an
earthly reward to comfort them amid their present
sufferings, and it diverted their minds from spiritual
religion and the enjoyment of God. " It fostered,"
observes Neander, " among Christians the longing for a
gross sensual happiness, incompatible with the spirit of
the Gospel, and so among educated heathens gave birth
to many a prejudice against Christianity." J
Although Chiliasm was prevalent in the Church, and
was embraced by all the great Fathers of the second
century, yet at the commencement of the third century
1 Neander's Church History, vol. ii. p. 397, Bohn's edition.

390 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
there was a strong reaction against it. There were many
causes for this reaction. The excesses of the Montanists,
the gross perversions of the doctrine by the Gnostics,
and the rise of the allegorical school of Alexandria, all
contributed to discountenance Chiliasm. The first who
wrote against it was Caius (a.d. 210); he especially
directed his attacks against the sect of Cerinthus.1
Origen (a.d. 230) condemns those who interpret Scrip
ture in a Jewish sense.2 But the great antagonist of
Chiliasm was Dionysius of Alexandria (a.d. 250). Nepos,
Bishop of Arsence in Egypt, had written a book advo
cating a somewhat sensuous Chiliasm, in opposition to
the Alexandrian school, entitled "A Refutation of the
Allegorists " ("EXe^o? rwv dXX-qyopiara>v), and had gained
numerous adherents. After his death Dionysius opposed
his views. He expresses the greatest respect for Nepos :
" I greatly reverence the man on account of his faith
and study of the Scriptures; but the truth is to be
loved and honoured above all." And he so prevailed
that he not only suppressed Chiliasm throughout Egypt,
but effectually weakened its influence in the Church,3
for from that time it had few supporters among tho
Fathers.* Augustine condemns it as fostering a sensuous
Christianity. " This opinion," he observes, " would not
be objectionable if it were believed that the joys of the
saints shall be spiritual, and consequent on the presence
of God, for I myself once held this opinion. But as they
1 Caius appears to assert that the Book of Revelation, on which the
Millenarians took their stand, was a fabrication of Cerinthus.
2 Origen, De Princip., ii. 1 1, 2.
3 Eusebius, Hist. Eccl, vii. 24.
4 Neander's Church History, vol, ii. pp. 394-402, Bohn's edition.

THE MILLENNIUM. 391
assert that those who then rise again shall enjoy sen
sual and immoderate banquets of meat and wine, such
as not only to shock the feelings of the temperate, but
even to surpass the measure of credulity itself, such
assertions can be believed only by the carnal." x
Augustine himself introduced into the Church an
entirely new view of the Millennium. He conceived
that it was not future, but present ; that the Millennium
commenced at the birth of Christ ; in short, that it is
the age of Christianhy. To this view he was probably
led by witnessing the triumph of Christianity in the
Roman world. Heathenism was now abolished, and a
Christian emperor sat on the throne of the Csesars.
" The devil," he says, " is bound and shut up in the
abyss, that he may not seduce the nations from which
the Church is gathered, and which he formerly seduced
before the Church existed." 2 " The Church even now
is the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of heaven.
Even now His saints reign with Him, though otherwise
than as they shall reign hereafter. ... It is of this first
resurrection in the present life that the Apocalypse
speaks. For after saying that the devil is bound a
thousand years, and is afterwards loosed for a short
season, it goes on to give a sketch of what the Church
does, or of what is done in the Church in those days,
in the words, ' And I saw seats, and them that sat upon
them, and judgment was given.' It is not to be sup
posed that this refers to the last judgment, but to the
seats of the rulers and to the rulers themselves by whom
the Church is now governed."3
1 Augustine, Civ. Dei, xx. 7. 2 Idem, xx. 7. 3 Idem, xx. 9.

392 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
During the Middle Ages the doctrine of the Millen
nium was seldom adverted to. Those who were opposed
to the hierarchical pretensions of the Papacy adopted
Millenarian views, and looked forward to a period when
Christ would appear and purify His Church. At the
close of the year a.d. iooo there was throughout all
Mediaeval Christendom a general expectation of the end
of the world and the commencement of the reign of
Christ with His saints.
At the Reformation the excesses of the Anabaptists
in Munster, who adopted gross Millenarian views, and
wished to establish a reign of the saints by a violent
revolution, caused the Reformers strenuously to oppose
Chiliasm. It was condemned by Calvin, Luther, Melanc-
thon, and all the great leaders of the Reformation. " The
error of the Millenarians," says Calvin, " is too puerile to
deserve or require refutation. Nor does the Apocalypse
give any countenance to them." 1 So also it was con
demned in all the great ecclesiastical Confessions.' " The
Churches," says the Augsburg Confession, "teach that
at the end of the world Christ will appear for judgment
and will raise all the dead. . . . They condemn those
who are now propagating Jewish opinions, that before
the resurrection of the dead the saints shall occupy the
kingdoms of the world, the wicked being everywhere
suppressed." 2 The second Helvetic Confession declares,
"We condemn besides the Jewish dreams that before
1 Calvin's Institutes, iii. 25, 5.
2 Article XVII. " Christus apparebit in consummatione mundi ad judi-
canluin, et mortuos omnes resuscitabit. . . . Damnant et alios qui nunc
spargunt Judaicas opiniones, quod ante resurrectionem mortuorum pii
regnum mundi occupaturi sint, ubique oppressis impiis."

THE MILLENNIUM. 393
the day of judgment there will be a future golden age
on the earth, and the righteous will occupy the kingdoms
of the world, their impious enemies being subdued."1
So also the Church of England in the reign of Edward
VI., in 1552, had a special article against the literal
idea of the Millennium : " They that go about to revive
the fable of the heretics, called Millenarii, be repugnant
to Holy Scriptures and cast themselves headlong into
a Jewish dotage." 2
The doctrine of the Millennium, explained as the
personal reign of Christ with His saints on earth, was
revived in the seventeenth century. Joseph Mede (a.d.
1627) in his Clavis Apocalyptica advocated Millenarian
views, which had nearly become extinct in the Christian
Church. In Germany, after the strenuous op'position of
the Lutheran scholastics to the doctrine, a reaction
began with Spener, the founder of the Pietists ; but the
chief impulse to the revival of the doctrine was given
by the illustrious and saintly Bengel (a.d. 1740). The
chief importance of his system, according to Auberlen,
" consists in this, that he brought to light again a truth
of Scripture which had been misapprehended for nearly
fifteen centuries, namely, the doctrine of the Millennial
kingdom." 3 From that time numerous Millenarian
writers have arisen in the Christian Church, and have
advanced various theories concerning the personal reign
of Christ on earth.
1 Article XI. " Damnamus praeterea Judaica somnia, quod ante judicii
diem aureum in terris sit futurum seculum, et pii regna mundi occupaturi,
oppressis suis hostibus impiis."
* Article XLL, quoted in Wordsworth On the Apocalypse, p. 25, and by
Lee, Speaker's Commentary, N. T., vol. iv. p. 813.
3 Auberlen, Daniel und die Offenbarung- Johannis, p. 273, translation.

394 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
The modern school of the so-called Millenarians 1 gives
a literal interpretation to the prophetic language ; but
there is among them a vast variety of opinion concern
ing the precise nature of the Millennium. Almost all
of them, however, believe in the pre-millennial advent
of Christ ; in the first resurrection as a reality and
restricted to the saints ; in the personal appearance of
Christ and His reign with His saints a thousand years
before the resurrection of the wicked and the final
judgment ; and in the restoration of the earth to a
paradisiacal condition. A strong Jewish element is
discernible in most of the Millenarian writings : the
Jewish interpretation of the Messianic prophecies is not
only excused, but defended ; the Jewish tradition of the
seventh thousand year being the Millennium is adopted ;
the Jews will have the pre-eminence among the nations ;
and, according to many of these speculators, the Temple
of Jerusalem will be rebuilt, the old Levitical priest
hood will be established, and the various sacrifices and
distinctive rites of Judaism will be renewed.2 This
is certainly a return to what Paul terms " beggarly
elements." These opinions have been more or less held
and advocated by several clergymen, especially of the
Church of England ; as, for example, Elliott, Edward
Bickersteth, Birks, and Bishop Ryle. And although the
extravagant notions which are promulgated by several of
these writers are not adopted, yet a modified view of
1 We have in this, as in similar instances, to employ a name as a term
of designation, although not strictly appropriate.
2 "The temple worship," says Molyneux, "with its various rites and
ceremonies, will be restored, and sacrifices will again prevail."— Israel's
Future, p. 252.

THE MILLENNIUM. 395
the Millennium, including the personal reign of Christ
with His saints, is held by such distinguished German
theologians as Hofmann,1 Delitzsch, Kurtz, Beck,
Auberlen,2 and in our own country by Alford. " On
one point," observes Alford, " I have ventured to speak
strongly because my conviction on it is strong, founded
on the rules of fair and consistent interpretation. I
mean the necessity of accepting literally the first resur
rection and the Millennial reign." 3
It is unnecessary to give specimens of the views of
the modern Millenarians, showing the extent to which
they go and the extravagance of the opinions which
many of them entertain. We shall restrict ourselves to
the views of the Rev. E. B. Elliott, who has for long
been regarded as the great expounder of unfulfilled
prophecy, and, although his fame has now greatly waned,
is still the best representative of these views.4 We give
his words slightly condensed and without comment :
" It would seem that in this state of things and of feel
ing in professing Christendom, suddenly and unex
pectedly and conspicuous over the world, as the light
ning that shineth from the east even to the west, the
second advent and appearing of Christ will take place ;
that at the voice of the archangel and the trump of
1 Weissagung und Erfiillung, ii. p. 372 f.
2 Der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis.
3 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv., Prolegomena, p. 252 ; also on Rev.
xx. 4-6.
4 Whatever learning Elliott may display, yet we must call in question
the judgment and good sense of that interpreter of prophecy who gravely
affirms that the Reform Bill proceeded from the frog that came out of the
mouth of the dragon, and the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 from
the frog that came out of the mouth of the false prophet. Hore Apocalyp-
tice, vol. iv. pp. 29, 35, 2nd edit. ; pp. 31, 35, 3"* edit.

396 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
God the departed saints of either dispensation will rise
from their graves to meet the Lord all at once and in
the twinkling of an eye ; that then suddenly the saints
living at the time will be also caught up to meet Him
in the air ; these latter being separated from out of the
ungodly nations, as a shepherd divides his sheep from
his goats ; and all, both dead and living saints, changed
at the moment from corruption to incorruption, and all
welcomed to enter on the inheritance and kingdom
prepared for them from the foundation of the world.
Meanwhile it would also appear that with a tremen
dous earthquake the solid crust of this earth shall be
broken and fountains of liquid fire burst forth from
its inner depth, and engulph the vast territory of
Papal Babylon and the godless of its inhabitants ; thence
spreading to Palestine, making the very elements to
melt with fervent heat ; and that there the flame shall
consume Antichrist and his confederate kings, while the
sword also does its work of slaughter. And then im
mediately the renovation of this earth will take place ;
its soil being purified by the very action of the fire
for the nations of the saved, that is, the Gentile remnant
and restored Israel ; and the Spirit too poured out from
ou high to renew the moral face of Nature ; and that
thus the Millennial commencement of Christ's eternal
reign with His saints is to begin ; the Shekinah or
personal glory of Christ amidst His saints being mani
fested chiefly in the Holy Land and at Jerusalem, but
the whole earth partaking of the blessedness ; and thus
the regeneration of all things and the world's redemp
tion from the curse having their accomplishment accord-

THE MILLENNIUM. 397
ing to the promise at the manifestation of the sons of
God." x
There is no foundation in Scripture for the resurrec
tion of the saints and the personal reign of Christ before
the last judgment which shall terminate the present
economy. The sole passage on which it rests is found
in the obscurest book of Scripture, and is expressed in
enigmatical terms. There is indeed mention of a first
resurrection, but it is to be observed that it is not a
resurrection of all believers, but is expressly limited to
a particular class, namely, the martyrs and confessors —
to those that " had been beheaded for the testimony of
Jesus and for the word of God, and such as worshipped
not the beast, neither his image, and received not
the mark upon their foreheads and upon their hand"
(Rev. xx. 4). Nor is it a corporeal, but a spiritual resur
rection that is mentioned — a resurrection not of their
bodies, but of their souls. Nor is there any mention of
a personal reign of Christ on earth ; those who have
part in the first resurrection are to reign with Christ a
thousand years ; but whether this reign is to be on earth
or in heaven, whether it is to be literal or spiritual, is
not stated. The general consensus of Scripture is
entirely opposed to this idea of a literal reign of Christ
on earth with His saints. The second coming of Christ
is throughout Scripture connected with the final judg
ment. He shall appear a second time upon the earth,
and that for judgment. The resurrection shall occur
immediately before the judgment. All shall be raised
1 Here Apocalyptice, vol. iv. pp. 221-227, 2nd edit. ; pp. 224-231, 3rd
edit.

398 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
from their graves ; the righteous and the wicked shall
be summoned to appear before the tribunal of their
great Judge and King.
Other theologians, in their interpretation of the
Millennium, have revived the opinion of Augustine,
namely, that the Christian era is the Millennium; that
Christ by His advent into the world, and especially by
His death, effectually restrained the power of Satan ;
that He then caused Satan to. fall like lightning from
heaven (Luke x. 18) ; so that we are not to expect a
future Millennium, because we are actually living in it.
The period of a thousand years is not to be taken with
exact literalness, but denotes an indefinitely protracted
period ; in short, extends from the coming of Christ into
this world to the close of the Christian dispensation.
This opinion has been adopted by Bishop Wordsworth,
Archdeacon Lee, Bishop Boyd Carpenter, and other dis
tinguished theologians. Thus Archdeacon Lee observes :
" The reigning of the Church militant on earth, as well
as of the Church triumphant in heaven with Christ
since His incarnation, has been referred to in chap. v.
10. Hence it follows that it is only the faithful who
have been born since the date of the incarnation who
both live and reign with Christ." l And elsewhere he
says still more explicitly, " By the thousand years are
to be understood a long though finite duration, begin
ning from the first advent of Christ." 2 And Bishop
Wordsworth remarks : " The commencement of the
thousand years here mentioned, whatever that period
1 Speaker's Bible, N. T., vol. iv. p. 796, Excursus on the Millennium.
2 Ou Rev. xx. 2.

THE MILLENNIUM. 399
may signify, is to be dated from the first coming of
Christ."1 A modification of this notion, which may be termed
the Idealistic view of the Millennium, has recently been
advanced. According to this view, the thousand years
do not denote a period of time, but a quality. Like the
other mystic numbers of the Apocalypse, it must be
mystically interpreted ; it is the symbol of completion,
and refers to the complete victory of Christ over Satan.
Here the ideal state of the Church is represented ;
Satan is completely overcome ; believers reign with
Christ ; they are kings and priests unto God ; they are
raised to heavenly places with Christ Jesus. " The
vision," observes Professor Milligan, "describes no
period of blessedness to be enjoyed by the Church at
the close of the present dispensation. Alike negatively
and positively, we have simply an ideal state of results
effected by the Redeemer for His people, when for them
He lived and suffered and died and rose again. Thus
He bound Satan for them ; He cast him into .the abyss ;
He shut him in ; He sealed the abyss over him ; so
that against them he can effect nothing." " This is the
reign of a thousand years, and it is the portion of every
believer who in any age of the Church shares the life of
His risen and exalted Lord." 2
The supposition that the whole Christian era is the
Millennium cannot be defended. It is contrary to the
order of events as recorded in the prophecy. It is after
the series of events mentioned in the former part of the
1 Wordsworth's Greek Testament on Rev. xx. 1.
8 Milligan On the Revelation, pp. 347, 348.

400 THE APOCALPYSE OF JOHN.
book, after the destruction of Antichrist and the false
prophet, toward the close of the present dispensation,
that the Millennium is to occur. Besides the past
history of the world, its wars and vices, the fearful
atrocities which have been committed, and which rival
in enormity the crimes even of Nero or Domitian — as,
for example, the atrocities committed by Philip II. of
Spain and under the French Revolution of last century —
and the very limited influence of Christian principles,
forbid the supposition that the past Christian era is
the Millennium. " According to this view," observes
Bleek, " the times of the Middle Ages, with the greatest
splendour of the Papacy, and the age of the Reforma
tion as well as that after the Reformation, are supposed
indiscriminately to be the thousand years' kingdom,
including times when the most horrible deeds were
perpetrated by the Romish Church and other ruling
powers against true confessors of the Lord, as in the
wars against the Albigenses and Waldenses, against the
Huguenots, in the Inquisition, and the night of St.
Bartholomew, as well as many others." x The opinion
that those who are in possession of the benefits pur
chased by Christ are living in the Millennium is meagre
and inadequate to satisfy Christian aspiration. If we
are not permitted and' encouraged to look forward to a
purer and more glorious era — in a word, to a Millen
nium of a more exalted Christianity, to a truer and
more fully realised ideal — the victory of Christ must
appear less signal and complete.
We give our adherence to those who adopt a figura-
1 Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 102.

THE MILLENNIUM. 401
tive interpretation and the idea of a spiritual millen
nium. They who favour this opinion 1 believe that the
Millennium is entirely spiritual, and think that the
expressions used in the description of it are meta
phorical, and refer to a glorious revival of the Church
from a state of lethargy, or it may be of prevalent unbe
lief, to that zeal and constancy and faith and patience
which were displayed by the martyrs — a revival so
great that it may well be denominated a resurrection,
even " life from the dead." According to this view, it
is supposed that there is in store for the Church on
earth a protracted period of religious fervour, when not
only will Christianity become the religion of the world,
but when the spirit of Christianity will animate the
human race. Antichrist will be finally overcome ; the
power of Satan will be curtailed : he will no longer be
permitted to persecute the saints of the Most High ;
and the kingdoms of this world will become the king
doms of the Lord and of His Christ. The idea of the
first resurrection is explained by the words of our Lord.
He speaks of two resurrections — the one spiritual and
occurring in this life, " The hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God ; " the other corporeal 2 and occurring at the end
of the world, "The hour cometh in the which all that
are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall
come forth" (John v. 25, 28). "There are," observes
Augustine, "two resurrections — the one, the first and
1 So Urwiek, Dr. David Brown, Bishop Waldegrave, Bleek.
2 On the nature of the resurrection body, I may be permitted to refer
to my Treatise on the Resurrection, published several years ago, 1862, chap.
iii., " The nature of the raised body."
2 C

402 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
spiritual, which has place in this life, and preserves us
from coming into the second death ; the other, the
second, which does not occur now, but in the end of
the world, and which is of the body, not of the soul,
and which by the last judgment shall dismiss some into
the second death, and others into that life which has
no death." 1 " It is certain," observes Bleek, " that we
decide in accordance with the sense of the book itself,
when we consider the thousand years' kingdom as a
state of development belonging to the Church or king
dom of God, which has not yet appeared." 2
It is not supposed that all men during the Millennium
will become true believers, or that the corrupt tendencies
in human nature will then be destroyed.3 The tares
and the wheat will grow up together until the harvest.
There will always be a mixture of the righteous and the
wicked. But during the Millennium the righteous will
be in the great majority, and their influence will, be
predominant. At the close of the thousand years, we
are informed there will be a strong reaction of the
powers of evil. The restraint under which Satan was.
kept will be removed ; he will be loosed out of his
prison, and shall come forth to deceive the nations,
and shall seduce multitudes countless as the sand of
the sea (Rev. xx. 7, 8) ; and shall become so bold and
fierce in depravity as to aim at the destruction of the
saints. Hence those who adopt the spiritual view of
1 Augustine, Civitas Dei, xx. 6.
2 Bleek's Lectures on the Apocalypse, p. 102.
3 "Not only," observes Dr. Simcox, "does the natural order of the world
go on ; but there must be some sort of moral evil remaining to account for
the end of this age of peace."

THE MILLENNIUM. 403
the Millennium suppose that throughout the whole
period there will always be some who will remain un
believers ; that these will gradually increase in numbers
and importance as the Millennium draws to a close,
until at length they shall become so numerous as to
contend with believers for the mastery. The greater
the restraints which are placed upon wickedness and
wicked men, so much the more violent will be the
reaction when these restraints are removed. Just as
in England, the strict and severe age of the Puritans
was succeeded by the most licentious age that has ever
disgraced the annals of our country ; so, in a similar man
ner, it is supposed that the age of millennial purity will
be succeeded by an era of lawless depravity and irreligion.
There is considerable variety of opinion as to the
duration of the Millennium. In the Apocalypse it is
said to last for a thousand years. This also accords
with the Jewish notion of the Millennium. Some, we
have seen, deny that a period is stated at all. Others
understand the thousand years literally as ordinary
years. Others interpret them prophetically, according
to the year-day system, a day being taken for a year ;
and accordingly they believe that the Millennium will
in reality last 365,000 years. Nor is the vastness of
this period any objection ; for geology has disclosed to
us as vast cycles in the past, and " one day is with the
Lord as a thousand years." But perhaps a large number
is here used to denote an indefinitely long period, and
that the meaning is that this prosperous state of the
Church will continue for a very long space of time.
The time of the Millennium has also been a matter of

404 THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN.
much discussion. Grotius x and Hengstenberg 2 consider
that it is past ; Lee, Wordsworth, Boyd Carpenter, and
Milligan think that it is present ; but the great majority
of writers on the subject regard it as future.3 Those
writers who are designated Millenarians generally con
sider the time as at hand. Some mark the signs of the
times, national, political, and religious, which, as they
think, prognosticate the coming of Christ. Some have
even the temerity to fix upon the precise year, and to
determine the precise date of that day which our Lord
Himself tells us no man knoweth, not even the angels
which are in heaven. Thus Bengel fixed upon the year
1 836.* Elliott, in one portion of his work, fixes on
the year 1865 or thereabouts as the probable epoch of
the consummation ; and in another part of his work he
says, " The end of the six thousand years of the world,
and the opening of the seventh millennium by approxi
mation, will be about a.d. 1862; the same year, very
nearly, that we before fixed on as the epoch of the con
summation, on quite different data." 5 Such calculations
are both extravagant and presumptuous, directly opposed
to the rebuke which our Lord administered to His
disciples when He said, " It is not for you to know
times or seasons which the Father hath set within His
own authority " (Acts i. 7).
1 According to Grotius, the Millennium extended from the fourth to the
fourteenth century.
2 Hengstenberg makes the Millennium to extend from the Christianis
ing of the German nations to the downfall of the German Empire.
3 From these are of course excluded those German theologians who
regard the Apocalypse as containing fallacious expectations.
4 Auberlen, Daniel and the Revelation, p. 369.
6 Here Apocalyptice, vol. iv. p. 252 and p. 260, 2nd edit.; p. 255 and
264, 3rd edit.

THE MILLENNIUM. 405
Viewing the matter in one light, the time appears far
distant. The world is far removed from a state of millen
nial purity ; the greater portion of it has yet to be Chris
tianised ; there is no abatement of wars and rumours
of wars — no symptoms of universal peace ; infidelity
appears to be on the increase, and to be closely bound
up with the great socialistic upheaval on the Continent ;
and the character of many who profess Christianity show
how little they are influenced by its spirit. If religion
progresses at the rate it has hitherto done in the past,
it will take thousands of years before the Millennium
occurs. But viewing things in another light, there are
more pleasing signs. There are symptoms of a more
rapid spiritual progress. The different Churches have
been stirred up to greater zeal in the cause of missions ;
the Bible has been translated into almost every tongue ;
countries, formerly closed, are now thrown open for the
reception of the Gospel; districts, concealed for thousands
of years, have now been explored ; the means of com
munication between different nations have been amaz
ingly increased ; tyranny has been shaken on its throne,
and religious toleration is now recognised by the nations
of Europe. This age is peculiarly an age of progress, and
who knows but that these things maybe the forerunners
of a glorious revival of religion, a great spiritual resur
rection, and may usher in the morning of that glorious
day when the world will be filled with His glory, and
when all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of
our God.

CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
INFLUENCE OF ST. JOHN ON CHRISTIANITY.1
Liteeatuke. — The influence of John on Christianity is a subject
which requires yet to be discussed. The following works may be
mentioned : — i. On the conciliatory character of the Fourth Gospel :
Baur's Geschichte der Christlichen Kirche, erster Band, pp. 44-50
and pp. 94-100 (Tubingen, 1863; dritte Ausgabe, English transla
tion, vol. i. pp. 44-56 and 84-107); Eitschl, Die Entstehung der
altkatholischen Kirche (Bonn, 1857, zweite Auflage); Keuss' History
of Christian Doctrine; Schaff's Apostolic Times; Schaff's Church
History, vol. i. pp. 74-86 ; Weiss' Biblical Theology, vol. ii. pp. 312-
323. 2. "On the Mystics : Kahnis' History of German Protestantism
(translation, Edinburgh, 1856) ; Dorner's History of Protestant
Theology ; Stowell on the Work of the Holy Spirit ; Eitschl's History
of Pietism. 3. On the Theology of the Inner Life : Schleiermacher's
Reden and Der Christliche Glaube; Lichtenberger's History of
German Theology of the Nineteenth Century ; Pfleiderer's Develop
ment of Theology ; Articles on Schleiermacher by Gass in Herzog' s
Real-Encyklopadie, and by Schaff in Encyclopaedia of Biblical Theo
logy ; Maurice's Theological Essays.
According to the hypothesis of Baur and the Tubingen
school, there are taught in the New Testament several
phases, systems, or types of Christian doctrine, two of
which are sharply antagonistic. In particular, there is
a Jewish or Petrine Christianity, inculcated by Peter
1 A work on the influence of John, similar to that of Ffleiderer's Hibbert
Lectures for 1885 on the influence of Faul, is greatly to be desired.
406

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 407
and James, and by John in the Apocalypse, the three
Apostles of the circumcision, which required from the
Gentiles obedience to the law of Moses, and which was
represented, at least in its extreme form, by the views
of those Judaising teachers who were the opponents of
the Apostle Paul. According to this system, a man was
justified by the works of the law in combination with
faith in the Gospel. And there is also a Gentile or
Pauline Christianity, inculcated by Paul, the Apostle of
the uncircumcision, which relieved the Gentiles from obed
ience to the ceremonial law of Moses, and which is espe
cially taught in the Epistle to the Galatians. According
to this system, the ceremonial portion of the Mosaic law
was abolished, and a man was justified by faith without
the deeds of the law. Between these two systems there
was not only a difference, but an antagonism : the Gospel
of the circumcision was opposed to the Gospel of the uncir
cumcision, and hence the Christian Church was in immi
nent danger of being split up into two factions or sects.1
The Council of Jerusalem, it is maintained, where the
question of the imposition of the Jewish law on the
Gentiles was discussed, did not settle it, but the con
clusion arrived at was of the nature of a compromise.
The Jewish Christians agreed not to enforce circumcision
on the Gentiles, whilst the Gentile Christians consented
to certain legal restrictions to conciliate the Jews,
and the representatives of the two systems agreed
not to interfere with each others teaching; the one
1 See Baur's Geschichte der Christlichen Kirche, vol. i. p. 44 ff. ; English
translation, vol. i. p. 44 ff. Also the admirable dissertation of Bishop
Lightfoot, " St. Faul and the Three," Commentary on the Galatians, pp.
283-355, third edition.

4o8 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
was to go to the circumcision, and the other to the
uncircumcision (Acts xv. 18-20; Galatians ii. 9, 10).
" The three principal representatives of the Church of
Jerusalem did indeed give to Paul and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship, but the agreement which was
arrived at consisted simply in recognising that each
party had a right to go his own way, separate from and
independent of the other. Thus there were now two
Gospels — a Gospel of the circumcision, and a Gospel of
the uncircumcision, a mission to the Jews, and a mission
to the Gentiles. The two were to go on side by side,
separate and independent, without crossing each other's
path. ... So decided an attitude of opposition did the
two standpoints now assume ; on the one side was the
Apostle Paul, refusing with immovable firmness to be
shaken, even for a moment, on any point which his
principles required him to maintain, or to yield any
compliance to the proposals addressed to him ; on the
other side, were the older Apostles, clinging tenaciously
to their Judaism." x This antagonism between Jewish
and Gentile Christianity, according to this view, con
tinued throughout the whole of the apostolic age, at
least until the death of Paul. We see not only traces
of it, but proofs of its inveteracy in the conduct of
those Judaising teachers,2 who dogged the footsteps of
the Apostle of the Gentiles.
In process of time, however, according to the Tubingen
school, this antagonism by degrees disappeared, and
Jewish and Gentile Christianity were united in Catholic
1 Baur's Kirchliche Geschichte, vol. i. p. 51 ; Eng. trans., pp. 53, 54.
* Baur held that these Judaising teachers were not heretics, but disciples,
if not even actual emissaries, of the Apostles of Jerusalem.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 4o9
Christianity.1 Various causes combined to produce this
reconciliation. The opposition of the Roman Empire
without, and the growth of Gnostic heresies within
the Church, made it essential, for the existence of
Christianity, that a reconciliation should take place, and
that the Church should display a united front against
its foes. The destruction of Jerusalem made the Jewish
Christians less persistent in maintaining their peculi
arities, and the death of Paul lessened the opposition
to Judaism among his followers. " In view," observes
Pfleiderer, " of the growing dangers from without and
within, the most urgent task put before the Christian
Church of the first half of the second century, was to
reconcile, in complete ecclesiastical unity, Jewish and
Gentile Christians, and at the same time to give stable
organisation to the Church by the development of its
offices, as representative of ecclesiastical tradition and
authority." 2 Each system was modified, and the points
of difference between them were toned down ; one anta
gonistic element after another was abandoned; and at
length the reconciliation was effected on the principles laid
down in the Gospel and Epistles of John.3 On the one
hand, the change through which Jewish Christianity lost
its original form consisted in this, that after the Temple
of Jerusalem was destroyed the outward observance of
the Jewish ceremonial law was no longer insisted on,
1 Idem, pp. 94 ff., Die Vermittlung ; Eng. trans, p. 99 ff., "The Recon
ciliation." 2 Pfleiderer's Hibbert Lectures for 1885, p. 247 ; see also Purves' Testimony
of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity, p. 83.
3 The reconciliation was supposed to be largely effected by the rite of
baptism becoming the substitute for circumcision. Baur's Church History,
vol. i. pp. 105-109,

410 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
and the works requisite for salvation were not the external
works of the law, but works springing from a sanctified
disposition, from a principle of love, and from a new life
implanted in the soul. On the other hand, the faith re
quired by Paulinism was not regarded exclusively as faith
in the atonement of Christ, but as faith in a wider sense
in its relation to God, a faith seen in absolute dependence
on God, actuated by love, and indeed almost transformed
into love. "The Jewish-Christian and the Pauline
doctrine," observes Baur, "are here (in John's Gospel)
blended together in a higher unity. Faith has the
same inwardness in which its value consists with Paul ;
but its object is not the death of Jesus, with its efficacy
for the forgiveness of sins, but the whole Person of
Jesus as the incarnate Logos; or since Jesus, as One
sent, cannot be thought of apart from His intimate
oneness with Him who sends Him, the object of faith is
God Himself." "Faith and works are merged in love,
their higher unity." l Hence then love was the recon
ciling factor, and this is prominently brought forward in
the Johannine writings. Thus the Gospel of John was,
in a pre-eminent sense, the Gospel of reconciliation ;
in it Christianity found its unity; the discordant
elements disappeared, and a Catholic Church was the
result ; Petrinism and Paulinism were merged, in Johan
nine Catholicism.
A modification of this hypothesis of Baur, and which
is the view now generally adopted by the Tubingen
school, was advanced by Ritschl. He maintained that
1 Baur's Kirchliche Geschichte, vol. i. p. 171 ; Eng. trans., vol. i. pp.
178, 179.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 411
Jewish Christianity gradually disappeared in conse
quence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the secession
of the Ebionites, the extreme Jewish Christians, from
the Christian Church ; and that consequently Catholic
Christianity was not the result of any compromise.
Gentile Christianity or Paulinism was gradually toned
down in the course of events. " We affirm," he observes,
" that Catholic Christianity did not arise from a recon
ciliation of Jewish and Gentile Christians, but that it
was a stage of Gentile Christianity alone." x According
to Ritschl, the change that took place in Paulinism was
that " faith ceased to be subjective faith in the atoning
death of Christ apart from the law ; to it was added
the observance of the divine will, or of the law of Christ,
as a means of justification, redemption, and salvation in
a legal sense." Baur maintains that the reconciliation
took place by both tendencies approaching each other ;
whilst Ritschl's position is that it arose from a develop
ment of Gentile Christianity, without assuming a com
promise with Jewish principles.2
This hypothesis of Baur is marked by much ingenuity,
learning1, and critical acumen, and is carried out with
remarkable ability and consistency. It has greatly
influenced our views of Biblical theology. There are in
it elements of truth, but these elements are distorted
by exaggeration. It is undoubtedly true that there are
several distinct systems of doctrine in the New Testament,
and we are considerably indebted to Baur for bringing
1 Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, p. 23.
s Ritschl held that Baur's assumption regarding the antagonism between
Pauline and Petrine Christianity at least enormously exaggerated its
magnitude, its influence on the Canon, and its duration.

4i2 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
this fact prominently forward.1 There are writings
which may be considered as more pervaded by Jewish
elements, as, for example, the Epistle of James, which is
apparently addressed to Jewish Christians; and there
are writings which may be regarded as more pervaded by
Gentile elements, as, for example, the Pauline Epistles.
But whilst this variety of doctrinal types is admitted,
there is no antagonism between these two sets of writ
ings ; there are no traces of two opposing kinds of
Christianity, either in the New Testament itself, or,
with the exception of the Clementines and certain other
heretical books, in the recognised writings of the Fathers.
In the writings of Justin Martyr, for example, one of
the earliest of the Fathers, there are no traces of this
antagonism.2 It has been proved that the writers of
the New Testament look upon the same truths from
different standpoints, and that the variety in their
views only discloses the fulness and many-sidedness of
revelation. Further, we admit with Baur that there are three dif
ferent phases of Christian doctrine, namely, the Petrine,
or, we would rather say, the Jacobean, the Pauline, and
the Johannine, as seen in the Epistle of James, the
Pauline Epistles, and the Johannine writings. Each of
1 It must, however, be remembered that the science of Biblical theology,
which consists in the consideration of the different types of doctrine in the
New Testament, is much older than Baur. Neander, especially, had before
Baur considered the pyschological differences of the inspired writers. Baur,
by his views, brought the subject into greater prominence. He exagge
rated the ' differences, and explained them, not by the personality of the
writers, but by party spirit.
2 See on this point some excellent remarks in Purves' Testimony of Justin
Martyr to Early Christianity, Lecture iii., " The Testimony of Justin
Martyr to the Relations of Gentile and Jewish Christianity."

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 413
these possesses a separate and distinct character. It is
a remarkable fact that these writings belong to different
times, and represent different stages in the growth or
development of Christianity. The Epistle of James, as
is now generally admitted, is the earliest book of the
New Testament, unless a priority be assigned to the
Gospel of Matthew, to which it bears a close resem
blance, when Christianity was chiefly confined to the
Jewish nation ; the Pauline Epistles succeed, following
on the extension of Christianity to the Gentiles ; whilst
the writings of John were the last of the sacred books,
and represent the full growth of Apostolic teaching.
"They run parallel," observes Dr. Schaff, "with the
three sections of the history of missions — the Jewish
mission centering in Jerusalem, the Gentile mission with
its seat in Antioch, and the activity of John, which took
up, and combined, and completed these two, and had
its centre in Ephesus." 1 Others add a fourth phase of
Christian doctrine, the Petrine ; but Petrine theology,
as contained in the two Epistles of Peter, with the ex
ception of his eschatological views, is less definite and
less developed than the other three. It is intermediate
between the Jacobean and the Pauline systems.2
Baur's representation of these three systems, as repre
senting the Jewish, the Gentile, and the Catholic phases
of Christianity, has a certain degree of truth in it. The
1 Schaff's Apostolic Times, vol. ii. p. 316.
2 Besides these Apostolic types of Christian doctrine, there is also to be
added what may be termed the Synoptic type of doctrine, or the doctrine
of Jesus according to the Synoptists. This, however, is not properly a
separate type of doctrine, as it contains in germ what was fully developed
in the Apostolic writings. See Weiss' Biblical Theology, part i. ; Bruce's
Kingdom of God.

414 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
Jacobean may be called a Jewish Christian theology ;
here the chief element is works or evangelical obedience.
The Jewish law is spiritualised ; Christianity is the deve
lopment of Judaism, the obedience required is that which
arises from a living faith. The Pauline may be called
a Gentile Christian theology ; here the chief element is
faith. Christianity is regarded as a new creation ; man1
can only be saved by a living faith in Christ, by a faith
which evidences its reality by a holy disposition — a faith
which is actuated by love. The Johannine may be
called a Catholic Christian theology, as it embraces the
other two ; here the chief element is love, a love which
embraces both works and faith, the holy disposition
which the Gospel seeks to produce. Here Christian
ity attains its full development. In a certain sense
Johannine theology may be considered as a higher stage
than either the Jacobean or the Pauline.1 " As James
and Peter," observes Neander, " mark the gradual tran
sition from spiritualised. Judaism to the independent
development of Christianity, and as Paul represents the
independent development of Christianity in opposition to
the Jewish standpoint, so the reconciling contemplative
element of John forms the closing point in the training
of the Apostolic Church." 2 There is, it is admitted, a
certain development of ' Christianity traceable in the
writings of the New Testament, but nothing approach-
1 " If Peter was appointed by the Lord to lay the foundation of the
Apostolic Church, and Paul to build the main structure thereon, John, the
Apostle of completion, was to erect the dome, whose top should lose itself
in the glory of the new heaven."— Schaff's History of the Christian Church,
vol. i. p. 78.
2 Neander's Planting of Christianity, vol. ii., p. 57, Bohn's edition.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 415
ing to that antagonism so prominently advanced by
Baur and the Tubingen school, the assumption of which
lies at the foundation of their theological system.
Such, then, is the importance of the Johannine writ
ings as regards apostolic Christianity. There is a catho
licity about them ; they unite both Jewish and Gentile
Christianity. Their influence upon the post-apostolic
Christian Church has next to be considered.. There are
especially four elements which pervade Johannine theo
logy, and which have influenced, in a greater or less
degree, and at different periods, the Christian Church.
1. Love is the key-note of the Johannine writings ; John
is in a pre-eminent sense the apostle of love. The obed
ience inculcated by James, and the faith insisted on by
Paul, find their union in the love dwelt upon by John.
2. The inner life is another characteristic feature of
Johannine theology ; the religion here inculcated is more
a religion of feeling than either of action or of the
reason. A spiritual life is implanted within the soul,
and finds its realisation in the contemplation of God and
communion with Him. This life consists in union with
Christ,, and. through Him with God the Father, and is
Eternal Life begun on earth.1 3. The Fatherhood of
God is a third great truth brought prominently forward
by John. God is the. Father of Christ, and through
Him the Father of all believers. His love is that of a
Father, and His dealings with us are those of a Father
to his children. The recognition of the Fatherhood of
God is the source of all strength and comfort in the
1 This feature is closely connected with the mysticism of John, adverted
to in next paragraph.

4i 6 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
religious life. 4.. But especially the doctrine of the
Logos — His pre-existence and operations in pre-Chris
tian times, His incarnation in the Person of Jesus Christ,
and His being at once the Light of the world and the
Life of men, constitutes a prominent part of the teach
ing of John.
Along with these characteristic ideas, there is another
peculiarity of Johannine theology to which we have also
made special reference, which has exercised much influ
ence on the Christian Church, and that is its mysticism.1
" The principal characteristic of mystic theology," ob
serves Reuss, "is that of directness, of intuition, as
opposed to reflection, dialectic demonstration, which is
the leading feature of all non-mystical or rational theo
logy. ... It is the essence of mysticism to foster feeling
rather than reflection." 2 The three leading ideas — Light,
Life, and Love — which pervade the writings of John
are connected with mystical theology. " God is Light,
and in Him is no darkness at all" (r Johni. 5) ; and our
Lord Himself declares, " I am the Light of the world "
(John viii. 12; ix. 5). God is Life, and Christ is the mani
festation of that divine Life : " In Him was Life, and the
Life was the Light of men " (John i. 4). God is Love
( 1 John iv. 8) ; and Christ is the incarnation of Love, the
descent of Love into this world. These three — Light,
Life, and Love — which properly speaking are not the
properties or attributes of God, but constitute His
essence, are seen in the incarnation of the Logos in the
Person of Jesus Christ. And, in consequence of our
1 See supra, pp. 239, 240.
2 Reuss' History of Christian Theology, vol. ii. pp. 376, 377.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 417
union with Christ, we are made partakers of these pro
perties : we walk in the Light as He is in the Light, we
are made partakers of the new Life, and Love is the
essence of our Christian character. So also, as we have
had frequent occasion to remark, the theology of John
is chiefly internal ; it is the religion of the inner life ;
of that life which, as Paul says, is " hid with Christ in
God " (Col. iii. 2). It is the ideal conception of Chris
tianity; salvation is already accomplished; he that is born
of God sinneth not ; eternal life is already conferred on
believers ; the future is lost sight of in the present ; or
rather, the present is so highly idealised that the future
is in a considerable measure overlooked ; along with a
future there is a present resurrection and a present judg
ment ; all these are elements of a mystical character.
Now it is these characteristic ideas of John — the pre
eminence of love, the inner life, the Fatherhood of God,
and especially the Logos as the Light and Life of men,
combined with this high mysticism, that is the secret of
his influence on Christianity. That influence has not
been so marked, so powerful, so all-pervading, or so
continuous as that of the Apostle Paul ; probably be
cause John's theology has not been so fully understood
and realised, inasmuch as. it addresses itself to the heart
rather than to the intellect, and demands a congeniality
of spirit with John before we can fully enter into his
views. When, however, we consult the writings of the
early Fathers, we clearly discern the influence of John's
teaching, especially on those who were of a philosophical
turn of mind. Justin Martyr, who before his con
version was an eclectic philosopher, and who never laid
2 D

4i 8 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
aside the dress of a philosopher, does not indeed directly
mention John, but his doctrine of the Logos is evidently
taken not from Philo, but from the Fourth Gospel.
According to Justin, the Logos is of the same essence
with the Father, yet distinct from Him ; He was before
all creatures ; He was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth ;
He was born, baptized, suffered, died, and rose again
for us men and for our salvation.1 Especially does
Justin insist on the Logos as influencing the thoughts
of the heathen philosophers and as the cause of their
virtues. All that is true and beautiful in them must be
traced to the Logos as the Life of men. The Logos
through Socrates condemned the errors of the Greek
religion.2 Whatever either lawgivers or philosophers
uttered well, was done by them through a contemplation
of the Logos ; but since they did not recognise all the
teachings of the Logos, who is Christ, they often con
tradicted each other.3 All these writers were able to
see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted
Logos who was in them.4 Irenseus quotes more from
John than from any of the other writers of the New
Testament, and his theology is largely pervaded with
Johannine ideas.
But especially the Alexandrian school of theology, re
presented by Pantsenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen,
and Dionysius, drew largely from the writings of John,
and imbibed much of his spirit in their theology. They
especially insisted on the Logos, actuating those who
lived before the Christian era, as the Light and Life of
1 Purves's Testimony of Justin Martyr. Lecture iv. "Influence of Philo
sophy on Early Christianity." Hatch's Hibbert 'Lectures, pp. 261-268.
3 Justin, Apol, i. 5. 3 Apol, ii. 10. * Apol, ii. 13.

Sr. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 419
men. Clement affirmed that Christianity is the heir of
all past time and the interpreter of the future ; that
heathen philosophy, as well as Judaism, was an in
structor to bring men to Christ.1 Origen, especially, was
deeply imbued with the Johannine spirit. He calls the
Fourth Gospel " the main Gospel," and says that those
only can comprehend it who lean on the bosom of
Jesus, and there imbibe the spirit of John, just as he
imbibed the spirit of Christ.2 The Alexandrian school
perverted the mysticism of John, as if there were an
exoteric system of doctrine for Christians in general,
and an esoteric system for the initiated, resembling the
heathen mysteries. The early Greek Church of the
fifth and sixth centuries, the Church of Gregory of
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, and
Chrysostom, may be considered as Johannine, being
pervaded by the spirit of John rather than by the spirit
of Paul or of James.
Augustine, however, the great theologian of the
Western Church, and whose influence there was para
mount, is a representative not of Johannine, but of
Pauline theology. He indeed wrote a long commentary
on the Gospel of John with a just appreciation of the
spirit of John and full of lofty conceptions, but never
theless* his doctrines are derived chiefly from the
Epistles of Paul. His influence extended throughout
the Middle Ages, and, for this among other reasons,
during that period Johannine theology was in a measure
overlooked and neglected in the Western Church. The
1 The idea of the Logos influencing the thoughts and lives of the heathen
philosophers pervades the writings of Clement.
2 See also supra, p. 77.

420 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
theology of the Romish Church is rather Jacobean than
either Pauline or 'Johannine ; the letter prevailed over
the spirit; works rather than faith or love were re
garded as the predominant feature of Christianity.1
Mysticism in all its different forms2 derives its in
spiration chiefly from the writings of John. In the
Middle Ages mysticism was a reaction against scholas
ticism . and worldliness. Men and women withdrew
from the world, and cultivated in monasteries and
nunneries a purely subjective piety. In the hymns
of St. Bernard the influence of John is predominant.
Tauler3 and Thomas a Kempis are examples of high-
toned mystic piety; and the work of the latter, the
"Imitation of Christ," pervaded throughout with the
spirit of John, has been translated into all the languages
of Europe,4 and nourished the inner spiritual life of
multitudes. After the Reformation mysticism was a
reaction against formalism and a stiff and barren
orthodoxy. In Germany there arose the school of the
Pietists — Spener, Joachim Lange, Francke, Arndt, and
OEtinger — men elevated above ordinary Christians, who
cultivated communion with God, whose religion was
that of the heart, and who were absorbed in the love
1 The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith was in the Romish
Church overwhelmed by a heap of carnal ordinances and services. It was
not until the Reformation that Paulinism was revived.
2 Stowell distinguishes four forms of mysticism: I. Speculative mysticism,
as represented by Tauler and Coleridge. 2. Contemplative mysticism,
represented by the Quietists of France. 3. Imaginative mysticism, repre
sented by Swedenborg. 4. Practical mysticism, represented by Ignatius
Loyola. Stowell's Work of the Spirit, pp. 193-229.
3 Tauler, born about 1294, was the great preacher among the Mystics.
4 Next to the Bible, the " Imitation of Christ " is the most universally
translated book in the world. It is said that in 1828 its various editions
and translations amounted to two thousand.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 421
of God. Their mysticism was more of a contemplative
than of an ecstatic nature, and found its exercise in
prayer, the study of the Scriptures, and devout con
templation.1 The Jansenists and the Quietists of
France — Fdnelon andMadame Guyon — are also examples
of Johannine Christians. Swedenborg and his followers
derived their mysticism more from the Apocalypse than
from the Gospel of John. The English Mystics, such
as the Quakers of the seventeenth and the Methodists
of the eighteenth century, were more influenced by the
teaching of John than by that of Paul or of James.
There are all the other mystic sects, who, notwithstand
ing much that is extravagant, command our admiration
for their devotion and high-toned piety. The charac
teristic element in all these systems was the Johannine
idea of the inner life — that Christ, as the Light of the
world, dwelt in their hearts. All these, among whom-
religion was contemplative and internal, are certainly
the offshoots of Johannine Christianity.
Protestantism, generally considered, was the evolu
tion of Paulinism ; it was the revival of the theology
of Augustine ; it drew largely from the intellect ; it
expressed itself in formulated systems of doctrine, and,
accordingly, was less amenable to the influence of
John. Both Luther and Calvin, the two great theolo
gians of Protestantism, were Pauline Christians. The
doctrine of justification by faith was the root-idea of
the systems of both.2 Hence, a century or two after
1 See Kahnis' History of German Protestantism, p. 97 ff, English trans
lation. 2 According to Luthardt, the centre of Lutheranism is justification by
faith, and of Calvinism the sovereignty of God.

422 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION,
the Reformation, the Church drifted into rationalism,
which was the perversion of Paulinism, or settled down
into a barren orthodoxy : the intellect was cultivated,
whilst the heart was neglected. '
A revival of Johannine theology took place at the
commencement of this century in Germany, chiefly
under the influence of Schleiermacher, a revival which
has spread into this country, and has, for a time at
least, materially influenced our theology. Those who
belong to this school place the greatest stress on Chris
tianity as the infusion of a new life into humanity.
Christ, as the Life of the world, came to impart this
life to the human race. Christianity was with them
chiefly internal ; religion is neither knowledge, nor
willing, nor action, but- feeling, and especially the feeling
of dependence.1 Hence, they do not lay stress upon
what is external in religion ; with them the evidences
of Christianity are internal rather than external ; these
do not consist so much in miracles and prophecies as in
the experience of the truth and in its adaptation to
the Christian consciousness. We must feel the truth
in order to know and believe it. With the heart,
rather than with the intellect, man believeth unto
righteousness. Friedrich Schleiermacher (born 1768, died 1834),
is considered by his admirers, next to Calvin, as the
greatest of modern theologians, and as the founder
of German theology of the nineteenth century. " As
a theologian," observes Schaff, " he ranks among the
1 Kahnis calls the theology of the school " Die Dogmatik des religiosen
Gefiihls."

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 423
greatest of all ages." As Calvin was the interpreter of
Pauline theology, so Schleiermacher is the interpreter
of Johannine theology. He imparted new life into
German theology when it was in a morbid condition,
wavering between an ossified traditionalism and a life
less rationalism. He broke the spell of both, and, as a
creative genius, introduced a new era in the study of
theology. His celebrated Discourses on Religion ad
dressed to the Educated among its Despisers x appeared
in 1799, at a time when intellectual Germany could
hardly be called Christian, and when theology as taught
in the colleges, and religion as inculcated from the
pulpit, was almost entirely negative. These discourses
made a great stir in Germany, and many of the
most illustrious men of that age drew from them their
first impressions of religion. Schleiermacher brought
Christian theology prominently to the front, not only
as the highest of all sciences, but as a spiritual crea
tion. Schleiermacher combined a critical spirit with ardent
piety. He had himself passed through a great spiritual
crisis of religious doubt, and used to call a strange
scepticism his thorn in the flesh, from which he never
entirely obtained deliverance. The writings of John
were his chief study, and from them he derived his
inspiration. His love for the Saviour was intense, and
he regarded Christ's life in the soul as the essence not
only of all true Christian life, but of the spiritual life
of the world in all the departments of the arts , and
sciences. He adopted as his keynote the words of John,
1 Reden iiber Religion an die Gebildeten unter ihren Verachtern.

424 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
that in Christ was " life, and the life was the light of
man."1 No man has been more differently judged than
Schleiermacher. Some question his claims to be a great
Christian theologian. The most opposite views have
been taken of his opinions. He has been regarded as a
pietist, a rationalist, a pantheist,2 and even an atheist.
Others consider him as the greatest theologian who has
arisen since the days of the Apostles. It is admitted
that his theology was in many respects defective, hazy,
and mixed with much that is erroneous. Like John the
Baptist, he pointed out the new era, but he did not
himself enter upon it ; his position in the German
Church was like that of Origen in the Greek Church,
the greatest among the Fathers, yet the most assailed.3
Toward the close of his life his opinions became clearer
and more evangelical. His scientific theological system
may have been ambiguous, inadequate, and imperfect;
but, on the other hand, his sermons, which have been
translated,4 are evangelical in their tone ; in them he
distinctly maintains the great fundamental truths of
1 See an interesting and affecting account of the death of Schleiermacher
in Liicke's Reminiscences of Schleiermacher, prefixed to the English transla
tion of the Outlines of Theology, pp. 84, 85 ; also Life and Letters of Schleier
macher, by Frederica Rowan, translated from the German.
2 That his philosophy was pantheistic has been alleged by a host of
writers in his day ; but this charge he indignantly repudiates. See Send-
schreiben an Liicke.
5 For the theological views of Schleiermacher see Kahnis' History of
German Protestantism, p. 204 ff. ; Schwarz, Die Geschichte der neuesten
Theologie, 1856, p. 28 ff. ; Lichtenberger, History of German Theology, pp.
101-165 ; Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 103 ff. For an apprecia
tive account of Schleiermacher and his views see article on him in Herzogfs
Real-Encyklopadie, by Gass.
4 Selected Sermons of Schleiermacher. London : Hodder & Stoughton,
1890.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 425
Christianity, and avows his belief in the bodily resur
rection of our Lord;1 they are the discourses not of
one who is groping in the darkness, but of one who has
found the truth. His great personality has made a last
ing impression upon the age. His followers have gone
beyond him in the direction of more positive and
evangelical statements. The school of Schleiermacher
numbers among its disciples the most distinguished
theologians of Germany of the past age belonging to
the positive school : Neander, Twesten, Liicke, Nitzseh,
Dorner, Ullmann, Bleek, Julius Muller, Tholuck, Hof
mann, Harless, Rothe, Lechler, Frank (of Erlangen),
and many others were more or less influenced by his
opinions.2 Neander especially, by his vast learning, his
Platonic spirit, his innate perception of the truth, his
intense devotion, his childlike disposition, his simplicity
combined with profundity, and his entire forgetfulness
of self, was perhaps the noblest example of a Johannine
Christian. The maxim on which he acted was, " It is
the heart that makes the theologian." 3
1 It has been often asserted that Schleiermacher did not believe in the
fact of Christ's resurrection ; but in Sermon XV., " Christ's Resurrection,
an Image of our New Life," this is distinctly asserted.
2 " The object of Schleiermacher," observes Kahnis, " was not to found a
school, but to stimulate, and that he gained ina most extraordinary degree.
One can well imagine what an influence such a man, in connection with
De Wette and Neander, must have exercised on the immediate sphere of his
activity. In the newly-founded University of Bonn, Nitzseh, Bleek, and
Sack laboured together in the spirit of Schleiermacher. In Breslau Gass
was the practical echo of his friend. Liicke in Gottingen and Schweizer,
now in Zurich, followed entirely in the steps of the master. And how
large is the number of theologians on whom Schleiermacher has exerted a
decisive influence. We mention only Baumgarten Crusius, Hase, Ull
mann, Tholuck, Muller, Rothe, Dorner." — History of German Protestantism,
p. 243.
3 Pectus est quod facit theologum.

426 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION..
In England a similar revival of Johannine theology,
as distinguished from Paulinism — a subjective rather
than an objective theology — the religion of feeling
rather than of the intellect, arose. ' Coleridge was among
the first who gave emphasis to this phase of religious
life. With him Christianity consisted not so much in
the belief of certain dogmas, as in an inner personal
experience of spiritual life — in a Christian conscious
ness.1 " The affinity of his theology with Schleier-
macher's," observes Pfleiderer, " especially as represented
by the conservative wing of Schleiermacher's school,
strikes the student at once." 2 But the great representa
tive of the theology of feeling is Frederick Denison
Maurice, who may well be denominated the English
Schleiermacher. He also imbibed to a large extent the
spirit of John. He made the Gospel, the Epistles, and
the Apocalypse of that Apostle the subject of his special
study,3 and thus his theology partook largely of that
love and mysticism which characterise the Johannine
writings. Even his writings bear a resemblance in point
of style to those of John ; there is the same combina
tion of simplicity and profundity, along with much that
is mystical and difficult for an ordinary reader to under
stand and appreciate. According to Maurice, the Logos,
who became incarnate in Jesus Christ, is the Light and
Life of every man that cometh into the world. He is
the great King of the souls of men. He is the spirit of
all history. It is this living Christ in the world and in
1 Coleridge's Aids to Reflection.
, 2 Pfleiderer's Development of Theology, p. 310.
3 Maurice wrote commentaries or discourses on the Gospel of John and
on the Apocalypse.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 427
the soul that explains Christianity, and is the reason of
its success and diffusion.1 Maurice especially dwells
upon the Fatherhood of God, which Christ came to
reveal. He brings prominently forward this great truth,
which appears for ages to have been lost sight of. Christ
came to tell us that we have a Father in heaven who
pities us, who wishes not our death, who sent His Son
to redeem us.
Few men have exercised such an important influence
on English religious thought as Maurice. The nobleness
and simplicity of his character, the peculiar flavour of
mysticism about his opinions, the earnestness of his
piety, the intensity of his love for man, his sympathy
especially with working men, and even the persecutions
which he endured, drew around him a band of earnest
men who recognised him as their master. He formed
no special school, but his opinions have greatly modi
fied the teaching of the present day. It has influenced
the discourses from the pulpit. These are now less
doctrinal and more addressed to the Christian con
sciousness.2 The Christianity of our days is perhaps the Pauline
phase of theology. The doctrines of the vicarious suf
ferings of Christ and of justification by faith, by what
ever terms these doctrines may be represented, still hold
1 See Discourses on the Gospel of St. John, passim, and Note 1 on Baur's
Theory of the Gospels. Theological Essays, especially Essay V., " On the
Son of God."
2 In Scotland, Erskine of Linlathen, Macleod Campbell, and Bishop
Ewing, more or less influenced by Maurice, may be considered as the ex
ponent's of the Johannine spirit. The sermons of Robertson of Brighton,
which have so greatly influenced modern sermons, are just the expositions
of Maurice's views.

428 CONCLUDING DISSERTATION.
the pre-eminence ; the vindication of the law and the
righteousness of God are still chiefly dwelt upon. This is
the theology of Protestantism ; it is dogmatic, logical, ob
jective. But there are symptoms that we are diverging
from it. The writings of Maurice and those belonging to
his school of thought are in the direction of Johanninism.
The pre-eminence of love, the new life in the soul, the
Fatherhood of God, union with Christ, the Logos as the
light and life of men, the work of the Spirit, eternal
life as a present blessing, are now prominently brought
forward. Paul is the Apostle of Protestantism, but
John is said to be the Apostle of the future. The theo
logy of the intellect may be succeeded by the theology
of the heart. " The doctrinal system of John," observes
Schaff, " is the highest and the most ideal of all ; the
one towards which the others lead, and in which they
merge. It wonderfully combines mystic knowledge
and love, contemplation and adoration, profound wisdom
and childlike simplicity, and is an anticipation of that
vision, face to face, into which, according to Paul,
our fragmentary knowledge and faith itself will finally
pass." x
There are many speculations regarding the Church of
the future, the ultimate realisation of Christianity.2
Whether all denominations of Christians will be swal
lowed up in a common Christianity, we know not ; but
one thing of which we may be perfectly sure is, that the
love inculcated by John will be the spirit which shall
prevail. This will form the basis of Christian union,
1 Schaff's Apostolic Church, vol. ii. p. 351.
¦ 2 See on the Church of the future, Bartlett's Bampton Lectures, 1888,
Lecture viii.

ST. JOHN'S INFLUENCE ON CHRISTIANITY. 429
and however men may differ in their opinions, they will
be perfectly joined together in love, and every vestige
of theological bitterness will disappear. In the present
unsettled state of theological views we require a great
theologian to arise to give a full view of Gospel truth
and to grasp it in its entirety, embracing all the three
phases of Christianity, and promulgating a theology
more rational than that of Romanism, more human than
that of Calvinism, and more divine than that of Armini-
anism ; one who, like Luther, will embody in his person
the spirit of the age, and, like him, bring forth some
regenerating truth from the obscurity in which it has
lain buried for ages, wield that truth by the overpower
ing force of eloquence combined with the mighty and
irresistible rushing wind of the Spirit. We may be fast
approaching the age of the Spirit, when religion will be
not only understood but felt, when men will be rescued
from infidelity, agnosticism, and materialism by a living
faith — a faith which says, " I believe, because I see and
know." We greatly need this spiritual influence in a
world of doubt, scepticism, and materialism on the one
hand, and of luxury, mammon- worship, and indifference
on the other, when a new Pentecostal age will dawn
upon the world, and when Christianity will prove its
divine origin by its supernatural effects on the human
race.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND SUBJECTS.

Abbot, Dr. Ezra, Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 104, 114.1
Abbott's article on the Gospels in Encyclopedia Britannica, 126, 146.
Adam of St. Victor, 74.
Alexander, Bishop of Derry, on St. John's Epistles, 215, 273.
Alexandrian school, the, 418.
Alford, date of John's Gospel, 161 ; view of the Apocalypse, 377 ; view of
the Millennium, 395.
Alogi, the, 121.
Angel of the Lord, the, 182-184.
Antichrist, John's view of, 248.
Apocalypse, the title, 282 ; its authenticity, 283-294 ; objections to it,
294-312; to whom addressed, 312-316; time and place of writing,
316-330 ; design and contents, 330-336 ; the text, 336-337 ; literary
affinities, 338-357 ; systems of interpretation, 358-7379.
Apollinaris, testimony to John's Gospel, 108.
Apollonius, Jqhn's residence in Patmos, 49 ; testimony to the Apocalypse,
285.
Apostolical Constitutions, referred to, 162, 272.
Ascensio Isaise, 345.
Assumption of Moses, 341.
Auberlen, Daniel and the Revelation, 349, 367, 369, 395, 404.
Augsburg Confession, the article on the Millennium, 392.
Augustine, legend of John sleeping in his grave, 92 ; on the woman taken
in adultery, 164 ; the Seven Churches, 313 ; his Millenarian views, 391.
Authenticity of John's Gospel, 97-148; the First Epistle, 215-220; the
private letters, 265-270; the Apocalypse, 283-312.
Barnabas, Epistle of, its testimony to John's Gospel, 100 ; its Chiliastic
views, 385.
Basilides' testimony to John's Gospel, 112.
Baruch, Bevelation of, 342, 386.
Baur, his views concerning the Fourth Gospel, 125 ; on Pauline and Petrine
Christianity, 406-412.
Bengel's Gnomon, 333 ; his system of Apocalyptic interpretation, 369 ; on
the Millennium, 393. 43i

432 INDEX.
Bethsaida, the birthplace of John, 7.
Bigg's Bampton Lectures for 1886, 188.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament, 15;, 203, 209.
Bleek's Lectures on tlie Apocalypse, 303, 323, 400, 402.
Boanerges, the surname of John, 6,
Bretschneider, Probabilia de Evangelio Johannis, 124.
Brown's The Second Advent, 380, 401.
Bruce's Kingdom of God, 413.
Burton's Bampton Lectures, 178.
Caius of Rome attributes the Apocalypse to Cerinthus, 388.
Calvin cited, 13, 32, 392.
Carpenter, Bishop Boyd, on the Apocalypse, 375, 398.
Caspari, Introduction to the Life of Christ, 192, 194.
Cassian, legend of John and the partridge, 87.
Cassiodorus, De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, 221, 266.
Cave's Lives of the Apostles referred to, 7, 85, 92.
Celsus' testimony to John's Gospel, 109.
Ceriani, Monumenta Sacra et Profana, 341.
Cerinthus, John's encounter with him, 80 ; his opinions, 81 ; his Millen
arian views, 388. .,
Chagigah, the, 192, 207.
Character of John, 63-67.
Charteris' Ganonicity, 100, 213, 283.
Chiliasm, 385-390.
Christ, the Life of the world, 252.
Church of the future, 427-429.
Ciasca, his discoveries of ancient manuscripts, 107.
Clarke's Travels referred to, 60.
Clemens Alexandrinus, his testimony to John's Ephesian residence, 49 ; to
John's banishment to Patmos, 57 ; legend of John and the robber,
82 ; composition of the Fourth Gospel, 84 ; testimony to the Apoca^
lypse, 287.
Clementine Homilies referred to, 107.
Comparison of the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse of John, 68.
Council of Jerusalem, 42.
Credner's Einleitung in das N. T., 164, 301.
Cyprian's testimony to First John, 216 ; to Second John, 266.
Dannemann, Wer ist Verfasser der Offenbarung, 303.
Dante quoted, 75.
Daniel, Book of, affinities to the Apocalypse, 349-351.
Davidson, Dr. Samuel, denies Justin's reference to John's Gospel, 105 ; his
remarks on the resurrection of Lazarus, 136 ; asserts the authenticity
of the Apocalypse, 292 ; remarks on the nature of the Apocalypse,
360.

INDEX. 433
Day of our Lord's death, 147, 190-214.
Deane, the Rev. J. W., 341, 343.
Didache, the, 99, 276.
Dillmann's Das Buch Henoch, 187, 341, 383.
Dionysius of Alexandria, testimony to John's Epistles, 266 ; remarks on
the Apocalypse, 289, 301 ; opposition to Chiliasm, 388, 390.
Disciple known to the high priest, 9-12.
Disciple whom Jesus loved, 97.
Discourses in John's Gospel, 141-145.
Dissimilarity of language between John's Gospel and the Apocalypse,
300-307.
Docetism, its nature, 226 ; referred to in John's Epistle, 227.
Dod's Introduction to the New Testament, 367.
Domitian banished John to Patmos, 60 ; legend of John's interview with
him, 89.
Dorner's Entwicklungsgeschichte der Lehre der Person Christi, 178, 179.
Drummond's Jewish Messiah, 242, 243, 386.
Dusterdieck's Offenbarung, 318, 321, 333.
Ebrard, genuineness of John's Gospel, 148 ; commentary on the Revela
tions, 376.
Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus, 186.
Eichhorn's Einleitung in das N. T., 218, 332, 360.
Elect lady, the, 270.
Elliott's Hore Apocalyptica, 368, 370, 395, 397, 404.
Encyclopedia Britannica, referred to, 120, 297, 358.
Enoch, the Book of, 342.
Ephesus, John's residence in, 48 ; the centre of Christian light, 53 ; one
Of the Seven Churches, 313.
Epiphanius on the relationship of Salome to Mary, 13 ; John's banishment
to Patmos, 58 ; on the Alogi, 121.
Epistle, lost, of John, 70.
Esdras, Fourth Book of, 342.
Eternal life, 252.
Etherage on the Targums, 187.
Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, passim.
Evangelists traveUing, 275-279.
Evans' St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, 307.
Evanson's Dissonance of the four Gospels, 123.
Ewald, his opinion that John belonged to the priestly race, 9 ; the char
acter oJf John, 65 ; St. John's Epistle, 232.
Expositor, 365.
Ezekiel, affinities to the Apocalypse, 351, 352.
Fabricius' Codex Pseudepigraphus, 343.
Faith, John's view of, 249.
2 E

434 INDEX.
Farrar, Archdeacon, John's connection with the high priest, 10 ; legends
connected with John, 93 ; number of the beast, 323 ; date of the
Apocalypse, 326 ; its interpretation, 366.
Farrar's Messages of the Books, 233.
Fatherhood of God, 247.
Florinus, Irenseus' Epistle to, 145.
Fritzsche, Libri V. T. Pseudepigraphi, 338.
Futurists' system of interpretation of the Apocalypse, 372-375.
Gaius, Third John addressed to, 271.
Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, 311.
Gloag, Exegetical Studies, 15 ; Introduction to Catholic Epistles, 48, 70,
215, 232, 264, 341 ; Introduction to Pauline Epistles, 70 ; The Messianic
Prophecies, 184.
Gnostics, John's Gospel supposed to be written against them, 152 ; their
principles, 225.
Godet's Biblical Studies, 359, 371, 377.
Godet's Commentary on John's Gospel, 11, 45, 52, 199, 211, 306.
Gregory of Tours, referred to, 85.
Grotius' Annotationes, 230, 360.
Guericke, Neutestamentliche Isagogik, 305.
Harnack on the doctrine of the Logos, 181 ; on the Apocalypse, 358.
Hase, his doubts on the authorship of John's Gospel, 126.
Hatch's Bampton. Lectures, 279.
Haupt on the Epistles of John, 217.
Heavenly witness, the, 234.
Helvetic Confession, article on the Millennium, 392, 393.
Hengstenberg supposes that John wrote against Cerinthus, 152 ; his inter
pretation of the Apocalypse, 369.
Hilgenfeld admits Justin's testimony to John's Gospel, 105 ; his statement
on the Apocalypse, 293.
Hippolytus, the Philosophoumena, 112 ; testimony to the Apocalypse, 358.
Historical system of interpretation of the Apocalypse, 368-372.
Hitzig supposes Mark to be the author of the Apocalypse, 297.
Hofmann's Schriftbeweis, 170, 377.
Hofmann's Weissagung und ErfUllung, 395.
Holtzmann's Einleitung in das N. T., 105, 129.
Howson's Horce Petrine, 39.
Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, 289, 364.
Hutton's Theological and Literary Essays, 129.
Ignatius, Epistles of, 56, 100, 228.
Incarnation of the Logos, 244.
Inspiration of John's writings, 77.
Integrity of John's Gospel, 162-166 ; of the First Epistle, 234, 235.

INDEX. 435
Interpretation of John's writings, 75 ff. ; of the Apocalypse, 361 ff.
Irenseus on John's residence at Ephesus, 48 ; on John's encounter with
Cerinthus, 80 ; testimony to John's Gospel, 1 1 1 ; on the deniers of
John's Gospel, 122 ; testimony to 2 John, 265 ; to the Apocalypse,
286 ; on the number of the beast, 325 ; his Chiliastic views, 386.
Isaiah, affinities to the Apocalypse, 354, 355.
James, the brother of John, 1 5.
James IV., appearance of John to, 93.
Jerome on John's banishment to Patmos, 58 ; the legend " Love one
another," 82 ; on the composition of John's Gospel, 84, 1 50 ; John
in the cauldron of oil, 86.
Jewish view of the Millennium, 382-384.
John, the Apostle, his birth, 5 ; his family, 6-17 ; a disciple of the
Baptist, 22 ; call to the Apostleship, 26 ; intercourse with Jesus, 28 ;
at the Cross, 32 ; at the Sepulchre, 33 ; cure of the lame man, 39 ;
mission to Samaria, 40 ; supposed residence in Pella, 46 ; residence
at Ephesus, 48 ; at Patmos, 57 ; his character, 63 ; his writings, 68 ;
his style, 71 ; legends of John, 79 ff. ; his Gospel, 97 ff.; his Epistles,
215 ff. ; his Apocalypse, 281 ff. ; his influence on Christianity, 406 ff.
John the Baptist, his preaching, 20 ; his influence on John the Apostle, 23.
John's Gospel, its authenticity, 97-121; objections to it, 122-148; its
design, 149-159; contents, 159, 160; time and place, 160-162; its
integrity, 162-166.
John's First Epistle, its authenticity, 215-220; readers, 220-223; design,
223-230 ; date, 230, 231 ; style and character, 231, 232 ; integrity, 233.
John's private letters, 264-280.
John, the Presbyter, 268-270.
John, spurious Apocalypse of, 346-348.
Jones' On the Canon, 345.
Josephus, referred to, 19, 191.
Judaism, John's relation to, 240.
Justin Martyr, testimony to John's Gospel, 103 ; to the Apocalypse, 284 ;
his Chiliastic views, 386 ; influence of John on him, 418.
Kahnis' History of German Protestantism, 421, 425.
Keim calls in question the Ephesian residence, 51 ; on the Clementine
Homilies, 108 ; on the date of John's Gospel, 128.
Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, 100, 283.
Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, 310, 348, 365.
Kostlin's Lehrbegriff des Evangelium Johannis, 125.
Krenkel, Der Apostel Johannes, 5, 51, 364.
Lactantius, his Chiliastic views, 387.
Lange, his supposition that John retired to Pella, 46.
Lardner's Works, 283, 288.

436 INDEX.
Lazarus, resurrection of, 136.
Lee, Archdeacon, Commentary on the Revelations, 301, 364, 398.
Lechler's Apostolisches Zeitalter^ 239, 257.
Legends concerning John, 79-9.3.
Lias, Rev. J. J., day of our Lord's death, 202.
Liddell and Scott, meaning of \6yos, 169.
Liddon's Bampton Lectures : character of John, 65, 66; the Logos of Philo,
180.
Lightfoot, Bishop, on the Church of Ephesus, 54.; the testimony of Papias,
102 ; the language of the Revelations, 303.
Lightfoot, Dr. John, cited, 169.
Lipsius, Die Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden, 85.
Logos, Dissertation on the, 167-189.
Love, the keynote of John's Epistle, 232, 254.
Liicke, Offenbarung Johannis, 347, 348.
Luthardt, John the Author of the Fourth Gospel, 53.
Luther, his remarks on the Revelations, 295.
Liitzelberger, his denial of the Ephesian residence, 50.
Macdonald's Life and Writings of John, 234.
Maitland's Apostolic School of Prophetic Interpretation, 372.
Mangold doubts the authenticity of John's Gospel, 126.
Mansell's Gnostic Heresies, 188.
Marcion rejects John's Gospel, 113, 122.
Mary, the Virgin, consigned to John's care, 33.
Maurice, Frederick D., his views and influence, 426 f.
Mede, Clavis Apocalyptica, 393.
Melito's testimony to John's Gospel, 108 ; to the Apocalypse, 285.
Merivale's History of the Romans, 98, 230.
Messianic expectations, 19.
Meyer on the character of John, 67 ; the Synoptists' omission of the death
of Lazarus, 137 ; on the Logos of Philo, 176; lost Epistles, 265.
Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, 98, 230.
Millennium, 380-406.
Milligan's Baird Lectures, 348, 378, 379.
Milligan's Exposition of the Apocalypse, 399.
Milman's History of the Jews, 47.
Molyneux' Israel's Future, 394.
Montanus' testimony to John's Gospel, 114 ; Chiliastic views, 389,
Mozley on the Logos, 167.
Muratorian Canon, 108, 216, 285.
Mystics, the, 420.
Neander on the Synoptists' omission of the resurrection of Lazarus, 137 ;
John's recollection of our Lord's discourses, 144 ; our Lord's anticipa
tion of the Passover, 199 ; the judgment considered as present, 259 ;
on Chiliasm, 389 ; a Johannine Christian, 425.

INDEX. 437
Nero, legend concerning his reappearance; 319, 365.
Niese, Das Leben des heiligen Johannis, 87, 89, 91.
Norton on the reception of the Gospels in the second century, 116.
Number of the beast, 322-324.
Objections to the authenticity of John's Gospel, 121-148 ; to the Apoca
lypse, 294-312.
Olshausen, John's encounter with Cerinthus, 81 ; genuineness of John's
Gospel, 148.
Origen, John's banishment to Patmos, 57 ; testimony to the Apocalypse,
288 ; opposes Chiliasm, 390.
Papias, testimony to John's Gospel, 102 ; to 1 John, 215 ; to the Apoca
lypse, 283 ; his Chiliastic views, 385.
Parallels, table of, between the Apocalypse and Daniel, 349 f . ; Ezekiel
351 ; Zechariah, 353; Joel, 354; Isaiah, 355.
Parthia, John's supposed journey to, 47.
Parthians, 1 John supposed to be written to the, 220.
Partridge, John and the, 87.
Paschal controversy, 211-214.
Passover, manner of observing, 190.
Paul and John compared, 67, 261.
Pella, John's supposed residence there, 46.
PeTgamum, on, 314.
Peshito omits the Apocalypse, 291.
Peter, his friendship with John, 38.
Pfleiderer's Hibbert Lectures, 297, 406, 409.
Phases of Christian doctrine, 412-415.
Philo Judseus, his works, 174; his philosophy, 175 ; his doctrine of the
Logos, 176 ; its difference from the Logos of John, 177.
Plato, his view of the Logos, 172.
Pietists, the, 420.
Plummer on the Epistles of John, 233.
Polycarp's testimony to John's Epistle, 101 ; to 1 John, 215.
Polycrates, on John and the sacerdotal plate, 88 ; testimony to John's
Gospel, no.
Prseterists' system of interpretation of the Apocalypse, 364-367.
Pre-existence of Christ, 140,
Pressense, Vie de Jesus, 209.
Profundity of John's writings, 77.
Purves' Testimony of Justin Martyr to Early Christianity, 105, 107, 189,
409.
Randall on the Revelation in Pulpit Commentary, 302.
Reformers, their views of the Millennium, 392.

438 INDEX.
Reign of Christ, the personal, 397.
Renan, referred to, 127, 142, 297, 298.
Reuss, his view of John's Gospel, 127 ; the polemic nature of John's Gospel,
154 ; leading ideas of John's theology, 157 ; comparison between Paul
and John, 262 ; on mysticism, 416.
Reynolds on John's Gospel in Pulpit Commentary, 129.
Ritschl's Entstehung der alte Kirche, 410.
Robber, John and the, 82.
Robinson's Researches, 8.
Salmon's Introduction to the New Testament, 151, 209, 210, 304, 323, 367.
Salome, the mother of John, 12 ; the sister of the Virgin, 13 ; her request
for her sons, 20. .
Samaritans, John's wish to call down fire upon them, 29.
Sanday on the Greek of the Fourth Gospel, 116: omission of the death
of Lazarus by the Synoptists, 138 ; on the day of our Lord's death,
194.
Schaff on the disposition of John, 4 ; testimony of the Didache" to John's
Gospel, 99 ; philosophy of Philo, 174 ; phases of Christian doctrine,
413 ; John the apostle of the future, 428.
Schaff's Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology, 332, 359.
Schaff's Oldest Church Manual, 99, 277.
Schenkel, value of John's Gospel, 97 ; on its composition, 126.
Schleiermacher, his views and influence, 422-425.
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 238.
Schneckenburger on the day of our Lord's death, 196.
Scholten's Der Apostel Johannes, 49.
Schiirer on the works of Philo, 174 ; Jewish Apocalyptic writings, 339.
Schwegler's view of John's Gospel, 125.
Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 16;, 291
326, 337-
Seven Churches of Asia, the, 312.
Sibylline oracles, 320, 343.
Simcox on the Apocalypse, 300, 402.
Similarity of language between John's Gospel and the Apocalypse, 306 ff.
Spitta, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 300.
Spiritual system of interpretation of the Apocalypse, 375-379.
Socrates, different lives of, 143.
Sources of the life of John, 3.
Stanley, Dean, the character of John, 64, 81.
Stowell's Work cf the Spirit, 420.
Strauss' Leben Jesus, 125.
Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 343, 364.
Style of John's writings, 71-75 ; of First John, 231.
Suetonius cited, 320.
Synoptic Gospels, their origin, 157.

INDEX. 439
Tacitus cited, 320.
Targums, Jewish, 180. >¦
Tatian's testimony to John's Gospel, 106.
Tertullian, John's banishment to Patmos, 57 ; immersion in a cauldron of
boiling oil, 85 ; testimony to the Apocalypse, 287 ; Chiliastic views,
387.
Testimony of the twelve Apostles, 343.
Text of the Apocalypse, 336.
Theology of John, 236-263.
Theophilus of Antioch, testimony to John's Gospel, 1 10 ; to the Apocalypse
286.
Thoma, Die Genesis des Johannis Evangelium, 105.
Tholuck, on the meaning of " Boanerges," 6 ; on John's connection with
the high priest, 10.
Thomson, The Land and the Book, on Bethsaida, 8.
Tischendorf, description of Patmos, 61.
Todd's Discourses on the Apocalypse, 373.
Trench's Life and Character of St. John, 1, 31, 87.
Tubingen school, theory of, 407-409.
Valentinus, testimony to John's Gospel, 113 ; his system of 330ns, 189.
Victorinus, Bishop of Pettau, John's banishment to Patmos, 57 ; the Seven
Churches, 313 ; identifies the beast with Nero, 320.
Vincent's Word Studies of the New Testament, 307.
Vischer's views of the Apocalypse, 299.
Volkmar's Mose Himmelfahrt, 342.
Volkmar's Offenbarung Johannis, 298, 309, 366.
Volkmar's Vrsprung unserer Evangelien, 125.
Volter's Die Entstehung der Apokalypse, 299.
Waldegrave's Bampton Lectures, 185;, 380.
Warfield, the contents of the Apocalypse, 332.
Weiss' Einleitung in das N. T., 146.
Weiss' Life cf Cltrist, 199.
' Weiss' Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff, 242.
Weiss' Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 257.
Weisse, Die Evangelische Geschichte, 126.
Weizacker, View of John's Gospel, 126 ; of the Apocalypse, 300 ; date of
the Apocalypse, 329.
Westcott on the Peshito, 112 ; day of our Lord's death, 196 ; the Gospel
and Epistle of John compared, 219 ; date of the Apocalypse, 324.
Whately, his supposition that Judas Iscariot was the disciple known to
the high priest, n.
Wieseler supposes that Salome was a sister of the Virgin, 13.
Wisdom, personification of, 184.
Woman, the, taken in adultery, 162-165.

44° INDEX.
World, John's view of, 258.
Wordsworth supposes that the Christian era is the Millennium, 398.
Writings of John, 68-74.
Zahn, Ignatius von Antioch, 101 ; Tatian's Diatessaron, 107.
Zebedee, the father of John, 12
Zechariah's prophecies, affinities to the Apocalypse, 353.

THE END.

PRINTED BY BALI.ANTYNE, HANSON AND CO.
EDINBURGH AND LONDON

EXPOSITIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF
HOLY SCRIPTURE,
PUBLISHED by
JAMES NISBET & CO.

AN EXPOSITION OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS :
Wherein each Chapter is summed up in its Contents ; the Sacred Text
inserted at large in Distinct Paragraphs ; each Paragraph reduced to its
proper Heads ; the Sense given, and Illustrated : with Practical Remarks
and Observations. By Matthew Henry.
Nine Vols., Imp. 8vo, £2, 2s.
Six Vols., Medium 8vo, £1, lis. 6d.
"Its freshness, variety of thought, high moral tone, and well-sustained flow of
good writing have secured it the foremost place among the works of its class. There
are. few better things in English literature than its comments on the Parable of the
Prodigal Son." — Encyclopedia Britarmica.
This is the most comprehensive and reliable store of theological lore that, at a
very low price, can be placed within the reach of all. To the clergy, to ministers of
all denominations, to Scripture readers, and city missionaries, and to all whose duty
it is to study and expound the Word of God, this book is of peculiar value ; while
its popularity of style and attractiveness of matter render it as suitable for family
reading as for private study.
THE HOLY BIBLE, CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW
TESTAMENTS, with Explanatory Notes, Practical Observations, and
Copious Marginal References. By the Eev. Thomas Scott, formerly Rector
of Aston, Sandford, Bucks. Containing the Author's last Corrections and
Improvements and 84 Illustrative Maps and Engravings. Six Vols., 4to,
£1, 10s.
HOURS WITH THE BIBLE ; or, The Scriptures in the Light of
Modern Discovery and Knowledge. By the Rev. Cunningham Geikie, D.D.
With 75 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Vol. 1. FROM THE CREATION TO
MOSES.
„ 2. PROM MOSES TO THE
JUDGES.
„ 3. FROM SAMSON TO SOLO
MON.

Vol. 4. FROM REHOBOAM TO
HEZEKIAH.
„ 5. FROM MANASSEH TO
ZEDEKIAH.
„ 6. PROM THE EXILE TO
MALACHI.

With the Contemporary Prophets.
SYNOPTICAL LECTUEES ON THE BOOKS OE HOLY
SCRIPTURE. By the Rev. Donald Phaser, M.A., D.D. New and
thoroughly revised edition. Two Vols., extra crown 8vo, 15s.
"The Author has availed himself of the most recent results of Biblical criticism,
and especially of the new meanings assigned to many passages in the Revised Ver
sion. The book is eminently a scholarly and thoughtful exposition."— Scotsman.
"Good, solid reading, calculated to give a sound, clear, harmonious knowledge of
the various parts of the Sacred Scriptures."— Mr. Spcrgeon in the S-word and
ll'rowcl. " As an aid to the systematic study of Holy Scripture, we cannot too highly
recommend Dr. Fraser's Synoptical Lectures. Of the whole work, it is not too
much to say, that the more minutely we examine it, the more evident is its value to
the Biblical student."— John Bull. 2 F

Books Published by James Nisbet & Co.

A COMMENTARY ON LEVITICUS— Expository and Practical.
With Critical Notes. By Andrew A. Bonar, D.D. Fifth Edition. 8vo,
8s. 6d.
THE LAW OF THE OFFERINGS IN LEVITICUS Considered
as the Appointed Figure of the Various Aspects of the Offering of the Body
of Jesus Christ. By Andrew Jukes. Crown 8vo, 3s.
THE TABERNACLE, PRIESTHOOD, AND OFFERINGS OF
ISRAEL. By the Rev. F. Whitfield, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary's, Hast
ings. New Edition. With 22 Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s.
THE ATONEMENT Viewed in the Light of Certain Modem
Difficulties. By the Rev, J. J. Lias, M.A., Vicar of St. Edward's, Cam
bridge. (The Hulsean Lectures for 1883-84.) Second Edition. Post 8vo,
4s. bd.
" The special claim which the writer has upon our gratitude is raised by the
manner in which he has dealt with modern difficulties. . . . Mr. Lias, though he is
strong, or rather because he is strong in his own position, is ready to give a patient
hearing to those who are troubled in mind, and is willing to examine afresh with
them the great mystery of the Atonement, in the hope that by so doing he may
remove some of their misgivings and misconceptions. . . . This is clearly the right
method to employ. . . . It is a work which might well be placed in the hands of
those who are themselves troubled and perplexed. Altogether Mr. Lias has pro
duced a really helpful introduction to the study of a subject of overwhelming
importance, and has uttered a well-timed protest against the narrowness of so much
popular teaching and the defective character of many modern theories." — Church
•Quarterly.
AN EXPOSITORY COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF
JUDGES. By the. Rev. A. R. Fausset, D.D,, Canon of York, Editor of
Bengel's "Gnomon" in English, and Author in part of the "Critical and
Experimental Commentary." Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d.
"The work will stand critical examination as to its contents, and also bear
comparison with recent scholarly contributions in the same department. The
exegetical matter is excellent. Seldom do we meet with an amount of knowledge.
compressed into so few words, and so much to the purpose." — Clergyman's Magazine.
" A sensible and valuable book, calculated to render to the preacher important
help in his work of preparation for the pulpit." — IAterary Churchman:
By the same Author.
HOR,E PSALMIC^E. STUDIES IN THE CL. PSALMS.
Their Undesigned Coincidence with the Independent Scripture Histories
Confirming and Illustrating Both. Second Edition. Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d.
"Both works (on the Judges and the Psalms) show a masterly hand, and they
will be valued by thoughtful students." — Mr. C. H. Spurgeon in the Sword dnd,
Trowel. "The general plan of the lectures is very good. The author groups together a
number of Psalms which he supposes to belong to a certain period, or to be con
nected with a particular incident, and brings out the hidden connection between
them and the history." — Church Bells.

THE CHANGED ONES : Reflections on the Second Chapter of
the Song of Solomon. By the Rev. F. Whitfield, M.A. 16mo, Is.
THE SONG OF SOLOMON COMPARED WITH OTHER
PARTS OF SCRIPTURE. By Adelaide Newton. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Bt the same Author.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS COMPARED WITH
THE OLD TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

Books Published by James Nisbet & Co.

THE HART AND THE WATERBROOKS : A Practical Exposi
tion of the Forty-Second Psalm. By the Rev. J. R. Macduff, D.D. Crown
8vo, 2s.
COMFORT YE, COMFORT YE : Being God's Words of Comfort
Addressed to His Church in the last Twenty-Seven Chapters of Isaiah. By
the Rev. J. R. Macduff, D.D. With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo, 5s.
THE GOSPEL PROMISES SHOWN IN ISAIAH 1-6., by
Comparing Spiritual Things with Spiritual. By Agnes E. Jones. 16mo, Is.
LIGHT AND TRUTH— BIBLE THOUGHTS AND THEMES.
By 'Horatics Bonab; D.D. Five Vols. Crown 8 vo, 5s. each.

Vol. 1. THE OLD TESTAMENT.

VOL. 4.

THE LESSER EPISTLES.

„ 2. THE GOSPELS.

„ 3. THE ACTS AND LARGER

„ 5.

THE REVELATION OF ST.

EPISTLES.

JOHN.

"Valuable work, well suited for private use or for family reading." — Record.
AN EXPLANATORY AND PRACTICAL COMMENTARY ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT. Intended Chiefly as a Help to Family
Devotion. Edited by the late Rev. W. Dalton, B.D. Two Vols. Demy
8vo. 24s.
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
SS. Peter, James, and Jude. Demy 8vo, 16s.
Vol. II. The Writings of St. Joho:— The Gospel, the Epistles, The
Apocalpyse. 8vo, 16s.
Vol. III. The Epistles of St. Paul. 8vo, 16s.
"Its arrangement is scholarly, and much of the matter is original and interesting."
— Academy. "In a thousand instances the reader who is acquainted with English only will
find himself led beneath the surface of the text and made aware of felicities of
language undreamt of before, of historical associations belonging to words, of
Eastern usages or religious customs, which will vastly widen and deepen the mean
ing and force of this or that passage. " — Literary Churchman.
"Dr. Vincent contrives, with remarkable skill, to hit off a medium between the
lexicon and the commentary. His work is bound to be of very great assistance to
Biblical students." — Record.
METAPHORS IN THE GOSPELS. A Series of Short Studies.
By the Rev. Donald Fraser, D.D. Crown 8vo, 6s.
"An attempt to fill a real gap in exegetical literature. It has a value of its own,
and will be helpful to preacher and Bible-class teachers. The metaphors are plainly
and sensibly handled, with a keen eye to their practical application to daily life. " —
Church Times.
"Dr. Fraser has struck new ground, and has compiled an instructive and useful
volume. "—Saturday Review.
" In these ' short studies ' Dr. Fraser has concentrated an amazing amount of
valuable teaching." — Christian.
THE MANIFESTO OF THE KING. An Exposition of the
Sermon on the Mount. By the Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, D.D. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo, 6s.
"A model of spiritual discernment, vigorous grip, and succinct practical applica
tion, in which the sentiment of religion is very beautifully blended with its pre
cepts." — British Quarterly Review.
THE CHARACTERISTIC DIFFERENCES OF THE FOUR
GOSPELS CONSIDERED as Revealing Various Relations of the Lord
Jesus Christ. By Andrew Jukes. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.

Books Published by James Nisbet & Co.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING to ST. MATTHEW EXPLAINED.
By Joseph Addison Alexander, D.D. Post 8vo, 5s.
By the same Author.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK EXPLAINED.
Third Edition. Post 8vo, 5s.
THE ACTS OF ,THE APOSTLES EXPLAINED. Fourth
Edition. Two Vols., Post 8vo, 15s.

COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO THE
CORINTHIANS. By Charles Hodge, D.D. Post 8vo, 5s.
By the same Author.
COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO
THE CORINTHIANS. Post 8vo, 5s.
COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE
EPHESIANS. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.

SEVEN PROMISES EXPOUNDED. By the Rev. Donald
Fraser, D.D. Small crown 8vo, Is.
"A scholarly and lucid exposition of the seven messages sent to the Seven
Churches."— Glasgow Herald.
BIBLE PLANTS AND ANIMALS. Containing Illustrations of
over 1000 Passages of Scripture from the Works of Travellers and other
Sources. By Alfred E. Knight. With 29 Illustrations. Small crown
8vo, 2s. 6d.
" A repertoire of information for teachers and others." — Word and Work.
"It is splendid change for half-a-crown, either for young or old." — Mr. Spurgeon.
SCRIPTURE ITSELF THE ILLUSTRATOR. A Manual of
Illustrations Gathered from Scriptural Figures, Phrases, Types, Derivations,
Chronology, Texts, &c. By the Rev. G. S. Bowes, B.A. Small crown fivo,
3s. 6d. ~ v
By the same Author.
INFORMATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS FOR PREACHERS
AND TEACHERS. Helps Gathered from Facts, Figures, Anecdotes, and
Books, for Sermons, Lectures, and Addresses. Crown 8vo, 5s.
ILLUSTRATIVE GATHERINGS FOR PREACHERS AND
TEACHERS. A Manual of Anecdotes, Facts, Figures, Proverbs, Quota
tions, &c. Two Vols. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d. each.
IN PROSPECT OF SUNDAY. A Collection of Analyses, Argu
ments, Applications, Counsels, Cautions, &e. Crown 8vo, 5s.

ILLUSTRATIVE TEXTS AND TEXTS ILLUSTRATED. By
the Rev. J. W. Bardsley, D.D. Crown 8vo, 5s.
By the same Author.
GLIMPSES THROUGH THE VEIL; or, Some Natural Analogies
and Bible Types. Crown 8vo, 6b.
NIGHT SCENES OF THE BIBLE AND THEIR TEACHINGS.
By the Rev. Charles D. Bell, D.D., Rector of Cheltenham, and Hon.
Canon of Carlisle. Two Vols., Crown 8vo, each 5s.

LONDON : JAMES NISBET & CO., 21 BEBKEBS STEEET.

¦. UNIVERSITY LIBHnn .

¦:..-:¦::..'. -'.:¦':-',

mmM