| 81. The Discourses of Jesus, John V-Xii. | ||||
IN The fifth chapter of John, a long discourse of Jesus is connected with a cure wrought by him on the sabbath (19-47). The mode in which Jesus at v. 17 defends his activity on the sabbath, is worthy of notice, as distina;uished from that adopted by him in the earlier Gospels. These ascribe to him, in such cases, three arguments: the example of David, who ate the show-bread; the precedent of the sabbatical labours of the priest's in the temple, quoted also in John vii. 23 (Matt. xii. 3 ff. parall.); and the course pursued with respect to an ox, sheep, or ass, that falls into the pit (Matt. xii.11 parall), or is let out to watering on the sabbath (Luke xiii. 18.); all which arguments are entirely in the practical spirit that characterizes the popular teaching of Jesus. The fourth evangelist, on the contrary, makes him argue from the uninterrupted, activity of God, and reminds us by the expression which he puts into the mouth of Jesus, My Father "works until now" of a principle in the Alexandrian metaphysics, viz. God never ceases to act, a metaphysical proposition more likely to be familiar to the author of the fourth gospel than to Jesus. In the synoptic Gospels, miracles of healing on the sabbath are fallowed up by declarations respecting the nature and design of the sabbatical institution, a species of instruction of which the people were greatly in need; but in the present passage, a digression is immediately made to the main theme of the gospel, the person of Christ and his relation to the Father. The perpetual recurrence of this theme in the fourth gospel has led its adversaries, not without reason, to accuse it of a tendency purely theoretic, and directed to the glorification of Jesus. In the matter of the succeeding discourse {P.403} there is nothing to create a difficulty, nothing that Jesus might not have spoken, for it treats, with the strictest coherence, of thino-s which the Jews expected of the Messiah, or which Jesus attributed to himself, according to the Synoptics also: as, for instance, the raising of the dead, and the office of judging the world. But this consistency in the matter, only lieightcns the difficulty connected with the form and phraseology in which it is expressed. For the discourse, especially its latter half (from v. 31), is full of the closest analogies with the first epistle of John, and with passages in the gospel in which either the author speaks, or John the Baptist. One means of explaining the former resemblance is to suppose, that the evangelist formed his style by closely imitating that of Jesus. That this is possible, is not to be disputed; but it. is equally certain that it could proceed only from a mind destitute of originality and selfconhdence, a character which the fourth evangelist in no way exhibits. Further, as in the other Gospels Jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style, it would follow, if he really spoke a3 he is represented to have done by John, that the manner attributed to him by the Synoptics is fictitious. Now, that this manner did not originate with the evangelists is plain from the fact, that cach of them is so little master of his matter. Neither could the bulk of the discourses have been the work of tradition, not only because they have a highly original cast, but because they bear the impress of the alleged time and locality. On the contrary, the fourth evangelist, by the ease with which he disposes his materials, awakens the suspicion that they are of his own production; and some of his favourite ideas and phrases, such as, "The Father shows the Son all that himself does," and those already quoted, seem to have {P.404} sprung from an Hellenistic source, rather than from Palestine. But the chief point in the argument is, that in this gospel John the Baptist speaks, as we have seen, in precisely the same strain as the author of the Gospels, and his Jesus. It cannot be supposed, that not only the evangelist, but the Baptist, whose public career was prior to that of Jesus, and whose character was strongly marked, modelled his expressions with verbal minuteness on those of Jesus. | ||||
Hence only two cases are possible: either the Baptist determined the style of Jesus and the evangelist (who indeed appears to have been the Baptist's disciple); or the evangelist determined the style of the Baptist and Jesus. The former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox, on the ground of the higher nature that dwelt in Christ; and we are equally disinclined to adopt it, for the reason that Jesus, even though he may have been excited to activity by the Baptist, yet appears as a character essentially distinct from him, and original; and for the still more weighty consideration, that the style of the evangelist is much too feeble for the rude Baptist, too mystical for his practical mind. There remains, then, but the latter alternative, namely, that the evangelist has given his own style both to Jesus and to the Baptist: an explanation in itself more natural than the former, and supported by a multitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers. If however the evangelist is thus responsible for the form of this discourse, it is still possible that the matter way have belonged to Jesus, but we cannot pronounce to what extent this is the case, and we have already had proof that the evangelist, on suitable opportunities, very freely presents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from Jesus. | ||||
In chap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v.27ff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. this is analogous to the Jewish idea above quoted, that the second Goel, like the first, would provide manna; and to the invitation of Wisdom in the Proverbs, ix. 5, "Come, eat of my bread." | ||||
But the succeeding declaration, that he is himself the bread of life that comes down from heaven (v. 33 and 35) appears to find its true analogy only in the idea of Philo, that the divine word logoj qeioj is that which nourishes the soul. From v. 51, the difficulty becomes still greater. Jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from heavcn, which he will give for the life of the world, and to eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and to drink his blood, he pronounces to be the only means of attaining eternal life. The similarity of these expressions to the words which the Synoptics and Paul attribute to Jesus, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, led the older commentators generally to understand this passage as having refer- {P.405} ence to the Sacramental supper, ultimately to be appointed by Jesus. | ||||
The chief objection to this interpretation is, that before the institution of the supper, such an allusion would be totally unintelligible. | ||||
Still the discourse might have some sense, however erroneous, for the hearers, as indeed it had, according to the narrator's statement; and the impossibility of being understood is not, in the fourth gospel, so shunned by Jesus, that that circumstance alone would suffice to render this interpretation improbable. It is certainly supported by the analogy between the expressions in the discourse, and the words associated with the institution of the supper, and this analogy has wrung from one of our recent critics the admission, that even if Jesus himself, in uttering the above expressions, did not refer to the supper, the evangelist, in choosing and conveying this discourse of Jesus, might have had that institution in his mind, and might have supposed that Jesus here gave a premonition of its import, In that case, however, he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the language of Jesus; so that, if the choice of the expression eat the flesh etc, can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a reference to the Lord's Supper, we owe it, without doubt, to the evangelist alone. Having once said, apparently in accordance with Alexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of life, how could he fail to be reminded of the bread, which in the Christian community was partaken of as the body of Christ, together with a beverage, as his blood? He would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making Jesus institute the supper prophetically, as it were; because, as we shall hereafter see, he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by Jesus. | ||||
The discourse above considered, also bears the form of a dialogue, and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs to the fourth gospel: that, namely, in which language intended spiritually, is understood carnally. In the first place (v. 34), the Jews (as the woman of Samaria in relation to the water) suppose that by the bread ichich comcth dozen from heaven, Jesus means some material food, and entreat him evermore to supply them with such. Such a misapprehension was certainly natural; but one would have thought that the Jews, before they carried the subject further, would have indignantly protested against the assertion of Jesus (v. 32), that Moses had not given them heavenly bread. When, Jesus proceeds to call himself the bread from heaven, the Jews in the synagogue at Capernaum murmur that he, the son of Joseph, whose father- and mother they knew, should arrogate to himself a descent from heaven (v. 41); a reflection which the Synoptics with more probability attribute to the people of Nazareth, the native city of Jesus, and to which they assign a more natural cause. That the Jews should not understand (v. 53) how Jesus could give them his flesh to eat is very conceivable; and for that reason, as we have ob- {P.406} served, it, is the less so that Jesus should express himself thus unintelligibly. Neither is it surprising that this "hard saying" should cause many disciples to fall away from hiin, nor easy to perceive how Jesus could, in the first instance, himself give reason for the secession, and then, on its occurrence, feel so much displeasure as is implied in v. 61 and 67. It is indeed said, that Jesus wished to sift his disciples, to remove from his society the superficial believers, the earthly-minded, whom he could not trust; but the measure which he here adopted was one calculated to alienate froin hiin even his best and most intelligent followers. .For it is certain that the twelve, who on other occasions knew not what was meant by the leaven of the Pharisees (Matt. xvl. 7), or by the opposition between what goes into the mouth, and what comes out of it (Matt. xv. 15), would not understand the present discourse; and the words of eternal life, for the sake of which they remained with him (v. 65), were assuredly not the words of this sixth chapter. | ||||
The further we read in the fourth gospel, the more striking is the repetition of the same ideas and expressions. The discourses of Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles, ch. vii. and vili. are, as Lcke has remarked, mere repetitions and amplifications of the oppositions previously presented (especially in ch. v), of the coining, speaking, and acting, of Jesus, and of God (vii. 17, 28 f.; vili. 28 f., 38 40, 42. compare with v. 30, 43; vi. 38.); of being from "above" and "beneath" (viii. 23 comp. iii. 31.); of 'bearing witness of one's self," and "receiving witness from God" (viii. 13. comp. v. 31-37.); of light and darkness (viii. 12. comp. iii.10ff., also xii. 35 f); of true and false judgment (viii.15 f., comp. v. 30.). All that is new in these chapters, is quickly repeated, as the mention of the departure of Jesus whither the Jews cannot follow him (vii. 33 f., viii. 21; comp. xiii. 33., xiv.2ff., xvi.16ff.); a declaration, to which are attached, in the first two instances, very improbable misapprehensions or perversions on the part of the Jews, who, although Jesus had said, I go to him that sent me., are represented as imagining, at one time, that he purposed journeying to the dispersed among the Gentiles, at another, that he meditated suicide. How often, again, in this chapter are repeated the asseverations, that he seeks not his own honour, but the honour of the Father (vii. 17 f., viii. 50, 54); that the Jews neither know from where he came, nor the father who sent him (vii. 28; viii. 14, 19, 54); that whoever believes in him shall have eternal life, shall not see death, while whoever does not believe must die in his sins, having no share in eternal life (viii. 21, 24, 51; comp. iii. 36, vi. 40.). | ||||
This ninth chapter, consisting chiefly of the deliberations of the Sanhedrin with the man born blind, whom Jesus had restored {P.407} to sight, has of course the form of conversation, but as Jesus is less on the scene than heretofore, there is not the usual amount of artificial contrast; in its stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another evidence of artistic design in the narrator. | ||||
The tenth chapter commences with the well-known discourse on the Good Shepherd; a discourse which has been incorrectly called a parable. Even the briefest among the other parables of Jesus, such as that of the leaven and of the mustard-seed, contain the outline of a history that dcvelopes itself, having a beginning, progress, and conclusion. Here, on the contrary, there is no historical development; even the particulars that have an historical character are stated generally, as things that are wont to happen, not as things that once happcned, and they are left without further limitation; moreover, the door usurps the place, of the Shepherd, which is at first the principal image; so that we have here, not a parable, but an allegory. Therefore this passage at least(and we shall find no other, for the similitude of the vine, cli. xv., comes, as Lcke confesses, under the same category as the one in question)furnishes no argument against the allegation by which recent critics have justified their suspicions as to the authenticity of the fourth gospel; namely, that its author seems ignorant of the parabolic mode of teaching which, according to the other evangelists, was habitual with Jesus. It does not however appear totally unknown to the fourth evangelist that Jesus was fond of teaching by parables, for he attempts to give examples of this method, both in cli. x. and xv., the first of which he expressly styles a parable, paroimia. But it is obvious that the parabolic form was not accordant with his taste, and that he was too deficient in the faculty of depicting external things, to abstain from the intermixture of reflections, from which the parable in his hand became an allegory. | ||||
The discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles extend to x. 18. From v. 25, the evangelist professes to record sayings which were uttered by Jesus three months later, at the Feast of Dedication. When, on this occasion, the Jews desire from him a distinct declaration whether he be the Messiah, his immediate reply is, that he has already told them this sufficicntiv, and he repeats his appeal to the testimony of the Father, as given in the "works" done by Jesus in his name (as in v. 36.). Hereupon, by reason of the incidental remark that his unbelieving questioners were not of his sheep, the evangelist reverts to the allegory which he had recently abandoned, and repeats part of it word for word. But not recently e.g. by Tholck and Lcke. The latter, however, allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, that the discourses of the Shepherd and the Vine are rather comparisons than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parables presented by the Synoptics as a species, under the genus similitude, to which the images in John belong. {P.408} | ||||
Jesus abandoned this allegory; for since its delivery three months are supposed to have elapsed, and it is certain that in the interim much must have been spoken, done, and experienced by Jesus, that would thrust this figurative discourse into the background of his memory, so that he would be very unlikely to recur to it, and in no case would he be able to repeat it, word for word. | ||||
He who had just quitted the allegory was the evangelist, to whom three months had not intervened between the inditing of the first half of this chapter, and that of the second. He wrote at once what, according to his statement, was chronologically separated by a wide interval; and hence the allegory of the shepherd might well leave so distinct an echo in his memory, though not in that of Jesus. If any think that they can solve this difficulty by putting only the verbal similarity of the later discourse to the earlier one to the account of the evangelist, such an opinion cannot be interdicted to them. | ||||
For others, this instance, in connection with the rest, will be a positive proof that the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are to a great extent the free compositions of the evangelist. | ||||
The same conclusion is to be drawn from the discourse with which the fourth evangelist represents Jesus as closing his public ministry (xii. 44-50). This discourse is entirely composed of reminiscences out of previous chapters, and, as Paulus expresses it, is a mere echo of some of the principal apophthegms of Jesus occurring in the former part of the gospel. One cannot easily consent to let the ministry of Jesus close with a discourse so little original, and the majority of recent commentators are of opinion that it is the intention of the evangelist here to give us a mere epitome of the teaching of Jesus. According to our view also, the evangelist is the real speaker; but we must contend that his introductory words, Jesus "cried aloud and said," are intended to imply that what follows is an actual harangue, from the lips of Jesus. | ||||
This commentators will not admit, and they can appeal, not without a show of reason, to the statement of the evangelist, v. 36, that Jesus withdrew himself from the public eye, and to his ensuing observations on the obstinate unbelief of the Jews, in which he seems to put a period to the public carreer of Jesus; from which it would be contrary to his plan to make Jesus again step forward to deliver a valedictory discourse. I will not, with the older expositors, oppose to these arguments the supposition that Jesus, after his withdrawal, returned to pronounce these words in the ears of the Jews; but 1 hold fast to the proposition, that by the introduction above quoted, the evangelist can only have intended to announce an actual harangue. It is said, indeed, that the aorist in wpae and dm has the {P.409} signification of the pluperfect, and that we have here a recapitulation of the previous discourses of Jesus, notwithstanding which the Jews had not given him credence. But to give this retrospective signification there ought to be a corresponding indication in the words themselves, or in the context, whereas this is far less the case than e. g. in John xviii. 24. Hence the most probable view of the question is this: John had indeed intended to close the narrative of the public ministry of Jesus at v. 36, but his concluding observations, v.37ff., with the categories of faith and unbelief, reminded him of discourses which he had already recorded, and he could not resist the temptation of making Jesus recapitulate them with additional emphasis in a parting harangue. | ||||