Full text of "The Johannine theology; a study of the doctrinal contents of the Gospels and Epistles of the apostle John"

See other formats

THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

By the Same Author.

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

fr,^^rM THE GOSPEL AND ^EPISTLES OF
THE APOSTLE JOHN

GEORGE B. STEVENS, Pn.D., D.D.

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND INTERPRF,TATION
IN YALE UNIVERSITY

-^■

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

1894

THE NEV/ YORK

PUBLIC LIBRARY

ASTOR, LENOX AND

TILDEN FOUNDATIONS

R 1932 L

5Hiiibfrsifo ^9rfss:
John Wilson and Son, Ca.muuidcjk, U.S.A.

TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D., LL.D.

PRESIDENT OF YALE UNIVERSITY

MY INSTRUCTOR AND SIY PREDECESSOR IN THE CHAIR OF NEW
TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION

I DEDICATE THIS VOLUAFE

AS A TOKEN OK GRATITUDE AND AFFECTION

PREFACE

The aim of this volume is to present, in system-
atic form, the theological contents of the Gospel and
Epistles of John. No account is here taken of the
A))0calyj)se, since, whatever view be held respecting
its authorship, it represents a type of teaching so
peculiar in its form and matter that it should be
treated separately. Accordingly, most writers on
Biblical theology discuss its contents as a distinct
subject, whether they ascribe it to the author of the
Gospel and Epistles or not.

The i)urpose of my work also determines its scope.
My plan did not require me to discuss the vexed
literary questions connected with the writings which
form the subject of my study. I ascribe these
writings to the apostle John, but my task would not
have been essentially diti'erent uj)on any other sup-
position respecting their authorship. The Gospel
and Epistles which are commonly attributed to
John present a certain distinctive type of Christian
teaching, and this it has been my effort to interpret.
I should have undertaken briefly to trace the history
and describe the present state of criticism respecting
the Fourth Gospel, had not this work been ade-
quately done by others. I would refer the reader, in

vm PREFACE

this connection, to two articles by Professors Schiirer
and Sanday, respectively, in the Contemporary Revieio
for September and October, 1891. Schiirer's article
presents the negative, Sanday's the positive view-
respecting the apostolic authorship of the Gospel.
The history of this controversy is reviewed at length,
on the conservative side, by Archdeacon Watkins,
in his Bampton Lectures for 1890, entitled Modern
Criticism considered in its Relation to the Fourth
Gospel. I would especially commend to the student
the arguments for the apostolic authorship of the
Fourth Gospel by Dr. EzraAbbot,^ Bishop Lightfoot,^

1 The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel : External Eridences^T^wh-
lished in Dr. Abbot's posthumous Critical Essnj/s, Boston, 1888;
also in a volume entitled The Fourth Gospel (Charles Scribner's
Sons, New York, 1892), which contains one of the articles of
Bishop Lightfoot referred to in the next note, and another by
Dr. A. P. Peabody. These last two articles are on the internal
evidence. Dr. Abbot's Essay is also published separately
(Boston, 1880). It was originally printed in The Unitarian
Revieto for February, March, and June, 1880. Statements of the
argument, on the negative side, may be found in Keim's Jesus
of Nazara, S. Davidson's Introduction, Holtzmann's Einleitung
and Hand-Commentar, E. A. Abbott's article Gospels in the
Encyclopcedia Britannica, and Cone's Gospel Criticism and IFis-
torical Christianity.

2 Two dissertations, one on the internal and the other on
the external evidence, will be found in the late Bishop Light-
foot's Biblical Essays (London and New York, 1893). The
former of these was originally published in The Expositor for
January, February, and March, 1890, and was reprinted in the
volume, The Fourth Gospel, referred to in the jireccding note.
The essay on the external evidence was priufcd lioiu lecture-

PREFACE ix

find President Dwight.' Mr. R. II. Hutton's essay
on The Historical Problems of the Fourth Gospel (in
his Theoloijical Essays) is an able review and refuta-
tion of Baiir's objections to its genuineness.

The problem of authorship is not the pnly literary
problem which the Fourth Gospel presents. For
those who hold John to be its author there remains
the interesting and important question as to its his-
torical accuracy. Its account of the words and deeds
of Jesus differs to such an extent in language and
subject-matter from the account contained in the
Synoptic Gospels, that candid scholarship cannot
avoid the inquiry as to their relation and relative
correctness. Are we to suppose that Jesus uttered
verbatim the long discourses which John reports, and
which are so different in style and matter from the
Synoptic discourses ? It can hardly be doubted that
at least the form of these reports is more or less
affected by the apostle's own thought and reflection.
But this admission implies a subjective element
in the Fourth Gospel. To define its limits with
absolute precision is a task for which we have no
adequate data. We can establish the substantial

notes and is found only in Biblical Essmjs. In this same vol-
ume are found important additions to the essay on the internal
evidence as originally published. The two essays, with the
additions, make nearly two hundred pages of the volume, and
are of the highest value.

^ Introductory Sugr/estionx ivilh reference to the Internal Evi-
dence, appended to vol. i. of the American edition of (iodet's
Commentary on the Gospel (if John, New York, 188G.

X PREFACE

agreement in underlying ideas between John's ver-
sion of the teaching of Jesus and that of the Synop-
tists. It would seem evident, however, that the
apostle has given us this teaching in his own words,
and in the shape and color which it had assumed
through long reflection upon its contents and mean-
ing. But whatever conclusion may be reached
respecting these problems, it holds true that
the Fourth Gospel represents in all its parts the
Johannine theology. The question concerning the
subjective element in John is a question for literary
criticism rather than for Biblical theology. Since
we have to deal exclusively with the contents of
the book as a product of its author's mind, the
validity of our results Avill not be dependent upon
any views which may be entertained respecting the
accuracy of his narratives.

In the preparation of this volume I have pursued
substantially the same method as was employed in
my treatise on the Pauline Theology.^ I have
sought to exhibit the salient features of the type of
teaching with which I have dealt, and to show how
the leading ideas stand related to one another and
to the writer's method of thought. Since this
method is intuitional rather than logical, it is more
difficult than in the case of Paul to determine pre-
cisely the correlation of his ideas. It has seemed to

' TnK Paumnk Thkology, a Stud;/ of the Origin and Cor-
relalwn of the Doctvnial Teachiujis of the Apostle Paul. Cliarles
►Scribiici's .Suns, New York, liSit'J.

PREFACE xi

mo, however, that this task could he, in a good
degree, accomplished hy giving close attention to
the peculiarities of John's thinking, and l)y taking as
our guides a few fundamental and comprehensive
ideas in which his whole theology seems to centre.
In the first chapter on the peculiarities of John's
theology I have sought to indicate how the scattered
elements of doctrine in John may be traced uj) into
the unity of certain great comprehensive conceptions.
I have hoped by applying this method, to make clear
the genetic connection of the writer's thoughts, and
the real unity and simplicity of his teaching.

The Bibliography which is appended to the volume
will guide the student to the most important recent
literature of the subject. I have thought that it
would prove useful, in addition, to prefix to each
chapter a special account of the literature which
might well be consulted in the further study of the
various topics treated. I have made these references
somewhat detailed by giving specific titles, number
of pages, etc., in order that the student may form
some judgment in advance respecting the nature and
scope of the discussions. These various references
to literature may also serve to indicate my own
indebtedness to other writers on the theology of
John. I have derived more or less assistance from
almost all the authors to whose writings I have
referred. My work has been chiefly done, however,
on the basis of the text itself. I have been more
aided by a few standard commentaries — especially

Xll PREFACE

those of Meyer, Westcott, Ilaupt, Weiss, and Plum-
iner — than by any other books outside the Johannine
writings themselves.

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

G. B. S.
Yale University,
Sept. 1, 1894.

CONTENTS

Chapter Paob

1. TiiK rixti,iAKH IKS OK -John's TiiKOLOtiY 1
II. The Relation of John's TiiKoLotiv to the

Old Testament 22

III. The Idea of God in the Wuitings ok John 46

I\'. The Doctkine of the Logos 74

V. The Union of the Son with the Fatiiku 102

VI. The Doctrine of Sin 127

^TI. TiiK Work ok Salvation 156

VIII. The Doctrine of the Holy Simrit .... 18D

IX. The Appropriation of Salvation . . . 218
X. The Origin and Nature of the Spiritual

Life 241

XI. The Doctrine of Love 266

XII. Tin. Doctrine of Prayer 290

XIII. The Doctrine of Eternal Life 312

XIV. The Joh.\nnine Eschatology 328

XV. The Theology of John and of Paul Com-
pared 35.5

Bibliography 373

Index of Texts 377

General Index 881

THE JOHANNINF. THEOLOGY

CHAPTER 1

THE PECULIARITIES OP JOHN's THEOLOGY

Literature. — AVestcott : The Gospel according to St. John,
thaiacteiistics of the Gospel, pp. Ixvi.-lxxvii. ; Weiss : Bill.
TheoL, The Character of the Johannean Theology, ii. 315-320
(orig. .589-593) ; Beyschlag : Neutesl. TheoL, Eigenart des
Lehrbegriffs, ii. 40 t-40G ; Kostlix : Johann. Lehrheyriff, AU-
genieiner Character ties Johanneischeii Lehrbegriffs, pp. 38-72 ;
Sears : The Heart of Christ, The Johannean Writings, their
Congruity, Interior Relations, etc., pp. 04-90; Gloag: Intro-
(luction to the Johannine Writings, The Theology of John, pp. 230-
203; Farrar : Th3 Earlj Days of Chrisliunity, chap, xxxiii.,
Characteristics of the Mind and Style of St. John (various edi-
tions) ; Reuss : Hist, of Christ. TheoL, etc.. General Outline of
the Theology of John, ii. .37.5-382 (orig. ii. 418-428); Haupt:
The First Epistle of John, Theological Principles of the Epistle,
pp. 37.5-385 (orig. pp. 320-329) ; Cone : The Gospel and its Earli-
est Interpretations, etc., chap, v.. The Johannine Transformation,
pp. 207-317 ; Hortox : Revelation and the Bible, The Johan-
nine Writings, pp. 309-402 ; Neaxder : Planting and Train-
ing of the Christian Church, The Doctrine of John, ii. 28-57
(liohned.); E. Cairo: The Evolution of Religion, The Gospel
of St. John and the Idea of a Divine Humanity, ii. 217-243.

Biblical theology undertakes to define the peculiar-
ities of the various types of teaching which are found
in .Sacred Scripture. It aims to distinguish each type
as sharply as possible from every other, in order to

2 THE johanninj: theology

set the given writer's mctliotl of thought and style
of argument in the strongest relief. Tiiis ,process
does not prejudice the underlying unity of the differ-
ent types, but by its sharp discriminations it enables
us to define the nature and limitations of that unity.
The fundamental unity in doctrine among the various
Biblical books cannot be clearly discerned without a
close study of each author separately, or of each group
of books which naturally belong together.

No type of New Testament teaching lias more of
individuality than the Johannine ; none has charac-
teristics at once more marked and more difficult to
define. The peculiarities of John's thought elude
exact description. They are felt by all attentive
readers, but they almost defy the effort to deduce
from them the modes and laws of the writer's own
thinking upon the great themes of religion.

I should place among the most prominent of John's
peculiarities the tendency to group his thoughls around
certain great central truths. Whatever may have
been the actual order in which his ideas were un-
folded in his mind, it is noticeable that in his presen-
tation of them in the Gospel and in the First Epistle
his thought moves out from certain formative and
determining conceptions which he has of his subject.
Whatever ))e the interpretation of the i)rol()gue, or
the origin of its ideas, it is certain that it is designed
to present the apostle's loftiest conception of the i)er-
son of his Master and of his relation to mankind,
The writer starts from this height of contemplation.

PECIJLIAIIITIKS OK .FOIIX'S THHOI.OflY 8

In a way somewhat analogous, the First Kpislle opens
witli a reference to eternity, in which the content ol'
the gospel message was stored up ready to come to
the world in Christ. "In both cases this secret of
(Jod which is to he disclosed to mankind is life or
light. The Word was the hearer of life, "and the
life was the light of men" (i. 4);^ so also in the
Epistle the import of the heavenly mystery which
Jesus discloses is life (I. i. 2), and the "message"
which he brought to the world is summed up in the
truth that "God is light" (I. i. 5).

We thus see how tlie apostle has concentrated his
thought upon a profound concejjtion, which hence-
forth became for him the epit(jnie of all that he had
to teach. He grounds the work of Christ in his per-
son. It is, in part, this order of thought which leads
iiini to jilace his highest claims for the person of
Christ at the opening of his Gospel. The incarnate
life of Jesus is, to use one of Horace BushnclTs
words, the " transactional " revelation of principles
and forces which are essential and eternal in his
very being. His bringing of life and light to men
on his mission to earth was grounded in the larger
and deeper truth that he had always been illumining
the minds of men. All through the Old Testament

1 Passages from the Fourth Gospel are referred to simply
by chapter and verse, without any further designation, thus :
viii. 42. To passages from the Epistles I have prefixed a
numeral in large type, indicating the number of the Epistle
from which the citation is made, thus : I. iv. 8 : II. 4, etc.

4 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

period of revelation the true light of the Logos was
shining into the lives, not of the Jews only, but of all
men (i. 9, 10). This fact, again, was based on the
essential nature of the Logos, who was with God in
the beginning, and was God. But in the development
of his thought John starts from this last and highest
point. Thus, the specific Messianic mission of Jesus
to earth is grounded in his universal relation to the
world and man, and this relation, in turn, is grounded
in his essential nature.

In accord with this mode of thought, we find that
the action of God is always conceived of as springing
from the divine nature. John is thus by pre-eminence
the theologian in the original sense of that w^ord.
More explicitly than any other New Testament writer
he sets his idea of God in relation to all his teaching.
What God has done in revelation and redemption it
was according to his nature to do. If God has loved
the world, it is because he is love. If he has en-
lightened the world, it is because he is light. In
revealing himself to men in Christ, he has expressed
under a personal form his own thoughts, feelings, and
will. The revelation does not consist primarily in
announcements made about God ; it consists rather
in the coming to men of One who, in his own person
and character, is a transcript of the divine nature. In
John's interpretation of the revelation, it consists in
what Jesus Christ is, in his power to say : " I and the
Father are one" (x. 30); "He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father" (xiv. 9). God has not merely

PIXTLIARITIES OF JOHNS TFIF.OLOr.Y 5

sent to inankiiid ;i incssauo, but has come to the
world in Christ, who eniltodies in his own person the
Father's will and nature.

It is very clear that in the First Epistle, John de-
duces his whole teaching concerning the natui-e and
demands of the Christian lite from the idea of the
ethical nature of God. Having said that the import
of the gospel message is that God is light (I. i. 5), he
proceeds to show that this holy purity of God must,
on the one hand, make Christians see and feel that
sin still clings to them, and, on the other, show them
what is the true nature of the life which they profess.
When we know that God is light we know that we
are still sinful, but we also see the path which leads
from all sin unto himself. In the light of God we
see that he has provided for the forgiveness of our
sins and for our fellowship with each other in Chris-
tian love. These ideas are unfolded by no formal
process of reasoning ; but they are not, on that
account, less plainly developed from the truth that
God is light (I. i. 5-ii. 6).

This truth also involves the principle and duty of
love. Light and love are synonyms. He that loves
is dwelling and walking in the light, while he who
hates is in darkness. The nature of God as light or
love determines the law and requirement of the Chris-
tian life (1. ii. 7-11). The same relation is defined
even more explicitly in I. iv. 7-21, where the apostle
shows that since God is love, the principle of love
is the essential requirement of religion and the bond

6 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

of all true brotherhood. Love is divine. It has
its primal source in God. The love of God for us
explains our endowment with capacity to love him in
return, and this answering love of the heart to God
carries with it the obligation to love our fellow-men,
who are one with us by virtue of a common nature,
and by being, like ourselves, the object of God's
fatherly love. The tendency of John to refer all the
duties and demands of religion to the moral nature
of God as their source and norm, is nowhere better
illustrated than in the passage : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God ; and every one that
loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He
that loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is love "
(I. iv. 7, 8).

This peculiarity of thought, which centralizes ideas
in their logical source or ground, is pervading and
fundamental in the writings of John. It is partially
described by the terms by which the Gospel and
Epistles are commonly characterized, such as " spirit-
ual," "intuitive," "contemplative." These and kin-
dred designations have their truth in the fact that
the apostle's mind penetrates to the heart of things,
and dwells in rapt contemplation upon those deepest
realities with which all true religion is mainly con-
cerned. Religion is altogether a matter of personal
relations. It is God-likeness, fellowship with Christ,
sympathy witii his spirit, fraternal helpfulness among
men. John's treatment of the truths of religion is
intensely ethical and spiritual. It deals wholly with

PFX'ULiAKiTiKs OF joiixs tiii:oi,o(;y 7

the relations between God and man, and with those
of men to one another. It is characterized by an
intense sense of God. It is contemplative, mystical,
emotional, l)ut not in the sense of being vague or
shadowy. The most secure of all realities is God.
The apostle is most certain as to what kind of a
being, in his essential nature, God is, especially in his
feeling toward the world. He knows that he is light,
— pure, glorious, diffusive, beneficent, life-giving. He
knows that he is love, — condescending, pitying,
sympathetic, forgiving. These deep truths he has
read in the life of Christ. Of all the disciples he
most clearly penetrated to those divinest truths
which lay at the root of every specific precept, par-
able, or miracle of the Saviour. To John the life,
teaching, and death of Jesus arc the language in
which God has written out most plainly his deepest
thoughts and feelings toward mankind. His con-
ception of the life of Christ is well expressed in
Tennyson's lines : —

And so the ^\'ord had breath, and wrought
With human hands the creed of creeds
In loveliness of perfect deeds.

Just as the acts of God flow out of his nature, and
the work of Christ is grounded on what he is, so the
acts and choices of men are determined by what the
men are in their fixed preferences and character.
This correspondence between character and conduct
John docs not conceive after the manner of philo-
sophical determinism ; he treats it as the result of

8 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

an ethical necessity. The Jews did not understand
Jesus' speech because they could not hear his word
(viii. 43). It was none the less true that they woidd
not hear it. The moral inability to hear his word
si)rang out of their deep-set opposition in character
and spirit to that which he taught. In such cases
the ethical kinship of men is often denoted by say-
ing that they are " of God " (viii. 42, 47 ; I. iii. 10 ;
I. iv. 4, 6), or " of the devil " (I. iii. 8) ; " of the truth "
(I. iii. 19), or "of the world " (1. ii. 15, 16 ; I. iv. 5),
and the like. A man does the things which are
consonant with the moral sphere of motive and in
terest to which he belongs, and in which he dwells
and walks. To be of God, or to be born of God, is
to live a life of which God is the determining power ;
to be of the Evil One is to live a lite of sin. He
who is of the truth is described as belonging to it,
so that it is his encompassing element, determining
the whole quality and tendency of his being. The
truth is in him ; he does not merely possess it ; it
has its seat and home in him, and sways his life in
all its aspirations and issues. He, on the other hand,
who is of the world, lives a life of transitory pleas-
ures, and all the expressions of his interest and
desire are determined by motives of sellishness.

It naturally results from this mode of view that
man is regarded as a unit in all his powers and
actions. All the acts of a man involve his total
personality. This is the reason why terms descrij)-
tive of acts au<l elioiccs have willi .lolin so eouipre-

PECULIARITIES (H' .lOIIXS IHKOI.OfJV 0

hcusivc a sense. To know (he tnitli, lor cxaiuple,
is to be free, and to have eternal lilV ; l)iil this does
not mean, for the apostle, that the religious life is
an intellectual affair, consistini^ in the mere [tosses-
sion of knowled^'c. To know the truth is to jtossess
it as a determining ])Ower in one's life ; to know God
is to be in harmony and syjn[)athy with his will.
Jolm's mode of thought is, in these respects, syn-
thetic rather than analytic. He never separates mind
and heart, will and emotion. In this he is true to
life. The truths of religion make their appeal to
the entire man. He who really knows God, in the
apostle's sense of the word know, also obeys, trusts,
and loves God. These various terms designate, no
doubt, distinguishable phases of the religious life
and spirit ; but they cannot be separated, and should
not be treated as if they could exist apart. The
application of analytic thought to religion breaks it up
into various departments, and often subdivides these,
making the religious life an elaborate programme,
and the conditions of salvation an extended series of
exercises or ordo salutis. John's mode of thought is
the opposite of all this. He simplifies and unifies acts
and experiences which nKjdern minds have learned
sharply to discriminate, and even to treat apart.

It certainly can be justly said that, necessary as
discrimination and analysis are in dealing with the
truths of religion, the apostle's method of thought is
that which corresponds best with normal and healthy
religious life. His conception of religion is adverse

10 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

to all narrowness and onc-sidedness. As against the
Gnostic over-emphasis of knowledge, he insisted that
he only who does righteousness is righteous (I. iii. 7).
The mere intellectual possession of truth cannot suf-
fice ; truth is not merely something to he known,
but something to be done (iii. 21 ; I. i. 6). The
Christian is to walk in the truth as his native ele-
ment (II. 4 ; III. 3, 4) ; the truth dwells within him
(viii. 44 ; I. ii. 4), controls and guides him ; he
belongs to it, and draws from it the strength and
inspiration of his life (xviii. 37; 1. ii. 21; I. iii. 19).
Doctrine and life are inseparable. John never thinks
of the truths of religion as dead, cold forms which
one might hold without living the life which corre-
sponds to them. Such a mere intellectual assent to
truth would have for religion, in his view, no value
or significance. Religion is life after the type which
has been perfectly exemplified in Jesus Christ; but
it is life in a full and rich, not in a narrow and lim-
ited, sense. It is a life that is abundant, a life which
embraces the fullest activity and best development
of the entire man. All powers and gifts should con-
tribute to its enrichment. It should draw its sujjplies
from the deepest sources, — abiding fellowship with
God, and ethical likeness to him. Neither a barren
intcllectualism nor a dreamy and unpractical mys-
ticism in religion could ever develo]) along the lines
of teaching which John has marked out. All such
excesses would be excluded by the very conipreiien-
sivencss and depth of his idea.

PECULTARITIES OF .JOHN'S TIlKOI.lXiV 11

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

1 Der erste Brief des Johannes, p]?. 321, '^12.

12 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

The apostle's habit of thinkhig in antitheses is an
illustration of this peculiarity of his mind. Accord-
ingly, his writings are characterized by a species of
dualism, — not the metaphysical dualism which makes
evil an essential and eternal principle of the universe,
but a moral dualism which, as a matter of fact, finds
illustration in human history from the beginning of
the race. The moral history of mankind is the con-
flict of light and darkness, the shining of the true
light in the world's darkness, and an appropriation,
but slow and partial, of the light by the darkness.

Attention should here be directed to the way in
which John conceives religion, as consisting in this
immediate personal relation of the soul to God or to
Christ. Religion is, above all things, fellowship with
God, and this fellowship involves likeness to God. It
is such an abiding in God, such a walking in his light,
that the soul becomes possessed of something of the
purity and love which dwell perfectly in God. The
religious life begins with an impartation from God.
To be born of God means to receive from him a com-
munication of spiritual life whereby the soul is more
and more transformed into Christlikeness. To the
mind of John religion signifies the progressive attain-
ment by man of his true type or idea, — not, indeed,
by efforts of his own, but by his appropriation and use
of that divine i)owcr which God freely ])estows upon
him. To be begotten of God is to be riglitoous, even
as Christ is righteous (I. ii. 20). The Christlike life is
the true life, and the only true life. Ileucc our author

PECULIARITIES OF JOHN'S Til KO LOGY 1.3

insists with great energy that Christianity means
j)ure character. " He that doeth righteousness is
righteous, even as he [Christ] is righteous " (I. iii. 7).
Between the Christian life and sin there is an abso-
lute contrariety in principle. The Christian man is
characteristically righteous, and while sin still cleaves
to him (I. i. 8-10), he cannot live the life of habitual
sin {afxapriav ov iroiei} (I. iii. 9). The Christian man
has been cleansed ; but as the traveller in Oriental
lands needs, on coming in from the dusty street, to
wash his feet, so the Christian needs to be purified
from the sin which still cleaves to his life (xiii. 10).
But supremely and characteristically sinful he can-
not be ; that would be a contradiction in terms.
Hence, with his strong emphasis on the governing
idea of the religious life, and with his intense sense of
its characteristic quality, John does not hesitate to
affirm : " Every one who abideth in him sinneth not "
{ovx dfxapTdvei) ; '" Every one who has been begotten
from (lod does not do sin, because his seed abides in
him, and he cannot sin, because he has been begotten
of God " (1. iii. 6, 9).

Another peculiarity of the Johannine theology is
seen in the way in which the apostle blends the
religious life in this world with the eternal spiritual
order. By his conception of eternal life as a present
possession he unites this world with the Avorld to
come. To his mind the spiritual life is the heavenly
life already begun. He comprehends the particular
in the universal, and estimates all things in the light

14 THE JOIIANNIXE THEOLOGY

of eternity. Therefore the iiKhvidutil life that is
formed upon the divine pattern belongs l)y its very
nature to the world of abiding realities. Since it is
the life of fellowship with God, it partakes of his own
purity, and has in it the elements of true strength,
endurance, and growth. The idea of eternal life
which is found in the Fourth Gospel s|)rings directly
out of the Johannine mysticism. Whenever man
receives the impartation of the Spirit of God and
walks in fellowship with God, eternal life is begun.
Heaven and earth are near together, and that which
separates them is not death, but sin.

It will be apparent from the considerations which
have thus far been presented that John has given us
a purely ethical and spiritual conception of religion.
The whole emphasis is laid njion the inner qnality of
the life. True worship is from the heart, and may be
offered anywhere. Nothing is said of institutions,
not even of the Church. No emj)hasis is laid upon
sacraments. The establishment of the Lord's Supper
is not recorded. The references to baptism are quite
incidental, and are chiefly to John's l)aptism. The
practice of baptism as a Christian rite receives no
emphasis, unless the somewhat doubtful reference in
iii. 5, " Except a man be born of water and the
Spirit," etc., be referred to baptism; and, in that
case, as Reuss remarks, " ba))tism is represented as
a symljol of the spiritual birth, and not as the com-
memorative sign of an association." ^ It looks toward
1 Hisl. Christ. Theol. ii. 491 (uiig. ii. 51b).

PKCrLIAlUTIKS OF JOHN'S TMKOI.OflY 15

union witli Christ, and nut toward union aiuon<^
lu'lievcrs in a conlnlunitv^ The ty))o of mind wliich
our author iUustrates, naturally concentrates its
interest mainly upon the immediate relation of the
soul to (ii)d. This is not done after the manner of
a narrow subjective individualism. Duties to fellow-
men are repeatedly emphasized. The person of Christ
is not for John a mere ideal to l»e contemj)lated with
devout rapture ; the Master's life was the pattern of
service. It was not, however, the outward aspects of
his life, but the underlying motives and principles
of it, which appealed most powerfully to the mind
and heart of John. It was not the mere fact that
he once performed an act of menial service in wash-
ing tlie disciples' feet ; but it was the relation in which
this service stood to the truth that he came forth
from God and was going unto God (xiii. 3), to which
John attaches such great significance. Indeed, the
whole historic life of Christ seemed to him to be
grounded in the eternal self-revealing impulse in God,
and to express in terms of human life and experience
the nature and thoughts of God which in all ages he
had been making known in other ways to men (i. 4,
5, 9, 10).

Let us now raise the inquiry, What elements of
Christian doctrine is the Johannine theology especially
adapted to supply ? It will hardly be questioned, I
suppose, by any student of theology, that the Johan-
nine type of thought has been far less influential than
the Pauline type in shaping the great dogmatic sys-

16 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

tems. The Christian doctrine of God has usually
been developed from the legal conceptions of his
nature and relations to men which underlie Paul's
Jewish forms of thought. The dominant idea of
John concerning the nature of God as light or love
has not been the characteristic and central conception
of the prevailing historic theologies. It has had its
influence, but it has not occupied the commanding-
place which it occupied in the mind of the apostle
John. Christian thought concerning God has con-
tinued through all the centuries predominantly Jewish,
taking its color from the terms of Paul's polemic
against Judaism, and growing more and more stereo-
typed in that form through the influence u))on it of
the severe logic of certain great minds of a strongly
legal cast, such as Augustine, Calvin, and Grotius.

In direct connection with this legalistic tendency
of thought concerning God stands the fact that the
soteriology of the Church has been characteristically
Pauline. The way of salvation has been expounded
in rigid adherence to Paul's doctrine of juridical jus-
tification. The Pauline legal method of thought -^
rendered natural to his mind by his Jewish educa-
tion, and made especially necessary by his conflicts
with Judaizing errors — has, in great part, given the
law to all Christian thinking on the subject. The
conception of (Jod's nature as consisting primarily
and essentially of retributive justice, the idea of his
absolute decrees, and the ajjplication of commercial
and governmental analogies to the work of his grace

PECULIARITIES OF .JOHN'S THEOLOGY 17

in i-edemption, flow directly out of the Jewish aspects
of Paurs thoiiglit. It is aside from my present pur-
pose to i)ursue the inquiry, how far tliis development
of thought was justifiable and wholesome, and how
far one-sided and misleading. The fact, however,
can hardly be denied that the more mystical and
purely ethical methods of thought which are illus-
trated in John have had but a sporadic influence in
historic theology. 1 venture the opinion that tlieol-
ogy would have been vastly deepened and enriched,
had the profoundly spiritual thought of John per-
meated and shaped it in anything like the degree
in which the polemics of Paul have done. With-
out detracting in the smallest measure from the
great truths which Paulinism has contributed to
Christian thought, it appears to me that there is
much reason to desire that the spiritual mysticism of
John may in time to come acquire its legitimate in-
fluence in Christian theology and life. The theology
of John is consonant in spirit with that of Paul in
its highest ranges ; but it represents a mode of thought
concerning God and his grace in salvation that is
distinctly higher than the legalism of Paul, which
he Ijrought over from Judaism, and which supplied
his weapons of war against his adversaries rather
than furnished his favorite forms for the purely
positive expression of the truths of his gospel. In
any case, Paul's more legal mode of thought may
well be supplemented by John's more spiritual mode ;
his argumentative handling of religious truth by

18 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

John's more direct and intnitive presentation of it,
and his more analytic method by -lohn's more syn-
thetic method, which binds together all separate
truths in the great all-com])rehending truth that
God is love.

It is not in the interest of Christian thinking
chiefly, but in the interest of Christian life, that 1
would urge the value of the teaching and spirit of
the Johannine writings. The tendency of an in-
creased appreciation and application of John's methods
of thought must be to lead to a better adjustment
of doctrine and life. A one-sided adherence to the
polemics of Paul — called out by the peculiar con-
ditions of his age — has given to our Protestant
theology a formally logical aspect which has often
made religion too much a set of opinions, and too
little a life of fellowship with God. This tendency
has often set dogma above life, and theology above
religion. It is certain that theology and religion are
inseparable, and that they react upon each olher : hut
religion is primary, theology secondary. Theology
is the intellectual construction of the realities which
in religion are known and experienced. Theology
is theory, religion is life. Theology purports to be
the intellectual equivalent — which must always be
approximate only — of the realities of the religious
life. The true ibethod of 1 bought respecting theology
and religion is not to se])ai'ate them, but to assign to
each of them its true function. Our Loi'd's piimary
concern was religion, — that men should love and

PECrLIAKITlKS OF .lOlIX'S Til KOI.OC V 19

trust (iod, find live in harmony with his rewjuiro-
ments. But these i)riniary truths of religion raise
at once threat theoh)g-ical (jucstions : What is God's
nature? What arc his requirements, and how does
he make them known to us ? There can he no
religion without theology, — unless religion can he
divorced from thought, since theology hegins with
the simplest efforts of the mind to construe its relig-
ious ideas and experiences, and to interpret their
significance, ground, and end. But for this very
reason theology is secondary. It is religious thought,
— reflection upon religious truth and experience, —
and therefore quite distinct from religious life.
Theology is to religion what ii theory of knowledge
is to our actual consciousness of ourselves and of
the ohjects ahout us. No human being attains fully
developed reason without some wonder, inquiry, or
reflection concerning the way in which he knows
himself and the world ; hut his thought respecting
these percejttions — be it ever so simple or ever so
profound — is clearly distinguishable from the actual
living experience in which he knows himself and
the world.

The apostle John has ])laccd in the foreground of
all his teaching the realities of the religious life, —
God as love, man as needy, fellowship with God
through likeness to Christ as eternal life. He had
no occasion so to overlay these primal truths with
arguments that they should present themselves to
the mind primarily as matter for reasoning; he pre-

20 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

seiits them rather to the heart, with the certainty
that they will meet the conscious wants of mankind.
His teaching summons men, first of all, to live the
sort of life which Jesus Christ has revealed and il-
lustrated. He seems to feel that in the living of
that life lies the guaranty of essentially right ideas
concerning God and man and duty. He seems will-
ing to trust the religious life to give direction and
shape to religious thought. He thus places at the
centre what is by its very nature central. His
method of treating religion — could it have had its
legitimate effect in the Christian life of the world —
would have tended strongly to the preservation of
unity and harmony among Christians. The divis-
ions of Christendom have arisen mainly from intel-
lectual, and not from religious, differences. They
have been differences which have not, in the main,
touched the real essential unity in which believers
stand through their common fellowship with Christ.^

1 Compare the observations of E. H. Sears on this point in
his treatise on the Fourth Gospel : " We cannot move toward
the Christ without coming closer to each other. Leave him
out and his unitizing Word, and let every man strike out for
himself, and we tend to a crumbling individualism, to endless
distraction and confusion. But those who acknowledge Jesus
Christ as the supreme authority aiul guide, and enter more
into his all-revealing mind, are making progress tov/ard the
harmonizing truths which he represents. However wide apart
they may be at the start, their progress is ever on converging
lines. Essential truth becomes more and more central and
manifest, the non-essential falls away to its subordinate jilace,
and orthodox and unorthodox move alike toward a higher

ri.ci i.i.\i;ri"iK.s or .loiixs tiikolohy 21

'I'he assertion ol" Maurice that those who fratenii/,c
on any other basis than that of fellowship with
Christ thereby deny the only true ground of Christ-
ian i'cllowsliii), is a just inference from John's con-
ception of the unity of Christendom. This unity is
real, despite all the efforts of men to destroy it by
their conflicts of opinion and theory. It underlies
their differences; and if the. time shall ever come
when Christianity is seen to be primarily not a
dogma, but a life, it will reassert itself, and reduce
to insignificance those superficial divisions among
Christians which different modes of thought respect-
ing metaphysics, polity, and ritual have created in
the essentially indivisible Church of Christ. To the
attainment of this end I believe the teachings and
spirit of the apostle John are especially adapted to
contribute.

and higher unity. It is not that any one sect is making a con-
quest of the others, but Jesus Christ is making a conquest of
us all." — The Heart of Christ, p. 516.

CHAPTER II

THE EELATION OP JOHN's THEOLOGY TO THE OLD

TESTAMENT

Literature. — Franke : Das Alle Testament bet Johannes;
Wexdt : Teaching of Jesus, Attitude toward the Old Testa-
ment in the Johannine discourses, ii. 35-48 (orig. pp. 356-
368) ; Weiss : Der Jukanneische Lehrhegriff, Zweiter Abschnitt,
Die Alttestamentlichen Grundlagen des johanneischen Lehr-
begriffs, esj^ecially pp. 101-128 ; Biblical Theology, The prepara-
tory revelation of God, ii. 384-392 (§ 152) ; O. IIoltzmanx :
Das Johatinesevangelium, Das Johaiinesevangelium uud das
Alte Testament, pp. 182-195 ; Beyschlag : NeutestamentUche
Theologie, Wiirdigung des Alten Testaments, i. 229-232;
Westcott : The Gospel of St. John, Introduction, Relation (of
the Gospel) to the Old Testament, pp. Ixvi-lxix; Gohet : Coni-
menlary, The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the Religion of
the Old Testament, i. 127-134 (Am. Ed.).

For the apostle John, Christianity is the absohite
religion. The Old Testament system was preparatory
and provisional. It was, indeed, a divine system, but
it was special in its nature. Underneath it, and oper-
ating through it, has ever been the essential gosj)el
of the sclf-rcvealing Word. The religion of the Old
Testament was a i)roduct of this self-revelation in its
earlier stages, the purpose of which was to prejjare
the way for the personal manifestation and work of

.lOlIX'S TIIKOr.OflY AXn THE OLD TESTAMKXT 23

the Logos. The OKI Testament religion and Christ-
ianity arc one, so far as their origin and aim arc
concerned ; they differ as the temporary form differs
from the permanent snhstancc. " The law was given
(iSodj]) by Moses ;" it was a temporary, historic
form which revelation assumed for a special purpose ;
but "grace and truth" — the full and final revelation
of God's free love, the realization of the heavenly
realities — "came (e^eVero) by Jesus Christ" (i. 17).
The two words by which the introduction of the two
systems is described suggest, respectively, their differ-
ing nature. The law-system is a temporary polity,
embodying essential contents of divine truth, framed
by a human agent ; it is introduced, established,
" given." The gospel is a system of spiritual truths
and principles, or, rather, it is the work of God
revealing himself in Christ, and through him recon-
ciling the world unto himself; it is personal; it is
inseparable from him who Ijrings it to the world ; it,
therefore, becomes, transpires, " comes ;" in the per-
sonal coming of Christ into humanity came God's
grace and truth in their full manifestation.

In the epistles of John there arc no quotations from
the Old Testament, and no direct allusions to it.
Although the Old Testament is quoted less frequently
and less fully in the Fourth Gospel than in several
other Xew Testament books, the points of contact
between it and the Jewish religion and scriptures
are numerous and significant. According to John,
Jesus grounds his "svork and teaching distinrtiy upon

24 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

an Old Testament basis. In the conversation with the
Samaritan woman, he identifies himself with the Jews
in respect to religion, and asserts that the Jewish
people alone have a right knowledge of the object of
worship : " We worship that which we know " (iv. 22).
This statement he explains by declaring that sal-
vation proceeds from the Jews ; that is, that the
Messianic salvation which he brings is historically
grounded in the religion of the Jewish people. They
are the people of revelation. Their history has been,
in a special sense, a ])reparation for the Messiah.
Jesus, therefore, assumes Ijoth the reality of Old
Testament revelation, and the insei)aral)lc connection
of his own work with tliat revelation as its comple-
tion. The same relation is plainly implied in the
prologue : " He came unto his own (ra iSta), and
they that were his own (ollScoi) received him not"
(i. 11). The Jewish people as a whole were the
true and proper possession of Christ, because all
through their history God had been preparing for his
coming and work. The refusal, therefore, of those
who of right belonged to him to accept him, involved
a great failure on their part to realize tlie purpose of
God in their history.

The necessity that Old Testament prophecy should
be fulfilled, is as explicitly asserted in the Fourth
Gospel as it is in the First, or in the Epistles of Paul
(ef. XV. 25; xvii. 12). "The scripture cannot be
broken" (x. 35); that is, cannot be deprived of its
validity. Both the unity and the inspiration of Old

JOHN'S TIIEOLOC.Y AND TIIK OLD TKSl A.MKXT 25

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

26 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

fulness of blessing in the ]\Iessianic age is here indi-
cated, in view, especially, of such passages as employ
the figure of a stream or spring in describing that
blessing (e. g. Is. xliv. 3 ; Iv. 1 ; Iviii. 11).

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

JOIIX'S TIIF.OI.OGY AND THE Or.D TESTAMENT 27

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

28 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

One further example from the history of the pas-
sion may l)c noted. In xix. 37 the language of Zecha-
riali (xii. 10), " They shall look upon me [or to me]
whom they have pierced," is applied to the piercing
of Jesus' side by the spear of the Roman soldier.
The evangelist departs from both the Hebrew and the
Septuagint in substituting the phrase " on him "
(fc'tV 6V) for " on [or to] me" ('V^* ; Septuagint, tt/jo?
fxe)y following, probably, in so doing, some manuscript
or version of his time. The proi)hetic passage is a
difficult one, and Old Testament scholars are not
agreed either as to its translation or interpretation.
Some would render : " They " (the people of Jerusalem)
" shall look to me " (Jehovah) " in respect to him
(i^x nx) whom they have pierced " (slain) ; that is,
they shall turn penitently to Jehovah for comfort
and forgiveness on account of their brethi-en of
Judah who were slain in war with foreign enemies,
in consequence of enmity between Jerusalem and the
country districts.^ More commonly the passage is
rendered as in our versions. On this view the rela-
tive pronoun in the passage i"^^^) is regarded as in
apposition with the personal pronoun, and the prepo-
sition of the original (rix) is explained as marking
the following relative more plainly as an accusative,
since otherwise it might mean, " who pierced [me]." '^
The general sense of this passage, then, as commonly
understood is: In consequence of the "spirit of grace

1 So Toy, Qiinlatinns In the New Tealament, pp. 02, 93.
^ So Keil and Delilzsch, Minor Prophets, in loco.

.JOHN'S TIIEOLOUY AND TlIK OLD TESTAMENT 29

and of supplication" which Jehovah will pour out
upon them, the inhabitants of Jerusalem will regard
him whom they have pierced (Jehovah) by their sins
with bitter sorrow and penitent grief. The apostle
seems to regard the langiuigc as referring directly to
the Messiah, and as literally fuliilled in the act of
the Roman soldier.

It is clear that, in the case of the quotations last
cited, criticism must distinguish between their orig-
inal sense and application, and the reference which is
assigned them by the apostle. In accord with the mode
of viewing Messianic prophecy which was current
among the Jews, and which was inherited from them
by the first Christians, the primary reference of in-
dividual passages is often disregarded ; and if the
words find a parallel in some incident in the history
of Jesus, they are freely applied to it, and even held
to necessitate that particular circumstance. While
it is to be admitted that the New Testament writers
often apply passages without reference to their his-
toric sense, and in the belief that they primarily re-
lated to the particular circumstances which are in
hand, two important considerations are to be remem-
bered. The first is that this excess — if I may so call
it — in the application of particular passages to spe-
eilic events springs out of their profound and true
sense of the prophetic and Messianic import of Old
Testament history. The second point is that, while
exegesis cannot always justify the identification of
the immediate reference in quotations with the situ-

30 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

ation to which tlicy arc applied, it is seldom difficult
to discern a deeper point of connection, a relation of
principle between the two, which shows that it is not
alone the form of individual prophetic passages with
which the writer's mind is concerned, but that he
penetrates to the prophetic significance of Jehovah's
relation to the theocratic people, and regards that
relation as the type of that which shall at length be
constituted between Jehovah, on the one hand, and
the incarnate Redeemer and his kingdom, on the
other. The problem which is involved in the use
of Old Testament passages by the New Testament
writers can neither be solved by making their appli-
cation of texts give the law to Old Testament in-
terpretation, nor by tlie supposition of a double sense
in prophecy, but only by admitting, on the one hand,
the limitations which verbal exegesis, universal in
their time, imposed upon their minds, and by maintain-
ing, on the other, the principle of typical parallel-
ism, — the view that the religious truths and ideals
of prophecy furnish j)arallels and illustrations of the
various stages and aspects of the final revelation
of God in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

The discourses in the Fourth Oospel are very ex
plicit in their recognition of the Messianic import of
the Old Testament. In his discussion with the Jews,
Jesus hikes common ground with them so far as the
foundation of the Messianic ho|)e in the Old Testa-
ment is concerned (v. 45-47). You appeal to Moses,
he says, on whom you have set your hojje ; to Moses

JOHN'S rilKOLOCY AND IIIH OLD TKS TAM KNT ol

yon shall _u"o. 11" you did really bolicvo him, in the
li'iu' import uf the system wiiieh he founded, you
would thereby l»e led to accept me as the Messiah,
" for he wrote of me " (v. 40), Here, too, the refer-
ence is to the i^'cncral Messianic import of the Pen-
tateuch and to the prophetic nature of its ty|)es,
although, possibly, Dcut. xviii. 1') may be especially
thought of: "The Lord thy God will I'aisc uj) unto
thee a ])rophet from the midst of thee, of thy breth-
ren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken."
What is of im[)ortance, for our present purpose, is
that Jesus treats the teaching of Moses as so related
to his own mission that a true belief, involving a
right spiritual apprehension of what is taught in the
Mosaic law, would logically conduce to an acceptance
of his Messiahship. To the same effect, according
t(j the most probable interjiretation of the passage,
is the assertion of Jesus in v. 37 : " And the Father
which sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye
have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen
his form.'" The witness which the Father has borne
to him is most naturally understood to be that which
is contained in Sacred Scripture, since in the next
verse (38) he refers to the "word" of God, and es-
pecially because in verse 39 he refers to the Scrip-
tures, and asserts that they bear testimony to himself.
The reference to the ]\Iosaic books at the end of the dis-
course (verses 45-47) conlirms this view. The Jews are
reproached, in language somewhat anthropomorj)hic,
with failure to hear the voice of God which speaks

32 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

in their own Scriptures, and to sec the form of God
— a figurative designation of his true nature — which
is there disclosed. In the words that follow, Jesus
repeats the idea, which is here presented under the
figure of moral deafness and blindness, in terms
which are designed to emphasize the lack on the
part of the Jews of the essential, inward possession
of the truths contained in the Old Testament, which
would, if dwelling in them, have disposed them to
believe on him.^

In a way somewhat similar to that in which he
refers to Moses does he appeal to Abraham as a wit-
ness to his Messiahship. The Jews resent his claims
because they seem to them to involve the absurd idea
that Jesus is greater than Abraham. Jesus replies
that Abraham, who was a friend of the truth, re-
joiced in hope of seeing (iW 'iSr)) " his day," the
realization of the Messianic ideal, " and he saw it" —
in Paradise he beheld the fulfilment of the Messianic
promise — " and was glad" (viii. 50). The exultation
of Abraham in anticipation of witnessing the aj)pear-
ance of the Messiah and the joyful realization of this
hope in the world beyond, require the supposition of
the Messianic significance of God's covenant with
him {qf. Gen. xv. 1-6), and present a striking point
of contact between the Johanninc discourses and
the Old Testament.

The references of Jesus to the facts of Old Testa-
ment history and life as points of departure for his

1 Of. Wendt, Teachnuj of Jesus, ii. l()~tl (orig. pp. SOO-^JGS).

JOHN'S TilE(JLO(;V AXIJ Tin: OLD TKSTAMEXT 33

own teaching, often reveal his mode of viewing the
institutiun.s of the old covenant. Thus he speaks of
Moses as giving the Jews circumcision, l)ut explains
that the rite was n<jt original with Moses, but was a
primitive patriarchal custom whose observance Moses
re-enacted (vii. 22). He calls the temj)le his " Father's
house" (ii. IG), and by his imlignant expulsiiHi from
it of those who profaned it by buying and selling
animals for sacrifice, and by exchanging for profit the
various kinds of money which strangers brought to
the feast, he reminded the disciples of the Psalmist's
avowal (Ps. Ixix. 9) of his consuming zeal for God's
house (ii. 17). In argument with the Pharisees, Jesus
takes his stand upon the maxim of the law (Deut.
xvii. 6; xix. 15) that "the witness of two men is true"
(viii. 17), and claims that he has even a stronger
attestation for his Messiahship than this principle
requires. He has his own consciousness of his Mes-
sianic calling, and, in addition to this, the testimony
of the Father to his Messiahship. This testimony is
variously understood to refer to the witness of God
which is contained in Scripture, to that borne by the
divine voice from heaven, to the attestation which
God gave to Jesus through the power conferred upon
him to work miracles, and to the sense of the Father's
approval which was given in Jesus' own conscious-
ness. In any case, his attitude toward the Old
Testament maxim remains unchanged. Our Lord
also assumes the Old Testament standpoint in desig-
nating the judges of the theocratic people as gods

34 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

(x. 34, 35). Ill consideration of the dignity of their
stations as the representatives of Jehovah in the
nation, the Psahnist addresses them as gods (°''? '?*.)'
notwithstanding their personal unrighteousness (Ps.
Ixxxii. 6 ; cf. xlv. 6 ; Ex. xxii. 28). The argument in
the passage in question is, that if the judges of Israel,
as the dispensers of justice and the bearers of the
Divine Word, may be called Elohim, or (as in the
Septuagint) Oeoi, with how much better right may
he, whom the Father has consecrated to a work far
higher than theirs, claim the title " Son of God "
(x. 3C).i

To the general view which we have presented of
the relation, according to the Johannine discourses,
of Jesus to the Old Testament, it is sometimes ob-
jected 2 that, in some of the passages in question, he
speaks of the Old Testament as their laiv, as if he
did not recognize it as authoritative : " In your law

1 The argument turns on the superiority of his dignity
and person as compared with those of the judges and rulers.
If they were called Elohlni without blasphemy, surely he may
be called " Son of God " without blasphemy. It is very doubt-
ful whether ^with ^Meyer and AV^estcott) we are to suppose a
further contrast to be intended between their designation
"gods "and his "Son of God," on the view that he claimed
only a humbler title than that which the law applied to them.
In this case the argument would depend upon a double con-
trast, thus: The judges and rulers were called gods; one who
is greater than they may surely claim the lesser title " Son of
God." Most interpreters do not recognize this supposed second
contrast.

"^ For example, by Messner, Lehre der Aposlel, p. 345.

JOTTVS TlIEOLOr.Y AND TFIK OLD TKSTAMKN'T 35

it is written, (li;it the witness of two men is true"
(viii. 17 ; '/. x. 'A-i ; xv. 25). But it is to l)e uijticed
that Jesus uses this expression, " your law," in an
argumentum ad hominem with the Jews. His mode
of arirument is: Your law upon which you lay sucli
stress, which you prize as your chief authority, hut
so inadequately comprehend and apply, is (juite ca-
pable of being turned against you, and in my favor.
Your law requires two witnesses to prove a case ; I
furnish them, and one of them is God. Your law
calls the judges of Israel gods ; I, who came forth
from the Father, have only claimed the title Son of
God, It is obvious that the emphasis of these ex-
pressions does not lie uj)on the idea that the law is
theirs and in no sense his, but upon the idea that
they, in their false view, consider it theirs in the
sense that it is unfavorable to him, and justifies their
opposition to him, whereas he shows how the re-
verse is the case. The use which he makes of the
Old Testament passages in the cases where he refers
to them as "your law" shows that he too builds
upon thoir authority, and, so fdr, takes common
ground with the Jews in respect to the Old Testa-
ment. The objective way in which the gospel con-
stantly refers to " the Jews " has been thought to
iiuiicate a writer "who stood outside the sj^here of
Judaism. But this peculiarity is naturally accounted
for, partly l)y ^the fact that the writer, although a
Jew, had long resided in a Roman province, and had
long been identified with Gentile Christianity, and

36 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

especially by the fact that the Jews are ahnost al-
ways thus spoken of as the determined opponents of
Jesus. It is not the writer's relation to " the Jews,"
but their relation to Jesus, which his mode of refer-
ence to them is intended to indicate.

The words in the allegory of the Door of the Sheep-
fold, " All that came before me are thieves and rob-
bers" (x. 8), have often been appealed to, on the
supposition that they refer to Moses and the prophets,
as evidence that the gospel was the work of a Gnostic
of the second century. But in view of the estimate
elsewhere placed upon the Old Testament in the
passages which we have reviewed (c/. iv. 22; v. 37,45;
vii. 19), it is impossible to justify this su})position. The
reference must be, either to false Messiahs who had
claimed to be " doors of the sheep," that is, teachers
and guides to the people,^ or, as is more commonly
held, to the members of the Jewish hierarchy, who
had been increasing their influence as religious leaders
previous to the appearance of Jesus as the " door "
to the fold. On this view the present tense — " are
thieves and robbers" — has force, as depicting the
existing antagonism which Jesus is experiencing from
these would-be leaders of God's people. In either
case, the passage cannot be legitimately used as
illustrating an anti-Judaistic tendency in the Fourth

1 So Weudt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 46, 47 (oiig. pp. 3CG, 367),
following many earlier interpreters. The principal objection
to this inter])retation is that historical proof of the appearance
of false Messiahs before Christ's day is wanting.

JOHNS 'III K( )!.()(; V AM) I'llK OF.D TESTAMKNI' 87

(Jospcl, inconsistent with lliat found elsewhere, or
inconsistent witli the .J()h;iunin(> ixiithorship.

It is ini|ioi-taiit to observe, liowever, lliat while
Jesus is at one with his contemporaries in recogniz-
ing the authority of tlic Old Testament, he often
stands in sharj) contrast with them in respect to the
understan(hnu" iind application of it. By no incident
is this difference more clearly illustrated than by the
discussion which arose between him and the Jews
over the heahng of the inlirm man at the pool of
Bethesda. The Jews regarded the action of Jesus in
curing the man as a violation of the Old Testament
Sabliath law (v. 10). Jesus replies, in substance, that
their whole idea of the Sabbath law moves in the
sphere of the letter ; that they have not grasped the
conception of the utility of the Sabbath, and of its
subservience to human well-being. They have pro-
ceeded as if the rest of God after creation, on which
the law based the sabbatic institution, meant inac-
tivity on his part, and involved his refraining from
lending man his sympathy and aid, and from actively
])romoting his true interests. On this false view was
l)ased the idea of the necessity of man's complete
inactivity on the Sabbath, precluding even the right
to relieve human suffering. Jesus affirms that the
premises on which their whole conce])tion of the
Sal>bath rests are false. God is intensely active in
helping and Ijlessing men. He " works " from the
beginning " even until now" (v. 17). He is unceas-
ing and untiring in his efforts to promote human

38 THE JOIJANNIXE THEOLOGY

welfare. There can, therefore, be no reason, grounded
in the nature or action of God, why worlvs of benevo-
lence should cease on the Sabbath. In doing good on
the Sal)bath day Jesus is therefore but doing " what
he seeth the Father doing " (v. 19). In this narrative
we find a striking illustration of the way. in which
Jesus was accustomed to correct the religious and
moral errors of his time by exposing the false idea
of God upon which they rested, and by substituting
for it a true conception.

Whether or not the words of Jesus, " Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (ii. 19),
should be cited in illustration of his attitude toward
Old Testament institutions, depends in some degree
upon the view taken of John's explanation of the
words, " He spake of the temple of his body " (ii. 21).
Meyer adopts the opinion that the evangelist has
given the intended meaning of Jesus' words, which
were designed to " throw out a seed of thought for
the future which could not take root at the time."
This author seeks, however, to give the language a
reference to the literal temple also, by supposing that
in speaking the words in the temple court, Jesus
points to the temple, in which he " sees the sacred
type of his body ; " and, by identifying, without explan-
ation, the type and the antitype, he announces " in
a pictorial riddle" his i-esuri'cction,' Others have
recognized more explicitly than docs Meyer a double
sense in the words, " Destroy this temple." The
^ Cnmmentanj, in loco.

JOHNS THEOLOGY AND THIO OLD TESTAMKNT 39

supposition is made that l)y " tliis tcmplo " he means
the Jews' sacred house, Ijiit tliat a rofcrence to his
resurrection can still be veiled under his words, since
he knows that it is in his own person, and specifically
by his death, that the destruction of the Jewish relig-
ious system, represented in the temple, will be con-
summated. The meaning therefore is : Destroy, as
you arc bent upon doing, your temple ; overthrow,
as your present conduct surely will, your religious
system ; I will reconstruct it according to its true,
divine idea through my death and resurrection. On
the view just mentioned, it may be held either that
Jesus intended the double sense which is found in
his words, — in which case the theory would be sub-
stantially the same as Meyer's, — or, that he directly
referred only to the literal temple, but that, since the
reconstruction predicted was actually to be accom-
plished by his resurrection, the evangelist's explana-
tion of what was involved in his words is a just one.

Jf it is once admitted that the apostle's explanation
of Jesus' words was derived from the subsequent
events of his death and resurrection, and did not
rest upon any clear reference or exposition of Jesus
at the time, criticism is left free to regard this explan-
ation as more or less natural, according to its estim-
ate of its appropriateness. The way is thus oi)ened
to the theory that John's interpretation of the words,
" Destroy this temple," etc., is the result of his own
reflection, in the light of subsequent events, upon
later teachings of Jesus concerning the templc-wor-

40 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

JOHN'S TIIKOI.OCY AM) Till: OLD TKS lAMKN T 41

sorved {cf. Acts vi. 13, 14). In view of those consid-
erations, and on account of the ditliculties of the
"double-sense" theory, many scliohus adopt the
opinion that in saying that he wouhl rebuild " this
temple " in three days, Jesus means that he will in
the shortest possible time reconstruct the system of
worship, which the Jews are destroying, according
to its true idea. This is the " sign " which he will
give, and which will show that he is the Messiah of
the nation. They treat him as the destroyer of their
religious institutions ; he tells them that it is they
themselves who persist in overthrowing their own
religion. He, on the contrary, conserves its ideal,
essential doctrines, and will re-establish it on the
secure foundations of imj)erishable spiritual truth.
That v,-hich he will establish is the Church, the
spiritual temple of God ; but he can still call it " this
temple," because he regards his kingdom as organ-
ically connected with the Jewish theocracy, and, so
far, historically identical with it.^

It is not necessary for our purpose to decide con-
fidently which of these theories is to be preferred.
I can only say of Meyer's view that, if a " riddle "
is to be found in the passage, it seems much more
natural to ascribe the making of it to the writer of
the gospel than to Jesus. On either of the other
views which I have sketched, the passage is import-
ant in its bearing uj)on the attitude of Jesus toward

1 So Weiss, Lifp. of Christ, ii. 12-17. Weiidt, Teaching of
Jesus, ii. 37 (orig. pp. 356, 3.57).

42 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the Old Testament. It illustrates his stronu- sense
of the continuity of divine revelation, culminating in
himself. He comes to establish no different reliaion
from that of the Jewish people. His work is a recon-
struction of their demolished temple. The divine
ideal which the Jewish religion contemplates, can be
realized only in his truth and kingdom. But his
words illustrate, at the same time, the wide separa-
tion between him and the actual religion of his con-
temporaries. He must build what they are destroying.
He ironically bids them go on with the work of de-
struction, to which they are devoted. They are blind
to the true meaning of their own history, false to the
divine ideal which is contained in their own Scrip-
tures and embodied in their institutions. He has
come to disclose the real import and goal of this
history, to reveal and to embody in himself this ideal ;
but with his conception of the Messianic work they
have no sympathy, and of the proofs which he gives of
being the Chosen of God they have no appreciation.

These two truths are brought out side by side in
other narratives. To the Samaritan woman he
affirms : " We [Jews] worship that which we know :
for salvation is from the Jews" Qv. 22) ; and, at the
same time, he contrasts his conce))tion of God as
spirit (iv. 24) with the current Jewish idea " that in
Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship "
(iv. 20), as well as with the tenet of the Samaritans.
The import of his teaching is: The Jewish people
have, indeed, preserved the true idea of God as com-

JOHN'S TIIKOLOGY AND THE OLD TKSTAMKNT 43

paivd with that of other peoples, l)ut tliis idea has
been greatly hjwered and narrowed. The Jewish
people know th(3 true God, but tliey do not know him
adequately. Their conception must be greatly ele-
vated and ennobled before it can be the basis of a
true spiritual w'orship. To bring this fuller knowl-
edge, I am come. The hour has already arrived
(verse 23) for worthier thoughts of God and of his
worship than those which prevail even among the
chosen people.

In no passage is the independence of Jesus, and his
elevation above the religious life and scriptural knowl-
edge of his contemporaries, more forcibly presented
than in the words : " Ye search the scriptures be-
cause ye think that in them ye have eternal life ; and
these are they which bear witness of me ; and ye will
not come to me, that ye may have life " (v. 39, 40).
It appears to me certain that the Revised Version has
rightly rendered ipaware (verse 39) as indicative,
" ye search," in.stead of as an imperative, as our
older version renders, "search." The surrounding
verbs in the context are indicative {ovk e^ere, verse 38 ;
ov OeXere, verse 40) ; the causal clause which follows,
" because ye think" etc., gives a natural reason for
the fact that they search the Scriptures, but not for
an exhortation to them to search them; and the drift
of the passage as a whole shows that Jesus is -rebuk-
ing their profitless study of Scripture. They search
the writings (ra? ypa^d^), but in a manner so super-
ficial and prejudiced, and with so little discernment

44 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

of their import, that tlicy do not find God's true word
(^Tov Xoyov avTov, vcrsG 38) therein. Jesus certainly
does not mean, in so siicakinti-, to place a light esti-
mate npon the study of the Old Testament Scriptures,
or to intimate that the way of eternal life may not
be found in them, hut only to assert that their study
as conducted by his Jewish opponents cannot yield
this result, and especially to affirm that a true uuder-
standing of Sacred Scripture would conduct to the
acceptance of himself as the Messiah. In saying,
" These are they which bear witness of me " (verse 39),
he shows that his work stands in inseparable connec-
tion with the Old Testament, and that he attaches
the highest importance to its authentication of his
mission. Jesus does not, therefore, rebuke the Jewish
zeal for the Scriptures, in itself considered, but he
deprecates the narrowness, selfishness, and blindness
of mind which have misdirected that zeal, turned
it into a superficial adherence to the letter, and
subjected the language of Scripture to strained
and unnatural interpretation in support of curi'ent
traditions.

That which is most striking and important in Hh
attitude of Jesus toward the Old Testament, as r(>p-
resented in the Fourth Gospel, is the confidence will
which he asserts — as against the Messianic ideas ol
his time — the correspondence of his jierson and woik
to the prophetic ideal. lie brushes aside the super-
ficial v(!rbal exegesis of his contemporaries, which
found in the Messiah of the prophets only a second

JOHN'S tiieolo(;y and thk old testament 45

David who should su])diie Israel's enemies and rule
the nation in power and ponij), and asserts that sueh
is not the real projjlietie ideal of Messiah's character
and work. The Messiah in wlioni that ideal is real-
ized, and who can accomplish tiiat moral renewal and
bestow that spiritual life for lack of which the nation
is perishing, belongs to a higher order, — the order of
the spirit and of holiness. That true Messiah is him-
self. Whether the Jewish people will receive him or
not, is for them the question of destiny.

CHAPTER III

THE IDEA OF GOD IN THE WRITINGS OP JOHN

Literature. — Beyschlag : Neulesl. Theol, Die (Jottesidee,
i. 220, 221 ; Wkxdt : Teachhuj of Jesus, Conception of (Jod in tlie
Johannine Discourses, i. 20.'3-20G (orig. pp. 154-157); Wkiss:
Johaiin. Lclirb., Der Begriff der Erkenutniss Gottes, pp. 11-18;
Reuss: Ilist. Christ. Theol., Of the Essential Nature of God, ii.
383-388 (orig. pp. 428-435); Lechler : Apostolic and Post-
Apostolic Times, Of God, ii. 181-183 (orig. pp. 458-461); Baur:
Neutesl. Theol., Das Wesen Gottes als reine Geistigkeit und als
absolute Tluitigkeit, pp. 354-350; Lias : Doctrinal System of St.
John, The Nature and Attributes of God, pj). 10-32 ; Wkstcott :
The Epistles of St. John, The Fatherhood of God, pp. 27-34 ; St.
John's Conception of Love, pp. 130-133; Kostlin : Johann.
Lehib., Lehre von Gott, 73-113.

The study of the idea of God as presented in tlie
writings of John should proceed from that word of
Jesus to the Samaritan woman : " God is spirit " (iv.
24). Botli our English versions here render Trvevfia "a
spirit"; but the sen.sc which is given by the trans-
lation "God is a .spirit" is less appropriate, since
the cojitext sliows that it is not the personality but
the nature of God which the words are intended to
describe. In contrast to the inadequate idea of the
Samaritans, and even to the current popular notion
of the Jews, that God must be worshii)pcd in one

TIIK IDKA OF (iOl) IX \\l!I'IIX(;s OF .lolIN 47

jKirticiilar phice, as il liis |»r('sence were local, .Jesus
sets his tlioiiglit that (Jod may he truly woi'shipped
anywhere. As spirit, he is al)(j\e all limitations of
time and sj)ace. The conditions of true worship are,
that it sliall be rendered '"in sj)irit," — that is, that
the highest affections of the worshipper shall be conse-
ci'ated to (Jod, — and that it shall Ije " in truth," —
that is, shall proceed from a true and worthy idea of
the divine nature. Moreover, it accords better with
a mode of thought frequently found in John's writ-
ings to understand Trvevfia 6 de6<; as a generic de-
scription of the divine nature. Analogous expressions
are: "God is light" (I. i. 5) and " Ood is love"
(I. iv. 8). The statements of verse 23 as to the
nature and conditions of true worship, accord best
with the idea that, in the sentence under considera-
tion, Jesus is presenting the true idea of the spiritual
nature of God which a genuine worship, proceeding
from the heart, presupposes and requires. The ar-
gument therefore is: The genuine worshippers — as
opposed to those who suppose that God must be
worshipped on Mount Gerizim or in Jerusalem — ■
will render him a purely spiritual service, a service
which alone accords with what he is, for his nature
is spiritual. It should also be noticed that the em-
phatic position of irvevixa in the sentence shows
that this word is the pivot of the whole argument,
and accords perfectly with the interpretation of its
meaning which we have given.

This passage presents the most abstract and generic

48 THE JOHANNINE TliEOLO(;Y

idea of God which is to be found in the Johannine
writings. God is, in his essence, spirit. He is not re-
stricted in respect to the time or place of his manifest-
ation. There is no time when the sincere worshipper
may not find him ; there is no place where he will not
manifest himself to the trustful and obedient heart.
This idea of the spirituality of God is not, as is some-
times supposed, placed in contrast to the Old Testa-
ment idea of God, for there we meet with the view —
most impressively presented — that God is not lim-
ited to earthly dwelling-places, nor even to the high-
est heavens (1 Kings, viii. 27). Nor is the idea of
Jesus opposed to the Samaritan theology as such;
but it stands in contrast to the practically imperfect
apprehension of God's transcendence and omnipres-
ence which was implied in such questions as that of
the Samaritan woman as to where men ought to
worship. The statement of Jesus, " God is spirit,"
communicated no new conception of the divine na-
ture ; it only gave strong, fresh emphasis to a truth
which was very inadequately apprehended and ap-
plied in religious thought and life, and furnished a
basis for showing how essential is a true idea of God
to a worship which shall be at once rational and
sincere.

Closely connected with the conception of God as
spirit stands the idea that he is invisible. " No man
hath seen God at any time" (i. 18). He reveals him-
self to men not by making to their senses an immed-
iate presentation of himself, but by manifesting his

TIIK IDEA or (iOl) IX WlHTIX(iS OF JOHN 49

will and nature to tlieui in the person of the only
begotten Son, who ever stands in most intimate
fellowship with himself, and who therefore has an
immediate intuition of the mind of the Father. This
Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, hath declared
God to men (i. 18). It is obvious that in this pas-
sage the contrast is drawn between God as hidden to
the senses of man and as revealed in his grace and
truth through Jesus Christ. In I. iv. 12, where God
is spoken of as invisible and yet as dwelling in men,
the idea is that, although he cannot be discerned by
the senses or known by the natural understanding
of man, he reveals himself as love to those who
themselves have the disposition of love, and wiio
therefore have an affniity of life with him. In so
far as man is morally like God, is he capable of re-
ceiving the knowledge of God. " If we love one
another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected
in us" (I. iv. 12).

Both the ways in which the invisible God is thus
said to reveal himself stand directly connected with
the conception of God as spirit. As spirit he reveals
himself to the senses of men only mediately through
the incarnation of the Son, who so perfectly em-
bodies in his own person the Father's will and na-
ture that he can say, " He that hath seen me hath
seen the Father" (xiv. 9). So also does the other
form of revelation by which the invisible God be-
comes known accord with the divine nature as spirit.
God reveals himself as love to the inner life of man,

50 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

where the conditions of a spiritual apprehension of
him are fulfilled. Since God is a spiritual being, he
can only reveal himself to man as a spiritual being,
and upon the fulfilment of spiritual conditions. As
spirit, God is apprehended by man only by the devel-
opment of a capacity for what is spiritual. Thus, the
very nature of God as spirit determines the method
and conditions of his direct manifestations of himself
to the soul. Only through moral likeness to liim-
self can God be truly apprehended and known.

The words recorded in v. 37, " Ye have neither
heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form," seem,
when taken by themselves, to be a denial of the pos-
sibility that God can be perceived by the senses. The
context, however, makes it apparent that this is not
their purpose. The words are intended to assert
that the Jews by reason of their moral obduracy and
spiritual blindness have failed to apprehend those
revelations of God which he has made in their own
history. The assertion which immediately follows
(v. 38), "And ye have not his word abiding in you,"
makes it clear that the sentence just referred to is a
rebuke of 'their insusceptibility. They have not heard
in any such way as to appreciate the voice of God,
which has spoken to them through their own ])rophets,
nor seen God's self-manifestation, which he has made
in their own Scriptures, which they search to so little
))urj)osc (v. 39).

The spiritual, invisible (Jod is presented in the
writings of John as " the true (Jod " (6 dXtjOuw^ 6e6^,

TIIH IDKA OF COD I\ \VKITIX(;S OF JOIIX 51

1. V. 20), the One who in reality coiTcsj)on(ls periectly
to the idea of God. All other so-called gods are but
idols ; the God who is revealed in Jesus Christ is
God alone. Hence he is called '• the only God " (o
/xoi'O'i 6e6<i, V. 44) ; and, again, eternal lite is defined
as consisting in the knowledge of the only true (iod
(roy fioi/ov dXijdivov Oeov, xvii. 3), and of him whom
God did send, Jesus Christ. The Johannine doctrine
of God, so far as we have traced it, may be summed
up in the statement that in contrast to all anthropo-
morphic ideas of God he is presented in these writ-
ings as the invisible, absolute Spirit, and in contrast
to all polytheistic conceptions he is attirmed to be
the one and only Being who corresponds to the true
idea of Deity.

The terms which have thus far been considered,
especially the definition of God as spirit, are chiefly
descriptive of those divine attributes which in theol-
ogy are called immanent. These attributes represent
qualities which belong to the metaphysical nature of
the Deity. They are intended to describe what God
is iu himself. But God is not presented to us in the
Johannine writings in this aspect of his being alone.
lie is not thought of as self-contained, or as dwelling
within himself in separation from the world and man.
On the contrary, the main emphasis is laid upon the
relations which God sustains to his creatures, and
upon the way in which he manifests himself to them
in mercy and love. Speaking in the language of
theology, we should say that the writings of John

62 THE .lUIIANNINE THEOLCXJY

dwell most upon those attributes of God wliich are
called ethical or transitive. As we found that the
statement " God is spirit " formulated more pre-
cisely than any other the conception of what God
in his metaphysical nature is, so we shall find that
the Johannine idea of God's moral nature — of his
disposition and mode of action toward his creatures —
is best summed up in the words, " God is love "
(I. iv. 8, 16).

This proposition in both places where it occurs in
the First Epistle, has a practical and not a dogmatic
purpose. John exhorts his readers to love one an-
other, on the ground that love is of God, that is, has
its seat or dwelling-place in the being of God (I. iv. 7).
He whose life is ruled by this divine princi})le is born
of God, and knows God. He has received from God
a divine impartation of spiritual life, and has entered
into that fellowship with God which his likeness to
God makes possible. Conversely, he who does not
love cannot be in fellowship with God, for " God is
love " (I. iv. 8). PK'ttcr than any other single word love
describes God's moral nature in its forth-jjutting of
interest and sym])athy toward his ci'catures. It desig-
nates God as existing and acting in relations. It
implies not only the existence of an object of love,
but the idea of a self-impartation to that object. Love
is, in its very nature, the dis[)osition to impart bless-
ing to its object.

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

THE IDEA OF (JOI) IN WRITINGS OF JOIIX 53

The statement of the apostle, therefore, means much
more than that God haa hjve. He is love, that is, he
is the absolutely good Being, for love is the essence of
goodness. Love, the impulse to bless and to impart
his own goodness, makes him what he is. Were he
less than perfect love at any moment or in any de-
gree, he would not be God. Love is a name for his
moral perfection. In other words, the assertion of
the apostle indicates that love is not a mere temper
or inclination which it is optional with God to exer-
cise or not to exercise toward the beings whom he
has made. It is absolutely essential and constituent
in God's being. Love is not a mere determination of
the divine will, as if it were said that God were full
of love ; it is a name for his ethical nature in its
essential and changeless character. The affirmation
of the apostle appears to me to exclude the position of
some theologians, that God may at will suspend the
operation of his love.^ To do this would be, in the
apostle's use of terms, to relinquish moral perfection,
to cease to exercise toward his creatures those feel-
ings of interest and sympathy which are fundamental
in the ethical character of God. If love is held to be

1 Cf., e. g., Strong, Philosophy and Relujion, p. 196 : " Love is
an attribute which, like omnipotence, God may exercise or not
exei'cise, as he will."

Shedd, Theological Essays, p. 28.3 : " We can say, ' God may
be merciful or not, as he pleases,'" etc.

Patton, Princeton Review, Jan. 1878: "God is bound to be
just ; he is not bound to be generous. The measure of God's
benevolence is a matter of option."

54 THE JOHANNINE THE0L0(4Y

an optional quality of God's action, it must be much
more narrowly defined than John has conceived it.
It must be understood not in the sense of universal
benevolence, the exercise of which God cannot be con-
ceived as withholding without impairing the very idea
of God, but in the narrow sense of complaisance or
favor, — terms which denote feelings whose exercise
is conditioned upon the attitude of God's creatures
toward him. The position that God ever does or
ever could cease to be generous, merciful, and loving
is a perilous admission for theology, involving, as it
does, the alternative that either naked justice alone
is essential to moral perfection, or that God can l^e
conceived as choosing to become something less than
perfect. Neither of these positions seems to me to
be reconcilable with the teaching of John. In the
effort which theology has often made to enthrone
justice as the one essential and necessary attribute of
God,^ it is compelled to ground the remaining attri-
butes in his ivill alone. This view involves the denial
that all God's perfections arc grounded in his essence,
and confuses the idea of his ethical completeness by
assigning a different basis to justice from that which
is assigned to other attributes. We shall recur to
this subject in a later chapter.

As in the passage just considered (1. iv. 8) the allirm-

1 Cf. Shedd, op. cit., p. 285 : " Whatever else God may be or
may not be, he mu.st be ju.st. It is not optional with him to
exercise this attrilMite or not to exercise it, as it is in the in-
stance of that class of attributes which are antithetic to it."

tin: ii)i:a of (ioi) ix winiixcs of joiix 55

atii)!! '*• (Jod is love " is made the uroiiiid of the negative
statement that only he that loveth can he begotten*
of God, so in the second passage (I. iv. 16) the same
statement is made the support of the corresponding
positive assertion that " He that abideth in love
abideth in God, and God abideth in him." Since
God's nature is love, he who loves has entered into
fellowship with God, and al)idcs in him.

This most general statement concerning God's
nature as love is illustrated by several concrete
examples. Three ol)jects of the love of God are
specified. The first of these is his Son, Jesus Christ :
"The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all
things into his hand " (iii. 35). Similarly in xvii. 24
Jesus speaks of the Father as loving him before
the foundation of the world. This love of the
Father for the Son is treated, in the connection, as a
ty[)C of the love which God bestows upon Christ's
disciples.

Again, when Jesus has occasion to defend himself
against the objections of the Jews on the ground that
he did works of healing on the Sal)bath, he urges that
in so doing he is but working along the lines of the
Father's activity : " My Father worketh even until
now, and I work" (v. 17). "For," he continues,
" the Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all
things that himself docth " (v. 20). Again, the love
of the Father to the Son is grounded upon the will-
ingness of the Son to lay down his life for tlic world :

56 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

"Therefore doth the Father love me, l)ecnuse 1 lay
down my life, that I may take it again "' (x. 17).
Jesus also makes the love of the Father to himself
the type and measure of his own love to his disciples:
" Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved
you " (XV. 9).

The love of God is most fully illustrated in the
Gospel of John by this love of the Father to the Son.
The language of the apostle which describes it pre-
supposes the existence between Jesus and the Father
of a unique, pretemporal relation. With good reason,
therefore, has theology appealed to these passages as
illustrating the idea that love must find within the
divine Being liimself an eternal object for its exer-
cise. If God is the absolute Being, and the universe
is not eternal but dependent upon his will, then must
the essential nature of God as love find its object and
exercise within God himself. This could not be the
case if God were absolutely solitary ; on the other
hand, the conception of love requires the view that
there is within his essence some kind of a manifold-
ness and intercommunion of life. The very nature
of love as the outgoing, self-imparting impulse in
God, suggests, and even seems to require, some con-
ception of the divine Being which includes the idea
of the interrelation of subject and ()l)ject. Many
theologians, therefore, from Augustine onward, have
sought to deduce the concept of the Ti-inity from the
nature of God as love, or, at least, to illustrate from

THE WE\ or (iOl) IX WlMTIXCiS C)V .lOIIX 57

tlio idea of love the necessity (^f a TiMiiilariaii concep-
tion of the divine natnrc.^

The second object of the divine love wliicli the
apostle mentions is the world : '•' God so loved the
world that he gave his only begotten Son," etc. (iii. 16),
and in the First Epistle John refers to the divine love
as shown l\v the fact that God has made him and his
readers " children of God" (iii. 1). The love of God
to undeserving men is the basis of salvation. This
love antedates and underlies all human love. The
love of God for men was the motive which prompted
the sending of Christ to save them, and this love
should both quicken our gratitude to God and beget
in us a corresponding love to one another (I. iv, 9-11).
The love of Christians for one another has its ground
and spring in the love of God to men. It is because
God's nature is love, and because he makes men the
sharers of his spirit, that men are impelled to love
God and their brethren. Love among men is the

1 Cf. Sartorius, The Doctrine of the Divine Love, p. 8, sq. It is
obvious that this line of argument is greatly weakened by that
type of theological thought to which we liave adverted, which
grounds love in the divine will, and makes it a disposition subject
to the divine choice. The essentialness and centrality of love
in God are justly insisted upon by Sartorius as the presupposi-
tion of his whole argument in deducing the notion of the Trinity
from the idea of love. " The attributes of the divine nature,"
he says, " are explained and combined in too poor and human a
relation of reflection, if they are not perceived to be one in all-
comprehending love, which, as free as necessary in its action,
is not so much an attribute which God has, as the nature which
he is ; for God is love." Op. cit. p. 8.

68 THE JOHANNIXE THEOLOGY

answering echo of the love of God for them. " We
love, because he first loved us " (I. iv. 19).

In the third place, believers are said to be the
objects of God's love. This idea is presented in the
passage already alluded to (xvii. 23), where a parallel
is drawn between the love which the Father has for
the Son and that which he has for the disciples of
Jesus. The passages which describe God's love to
men justify the theological distinction that, while
God loves all men with the love of benevolence, he
loves only the trustful and obedient with the love of
complacency. In the former sense the world is the
object of God's love ; yet Jesus says, " If a man love
me, he will keep my word : and my Father will love
him," etc. (xiv. 23), — meaning, of course, with the
love of approval, as is shown by the assurance that
with such Ijoth he and the Father will make their
abode (ib.). Elsewhere the love of God for the dis-
ciples of Jesus is grounded upon their love to their
Master and their acceptance of him as the Messiah :
" The Father himself loveth you, because ye have
loved me, and have believed that I came forth from
the Father" (xvi. 27). This love of the Father for
believers can only be that closer sympathy and fel-
lowship which faith makes possible, and which cannot
exist where love is not appreciated and reciprocated.

Such are the elements of the teaching respecting
the divine love in the writings of John. God is jti'c-
sented in this teaching as the great Giver. In his
love is grounded the gift of his Son for the world's

THH IDEA OF COD IX WKITIXCS OF JOIIX i')9

salvation, and all the gilts of grace with which he has
blessed the world through him. According to this
teaching God is near to us. His transcendence is,
indeed, aflirnied and emphasized, but it is an ethical
transcendence which is grounded in his holiness. It
is not a transcond(Mico which implies remoteness or
absence from the world : nor is it founded npon the
idea of a purely legal relation between God and man,
which requires man to approach God through sacred
rites and meritorious works. The theology of John
repi'esents God as accessible to every loving and
obedient heart. Man may enter into fellowship of
life with God on conditions which are simple and
purely sjiiritnal.

Nor is God merely accessible. Love, which is the
essence of his ethical nature, is an active, energetic,
self-revealing principle. God constantly seeks to
make men the recipients of influences of grace and
blessing. The divine love is always pouring itself
forth upon the world, and is the perpetual motive and
inspiration of all the impulses of religion in man.

There are several forms in which, in the writings
of John, this self-revealing impulse of God's nature
is emphasized. The most general of these is that in
which God is depicted as the Source and Giver of
life to men : " As the Father hath life in himself,
even so gave he to the Son to have life in himself"
(v. 26). Many theologians have understood this giv-
ing of life to the Son as referring to his "eternal
generation " from the Father ; but the context shows

60 THE JOIIAXXINE THEOLO(iY

decisively that the reference is to the spiritual or
eternal life which is imparted to believers. The
whole passage (v. 19-27) is best regarded as a de-
scription of the life-giving work of Jesus, in which it
is shown that this work is grounded in the purpose
and nature of God. The quickening of the spiritu-
ally dead (verse 25) is wrought by Christ, because
when the Father sent him into the world he gave
him (note the aorist, eha>Kev) the right and power to
communicate divine life, or salvation, to men. It is
according to the nature of God as the absolutely liv-
ing One (6 ^Mv TTarrjp, vi. 57) to bestow life. God
imparts this spiritual life to the world through the
Son, who, by reason of his unique and essential rela-
tion to the Father, is said to live " because of the
Father " (hia rov irarepa, vi. 57), that is, because the
Father is the absolute Source of life. We may note in
passing that while these passages do not refer to what
is called the " eternal generation " of the Son, they do
imply l)oth a pretemporal existence of the Son and a
metaphysical union of the Son with the Father.

The representation of God as light (I. i. 5) is espec-
ially significant in this connection. Haupt defines
the distinction between the idea of God as light and
the idea of him as love to ])e that the former desig-
nates the metaphysical being of God, — the totality of
the divine perfections, — while the latter designates
his ethical activity. " The former is the immanent,
the latter the transitive, side of the divine nature."^
J Commentary, on 1 John iv. 8.

THE IDEA OF (iOD IX WltlTIXGS OF .lOIIX 61

It is vc'iT (loiil)tl'ul whc'tlicr this distinction can be
strictly applied. The figure of light, both in itself
and in its use, is especially adapted to define the
principle or impulse of self-revelation and self-impart-
ation in (Jod. In the First Ei)istle light is little
more than a figurative designation for life, as the con-
text of the passage (I. i. 5) shows. God has brought
life to the world through his Son (I. i. 1-4). To do
this was according to his nature, which is light, and
in which is no darkness (I. i. 5). God is perfect and
self-iinparting holiness. As light, he blesses men,
banishes from their lives the darkness of sin, and
makes them participants in his own purity. The two
ideas of life and light are placed in closest relations
in the Gospel (viii. 12) : '• He that followeth me shall
not walk in the darkness, but shall have the light of
life" (^t6 (f)'j)<i T>}? ^a)»}?), — that is, he shall possess
within himself the saving power which confers life
upon men ; he shall be a mediate source of the light
of truth to others.

We find a similar use of the figure of light in the
jn-ohjgue of the Gosijcl. There the life that dwells in
the Logos is described as "the light of men " (i.4).
The word represents the self-manifesting (quality of
the divine life. This heavenly light shines in the
darkness of the world's ignorance and sin. Through
the activity of the Logos this true light " lighteth
every man, coming into the world" (i. 9). This
passage (especially if ip^oixevov be construed with

62 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

avdpooTTov and not Avitli o) ^ presents the Logos as the
principle of self-revelation in God whereby God has
in all ages made himself known to men. The the-
ology of John therefore teaches explicitly, in its own
peculiar terms, the universality of divine revelation.

The gracious, saving activity of God is strikingly
presented in the words of Jesus, which are found in
connection with the narrative of the healing of the
impotent man at the pool of Bethesda on a Sabbath
(v. 2-18). The Jews objected both to the performance
of the cure (verse 16) and to the man's carrying his
bed on the Sabbath day (verse 10). "But Jesus
answered them, My Father worketh even until now,
and I work" (verse 17). Activity in the line of bless-
ing to his creatures is accordant with the very nature
of God ; his benevolence knows no Sabbath. In serv-
ing and blessing men Jesus is but doing what he sees
the Father continually doing (verses 19, 20). The
right of Jesus to work miracles of grace on the Sab-
bath is based upon the perfect harmony of such action
with the perpetual working of the Father, — the cease-
less outflow of his boundless goodness in streams of
blessing to the woi-ld.

The benevolent or self-impai-ting aspect of God's
nature is much more frequently emphasized in the
Johannine writings than is his holiness or self-allii'm-
ation. llcfcrences to the latter are not, however,

1 As ill our older 1-^iiglisli vcisiou : '• Tluit was the true Light,
which liglitcth ovory man that coiiu-th into the world."

'i'liE ii)j:a of cod IX \viiitix(;.s of .loiix 03

entirely wantinfif. In one passage only in the Gospel
is the word 8iKaio<i ajjplied to (Jod : " 0 ri(/hlf'ous
Father, the world knew thee wA, l)iit 1 know thee,"
etc. (xvii. 25). The idea of God's righteousness here
appears to be that it is the quality which prevents
him from passing the same judgment upon Christ's
disciples which he passes upon the sinful world.
Upon this equitableness of God, Jesus bases his con-
lidence in asking that special blessings l)e conferred
upon his disciples. The thought is similar in xvii. 11,
where the Father is designated as dyio<;. As the One
who is absolutely good — wholly sei)arate from all
that is sinful and wrong — God is besought to guard
from evil those whom he has given to his Son. In
both these cases the holiness of God is conceived of,
not as a forensic or retributive quality, but as God's
moral self-consistency, his justice to his own equity.

The retributive action of God toward sin is, how-
ever, abundantly recognized in the Gospel of John.
God is described as subjecting the world to a con-
tinuous process of judgment. Although the coming
of Christ into the world had salvation and not judg-
ment for its object (iii. 17 ; viii. 15 ; xii. 47), yet a
process of judgment is inevitably involved in his sav-
ing work. When Jesus says (ix. 39j, " For judgment
(ei? Kpiixa) came I into this world," he seems to con-
tradict such statements as, " God sent not the Son
into the world to judge Qva Kpivrf) the world " (iii. 17),
and, "I judge no man" (viii. 15) ; but a careful con-
sideration of the context shows that the judgment for

G4 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

Twice in the First Epistle (I. i. 9; ii. 29) God is

THE IDEA OF (;()1) I\ WKITIKGS OF JOIIX C;'

described us righteous (St'/caiO'?), and, in both cases, m
a sense closely akin to that which we have found in
the Gospel. " If we confess our sins, he is faithful
and righteous to forgive us our sins," etc. (I. i. 9).
The correlation of the word righteous with the word
faithful (tt^o-to?), as well as the entire context, shows
that righteousness here is that quality of Clod which
would certainly lead him to forgive those who repent.
It would be inconsistent in God — contrary to his
promises and to his nature — not to forgive the peni-
tent, and to exert upon his life the purifying influences
of his grace.

In the remaining passage, the term righteous has
a broader meaning, and designates the moral perfec-
tion of God in general, as the type and ideal of all
goodness in man : " If ye know that he [Godj is
righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth
righteousness is begotten of him " (1. ii. 29). Since
God is essentially righteous, those who are begotten
of him must also be righteous. A similar thought is
presented in I. iii. 7. but in the reverse order. Here,
instead of deducing from the divine righteousness
the truth that those who live righteously are begotten
of God, the apostle starts from the human side, and
af!irms that he who lives a righteous life is thereby
shown to be like the pure and spotless Son of God.

The question now arises : How, according to John,
do men arrive at the knowledge of God ? Underly-
ing all that is said on this subject is the idea that this
knowledge presupposes a likeness between its subject

66 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

and its object. Man can know God only as he be-
comes like God. " Every one that loveth . . . know-
eth God . . . for God is love" (1. iv. 7, 8). It is
obvions that by knowledge the apostle here means
mnch more than the intellectual apprehension or pos-
session of truth. The knowledge of God is pre-emi-
nently an ethical affair, and implies in the possessor
of it a kinshi]) of life with God. The Johannine usage
abundantly illustrates this conception of knowledge.
The sinful world did not know the heavenly light of
the Logos which was shining in its darkness (i. 10).
The Jews in their spiritual blindness have not known
God (viii. 55) ; ''but 1 know him," said Jesus, "and
keep his word " («A.). Whatever be the precise
meaning of the phrase " eternal life," and the rela-
tion between it and the knowledge of God, in the
passage, " This is life eternal, that they should know
thee the only true God," etc. (xvii. 3), 1 do not see
how the objection of Weiss ^ to the " deeper sense " of
the word kno2v can be sustained. He asserts that
"exegetical tradition" unwarrantably makes the word
know in this passage mean practically the same as
love. But what does Weiss himself make it mean ?
He admits that it denotes no mere theoretic, but an
intuitive and contcm]»lative knowledge, and that it is a
peculiarity of John's thinking to conceive of the whole
s)ji ritual being of man as a unit in its action. He
acknowledges that "a way leads direct from this
knowledge to willing,''' ^ but insists that the view of

^ Der Johanneische Lehrbcgriff, § 2. ^ lb. page 13.

Till-: IDKA OF COD IX WltlTIXCS OK .JOHN 07

Messner that the know ledge of God here inciiidcs an
action of the will, is to be rejected. The Sfpanition
which Weiss maintains between the cognitive and the
voluntary elements in tlie knowledge of God is cer-
tainly formal rather than real. We cannot exclude
the mystical clement from .John's conception of the
knowlt'due of (Jod. Kven if the view which excludes
from the knowledge of God the element of fellowship
with Ciod and of likeness to him, could be maintained
in the case of the passage under review, it would
certainly prove inapplicable in the First Epistle, where
the knowledge of God is so blended with the idea of
being begotten of God as to make it clear that this
kn(j\vledge is grounded in a new direction of the will
and affections (I. iv. 7).

The view which I have presented is confirmed by
such passages as that in which the knowledge of the
life which Christ has brought to the world is based
on fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ (I. i. 2, 3), and that in which the certainty of
possessing the knowledge of God is conditioned upon
the keeping of his commandments (I. ii. 3). In
I. iii. 2 the assurance of becoming like Christ in the
heavenly world is based upon the fact that we shall
see him as he is.^ While the form of thought in this
passage is peculiar, — since likeness is here condi-

^ I prefer, with Haupt, Rothe, "Westcott, and Holtzmann, to
refer the pronouns in this verse to Christ. Liicke, Huther, and
Plummer refer tliem to God. It must be admitted, however,
that the point remains a doubtful one.

68 THE JOHANXINE THEOLOGY

tioncd upon knowledge or sight, and not knowledge
upon likeness, — this passage, equally with the others,
illustrates the fundamental Johannine idea of an in-
separable connection between a true knowledge of
God and moral likeness to him. Finally, in answer
to the question, How is God known ? we would quote
the following passage : " He that hath my command-
ments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me :
and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father,
and I will love him and manifest myself to him.
Judas (not Iscariot) saith unto him, Lord, what is
come to pass that thou will manifest thyself unto us
and not unto the world ? Jesus answered and said
unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word :
and my Father will love him and we will come unto
him, and make our abode Avitli him " (xiv. 21-23).

The attributes of God ai-e not particularly dwelt
upon in the writings of John except so far as they
are involved in the conception of God as spirit, light,
and love. The omniscience of God is, however, as-
serted in one passage : " Herel)y shall we know that
we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before
him, whereinsoever our heart condemn us ; because
God is greater than our heart and knoweth all things"
(I. iii. 19, 20). Interpreters are divided upon the
question whether God's omniscience is liere thought
of as the basis of severity or of leniency in his judg-
ment of men's faults. On the former view the passage
means : We shall persuade (jreiaofiev) our hoai'ts tliat
in whatsoever we condemn ourselves, God condemns

THE II>I:A (»F cod I.V WIM'IIXCS OF JOHX 60

US yet more sevci'L-ly, Ijt'cause he is greater (in striet
ness) than our heart, and knowcth all tilings; that is,
if our hearts detect and conili'nni our sins, he in his
omniscience sees them yet more clearly, and condemns
them yet more severely.* For the linguistic consid-
erations which l)ear upon the question 1 must refer
to the critical commentaries.^

It is necessary, in order to get the natural force of
the passage, to read it in the light of the preceding-
argument. In verse 18 the apostle exhorts his readers
to cultivate sincere love ; for by so doing, he says, we
shall prove ourselves to belong to the truth (19 a).
The sentence which now follows, '• and shall assure
our heart before him'' (kuI e/x7rpoa6ev avrov Treiao/xev
Tr]v Kaphiav rjfiMv, 19 b), is co-ordinate with the state-
ment, " We know that we are of the truth ; " that is,
it expresses the idea of a comforting assurance which,
like the certainty of possessing the truth, arises from
genuine love. It seems impossible to place the two
parts of verse 19 in contrast. They together express
the comfort whicli springs out of love. Xow the
second part of verse 20 gives the reason for this com-
fort, namely, " God is greater than our heart, and
knoweth all things." But if greatness in severity
or judgment were meant, this could not ))c a ground
of comfort. The thought therefore is : Those who
truly love God and men thereby know that they be-
long to the truth, and have this comfort, — that the

^ So, e.g., Liicke, Xeander, DeWette, Ebrard.
* See, especially, Iluther, Haupt, and Westcott,

70 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

faults for which their own hearts condemn thorn,
God will freely forgive, since he is greater in mercy
than their own conscience is. He knows all things,
— the right moral direction and sincere intentions of
him who belongs to the truth, the weakness of his
nature, and the strength of his temptations, — and he
pardons the faults which still inhere in the child
of God more freely than the man's own conscience
condones them. The presupposition of the whole
argument is that the life of the persons in question
is ruled by love, and that they are therefore sincerely
penitent for their sins and desirous to forsake them.^

In the Johannine discourses Jesus frequently speaks
of God as his Father, and refers to the intimate fellow-
ship which exists between the Father and himself
(i. 18 ; iii. 35 ; v. 17 sq.). But God is also the Father
in his relation to men generally. " The true worshiji-
pers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth "
(iv. 23). Especinlly in his assurances to his discijiles
that their prayers in iiis name will ))e answered, does
Jesus speak of God as the Father : " If ye shall ask
anything of the Father, he will give it you in my
name" (xvi. 23 ; cf. xv. 16). In the Epistles also God
is frequently spoken of as the Father, without further
definition (I. ii. 1 ; iii. 1 ; II. 3, 4). God, then, is
the Father of all men. Does it therefore follow that
all men are his children ? Are the two terms strictly
correlated ? There are two passages which must be

1 This iiiterpretatioi), in substunct', is adopted by Haupt, .
Westcott, Hutlier, and Dwight,

THE IDEA OF CA)]) IX WIMTIXG.S OF JOIIX 71

appealed to in answer : " As many as received liini,
to tlicui gave he the rif^ht (i^ovaiav) to become chil-
dren of God (tckvu deov yeveadai), even to them that
believe on his name" (i. 12). Here, certainly, men
are said to receive, on condition of faith in Christ, tlie
right or privilege of becoming sons of God, — a state-
ment which clearly iai{)lics that they were not such
before. In the following verse (13) the apostle
explains that men become children of God by a
spiritual renewal or transformation. Men are not
naturally children of God in the sense of the terms
of this passage ; in other words, the natural relation
in which all men alike stand to God as his creatures
or offspring is not designated as sonship. That terra
is reserved to express the relation of likeness, fellow-
ship, and loving obedience into which men enter by
faith. It is true that all men are ideally sons of
God, — that is, it is their true destiny, and they have
the capacity, to become such. But they actually
enter upon the possession of this divine privilege
only through an inward transformation.

The other passage to which reference must be
made is I. iii. 1 : " Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that wc should be
called children of God (jeKva deov} : and such we
are." The writer is addressing his fellow-Christians.
This condition of sonship to God he describes as the
result of a spiritual begetting, the reality of which is
attested by the doing of righteousness (I. iii. 9, 10).
Sonship to God, therefore, in the sense of the passage,

72 THE JOllANNINE THEOLOGY

is conditioned npon being begotten of God, that is,
n})on the renewal of the natural man by regeneration.
We may, then, state the conclusion to which these
])assages lead us in this })aradoxical form : God is
the Father of men, but men become sons of God.^
Between God the Creator and man the creature the
ideal relation is one of unity and harmony. But this
ideal relation docs not, as matter of fact, exist. Man
has impaired it by sin. God continues good and
gracious to man ; he always corresponds to the per-
fect idea of what he should be ; he is the Father still ;
but man has forfeited his moral sonship to God, in-
volving fellowship and likeness, by disobedience. In
this sense God can be called the Father of men
because he always remains actually in his relations
to men what he is ideallij ; whereas men must hccome
sons of God because they are not actually what they
are ideally ; it is on their side that the ideal relation
has been impaired ; on their side, therefore, must it
be restored. Only as men renounce their sins and
become obedient and like to God, do they become, in
an ethical sense, his sons. The language of John
esi)ecially emphasizes the idea of growth in likeness
and fellowship with (Jod by tlie use of the word
child (jeKvov') rather than son (^vto'i). The latter
word — characteristic of Paul — emphasizes the dig-
nity of the believer's position, while the former
emphasizes more the close relation of fellowshij)
with God into which the believ(M- has entered, — a

1 CJ. Wcndt, Trnrliiu/ of Jrsuf:, i. 104.

Tin-: iDKA OF (iOl) I.\ \VKITI\(iS OF .lOlIX 73

relation in which Hcs the liiiui'anty of his continuous
j)ro<;ivss in all tliat is (Jodlikc. This distinction is
well tk'lincd hy llaiijit: "According- to I'aul, we
secure, for Christ's sake, the rujht of a child ( Klndes-
recht) ; accordinii; to John, wc secure, through Christ,
the nature of a child" { K hide swe sen)}

How evident it is that the idea of God which is
found in the writings of John is one whicli accords
with the demands of the religious life. Those aspects
of the divine character are presented which are essen-
tial to practical religious thought, and inspiring to
religious confidence and joy. We do not meet in
these writings the God of abstract philosophical
speculation, — the vague, absentee Deity of Gnosti-
cism,— but the Father of our spirits and the God
of all tender mercies. The God whom this apostle
knows and proclaims is the living God, who per-
petually reveals his goodness to men, and who comes
to the world in the fulness of his grace and truth in
the person of his Son Jesus Christ.

^ Commentary, on I. iii. 1.

CHAPTER IV

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS

Literature. — Lucke : Comnientar iiher das Evangelium des
Johannes, Der Prolog, pp. 249-294, amd 365-378, translated in
the Christian Examiner for 1849, pp. 165-189 and 412-432;
Weiss : Der Johanneische Lefirhef/riff] Die sogenaiinte johan-
neische Logoslehre, pp. 239-251 ; Bibl. Theol. The Cliristology, ii.
325-347; Reuss: Hist. Christ. Theol., Of the Essential Xature
of the Word, ii. 389-399 (orig. ii. 4:).5-447) ; Baur: Neiitest.
Theol., Der Logos als das gottliches Offenbarungsorgan, pp. 356-
359 ; Lias : Doctr. Syst. of St. John, Doctrine of the Logos and the
Person of Christ, pp. 33-64; Siegfried: Philo von Alexandria,
Die Lehre vom Logos, pp. 219-229, and Das Johannesevangel-
iuni, pp. 317-321; Frommaxn : Der Johann. Lehrh., passim (F.
treats the whole theology of John from the standpoint of the
Logos-doctrine); Lipsiis: art. Alexandrinische Keligionsphil-
osopliie in Schenkel's Bihel-Lexicon ; Schurer : Hist. Jeivish
People, Philo, the Jewish Philosopher, iii. 321-381; Gloag :
Introduction to the Johannine Wriliitf/s, Dissertation on the
Logos, pp. 1()7-189; Smith's Bil/le Dictionary, arts, on The
Wisdom of Solomon, and Tiie Word (For ample references to
the literature of the subject see especially the latter article ;
also SciiCrer and Gloag, op. cit.) ; Sanday : The Authorship and
Historical Cliaracter of the Fourth Gospel, The Prologue, pp. 5-
20 ; IIarxack : Ueber das Vorhiiltniss des Prologs des vierten
pjvangeliums zum ganzen Werk, in tlie Zeilschrift fur Theol-
ofjie und Kirche, 2 Jahrg., 3 Heft, 1892; Salmond: article
Logos in the Encyclopccdia Britannica ; A^'EIZSACKER : Das apos.
Zeitaller, Die Logoslehre, pp. 549-558 ; Liddon : The Divinity of

THE DOCTRIXK OF TlIK L()(;OS 75

our Lord, Led. II. Anticipations of CInist's Divinity in tlio Old
Testament, pp. 4."}-t)f), and Lect. V. The Doctrine of Clirist's
Divinity in the Writings of St. Jolni, pp. :20f)-'J78. For full
discussions of the Logos-doctrine in Pliilo and in (Jreek Pliil-
osophy I refer to the following works: Jamks DiaM.MOxn :
Pldlo JuilcKus, or, Jewisli Alexandrian PliUosophij in ils Develop-
ment and Completion, London, 1888; E. Zelleu : Die Philoxophie
der Grlechen, u. s. w., -i Theil, 2 Abtheilung, pp. 838—118; M.
IIeixze : Die Lehre iwn Logos in der Griechischen P/iilosophie,
Oldenburg, 1S7"2, pp. L>()l-2!)7. For the critical exposition of
the language of the jirologue I would refer especially to the
Commentaries of Liickc, .Meyer, ^Vestcott, and Godet.

The most charactoristic sing-lc doctrine which is
foiiiul in tlie writings of John is the doctrine of tlic
Logos or Word. He uses this term to denote the
pre-existcnt Son of God who became incarnate in
Jesus. It is evident from the fact that the apostle
does not explain the word or seek to justify its use
by argument, that it was a term of current speech
which he assumes that his readers will understand.
But to modern ears the term Word has a strange^
sound as a designation for Christ, and the force of
John's use of it can only become apparent by an
investigation of its historical meaning.

Baur and his school, who ascribed the Gospel to a
Christian Gnostic who wrote about the middle of the
second century, held that the idea of the Logos was de-
rived from the Gnostic systems ; ^ l)ut all the consider-
ations whicli have been adduced since Baur's time in

* See, e. g., Baur: Neutest. TheoL, p. 361 sq.; Pfleideuer :
IJrchristenthum, p. 698.

76 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

favor of an earlier date for the (lospcl unite to render
this sui)i»osition iniprobalde. The Logos-idea is indeed
found in the systems of Basilides and Valentinus,
but it is only a minor element in a complex series of
seons or emanations. The Logos in these systems
has a different character and an inferior significance
compared with those which it bears in the Fourth
Gospel.

It is still a debatable question whether the primary
source of John's Logos-doctrine was Jewish or Alex-
andrian, — whether we are to look chiefly to the Old
Testament or to Philo for its explanation. The latter
has long been, and doubtless is still the prevailing
view.^ But it is to be noticed that even if we attrib-
ute John's use of the term Logos to the direct or
indirect influence of Philo, we do not thereby dis-
prove the Old Testament origin of the conception.
Two main streams of thought met and mingled in
the Alexandrian philosophy, — one Hellenic, eman-
ating from Plato and the Stoics, the other Jewish,
emanating from the Old Testament and the later
Jewish theology. Philo was a devout Jew, and the
basis of his philosophy of religion was the Old Testa-
ment. With the Jewish religion he sought to blend
ideas derived from the Greek philosophy, on the as-
sumption that this philosoi)hy was also the product of
a real divine inspiration. The result was a conglom-

1 So, for f'xaiiiplo, Moyer, Liicke, Reuss, Beyschlag, Weiz-
sacker, Harnack; per contra, Luthardt, "Weiss, I^iddon, C.odot,
riummer.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 77

erate system, incoherent and self-contradictory in
many of its parts, but still resting-, in tiie belief of
its author, upon an (Jld Testament basis.

In order clearly to indicate the bearings of the
question at issue, it is necessary briefly to illustrate
the ideas from the Old Testament, and those from
Philo, which stand connected with the Johannine use
of the term Logos.

In the (Jld Testament we frequently meet with the
phrase " word of Jehovah " as a symbol of the power
of God or of the energizing of his will.

" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made ;
And all the host of them by the breath of the mouth.

For he spake, and it was done ;

He commanded, and it stood fast " (Ps. xxxiii. 6, 9).

These expressions are based upon the idea of God's
creative fiat, as it appears, for example, in the cos-
mogony in Genesis : " And God said, Let there be,"
etc. In some passages, " the word of God " is poetic-
ally described as an energetic agent which is active
in accomplishing the divine purposes ; as when, in a
description of God's action in nature, it is said :
" He sendeth out his commandment upon earth ; His
wo7-d runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15), or as
when, through the prophet, Jehovah declares that
his word shall accomplish that which he pleases
(Is.lv. 10,11).

With the use of God's tvord as a symbol of his
power, is closely connected the use of it as a name for

78 THE JOHANNIXE THKOI.OCJY

the revelation of his will, applied espeeially to his
messages to men throug-h the ])rophets. Isaiah "saw
the Avord [of Jehovah] coucerning Jiidali and Jciii-
salem (Is. ii. 1). "The word of the Lord came 'Ms
the formula with which most of the prophetic books
are i)refaced.

Some of the passages already quoted illustrate u
tendency to personify the ivord. This tendency is
still more noticeable where attributes of God are
predicated of his word, as when it is affirmed to be
right (Ps. xxxiii. 4), enduring (Ps. cxix. 89), and
powerful (Jer, xxiii. 29). These personifications are,
of course, poetical, but they illustrate the beginnings
of a mode of thought which is carried much further in
the uses of the terms ivord and wisdom which we have
yet to notice, and wdiich throws light upon the genesis
and significance of the Johannine Logos-doctrine.

In the Book of Job and in Proverbs we find a
personification of wisdom. In Job the term is a
poetical designation for the gracious purpose of God
which he is working out in human experience. Hence
in the theodicy of the book it is only the righteous
man who knows and shares in this wisdom. This
divine wisdom is the great secret of life (Job xxviii.,
jyassim^. It is more securely hidden from men than
are the metals in the earth (1-0) ; the wild birds
and beasts have not found in the rocks and mountains
its hiding place (7, 8"^ ; the costliest jewels cannot
equal it in value (15-19); only God "knowcth the
place thereof" (28).

riiE Doe 1KIX1-: ok thk ijjco.s 79

*' WlieiK-e then coiiit'tli wistlniii ?
And where is the phice of understanding?

Behold, the fear of the Lord, tliat is wisdom ;

And to depart from evil is understandiiii;- " (20, 28).

More strikingly still is wisdom pci'soiiirKMl in the
Book of Proverbs (chs. viii., ix.). She is the cardinal
virtue who stands on tlie street-e(jrners and at tlu; ci-ty
gates, and invites men to walk in her ways (viii. 1— l).
God created, or jn-epared her, before the world was
made (22-29), and she was at his side as the art-
ist who shares the Creator's plans ; she was '' daily
his delight, rejoicing always before him " (80) ; she
therefore exhorts men to listen to her instruction and
assures those who do so of life, Ijlessedness, and the
favor of Heaven (32-36).

It will be seen tljp,t the conception represented by
the luord of God in Hebrew thought relates more to
the divine activity ; that represented by wisdom re-
lates more to the divine attributes. Both terms are
means of expressing the idea of the living, self-reveal-
ing God. The manifestations of Jehovah's power,
especially in nature, arc the operations of his word ;
the revelation of his ethical nature and of the moral
requirements which God makes of men, is the voice
of his ivisdom.

The next step in the development of thought which
we are tracing is found in the Apocryphal books,
" Ecclesiasticus " or '' Jesus, the Son of Sirach," and
" The Wisdom of Solomon." Both these books

80 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

belong to the second century before Cbrist, and rep-
resent — especially the Book of Wisdom — a develop-
ment of Biblical ideas under the influence of Greek
speculation. " Ecclesiasticus " is clearly an imitation
of the canonical Book of Proverbs. Its fullest de-
scriptions of wisdom are found in chapters i.and xxiv.
The ideas closely resemble those of Proverbs viii.
which we have noticed. A few examples are here
adduced : —

" All wisdom cometh from the Lord,
And is with him forever.

Wisdom was created before all things,

And prudent understanding from everlasting.

He created her, and saw her, and made her known,
And poured her out uj^on all his works.

. •
The root of wisdom is to fear the Lord,
And the branches thereof are long life " (i. 1, 4, 9, 20).

In chapter xxiv. is found a much more highly
colored description of wisdom in the form of a solilo-
quy which represents the most characteristic thought
of the book. We quote a few verses : —

" 1 came forth from the mouth of the Most High,
And covered the earth as a mist.
T dwelt in the heights,
And my throne was on a cloudy pillar.
I alone compassed the arch of heaven,
And walked about in the depth of abysses.
In the waves of the sea, and in all the earth,

TIIK DOCTTUXF, OF THE LOfiOS 81

And in t'very iieoplt; ;ui<l nation, I gut a possession.

With all these I sought rest;

And in whose inheritance should I abide ?

Then the Creator of all things gave nie a connnandment,

And he that made nie caused my tabernacle to rest,

And said. Let thy dwelling be in Jacob,

And thine inheritance in Israel.

He created nie from the beginning, before the world.

And I shall never fail.

In the holy tabernacle I served before him ;

And so was I established in Sion " (xxiv. 3-10).

It is evident that wc have here a i)oetic description
of God's self-revclatiou under an objective and per-
sonal form. The intention of the passage is not to
hypostatize wisdom, but only to personify, for rhetori-
cal effect, the manifestation of God's attributes which
is made in the government of the world, and espec-
ially in the Old Testament law.

In the Book of Wisdom the development of thought
is carried one step farther. Its author was evidently
an Alexandrian Jew who sought to combine Greek
speculati(jn with the Jewish religion, and who may
therefore be regarded as one of the forerunners of
that peculiar philosophy of religion which is best
represented in Pliilo. Solomon is the speaker. In
chapters vii. and viii., he gives a description of wis-
dom, " who she is, and how she arose" (\i. 22). She
is "the artilicer of all things" (vii. 21), a subtle, all-
permeating principle (vii. 24), " is initiated into the
mysteries of the knowledge of God, and is a chooser
of his works " (\'m. 4). " She is a breath of the power

82 THE JOHAXNINE THEOLOGY

of God, and a pure eflluence from the glory of the
Almighty ; therefore no defiling thing falls into her ;
for she is a reflection of the everlasting light (anav-
jaafxa (/)&jt69 aiSiov ; cf. cnravyaafMa Trj<i So'l?;? k. t. \.,
Heb. i. 3), and an mispotted mirror of the efficiency
of God, and image of his goodness. And though
but one, she can do all things ; and though remaining
in herself, she maketh all things new ; and from gen-
eration to generation entering into holy souls, she
equippeth friends of God, and prophets. For God
loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom. For
she is more beautiful than the sun, and above every
position of stars ; being compared with the light, she
is found superior" (vii. 25-29).

It is impossible to determine with certainty how far
this ascri])tion of personal qualities and activities to
wisdom is to be regarded as merely poetic or figurative.
The description of wisdom as a holy spirit of light and
an active agent of God in the world seems to form a
connecting link between the poetical personifications
in the canonical Wisdom-books and the Logos-doctrine
of Philo, the chief features of which we shall presently
notice.

Attention should here be directed to the personifica-
tion of the icord (Memra) of Jehovah which is foimd
in the Targums or Aramaic paraphrases of the Old
Testament books. ^ These Targums were in current
use among the Jews in the apostolic age, and John

* See Weber, I)ie Lchren des Talmud, Das Rleinra Jeliova's,
].l.. 174-170.

THE DOCTKIXE OF THE LOGOS 83

was prol)al)ly acquainted with their phraseoloi^y They
person ilietl the word of (lod and ascribed to it divine
power in order more completely to sci)arate (lod from
the woild. Esi)ecially were the anthropomorj)hic acts
of fiod referred to the Menira. Instead of Adam and
Eve hearing the voice of the Lord in the garden (Gen.
iii. 8), they are said to have heard the voice of the
tvord of the Lord, and the like. This tvord is described
by the Rabbis as proceeding out of the mouth of God
and becoming an active potency, a personal hypostasis,
whom the angels serve in executing the divine will.
God dwells in and works through the Memra ; he
stands for the popular thought in the place of Jehovah,
and the providential and redemptive acts of God are
freely ascribed to him. The Memra of the paraphrasts
presents a striking analogy to the Logos of the Jewish
Alexandrian philosopher Philo (fl. 40-50 a. d.).

Philo's system is a complex of Jewish, Greek, and
Oriental elements. As a Jew he believed in the God
of the Old Testament, but under the influence of ])hil-
osophy he was led to the most abstract conception of
his nature. God was absolutely removed from the
woi-ld and could have no contact with it. Between the
pure Sjjirit and the sensible world there could be no
communication. This gulf between the transcendent
Deity and the lower world Philo sought to bridge by
his doctrine of intermediate powers or ideas. The
simi or epitome of these various agencies is the Logos.
This term Philo probably adopted from the Old Testa-
ment, but the content and use of it were determined

84 THE JOHANNIXE THEOLOGY

by that gnosis which had its ])rincipal sources in the
Platonic doctrine of ideas and in the Stoic doctrine of
causes or powers.

The term Logos, as denoting the archetypal idea,
was fitted to express both the immanent reason of God
and also the principle of revelation in the divine nature.
The Logos, considered as immanent reason, correspond-
ing to unuttered thought (Xoyo^ ivSidderfx;) in man, is
as transcendent and incomprehensible as God him-
self ; but in its other aspect as an active, forth-putting
power, corresponding to uttered thought (Xo'709 irpoc^op-
LKo^) in man, the Logos is the medium of God's self-
communication by which he reveals himself in creation
and providence. This uttered Word is the agent
through whom God created the world and is continu-
ally active within it. In him is summed up all divine
wisdom and goodness. lie is the first-born son of God,
the highest angel, the second God (6 Sevrepot; ^eo'?).

Whether Philo regards the Logos as strictly a person
distinct from God is a disputed question. The diffi-
culty of deciding it with certainty arises from the
shifting and inconsistent meanings in whicli ho enii)loys
the term. Much of his language can, no d<iuht, bo
explained as [joetical, and in no case can a clear and
consistent coiice|)ti<)n be derived fi-oui liis expressions.
But after all due allowance is niado for \aguc and
figurative language, there remains, I think, decisive
evidence that his descriptions of the Logos can denote
nothing less than a real person, an hypostasis distinct
from God. Since the Loii'os is defined to be "• the

11 IK DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 85

second (lod " in a li^iiiativo sense (eV KaTaxprjcrei), is
begotten of the Fatliur, and tlierefore dependent fur his
existence upon him, the monotheism of Philo would
not be undermined by the ascription of personality to
the Logos.

Such are the elements of the Logos-doctrine in its
various stages of development. It is rooted in the soil
of the Old Testament. But, although it stands in
direct connection with the Old Testament personifica-
tion of God's power under the term ioo7'd and the
personification of his ethical attributes under the term
wisdom, it is hardly conceivable that the Logos-idea
should have taken the form which it has assumed in
Philo except through contact with Greek speculation.
The doctrine of ideas as the archetypal essences of all
things and kindred forms of thought, and the concep-
tion of God's metaphysical absoluteness, are the two
elements of Greek thought which gave shape to the
idea of the Logos which Philo had derived from the
Old Testament. The Logos-doctrine was a means of
showing how the transcendent God might still come
into relation with the world and man. The later Jewish
theology, which more and more removed God from
active contact with the world, solved the same problem
by its doctrine of angels who were the agents of God
in all his acts. We have occasional traces of this
tendency to ascribe God's action to the mediation of
angels in the New Testament.^

^ Acts vii. 3.5 ; Ileb. ii. 2 ; and, especially, ( Jal. iii. 10, where the
giving of the law is ascribed to the mediation of angels, — an

86 . THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

It is evident from what has been said that the
Logos-idea must have been a familiar one when the
apostle John wrote. Wisdom literature had been
current for two centuries or moi'c, and the elaborate
system of Philo was wrought out forty or fifty years
before the Fourth Gospel was written. The apostle
did not adopt the word Logos because he was him-
self inventing some recondite system of speculation
concerning the person of Christ. He adopted it as a
term of current philosophical speech in order by its
use to adapt his idea of Christ's pre-existence and
divinity to the minds of his Greek readers. In his
use of it we need not suppose that it retains precisely
the same associations and contents which it had in the
speculations of the time. On the contrary, it bears
quite a new character as employed by John. " The
personification of the divine word in the Old Testa-
ment is poetical, in Philo metaphysical, in St. John
historical." ^ The use of the term is an illustration
of the natural tendency of Christian thought to avail
itself of the i)hilos()i)hical conce|)tious and phrasrology
which ])rcvail at any given time. Other examples arc
found in Paul's use, in the Epistles of the Imjjrison-
ment, of terms derived from an incipient Gnosticism,
especially TrXrjpcofia, and the wide adoption in the

idea not found in the narrative of the giving of (he law. It is
probably found, liowever, in the original of Deut. xxxiii. 2, and
is clearly expi-cssed by tlie Septuagint rendering of that passage
(ayyfXoi /ifr' avrov).

1 I'hiininci', Ciunhridijc Gk. I'cst. Notes on Jolni i. 1.

THE D(X;TKIXE of Tin: \A)(A)S 87

theological language of our time of pliraseology de-
rived from the theory of evolution, it is as if John
had said to his readers : You arc familiar with the
sj)Cculations which have long been rife respecting the
means whereby God reveals himself, — the doctrine
of an intermediate agent through whom he commu-
nicates his light and life to men. The true answer
to the question regarding this mediator is, that it is
our Lord Jesus Christ. He is God's agent in revela-
tion; he is the bond which unites heaven and earth.

The development of the Logos-doctrine which we
have briefly traced indicates the answer to the ques-
tion as to the origin of the idea in the writings of
John. It cannot be explained without reference to
Philo. Whether John had ever read the writings of
Philo we do not know. Whether he was directly
familiar with Philo's system we have no means of
deciding. But that he was familiar with that type of
speculation concerning the Logos whose chief repre-
sentative is found in Philo seems certain, and some
direct knowledge of Philo's system is highly probable.
Be that as it may, we cannot naturally exi)lain his
use of the term Logos without supposing him and his
readers to have been somewhat familiar with Alex-
andrian thought. But it is none the less true that
John's Logos-doctrine is rooted in the Old Testa-
ment, partly because he was himself familiar willi the
Jewish ideas of the woi'd and visdoni, and partly be-
cause in Philo's system tlie conception of the word is
an elaboration of these ideas under forms of thou'j-bt

88 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

derived from Greek philosophy. The dispute whether
John's Logos-doctrine is Jewish or Alexandrian draws
the lines too closely. It is both, for the Alexandrian
philosophy of religion was largely Jewish. Both the
effort to find the occasion and ground of John's doc-
trine in the Old Testament alone,i and the failure to
take account of the Old Testament basis of the doc-
trine,^ are alike unwarranted. The fact is that the
philosophy of Philo, which developed and applied the
Old Testament idea, was the medium through which
that idea became available for the apostle's purpose,
and so passed into his writings.

Let us now turn to the prologue of the Gospel,
i. 1-18, and see in what way and for what purpose
John employs the Logos-idea. From such an ex-
amination we shall be able to determine the points
of likeness and of difference between John's Logos-
doctrine and that of Philo, and to define the pur-
pose of the doctrine in its relation to the Gospel as a
whole.

The prologue begins with the idea of the eternity of
the Logos (eV ap')(ri Tjv 6 Xoyo^:, i. 1 ) . This idea is
repeated in verse 2 (^ovTo<i r]v ev apxr/ 7rpb<; rov Oeov^,
and is confirmed by the expression of Jesus in xvii. 5,
where he speaks of the glory which he had with (he
Father " before the world was " (ttjoo tov rov Koafiov
elvai). To the same effect is his statement, "Before
Aln'aham ivas horn, I am Qrrplv 'A^paap, jeveaOat iyoy

^ See, e. </., Weiss, Dcr JoJinnn. Lrhrh., pp. 211, 24.'5.
^ See, e. g., Weizsiickor, />r/s apnslol. Zeilal/er, p. 55L

THE DOCTRIXK OF THE EOOOS 89

clfii, viii. 58 ; cf. Ps. xc. 2). In the o})cnin<i' words of
the I'irst Epistle (I. i. 1) we (hid a parallel to the be-
gining of the prologue, where the saving grace which
came to the world in Christ is designated as " that
which was from the beginning" (o rjv air apx?}?).

It lias been held by many that these statements
amount only to an assertion of the relative pre-exist-
ence of the Logos, and arc not equivalent to an af-
firmation of his eternity.^ The opening words of the
prologue present, no doubt, an allusion and a parallel
to the opening words of Genesis. Reuss therefore
affirms that " if we infer from these words the eter-
nity of the Word, we must infer also from the begin-
ning of Genesis the eternity of the world." But,
supposing that in both cases the word " beginning "
denotes the beginning of time, there remains the
important difference that in Genesis that which is
placed at the begiiining is an act (creation), while in
John that which is placed at the beginning is the
existence of the Word. The Word ivas at the begin-
ning ; he existed before the Avorld came into being. It
is true that John does not employ the words eternal
or eternity in the connection, but we hold that this
idea is involved in the logical relation between the
terms was and in the heijinning. When John speaks
of that which comes into existence he uses both a
different word and a different tense {iravra 8t avrov
iyeuero, k. t. X., i. 3). All things came into being^ but
in the beginning of things he was. Without assign-

1 See, e. g., Reuss, op. ciL, ii. 391, :592 (orig. ii. 438, 439).

90 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

ing to apxn — ^vith some of the older interpreters —
the meaning eternity, we think tliat the idea is in-
volved in the passages which we have noticed, as well
as demanded by other assertions of the jipostle con-
cerning the Word.^

John's next proposition concerning the Logos is
that he existed in intimate fellowship with God (^koX
6 \6yo<i Tfv Trpb'i rbv deov, i. 1). The force of the
preposition tt/jo? may be partially indicated by the
very unidiomatic English rendering: " The Word
was toward God." The preposition expresses more
than irapd would do (^cf. xvii. 5.). It emphasizes a
direction or tendency of life. The moral movement
of his life is centred in God, and ever goes out
toward God. The bond of this essential fellowship
is love, since the Father loved the Son " before the
foundation of the world" (xvii. 24). A similar
thought is probably intended in the words, " which
is in the bosom of the Father " (6 wv et<? rbv koXttov
Tov 7raTp6<;, i. 18). Some interpreters understand
these words to be spoken from the standjjoint of
the writer at the time, and therefore to refer to the
exaltation of Jesus. ^ But the point of the passage
is to show how the Son is fitted to reveal God to
mankind, and it is his essential and eternal relation
to the Father which would constitute the ground of
that fitness. The declaration of the Father referred

1 " For ' before the world was,' a philosopliical writer would
have said 'from eternity.'" Beyschlag, Neutesi. TheoL, ii. 427.

2 So Meyer, Covimentary, in loco , Weiss, Johann. Lchrh., p 'J^Ji).

TlIK DOCTRINE OF 11 IK LOOOS 01

to in €^7]'yr]aaTo, is that wliicli Iho S(»n has made in
his incarnation. His fitness to make that revelation
must therefore be logically grounded in his pi-e-incar-
nate relation to the Father {rov deov') to which alone
can the words o wV et? jov koXttov naturally refer. ^
Here, too, the use of the ])rcposition (etV), indicating
motion or direction, should be observed, suggesting
an " active and living relation " (Godet) between
the Son and the Father.

To the assertion of the pre-existcnce of the Logos
and of his abiding fellowship with God,. John now adds:
"and the Word was God (/cat 6eo<i i]v 6 \6'yo<i, i. 1).
Oeo? is here emphatically prefixed because the stress
of the thought lies upon the divine nature of the
Logos, and is without the article because John will
not al)Solutely identify o Xoyo^ and 6 6e6<;. To do
this would l)c to contradict the jH'cvious sentence
where a distinction is presupposed between 6 Xo'70?
and 6 ^eo'<? (the Father). John here uses 6 0e6<; to
denote specifically the Father — the central seat and
fountain of divinity — and 0e6<; to denote the category
of divine nature or essence in which the Son, equally
with the Father, partakes. He thus affirms a dis-
tinction of persons, l)ut an identity of essence, be-
tween the Logos and the Father. That this is the
import of the apostle's words is generally admitted
by candid interpreters, whatever adjustment they
may make of the fact with theological sj)eculation.

^ So Liicke, De Wetto, (Jodet, Westcott {Commentaries, in
loco).

92 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

Writers who, like Ritschl ^ and Beysclilag,^ suppose
the Logos to denote a principle or impulse in God, or
a pretemporal purpose of God to reveal himself in a
person, appeal in support of their views rather to what
thev regard as the practical, non-spcculativc purpose
of the prologue than to the simple, immediate import
of the words. Liicke's objections to the usual inter-
pretation are untenable.^ He says, for example, that,
if deo'i r]v 6 \6jo^ was intended to emphasize the uniti/
of essence as an offset to the distinction of persons
implied in 6 Xo'709 rjv tt/oo? tou 6e6v, an adversative
particle (^aWd or Se), and not the simple connective
/cat, would have been required. To this the answer
is, in part, that it is the commonest peculiarity of
John's style to string sentences together, in Hebrais-
tic fashion, by the simple connective, and, further,
that the apostle's thought does not require him to
set these statements in contrast, but in unity. His
assertion that the common view would necessitate
the article with ^eo9 to correspond to wpb^ t6v 6c6v,
overlooks the natural and intentional difference be-
tween 6 de6<; and 6e6<;. This author weakens Oeo^ to
the sense of Philo's phrase 6 Sevrepot de6<; which he
applied to the Logos by accommodation. Liicke's
conclusion is that the sense is nearly the same as
if John had defined the Logos as 0eio<;, and that the
words 0eo<i rjv 6 X6'yo<; do not add a new thought to

1 Rechlfertigung und Varsohnuug, ill. oTS sq.

2 Netitcst. TheoL, ii. 427.
8 Cotnmentary, in loco.

THE DOCTRIXE OF PI IK LOflOS 93

the two jjrevioiisly ('xi)resse(l, l)iit only t'uitlici' define
and explain the rehition denoted Ijy irpo'i rov deov.
This interpretation unwarrantably allows the natural
force of John's words to be overborne by the assump
tion of a close resemblance between John's idea of the
Logos and that of Philo.

The creation of the world is ascribe<l to the Logos
(TTavra ht avTov iyei'eTO^ k. t. X., i. 3, 10). It will be
noticed that it is a mediate fmiction (Sm) in creation
whicli is here designated. Nothing came into being
apart from him (x«pt? avToii). In this respect the
theology of John accords with tlie representations of
other New Tt^stament writers, for example, with that
of Paul: "-In him (iv avrw^ were all things created,"
etc.; "All things have been created through Iiim {hi
avrov) and unto him (ct? avTov') ; and he is before
all things and in him all things consist" (Col. i. 16,
17). In Hebrews also the writer sj)eaks of the Son
"through whom {hi ov) (lod nuide the worlds," and
who " upholds all tilings by the word of his power "
(i. 2, 3). God is the Creator in the absolute sense,
but the Lou'os is the co-clhcieut at'cnt of God in
creating, sustaining, and governing the world. It is
thus a matter of interest to observe that John, as
well as Paul, has the idea of " the cosmic significance
of Christ," — an idea which sustains an important
relation to his doctrines of revelation and redemption.

The fifth and final thought of the introductory
passage (i. 1-5), which may be called the ))rologue
in the narrower sense, is that the Logos is the giver

94 THE JOHAN^'^INE THEOLOGY

of life or dispenser of light to iiieii (i. 4, 5). The
Logos is the agent of divine revelation, — the mediator
of spiritual life to mankind universally. He is the
seat and source of life, which he communicates to
men. This life is defined under the figure of light
in order to emphasize its diffusive and beneficent
character and power. This light has been pouring
itself forth upon the sinful and unreceptive world
in all ages.

The remainder of the prologue may be regarded as
an illustration and amplification of this thought, drawn
from the historical manifestation of the Logos in Jesus
Christ. From the sixth verse onward the writer makes
the incarnation and life of Jesus his ruling thought.
John the Baptist — the last rejjresentative of the old
covenant and the herald of the new — testified that
Jesus was the true divine light of the world (6-9).
As j)articipating in the woi-ld's creation he has an
abiding relation to It. He was perpetually active (ryf)
in the world as the revealcr of God, but the world
received not his revelation (10). At length he came
(^^jXOev^ in liis incarnation to his own proper possession
(et«? TO, t8m), the Jewish nation, but those who were,
in the divine destination, his own people (o/ 18101'),
acting in their free self-determination, rejected him
(11). Such as did receive him, however, entered by
faith in him into a new world of blessedness in loving
fellowship with the Father (12, 13). The main thoughts
which are here indicated respecting divine revelation
are: (1) Revelation is universal; the light of the

THE DOCTRINE OK THE LOGOS 95.

eternal Logos shines in the world's darkness, seckiuL;;
to bless and save men. (2) It is the sinfulness uf
men which blinds their minds to the true kntnvledjj^'e
of God and prevents them from realizing the blessed-
ness of fellowship with God. (3) In the incarnation of
the Logos a special revelation was made to the Jews,
in whose whole history God had been seeking to pre-
pare the way for the reception of the Messiah when
he should come. (4) While as a nation the Jews,
who thus, in a peculiar sense, belonged to Christ, re-
jected him, he was accepted by others on conditions
purely spiritual ; and these have attained the end con-
templated in all revelation, — loving obedience and
fellowship with God.

The final section of the prologue (14-18) intrcxhicrs
no strictly new thoughts. John aOirins that the Logos
became incarnate (o Xo'709 aap^ iyeveTo, 14), and that
he dwelt in humanity as in a tabernacle (^iaK^vcoaev eV
rjfilv, 14). The word adp^ denotes human nature, and
not a human body (a-M/xa) merely. The verb ijemro
cannot, in view of John's whole doctrine, be understood
to mean that the Logos changed his nature and became
human in the sense of ceasing to be divine. The sen-
tence o X070? aap^ eyeveTO expresses with pregnant
brevity the idea of his assum])tion of human nature by
union with which the divine-human personality is
constituted. We must understand this formula in the
light of the explanatory words : " and tabernacled
among us" (i. 14), and of expressions like iv aapKi
€p')(^ea6at(l.iv. 2 ; IL 7) as denoting the mystei'ious unity

96 THE JOHAXNIXE THEOLOGY

of divinity with hmnanit}' in the ])ersoii of Josus Clirist.
In his person, " full of g-race and truth " (14), the glory
of God — his holy perfections — stood revealed to
men. Again the Baptist's testimony is qnoted :
Although Jesus came after me in time he has taken
rank before me in the dignity of liis work (e^Trpoadev
fjLov yeyovev, 15), because he existed before me (^irpcoTdf
fiov rjv, 15). We became sharers, continues the apostle,
in the plenitude of divine blessing which came to the
world in Christ, and, in consequence, one gift of grace
has succeeded another (xo'/jiy avrl 'x^dptTO';, 16). He
closes by hinting at the greater fulness of revelation
through the incarnation in comparison with that made
in Old Testament times. The revelation made through
Moses — from which the activity of the Logos must
not be supposed to have been absent — was a revela-
tion of law which, in the nature of the case, could
make only a very partial manifestation of God. Com-
mandments and ]u-ohibitions arc extrinsic to (Jod, and
furnish, at best, but ]>artial disclosures of liis will and
nature. Ihit in Christ revelation became jjcrsonal.
God came close to men in a life wliich revealed the
very heart of God to them, and, while he still remained
hidden to the senses, lie was declared in his essence
and disposition l)y the Son, who in his essential life is
in jjcrpctual and pei-fect fellowship with the Father.

A comi)aiMson of the Logos-idea, as tlius (leveloj)ed,
with that of Pliilo, will re\('al similarities of I'oi'ui with
striking and essential differences of content. 1'hc
Logos of .John, like that of Philo, is the nietiiator

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 97

between the absolute God and tlie world, Ijut the
motive for the mediation in the two systems is funda-
mentally different. In Philo the motive lies in a
certain i)hilosoj)hical view of the world and of God.
The world is gross and evil, and the transcendent God
can hold no direct relations with it. God comes into
relation with the world only mediately through the
Logos. Thus the motive for the Logos-doctrine in
Philo is found in a metaphysical view of the universe.
With John the motive is historical. The fact of
divine revelation in Jesus Christ is the logical starting-
point of the Johannine theology. For John, God is
also transcendent, but his transcendence is ethical, not
metaphysical. For him the world is separated from
God, but this separation is due, not to the constitution
of the world, but to its sinfulness. Philo's system
rests upon a metaphysical dualism inherent in the
universe ; John's doctrine proceeds upon the idea of
an ethical dualism, incidental to the system and arising
from human sin. The Logos-doctrine is not adopted
and shaped l)y John — as by Philo — as a means of
solving the difificulties inherent in a certain philosophy,
but is adopted as a convenient and useful method of
l^resenting the fact that the pre-existent Son of God
became incarnate in Jesus Christ. John in the pro-
logue seeks to present to his readers, under the terms
of a doctrine which was current among them, two
truths concerning Jesus: (1) the fact of his saving
historical work, whose blessing he had himself experi-
enced ; and (2) the fact of his personal pre-existence

98 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

and essential unity with the Father, to which Jesus had
testified in his teaching conceniing himself.

Again, in John we have what is not found in
Philo, — a clear and consistent personification of the
Logos. In Philo the use of the word oscillates be-
tween the two common meanings of the term, reason
and word. The Logos, considered as the immanent
reason of God, is a name for an element or phase of
the personality of the absolute Being, while the Logos,
in the sense of the uttered Word of God, is treated
as a distinct hypostasis. These two quite different
senses of the term are not clearly distinguished.
The word is thus involved in vague and shifting
senses. Moreover, the relation of Philo's philosophy
to Old Testament and later Jewish thought, enhances
the uncertainty of its meaning. Many of Philo's titles
for the Logos, — the Wisdom of God, the Son of God,
the Archangel, the Man of God, etc., — seem to be
reproductions of Jewish conceptions which may be
understood figuratively or poetically. Lut in John
the identification of the Logos with the person of
Jesus Christ, and the clear assertion of his preteni-
poral existence and of his deity, make it inii)ossible,
without exegetical arbitrariness, to interpret his lan-
guage in a mere ideal or poetical sense.

From what has been said of the differing motives
of the Logos-doctrine in John and in Philo, it is evi-
dent that the idea of the incarnation of the Logos
would be radically inconsistent with Philo's whole
system. The divine Logos could form no union with

THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOGOS 99

weak and corruptible liiunan nature. The words 6
Xo'709 crap^ iyeuero, (i. 14) mark a fundamental differ-
once between John's doctrine and Philo's. There are
no presuppositions in the apostle's tliought which con-
stitute a barrier to the idea oi a union of divinity with
humanity. In fact he has had personal knowledtre of
such a union in the person of his Master, in whom
the divine life has l)cen manifested (I. i. 1, 2). John's
doctrine is grounded thus, not in abstract specula-
tion, but in observation and experience. His fel-
lowship with his Master and his knowledge of his
teaching and claims are the grounds on which he
l)uilds his doctrine of the nature, incarnation, and
historical function of the Logos.

"While we thus recognize a historic relation between
Alexandrian speculation as represented in Philo, and
John's Logos-doctrine,^ we think the differences much
more fundamental than the resemblances. If this is
the case, it raises a strong presumption against the
opinion ^ that the Logos-idea is the starting-point and
controlling thought of the Fourth Gospel. In this
view it is regarded as the aim of the Gospel to exhibit
the various stages of a conflict between light and
darkness (i. 4, 5, 7, 9 ; iii. 19-21; viii. 12; ix. 5;
xii. 35, 36, 46). The Gospel is a highly wrought de-
scription of the meeting of opposing powers which

^ The resemblances in phraseology and idea are exhibited in
detail in Siegfried's Philo von Alexandria, pp. 817-321.

- See, e. g., Weizs'acker, Das apostol. Zeitalter, p. 553 ; O. Holtz-
niann, Das Johannesevangelium, pp. 78, 79.

613386 A

100 THE JOHAXNIXE THEOLOGY

are represented by the Logos and the sinful world
respectively. This abstract, pliilosopliicul concejjtion
which the writer adopted when he approjjriated to his
use the term Logos determines his whole representa-
tion of the life of Jesus, and gives to it a distinctively
speculative cast. Philo furnished the fourth evange-
list, concludes Oscar Holtzmann, with " an essentially
new conception of Christianity." ^

The phenomena of the Gosi)el do not appear to me
to sustain this view. The term Logos, as a personal
designation, does not occur outside of the prologue,
and even there is treated historically, rather than
philosophically. The Logos is not presented as an
abstract principle, but as the pretemporal form of the
person Jesus Christ, Light and darkness in the pro-
logue, and in the Gospel elsewhere, are not abstract
metaphysical conceptions, but ethical conceptions.
Darkness is sin, and light is goodness. These terms are
symbols of ethical realities, the use of which accords
with the writer's peculiar mode of thought resjtccling
the nature of God and of man, and which abound in
the First Epistle (i. 5, 7 ; ii. 8-10) where the Logos-
doctrine is not developed and, in the view of many,
is not even referred to (see 1. i. 1, Treplrov \6<yov rt}^
^fuf;?). The writer's own account of his purpose in
composing the Gospel is: "These (signs) are written,
that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing ye may have life in his
name " (xx. 31). Ills ])urpose was strictly historical

1 (>j>. ell., \K 79.

riii: i)(»('i"i;iNK of thk i.ocios 101

and j)ractical. The saving" good that has c«jnie to the
wttihl is found in tlu' jicrson and work of Jesus, wlio
dechired himself to have existed in essential miion
with (lod hefore liis hiiniaii aii|M'arancc. To eniplia-
si/.c (his j»re-e.\isleuee and union witli (Jod, and to
present the thought that, as the eternal Son, Jesus
was the medium of divine revelation in all ages, John
employs the term Logos.

Ilaruaek eonehides his discussion of the relation of
the prologue to the (Jospel as a whole, in these words :

" Tlie [)iologue of tlie (ios[)el is not the key to the
understanding of the Gospel, but it prepares the Hellen-
istic readers therefor. The writer seizes upon a known
quantity, the Logos, works it over and transforms it —
implicitly combating false Christologies — in ordei' to
sulistitute for it Jesus Christ, the fxovoyei'i]'; Oe:(k, that is,
in Older to disclose it as being this same Jesus Christ.
From the moment when this is done, the Logos-idea is
allowed to fall away. The author eoutinues his narrative
now only concerning Jesus, in order to establish the faith
that he is the Messiah, the Son of God. This belief has
for its principal element the reeognition that Jesus origi-
nates from God and from heaven ; but the author is far
removed from the purpose of securing this recognition
from cosmological and philosophical considerations. Upon
the basis of his lestimou}', and because he has brought
full knowledge of God and life — absolutely heavenly,
divine benefits — does Jesus prove himself, aeeording to
the evangelist, to be the Messiah, the Sou of God." ^

^ Op. cil., pp. 230, 231. I do not intend V)y this citation to
indicate my accord with Ilarnack's general estimate of the
Logos-idea in the Fourth Gospel.

CHAPTER V

THE UNION OF THE SON WITH THE FATHER

Literature. — Weiss : Johmn. Lehrh., Die Einheitdes Sohnes
mitdeui Vater, u. s. w., pp. 20:5-Jl!», and Bthl. TheoL, The Christ-
ology, §§ 143-14.5; Wexdt: The Teaching of Jesus, The Rela-
tion of Jesus to God, and Pre-existence of Jesus according to the
Johannine Discourses, ii. 1.51-178 (orig., pp. 450-472); Fhom-
MAXx: Johann. Lehrh., Sohn Gottes, pp. 409-418; Beyschlag :
Neulest. TheoL, Der Eingeborene, ii. 409-420 ; H. P. Liddon :
The Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Lecture V.,
Tlie Doctrine of Christ's Divinity in the Writings of St. John,
pp. 209-278.

Some of the most important considerations which
bear upon the present subject have come under our
notice in the study of the Logos-idea, It remains to
examine the apostle's teaching as a whole in the light
of the Christology of the prologue, in order to de-
termine whether or not the ideas there found arc ])cr-
vading and fundamental in the Johanuine view of
Christ's person. This inquiry will involve chiefly a
study of the terms the Son of God and the only he-
gotten Son, and an examination of those passages
which refer to the pre-existence of the Son and to
his relation to the Father.

The title (lie Son of God, or its shortened form the
Son, is applied to Ji'siis about thirty times in tb.c

rxioN oi' I'm; sox wiiii iiii: iaiiii:i; 103

CJospcI, and ihdi'o tliau (wciify timcK in flic Mpistlcs
of Julni. In a few passa.i^es the title is niDdilied hy
the word onJu-lwgotten (^fiovoyei'/j'i) (i. 14, 18: iii. 10,
18; I. iv. 9). It is necessary to determine, if pos-
sibl(>, what this title signifies. The principal problem
is, whether the term Son refers merely to an cthieal
union of Christ with God, or also denotes or iini)Iies
a metapliysical union; whether it simply descrilx's
Christ as the chosen object of the divine love, or also
designates him as standing in essential and eternal
union with the Father in respect to his nature.

No one can read the passages in the Clospel of
John where Jesus speaks of his fdial relation to CJod
without receiving tlic impression that this relation is re-
garded as something unique, — that he is declared to
be the Son of God in some pre-eminent sense. Take,
in illustration, such passages as these : " The Father
loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his
hand" (iii. 35). "Not that any man hath soon the
Father, save he which is from God, he hath seen
the Father '' (vi. 46). " I and the Fatlier are one "
(x. 80). " I am in the Father, and the Father in
me " (xiv. 11). The question now arises whether
this unique relation to which these passages refer is
solely ethical, that is, a relation. of loving fellowship,
and thus the same in kind with that in which all
men as " sons of God " stand to God, or whether a
relationship of essence is also involved. Weiss has
adopted the former view in respect to the meaning of
Son, Tn his opinion the term Soji of God describes

104 THE JOIIAXXIXE TIIK<)1,()(;V

Jesus "as the objcctof the divine h)ve, u)»on whom
the good pleasure of God rests." ^ This iiullior. how-
ever, holds, in general, that the prc-existcnce of Christ
and the metaphysical union of essence between Christ
and God are taught in tlic writings of John.^ But
he maintains that these ideas are not involved in
the title Son of God, wliich is an Old Testament
metaphor derived from human relations, and with
which is sometimes joined the designation " only-be-
gotten " in order to emphasize " the closest relation
of love" existing Ijetween the Father and the Son.^
But this author holds that on the question " whether
this [sonship] reaches back into eternity and depends
upon an original relationship of essence on the part
of the Son to the Father, the self-testimony of Jesus
could give no disclosure." * Other recent writei-s
seek, in connection with this view of the sonship of
Jesus, to rule out from the Fourth Gospel the idea of
a personal pre-existence of the Son.^

The title Son of Grod was not in current use among
the Jews as a designation for the Messiah. It is,

1 BihI. Thfol., § 17, ^.

2 Weiss admits that " the Johannean self-testimony of Jesus
decisively goes beyond tliat of the Synoptists," and holds that
passages like xvii. 5 and viii. 58 denote "an existence which ex-
cludes all becoming," and point to "a pre-historical existence
with the Father." Ih. Ill, a.

8 //;. § 145, ft.
* Jb. § 17, r, note 3.

5 For example, Beyschlag, Ncntcst. T/ieoL, ii. 412 $q. and
417 sq. ; Wendt, Teaching oj Jesus, ii. 151 sq. (orig. p. b^O sij >.

rxTDX OK nil; sox wnii tiik f atiiku 105

indeed, t'lMiiid in the Book ol" Kuocli (cv. 2), iiiid in tflo
Fourth IJuui< of Esdras (vii. 28 at^. ; xiii. o7 sq. ; xiv. 0),
where Jehovah is represented as callinii: the Messiali
his Son ; Imt these passajaes are only reniinisccncrs
of the Old 'I'estanu'nt concejjtion of Jsrael, and espe-
cially of Israel's kinu', as (Jod's Son. From extra-
Biblical sources we derive no liuht upon the meaning"
of the title us applied to the Messiali. It is |»rol)able
that our Lord's application of the term to himself
stands historically connected with the Old Testament
representations to which we have just referred. In
2 Sam. vii. 14 we read : " I will be his (David'sj
father, and he shall be my son ;" and in Hosea xi. 1 :
" When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and
called my son out of Egypt." As the ideal theocratic
Son of God, the antitypical King of Israel, Jesus
applies to himself the term Son in order to designate
the unique relation in which he stands to God. The
name stands closely connected with the title Messiah,
but is not strictly synonymous with it. In Peter's
confession they are united : " Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God " (Matt. xvi. 16). In like
manner the titles are several times coupled together
by others, as l)y the high priest (Matt. xxvi. 63), by
-Mart ha John xi. 27) and by the apostle John (xx. 31).
]3ut these passages do not prove more than that son-
ship to God was an attribute of the Messiah and a
prerequisite of his work. The Messianic title of Jesus
remains XptaT6<i. The title iSo)i of God desig-
nates the personal, rather than the otlicial, character

106 THE JOIIANNINE TIIKOEOGY

and relations of Jesus. It refers not so much to the
work to which he has been ai)))ointed as to the rela-
tion to Gud which that work presupposes. The
]\Iessianic work of Jesus is grounded in his sonship
to God.

It is necessary, now, to examine the more signifi-
cant passages from the Gospel in which this term is
used, in order to determine what peculiarities of the
person of Christ it is intended to describe. The first
question to which an answer must be sought is,
whether the name So7i, as applied to Christ, refers
only to his historic life on earth, or also points,
directly or inferentially, to a pretemporal existence
and thus to an eternal relation on his part to the
Father.

Christ is twice referred to in the prologue as the
only begotten Son (i. 14, 18). In the first of these
passages it is uncertain whether he is directly called
" the only begotten from the Father" (A. V., R. V.),
or is only compared to a father's only begotten son.
The absence of the article from the words only-hegot-
ten and Father (oJ? /xovo'yevov'; rrapa Trarpos:) favors the
rendering: " An only begotten from a father" (11. V.
marg). On this view the words designate Jesus as
the One on whom God concentrates his special love
and favor, as an earthly father would concentrate his
love upon an only son. So far, the view which re-
gards the sonship in (picstion as an ethical relation
seems to meet the rcfpiircmcnts of this i)assage. But
the glory (ho^a) which has been manifested is cer-

UNION OK TIIK SON Wnil IIIK KATIIKII lOJ

tuiiily regarded, as the wliole import of the i)roh)gue
shows, as behmgin^ to tliis Son and as inherini:- in his
person, before its manifestation in his incarnate form
of being. He does not become a Son by his incarna-
tion, as men by faith become chikh'en of God (i. 12j.
He bronght to manifestation in his incarnation " the
glory which he had" with the Father "before the
world was" (xvii. 5).

The bearing upon our sulijcct of the second of these
passages (i. 18), " No man hath seen God at any
time ; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him," is partly de-
pendent upon its interpretation. If the participle
(ov is referred to the time when the author is writing,^
the [)assage would then liC an assertion of the exalt-
ation of the Son into closest fellowship with the
Father, but would contain no reference to his pre-ex-
istence, and would therefore have no bearing upon the
question whether the idea of pre-existence was here
associated with the phrase " the only begotten Son."
On the other hand, if this participle be given the
force of an imperfect,^ the passage would assert that
the only begotten Son was, in his pre-incarnate life,
in closest fellowship with the Father, and that he had
left this position in order to reveal God to men. On
a third interpretation, which seems to me preferable,
the participle oiu is a timeless present, and the pas-
sage would designate the only begotten Son as in
a continuous, abiding fellowship of life with the

^ So Mever, Weiss. 2 go Luthardt, Gess.

108 THE JOIIANNJNE T1IK()E0(;Y

Father. He is, even in his earthly life, in the bosoui
of tlio Father, even as the Son of man is said to be
'•'• in heaven" (iii. 1-j) because heaven is the si»liere to
which he belongs.^ On either of these last two
views the term " only-begotten Sou " carries with it
the idea of personal pre-existence and clearly implies
a unique relation of Jesus to God.

Upon the reading /xovojei>r)<i Oeo'i (God only begot-
ten) in i. 18, which is now widely adopted among
scholars, instead of 6 /xoi^oyevrj^ vi(h, our passage
would still have an imjiortant bearing upon the
general subject of John's conception of our Lord's
person, but not upon the special question now under
consideration, whether Son of Crod involves only an
ethical, or, in addition, an essential relation of JesuG
Christ to God. For these two readings the evidence
is — all things considered — very evenl}- balanced.'^
While the preponderance of external testimony may
be regarded as favoring fxovoyev))^ ^ed?, considerations
of internal probability reinforce in no small degree
the evidence for the other text. The expression
(rod only heffotten occurs nowliero else, and, while
the fact that the Logos is called ^ed? in the pro-

1 So Tholiu'k, Weatcott.

'■^ For a very full exhibit of the evidence on both sides, see
Dr. Ezra Abbot, On the rrnding " only begotten God" in liis
Critical Essays, p. 241 sr/.; also briefer summarios, with rct'cr-
eiicps to the literature of the subject, in "Westcott and llort's
Greek Testament, vol. ii., and in Westcott's C'onunentary. Dr.
Abliot favors I lie ri'adiii.n o fiomydnii vUk; Drs. Westcott and
Ilort adopt fiovoyfvtjs dah-

rXloX OF TlIK SOX WITH TIIK FA'IMIKlt 100

lof;:iie weakens in some degree the presumption against
tliis reading, it is possible that the words Kal ^eof yv i
\6yo<i may serve to e.\j)laiu how the usual expressi(ui
6 fiovoyein]^ u/oV might the more readily be changed
by copyists into (6) /xovoyevrj'i 6e6<i. Since, therefore,
we have to do in this passage both with a doubtful
text and with an uncertain interpretation, our conclu-
sion must be a cautions one, but we think the proba-
bilities favor the view that this i)assage designates
the only begotten Son as standing in close, ))erpetiial
intimacy with the Father. If so, then the two ])as-
sages reviewed would, taken together, describe the
glory of the pre-existent Son dwelling in abiding
union with the Father. But what the nature of this
glory and of this union is, may still be regarded as
undefined.

The great majority of the passages where the Son
is spoken of are indecisive and cannot be shown to
involve, in themselves, more than the ethical relation
of Jesus to God. When, for example, it is said that
" the Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things
into his hand" etc. (iii. 35), the nature of the rela-
tion is not explicitly defined. In the connection,
however, we find the coming of the Son from heaven
referred to and the statement that he is " above all "
(iii. 31). While it cannot justly be claimed that the
term Son is used in such passages in the hypostatic
sense, it must be admitted that there is couj)led
with it the idea of his prc-existence and of his j)re-emi-
nence as representing the authority of God. In the

110 THE JOIIAXNIXE THEOLOGY

two remaining passages from the Fourth Gos})el where
Christ is called "the only begotten Son" (iii. 16,18),
it is not clear that the phrase refers to a meta[)hysical
relation of essence. Yet the sending of " the only
begotten Son " is said to be the means by which God
saves the world ; faith in him is declared to be the
condition of having eternal life, and to refuse him is
to expose one's self to the divine judgment. It seems
to me, therefore, that the question of Christ's relation
to God as represented in John cannot be pivoted upon
the phrase the Son of God by itself, but must be
studied in the light of the associations which that
term carries with it.

The Jews understood Jesus to claim for himself
a unique sonship to God, and sought to kill him
partly because he " called God his own Father
(yrarepa cSiov}, making himself equal with God"
(v. 18). He did not, indeed, make himself equal
with God in the sense in which they understood
him to do so, for " he answered and said to them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, the Son can do noth-
ing of himself, but what he secth the Father doing"
(v. 19); and elsewhere (xiv. 28), when speaking of
his return to the Father, he says that this return
will involve a gain for his disciples, " because the
Father is greater " than he ; that is, because in the
renewed fellowship with the Father who is the source
of his authority for his mission, he will be able to
work with even greater eiliciency toward the ends
of his kingdom. In reply to the criticism of the

UNION OF THE SOX Wl'Vll TUK K.VTIIKK 111

Jews noticed above, Jesus explains the nature and
conditions of his work. In this explanation we find,
as we should expect, not a definition of his person,
but a defence of his authority. lie explains that he,
as the object of the Father's special love, has been
made the giver of life (v. 20, 21) and the dispenser
of judgment (22), and that it is God's will that " all
may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father"
(23), and then, from the bestowmcnt of spiritual life
tlic thought shades over into the idea that in the Son
lie the power and authority to (piickcn men at the
resurrection : " The hour cometh, in which all that
are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come
fiirth" (28). Granting that the word Son refers in
this whole passage only to the ethical relation of
Jesus to God, — that is, to him as the chosen object
of divine love and the bearer of divine authority, —
we have still to deal with the question whether the
whole claim of Jesus to be the author of salvation
and the jndge of the world, does not presuppose the
consciousness of a relation to God specifically dif-
ferent from tliat which any other human being
sustains.

In his teaching concerning himself as the bread of
life (vi. 22-65) it was certainly not the purpose of
Jesus to comment on the nature of his relation to
God except so far as was necessary in order to assert
his claim as the bearer of salvation. Yet in the
course of this teacliing he affirms that he bestows
eternal life, and that fnitli in him is the one required

112 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

There are several passages which show that it is
not the sondiug of Jesus Christ into the world wliich
constitutes him Son of God, but that he is the Son
who is sent into the world, and that his sonship to

rxlox OF THE SOX with tiii: father 113

(I()(l lliercl'orc involves his relaticju to (lie Father
previous to his iucaniation ; for cxaiujjle : " God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,"
etc. (iii. Itj). He is the Son of God previous to his
coming into the world, whatever that relation may
include. To the same purport is the next verse :
" God sent not the Son into the world to judge the
world," etc. (iii. 17). In some passages where the
term Son is not employed, the same idea is brought
out even more explicitly : " And now, 0 Father,
glorify thou me with thine own self (irapa aeavrw,
at thy sidiO with the glory which I had with thee be-
fore the world was " (xvii. 5). " Verily, verily, I say
unto you, before Abraham was born, I am" (viii. 58).
While these passages do not in themselves bear
directly upon the import of the title Son of God,
they do tend, in connection with passages which
speak of God's sending the Son, to establish the con-
clusion that the sonship of Christ to God presup-
poses and includes a pretemporal and eternal relation
between him and the Father.

It is doubtless true that the ethical aspect of Jesus'
relation to God and of the mission given him l)y the
Father, is what is most prominently brought forward
in the i)assages which sj)eak of his sonship. This
is what the ])ractical and historical character of the
Gospel should lead us to expect. The Gospel is not
a li'catise on the metaphysical nature of Christ, but
an account of the way in which he revealed God.
If is perfect harmony with the Father's will, and his

114 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

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

UNION OF Tin: SOX with the father 115

unity. The same reciprocal fellowshi]) in will and
pnrposc is depicted in x. 38, where Jesus cxiiorts
the Jews to acknowledge his works that they may
" know and understand that the Fatlier is in me, and
I in the Father." That an ( thical nnity is referred
to in xvii. 21 is evident from tlic fact that our Lord
ju-ays that his followers may Ijc one even as he and
the Father are one. Since an ethical union (jnly can
exist among believers, it must be the ethical aspect
of his own union with the Father which he presents
as the type of Christian fellowship. These passages
do not, however, militate against the idea of a meta-
physical nnity, but leave the question open whether
this perfect ethical or dynamic fellowship itself re-
quires the supposition of a unity of essence. Much
less can these passages justify a negative answer to
the question whether, in other terms and for purposes
different from those which are here in view, the
Apostle John teaches that the Son exists in an eternal,
essential unity with the Father.

The decision of this latter question — which must
go a long way toward answering the former —
liinges chiefly on the meaning of the passages which
assert or imply the pro-existence of Christ. "Wendt
makes the ethical relations which we have noticed
determining for the interpretation of these passages,
which have been thought to assert more than ethical
union. 1 He finds in the sayings of Jesus that his
disciples were not of the world (xv. 19), and that the

^ Teaching of Jesus, ii. 151 sq. (orig. p. 4.50 sq.).

116 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

iiii])clieving Jews were of the devil (viii. 44), the key
to Jesus' meaning when he ckiims to come fortli
from God (xvi. 28). He conchides that Jesus comes
from God and is sent by the Father into the workl
only in a " figurative " sense. But are these two
classes of passages parallel, or even kindred in
meaning and purpose ? Can we reason from the sig-
nificance of those passages which depict the moral
kinships of men, to a figurative use of language on
Jesus' part concerning his own person and the
grounds of his authority and claims ? Does Jesus
ever apply to any other the " figurative " langiuige
which he applies to himself? Does he ever say of
any other that he comes from God and that God
has sent him into the world ? Wendt reminds us
that " believers are born of God and come from
God,"^ and appeals in illustration to passages like 1.
iv. 4: "Ye are of God" (e'/c tov Oeov). Ihit it is self-
evident that this ex])ression is but the counterjiart of
the phrase " of the world " (verse 5), and is equivalent
to the phrase " begotten of God." The whole ))assage
shows that it is an ethical kinship to God, on the oue
hand, or to the wicked world, on the other, wliieli is
meant. Can any one seriously consi(h'r these pas-
sages as furnishing any ]iarallel to those in wliieh
Jesus asserts that he was sent by the Father into
the world, and that he aliodc at the Fathei-'s side,
sharing his gl<>i-y before tlu; world was (wii. 5, 22,
24)? Tliis j»i-ocedure ti'eats the whole self-leslimony

1 7'r{ir/iinfj o/'Ji'siis. ii. Hi I. iintc (ovii^'. ]). 45S).

rXIOX OF THE SOX WITH Till- FAI'IIKR 117

i)f Jesus as '' fi^t>;iii-alivc " — where the lang-uage gives
no sign of Ijeing sucli — on tlie ground that the
ligure of a new birtli is common in John to express
the idea of a moral renewal. The fact of chief sig-
uilicance remains that Jesus never applies to himself
this hiuguagc al)0ut being begotten from God which
he api)lics to others, and that he never a))plies to any
other the descriptions which he gives of his own com-
ing from God. Tiic two cases arc so different that
to make the former determining for the latter docs not
result so much in making the terms of the latter " fig-
urative " as in making them meaningless and untrue.
On this method of interpretation the statement "I
came forth from God " (xvi. 28) means, I was chosen
by God; and tlie assertion "1 came down from
heaven " (iii. 13, 31 ; vi. 88) means, I am in fellowship
with God. It may well be doubted whether these
texts can sustain to the meanings which they are
thus made to yield the relation of fi<jure to reality.
But Wendt's interpretation may be further tested
by his handling of the crucial texts, xvii. 5 and
viii. 58.1

In his intercessory prayer (xvii. 5) Jesus uses these
words: "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with

1 Tcachbuj of Jesus, ii. KiS sq. (orig. p. -l(ji sq.). Tlie passage
vi. 62, "A\'h;it then if ye should behold the Son of man as-
cending where he was before," Wendt rules out of court, be-
cause, in his view that our Fourth Gospel is a redaction by a
hiter hand of memoranda preserved by John, he considers that
this passage bears the marks of an interpohitiun by the editor.
fh. p. 108, note.

118 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

thine own self (irapa aeavrw), -with the gh)i'y which
I had with thee before the world was." This passage
seems plainly to refer to a mode of personal pre-exis-
tence on the part of Christ in heaven to which he
expects to return ; and Wendt admits that to modern
ears the language naturally conveys this meaning.
But he affirms that " according to the mode of si)cech
and conception prevalent in the New Testament, a
heavenly good, and so also a heavenly glory, can be
conceived and spoken of as existing with God and
belonging to a person, not because this person already
exists and is invested with glory, but because the
glory of God is in some way deposited and preserved
for this person in heaven." ^ In illustration, reference
is made to the treasure or reward which is said to be
laid up for the disciples in heaven (Matt. vi. 20 ; v, 12
et al.). Wendt concludes that the glory which Christ
had with the Father before the world was, could only
have been the ideal glory for which the Father had
destined him from eternity ; and he thinks this view
is confirmed by the way in which, in his teaching, he
makes his prospective glorification to depend upon
the accomplishment of his earthly ministry.

We must consider whether this alleged difference
between New Testament and modern modes of thought
in respect to the sul)ject under discussion is estab-
lished by adequate evidence. It is to be noticed, first
of all, that our passage does not merely assert (as
Wendt's argument seems to assume) the existence in

^ Teacldng ofJesux, ii. 109 (orig. p. 465).

UNIOX OF THK SON' Willi IlIK FATIIKIt 110

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

120 THE joiianninp: theology

this is a very different statement from that which
the passage actually contains ; yet it is no more
different from it than is the statement of John xvii. 5
from those of the passages which Wendt appeals to
in explanation of its meaning.

It is very important in Biblical study to recognize all
actual differences between ancient and modern modes
of conception and thought. But I am not aware
that the rcjircscntation of a reward i)rcpared and
ready for those to whom it is to ])e given, is a mode
of thought peculiar to antiquity ; but, even if it were,
I can see no ground in that fact for the opinion that
the New Testament may even speak of the persons
themselves who are to receive the destined rewards as
already pre-existing in heaven in the enjoyment of
them. If so, it is remarkable that Christ alone is so
spoken of. It is, moreover, certain that the passages
which Wendt cites from the Synoptists furnish no
parallel to John xvii. 5. The truth is that these pas-
sages prove nothing in favor of his view of John xvii. 5,
and that if they were of such a kiud as to prove any-
thing, they would ])rove too much, since they would
justify the representation of Christ's disciples as also
pre-existing.

The statement of Jesus in viii. 58, " Before Abraham
was (i. e. was born, 'yeveaSaC), I am," Wendt explains
as denoting the existcnre of Jesus "in the thoughts,
purposes, and ])i'oiiiisos of Cod." ^ He adniils that
"the discourse is r;islii(»u('(l as if it ti'calcd of I'cal

1 TcachiiKj of Jesus, ii. 17') (orii;-. ji. 17(t).

T'XTOX OF 'IIIi; SOX WI'I'II IIIK FATIIKi; 1'21

existence," but " wc can still perceive from the con-
nection that an ideal existence is intended." ^ Let us
•glance at tlie connection. The Jews reproach Jesus
with clniiniiig to he t>-reater than Al)i'ahani (viii. 53).
.Jesus admits, and even maintains, the claim. Al)raliam
longed to see the day of the Messiah, " and he saw it,
and was glad " (viii. 56). Whether it was in prophetic
hope on earth, or in paradise centuries afterwards, that
he saw Messiah's work, the purport of the statement,
in either case, is that Abraham's interest as a " man
of religion" centred in the ^lessiah and presupposed
the Messiah's superiority to himself. The Jews again
object : If Abraham has seen you, you must have seen
him ; but you are not half a century old, and he lived
centuries ago. The ])oint of their objection is that
centuries have intervened between Aljraham's lifetime
and that of Jesus. To this ol)jection Jesus replies:
"Before Abraham was born, I am." The i)urpose of
this afllh'mation is to offset the charge that he could
never have seen Abraham because he was never con-
temporary with him. Now, which assertion would best
meet the ])oint of his opposers, that of an ideal exist-
ence in God's i)urpose, before Abraham's l)irth, or that
of a real existence ? No doubt either statement, if
admitted to be true, would serve to establish his general
superiority to Abraham ; only the latter, however,
would meet the ol)3cction of the Jews which called it
forth.

Wendt maintains that, since Abraham's seeing of

^ Teaching of Jesus , ii. 177 (orig. p. 171).

122 THE JOHAXNINE THEOLOGY

Messiah's day must have been only prophetic and ideal,
because Messiah's day was not a reality in Abraham's
time, the existence of Christ before Abraham must,
therefore, have been ideal also. I prefer the inter-
pretation according to which Abraham is represented
as seeing in paradise the day of the Messiah in its
actual realization ; but even if we adopt the view that
this seeing was in prophetic vision, the conclusion
which Wendt draws would not logically follow. The
prophetic foresight of Messiah's work is as consistent
with his real pre-existence as it is with his ideal pre-
cxistence. The prevision of Messiah's earthly mission
in no way prejudices the question as to the nature of
his person. As in dealing with xvii. 5, Wendt overlooked
the difference between the idea that Christ's glory was
laid up in God's purpose for him and the actual asser-
tion of the passage that Christ existed in eternity in
the possession of heavenly glory, so here he lightly
passes over the objection of the Jews which immedi-
ately called out Jesus' statement, and also leaves
unnoticed the natural and very significant contrast
between Abraham's birth and Christ's absolute existence
("I am").

Certain passages in the First Epistle also should be
placed in connection with those already considered.
In I. i. 1 we are told that the content of the gospel
message was "from the beginning" (o r]v air'' apxtj^;).
Despite the involved construction of the opening verses
of this epistle, the idea is plain. The substance of the
message is eternal life. This life is in Christ, and was

UNION OK rilK S()\ WITir TIIK FATIIKR 123

brouf^ht to the worlil by liiiii. IJiit before its manifest-
ation it was with tlic Faflicr (77/369 rov irarepa, verse
2) by virtue of tlic feUowship of the Son in whom it
abides. Here the heavenly u'ood wliich the apostle
experienced in his feUowsliip with Christ is pictured
as pre-existing "from the beginning;" then it was
manifested in the life of Jesus, we saw and heard it,
he says, and now declare it unto you. If these words
fall short of a direct assertion that Christ himself was
from the beginning, we cannot doubt that they imply
it when later we read : " Ye know him which is from
the beginning" (iyvcoKaTe rov air ap;^^?, ii. 13, 14).
The " word of life " to which the gospel message relates
(7re/3t', i. 1) is the record of the revelation of him
(Christ) who is from the beginning.

We thus find that the ideas which are presented in
'the prologue are not without support in the writings
of the apostle when taken as a whole. It is true that
the pre-existence of the Son and his essential relation
to the Father, are incidentally presented. It accords
with the purpose of John's writings that these ideas
should stand in the background, rather than in the
foreground, of his picture of Christ. They are the
presuppositions of his descriptions and arguments,
rather than their immediate subject. But they are not
on this account less fundamental in his whole view of
the person and work of Christ. The prologue is seen
to present, in its peculiar terms and for its peculiar
purpose, a view of Christ's prc-incarnate nature and
relation to God which the whole Gospel assumes. The

124 THE JOHANXIXE THEOLOGY

prologue thus stands related to the Gospel as the ves-
tibule to the house ; it is a means of entrance, but it is
also an integral part of the structure.

Respecting the term Son of God, our conclusion
must be that it is used to denote a unique relation
of fellowshi]) and unity on the part of Jesus with
God. It is more than a designation of his Messiah-
ship. It denotes a permanent relation. Others he-
come sons of God ; he is the Son of God, and as such
was sent into the world. While, therefore, the title
is used chiefly to emphasize the authority of Christ
as the agent of the divine will, it presu})poses an
essential relation of Jesus to God, since as Son he is
sent into the world. The unique ethical or dynamic
union of Jesus with God stands in the foreground,
but this union requires and rests upon an essential
union of nature. The phrase Son of God cannot,'
indeed, be said to carry in itself directly the signifi-
cance which it bears in the Trinitarian creed, but it
can be justly maintained that the term, in connection
with the Logos-doctrine and with the assertions of
Christ's pre-existencc, inevitably gives rise lo tlio
prol)lcm with which theology has sought to deal
in its doctrine of the hypostatic sonship of Christ.
Although the title Son is not directly used by John
in a metaphysical sense, it is so used as to imply a
pretemporal relation of Jesus to God, and stands so
related to exjdicit assertions of the pro-existence and
divinity of Cbrist as to justify the conclusion that it
is a fundamental assumption of John's theology that

UXIOX OF TITK SOX WITH THE FATIIKll 125

Jesus Christ, in liis jui'-iuoanuile furiii ot being,
existed eternally in an essential unity of nature with
God.

This eonclusion also determines our view of the
iu»i»i)rt of fioi'oyep/j'i. It is not used in the sense of
the Athanasian ereed, to denote an eternal j)rocess of
,ii:eneration as contrasted with an act of creation. It
is employed to add emphasis to the idea of Christ's
nni(iue relation to God as the perfect object of the
<livine love and the perfect representative of the
divine will. The import of the term was determined
for the apostle, not by metajdiysical speculation, but
by the analogy of human relations. The term can
justly be appealed to as emphasizing that unique
relation of Jesus to God which, as we have seen,
])resupposes a kinship of essence, but not as intended
or adapted itself to describe or indicate the nature of
tiiat relation.

Criticism can only avoid the conclusion that Jesus
possessed the consciousness of having personally ex-
isted previous to his life on earth in an essential
life-fellowship with God, to which he knew that he
should return after his work was finished, either by
unnatural interjirctations of the passages which s{)eak
of that relation, or l)y discrediting the historical trust-
worthiness of the Fourth Gospel. Those who con-
sider the Gospel to be a product of second century
speculation can consistently regard its Christology as
a post-apostolic dogmatic development. Othei-s who
acce])t its direct apostolic authorship, as Beysehlag,

126 THE JOIIANNTNE THEOLOGY

or who accept it in a conditional form, as Wcndt, can
escape the conclusion that it teaches the pre-exist-
ence and deity of Christ only by resolving the Logos
into an abstract principle, and by treating the state-
ments of Christ's consciousness of a pretemporal
life as examples of a Jewish mode of thought which
is not current among moderns.

The total impression of John's conception of the
person of his Master can be gained only by combin-
ing what he says of the Logos, of the Son, and of
his pre-existence. When this is done and when the
various passages are taken in their natural meaning
and force, the conclusion — so far as the teaching of
the Johannine writings is concerned — can be no
other than that to which Cremer is led in view of
the teaching of the New Testament as a whole:
" It lies in the idea of the Messianic sonship to
God, as this is embodied in the person and history
of Jesus, that this sonship is something superter-
restrial and eternal." " The Messianic Son of God
is the pre-existent Son of God." ^

1 Bibl.-theol. Worterhuch der Neulest. Grdciidl, sub voce, 6 vVui

CHAPTER VI

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN

Literature. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. TheoL, Of the World, ii.
415-428 (orig. pp. 463-478) ; "Westcott : Epistles of St. John,
The Idea of Sin in St. John, pp. 37-40; ]\Iessxer : Lehre der
Apostel, Die Siiude, pp. 328-334; From.m.wx : Johann. Lehrh.,
Verhaltniss der Meiischheit zu Gott und dem Logos, pp. 242-
345; Plummer: The Epistles of St. John, The Three Evil Ten-
dencies in the World, and Antichrist, pp, 154-160; Wendt:
Teaching of Jesus, Being from God or from the devil according
to the Johannine discourses, ii. 114-121 (orig. pp. 420-420) ; Bey-
sciiLAG : Neutest. TheoL, Die Welt, Siinde und Teufel, ii. 428-
432 ; Weiss : Johann. Lehrh., Die beiden MenschcMiklassen,
pp. 128-138; Leciiler: Apostolic and Post- Apostolic Times, The
World and the Prince of this World, ii. 181-188 (orig. pp. 461-
465); Baur: Neutest. TheoL, Der Gegensatz des Lichts und der
Finsterniss, u. s. w., pp. 3.59-362.

The idea of sin is presented in the writings of John
in a considerable variety of forms. The nearest ap-
proach to a definition of sin is found in the First
Epistle (iii. 4) : " sin is lawlessness " (r; diiapria
iaTiv r) avofiia'). The apostle is showing the incon-
sistency between sonship to God and the Christian's
hoi)e of attaining likeness to Christ, on the one hand,
and the ))ractice of sin (jrotelv rrjv d/xapriav'), on the
other. This contrariety is grounded in the fact that

128 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOCxY

sin is a violation of the divine order. The precise
nature and scoi)e of the law to which sin is contrary
is not defined. We are at libert}^ to regard it as an
expression of the divine will in general, and to consider
sin, as here described, as the selfish assertion of the
human will against the divine. The passage yields
us a generic idea only ; for more concrete descriptions
of sin we turn to other passages.

The apostle's tendency to employ ethical contrasts
naturally leads him to define sin as " the darkness "
(77 aicoTia^ TO aK6To<i). In these expressions the
article is generally found, and designates the moral
condition which is symbolized by " darkness " as char-
acteristic of the sinful world. Tliis contrast of light
and darkness meets us in the prologue. The life
which emanated from the Logos " was the light of
men" (i. 4). This light " shineth in the darkness"
(i, 5), a symbol for the sinful state of the world in its
selfish isolation from God. Elsewhere in the (lospel
the term is chiefly used in the expression, " to wallc
in darkness " (viii. 12 ; xii. 35 ; qf. 1. i. G), or " to al)idc
in darkness " (xii. 46), and refers to the wicked moral
blindness which disobedience to God induct's. Sim-
ilarly in the First Epistle " the darkness " — the sinful
folly of the pre-Christian life — is described ns " pass-
ing away " (ii. 8) from fhe true Christian man ;
where hatred is still indulged tlic darkness confinues.
We may say, then, that light is wifh John flie syml»ol
of goodness, love, and s|»iritual Iif(\and that darkness
is the synonym of evil, hate, and moral dealli.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 129

The question now arises, What is the nature of the
dualism which the contrast implied in the use of the
terms Uyht and darkness involves ? Is it physical,
that is, grounded in the nature of man as consisting
of matter and spirit; or metaphysical, that is, inherent
in the essence of the universe; or ethical, that is, the
result of free volition ?

The contrast of flesh and spirit is most explicitly
presented, in the writings of John, in the passage,
" That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (fii. 6). This
statement occurs in our Lord's conversation with
Nicodemus respecting the new birth. It is intended
to meet the difficulty of Nicodemus, who could only
think of the " birth from above " after the analogy of
man's natural birth. Jesus says to him in effect :
'' Man stands related to two orders, the natural and
the spiritual. The first birth pertains to the lower
sphere of being, the second to the higher." The point
of importance for our present purpose is that these
two spheres are not related to each other as evil
and good, but only as lower or natural, and higher or
spiritual. They are not here described as essentially
and necessarily opposed to one another. In the con-
trast is implied a relative opposition, however, in so
far as the lower elements of human nature which are
comprised in the term flesh form the sphere in which
animal appetites and passions operate, while the higher
powers of our being, denoted by spirit^ ally us to God
and render us susceptible to moral and spiritual influ-

130 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

ences. The same contrast is presented in vi. 63 : " It
is the spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth noth-
ing : the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit,
and arc life." The work of Jesus for man is in the
realm of the spirit ; it is concerned with his higher
nature which connects him with God. No mere phys-
ical knowledge of Christ or contact with him {cf. the
preceding verses) can avail to secure the new life
which he would impart. Here, too, it is evident that
flesh and spirit are not contrasted as specifically evil
and good, but rather as outward or non-spiritual, and
vital or essential.

One other passage should be cited in this connec-
tion : " For all that is in the world, the lust of the
flesh (?7 eiTtdvixia ri]^ aapKO'i'), and the lust of the
eyes, and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father,
but is of the world " (1. ii. 16). Here the flesh is
conceived of as the seat, just as the eyes are regarded
as the organs, of evil desires. An absolute identifica-
tion of evil desire with the flesh is not, however, in-
volved ; much less an identification of sin in general
with the flesh. The thought might be presented thus:
Sensuous pleasures belong to the temporary, passing
world, the K6afjL0<;, and not to God's unchanging spirit-
ual order. We conclude that these passages do not
warrant the ascription to John of a natural dualism
inherent in the human constitution.

Is, then, the "dualism" of John metaphysical?
The question will recur in connection with various
passages which arc to be examined later, but should

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN l;'l

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

132 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

Cometh not to the light, lest his works should be
reproved. But he that doeth the truth cometh to the
light, that his works may be made manifest, that they
have been wrought in God " (iii. 19-21). How obvi-
ous it is that the sphere of the conflict of light and
darkness is here the sphere of free moral action
(c/. viii. 12; xii. 35, 36, 46).

The passages from the First Epistle which bear
upon the subject warrant no other view. The apos-
tle's assertion that the substance of the gospel mes-
sage is, " God is light, and in him is no darkness at
all" (i. 5), has the practical purpose of showing that
the moral conduct of men proves whether they really
have fellowship with God or not (i. 6, 7). " Dark-
ness" symbolizes the old sinful life, " light " the new
spiritual life (ii. 8) ; " darkness " is practically synon-
ymous with hate, "light" with love (ii. 9, 10).

The efforts which have been made, in connection
with the modern denial of the apostolic authorship
of the writings under consideration, to show the kin-
ship between the ideas contained in them and those
of Alexandrian speculation or of Gnostic dualism, are
not supported by the natural force of the descriptions
of evil and goodness which we have passed in review.
Whether the terms employed be derived or original
is of small consequence ; their significance and use
are distinctly ethical, and in this essential respect they
illustrate a radical difference between the conceptions
of sin and of the world which pervade tliese writings,
and those which are characteristic either of Neo-

THE DOCTRINE OF SIX 133

Platonic Philosoiiliy or of Gnosticism. Our author
regards the world of human and divine action whose
forces and agencies lie describes, as a moral system,
a sphere of free choice and of strict responsibility.
From this standpoint we shall ])roceed to consider his
doctrine of " the world " (6 /coo-^09).

.lolin uses the term world in three shades of mean-
ing.^ It designates, in the first instance, the created
universe in general without regard to moral qualities,
as in the expressions " before the world was " (xvii.
5), and " before the foundation of the world " (xvii.
24). More frequently it denotes, or at any rate promi-
nently includes, the totality of rational and moral
beings, — the w'orld as the sphere of free and intelli-
gent action. In this sense it is said that light came
into the world when Christ came (iii. 19). So when
the coming of the Son into the world (xi. 27 ; xvi. 28)
is spoken of, it is his relation to mankind as the sub-
jects of salvation which is primarily meant. It is
now but a short step from this sense of the word to
that which prevails in the writings of John, viz., the
sinful world, mankind as alienated from God. Some
passages seem to illustrate a use of the term which
stands midway between these two shades of meaning
last mentioned, as where Jesus speaks of coming into
the world (of mankind) in order to " save the world "
(xii. 46, 47), whose evil and lost condition is as-
sumed. The three meanings are not perfectly dis-

* Cf. Reuss, Hist. Christ. Theol., ii. 415 sq. (orig. ii. 463 sq.)\
Beyschlag, Neutest. Theol., ii. 428 sq.

134 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 135

That the dualism which is involved in the opposition
between Ood and tlie world is not niefaphysical but
ethical, is made clear by the terms of the description.
When Jesus says that " for judgment " he " came into
this world, that they which sec not may see ; and that
they which see may become blind " (ix. 39), he clearly
means that his work must, by reason of its very nature,
occasion a still greater obduracy in those who wickedly
oppose him, through their continued rejection of his
truth. The world, so far as his Pharisaic opponents
represent it, is wicked by its own fault, and becomes
more so through the inevitable recoil upon it in judg-
ment of its own action in refusing the light. In iii.
19 the concrete synonym for the abstract " world "
is " men," and the ground of the world's condemna-
tion is affirmed to be that the men who compose it
" loved the darkness rather than the light ; for their
works were evil." The world is opposed to God be-
cause it is wilfully wicked, is animated by hate to
those who follow Christ (xv. 18, 19), and in relation
to Christ personally is convicted " in respect of sin,
because they [who compose it] believe not " on him
(xvi. 8, 9).

In one striking passage (viii. 33-36) sin is described
as a state of bondage. Jesus had said to certain Jew-
ish believers that his truth should make them free
(viii. 32). Not perceiving the profound spiritual sig-
nificance of his words, they replied that as children of
Abraham they had never yet been in bondage, — im-
plying, apparently, that the captivities which the

136 THE JOHAXNINE THEOLOGY

nation had experienced had not touclied its essential
life or annulled its inalienable prerogatives. Jesus
does not drop his thought to the level of theirs, but
proceeds : " Every one that committeth sin [o Trotayv
rrjv dfiapTiav — lives an habitual life of sin] is the
bondservant (^8ov\o<i') of sin " (verse 34) : If you con-
tinue the sinful life you will forfeit your place in
God's house over which I have authority ; you will
lose your citizenship and rights in the spiritual order
to which I belong ; therefore I say again that the real
freedom is that which the truth, as embodied and
represented by me, bestows. True freedom is found
only in obedience to God ; sin is in its very nature
slavery, because it involves the loss of God-given
spiritual rights, the forfeiture of man's divinely in-
tended destiny.

The words sin (dfiapria) and to sin (dfiapTaveiv)
occur frequently in our sources. /Sin is commonly
employed in an abstract sense to denote a power or
principle, as in the phrases, " the sin of the world "
(i. 29), "to commit sin" (viii. 34), "your sin"
(viii, 21), etc. The word is also used to designate an
act of sin as in the phrase, " a sin unto death "
(I. V. 16, 17), but this meaning is chiefly found where
the plural (^dfiaprtaL) is used (e. (/., viii. 24 ; xx. 23 ;
I. i, 9). The verb is also employed in a two-fold
sense corresponding to that above noticed. It may
have the force of the phrase irotelv rrjv d/xapriav (viii.
34 ; I. iii. 4, 8, 9), to sin hahitually, to live a sinful
life, as in the following passages : " Whosoever abidoth

THE DOCTRINE OF ST\ 137

in liim siniicth not : whosoevor sinneth liath not
seen him, neither knoweth him" (I. iii. 6) ; " Wlioso-
ever is begotten of God doetli no sin {dfiapriav ou
TToiel), because his seed abidetli in him : and he can-
not sin, because he is begotten of (lod " (I. iii. 9). In
other connections diiaprdveLv means to do an act of
sin, as where the disciples ask Jesus concerning the
man who was blind from his birth, " Who did sin, this
man, or his parents, that he should be born blind ?"
(ix. 2, 3), and in I. 1. 10 {cf. verse 8) : " If we say
that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his
word is not in us."

Tiie importance of bearing in mind the distinction
which we have just been tracing is especially seen in
the apparent contradiction among certain passages in
the First Epistle to which we have already had occa-
sion, in other connections, to refer. It is affirmed, on
the one hand, that no Christian can truly say that he
has not sinned, and the apostle exhorts his readers to
confess their sins (I. i. 9,10); and yet we are told
in the same E[)istle that the Christian " sinneth
not " and " cannot sin " (I. iii. 6, 9). The verbal
contradiction is removed by attention to the two
distinct meanings of the verb to sin. All Christians
commit sinful acts, but they do not possess a sinful
character. The Christian life and habitual sinfulness
are absolute contraries ; in this sense the Christian
does not commit sin, and, indeed, cannot do so, since
if he did he would not be a Christian at all. But
just as little can he claim exemption from sinful ira-

138 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

pulses and acts. Just as the main direction of the
river, notwithstanding its eddies and backcurrents, is
ever toward the sea, so the central current of the
Christian's life is set toward God, despite the hinder-
ing powers of evil which still check its progress and
mar its perfection.

The way in which John speaks of sin as a power or
principle clearly implies that he regards all men as
naturally sinful and in need of redemption. It is
" the sin of the world " (i. 29) which Christ comes to
take away. One of the functions of the Spirit is to
" convict the world in respect of sin " (xvi. 8, 9), that
is, to make the world conscious of its sinfulness as
evidenced by its unwillingness to receive Christ.
Christians who have passed " into life " are conscious
that they were naturally in a state of death (I. iii. 14).
The love of God which was manifested toward the
world in the sending of the Son aimed to secure the
result that, through faith in him, men should not
perish (iii. 16), as, apart from this work of love, they
were in peril of doing. Hence the frequent emphasis
upon the saviiig work of Christ (iv. 22, 42 ; v. 34 ;
xii. 47; I. iv, 1*4). The world, apart from redemp-
tion, is a realm of moral darkness and death (i, 5 ; iii,
19 ; xii, 46 ; 1. ii. 8 ; iii. 14), and is exposed, by reason
of its sinfulness, to God's holy displeasure (iii. 16) ;
in short, " the whole world licth in the evil one "
(I. V. 19).

Another set of expressions connects sin with
demoniacal agencies. When the Jews charged Jesus

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 139

with falsehood and blasphemous pretension they cm-
bodied their accusation in the statement: "Thou
iiast a demon " {Saifioviov) (vii. 20 ; viii. 48, 52 ; x.
20). In the Synoptic Gospels demoniacal " posses-
sion '' is commonly associated with some physical and
mental malady, especially with the more violent forms
of mania. In the Fourth Gospel "possession" by
evil spirits is referred to only in connection with the
charges which the multitude made against Jesus, and
seems to have been conceived of as a species of mad-
ness (vii. 20 ; x. 20) ; in viii. 48, the accusation
" Thou hast a demon " is coupled with the charge,
" Thou art a Samaritan," and appears to involve
special bitterness of feeling against Jesus on the part
of his accusers, and may imply the charge of wicked-
ness as well as of madness. With this passage may be
compared the Lord's reference to the character of his
betrayer, Judas, in the words : " Did not I choose you
the twelve, and one of you is a devil ? " (Sta'/3oXo?, vi. 70)
— a strong expression to denote the source and base
wickedness of his antagonism to his Master.

These passages lead us on to other representations
in which human sinfulness is directly ascribed to the
agency of the devil (6 SLci^oXo'i) or Satan. The devil
is said to have put the suggestion or impulse to betray
Jesus into the heart of Judas (xiii. 2). The Jews
who opposed and accused Jesus claimed God as their
father. Jesus denies that they are true children of
God, and says to them : '^ Ye are of your father tlie
devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to

140 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

do " (viii. 44). It is, of course, a moral kinship
which is here under consideration. They are neither
sons of Abraham nor sons of God, since they are not
akin to cither in the spirit of their action ; on the
contrary, they are, by reason of their falseness and
murderous hate, akin to the devil. This idea of the
sonship of wicked men to the devil — which is pre-
sented only in this one passage in the Gospel — ap-
pears also in the First Epistle : " He that doeth sin
(6 iroLbiv rrjv d/xaprtav) is of the devil (e/c tov 8La/36\ov) ;
... In this the children of God arc manifest, and
the children of the devil " (to, reKva tov Bia^oXov)
(I. iii. 8, 10). As those who are of faith are the sons
of Abraham (ef. Gal. iii. 9, 29), and those who do
God's will are sons of God, so those who habitually
work iniquity are morally kindred to the devil in so
far as they imitate his wickedness and embody his
spirit.

Here arises the difficult inquiry, What concep-
tion of the origin and nature of Satan underlies the
references to his agency in John's writings ? Two
passages, especially, give rise to this question : " He
(the devil) was a murderer from the beginning (^cnr
^PXV'^^f ^rid stood not in the truth (ei/ t^ a\i)6eia ovk
earrjKev},^ because there is no truth in him. When

^ Some editors punctuate this word ea-TrjKff (so Tiscliendorf,
Meyer, Weiss). The former reading (imperfect of crTiiKtiv)
would mean stood Jinn or steadfast; the latter (perfect of la-rrjfxi
with force of present) would express the permanent character-
istic of the subject, and would mean that truth is an element
foreign to his life.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 141

he speaketh a lie, lie speakcth of his own : for lie
is a liar, and the father thereof" (oiraTrjp avrov}
(viii. 44) ; " Uc that doctli sin is from the devil ; for
the devil sinncth from the hcginning" (utt' apx^?)
(I. iii. 8). We must first consider the force of the
phrase oett' a/axr)?. In the first passage the interpre-
tation of an apxrj'i will be influenced by the view
which is taken of the reference in the word " mur-
derer." Many exegetes hold that when the devil is
said to have been a murderer the allusion is to his
agency in inciting Cain to slay his brother.^ This
explanation would detei'uiine the meaning of the
passage to be : He was a murderer from the time
when the race was in its infancy. Since, however,
the act of Cain is not, in the Old Testament (Gen.
iv, 3 sq.}, referred to the instigation of Satan, it is
more probable that the passage alludes to the tempta-
tion whereby Satan, represented under the figure of a
serpent (Gen. iii. 1 sq. ; ef. Rev. xx. 2), occasioned the
fall of man. In this view the phrase air ap^i]<i would'
most naturally mean : from the beginning of the
human race.^ This interpretation seems to accord
best with the natural force of our second passage
(I. iii. 8), the purport of which is that there has
never been a time in the history* of the race when
men have not been subject to thp assaults of Satan.
The connection shows that the sphere of human sin
and salvation is that in which the sinning of Satan is

^ So Nitzsch, Liicke, De Wette, Reuss.
• So Godet, Meyer, Miiller, Weiss.

142 THE JOHANNIXE THEOLOGY

conceived of as takinjjj ])]acc. Other interpretations
seem less plausible. Esj)ecially objectionable is the
view that cltt' dpxv'^ is to be taken absolutely, Avhich
Avould imply either that God has created an evil be-
ing, or that Satan was eternal. ^ Many have taken
the phrase as meaning: from the devil's own begin-
ning as such ; that is, since by a fall from a previous
state of holiness he became Satan,^ This explana-
tion, however, is unnatural in view of the reference in
the word " murderer " and in view of the context of
the passage from the Epistle, These considerations
render it very improbable that in using the phrase
air apxri<i the apostle's thoughts went back to any
time or event anterior to the beginning of human
history and experience.

It may be well to point out, in this connection, how
slight is the support in the New Testament for the
idea of a fall of Satan. There are but two passages
(2 Pet. ii. 4; Jude 6) which can, with any degree of
'probability, be construed as alluding to it ; and since
between 2 Peter and Jude there is certainly some
kind of literary dependence, these two really count as
one. The passages read : " For if God spared not
angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell
[Tartarus], and C(5mmitted them to pits of darkness,
to be reserved unto judgment," etc. (2 Pet. ii. 4) ;
" And angels which kej)t not their own prlncij)ality,

^ So llilgenield, Froimiiaini, Reuss.

2 So Augustine, Martensen, Delitzsch, and most Koman
Catliolic tlieolouians.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 143

but left their proj^cr liabitation, lie hath kept in ever-
histing bonds under darkness unto the judgment of
the great day " (.Judc 6). No mention is here made
of Satan. The passage in Judc (which is j)robably
the original) so closely resembles certain passages in
the Book of Enoch ^ which is exjdicitly referred to
and quoted a little further on (Jude 14 sq^) that little
room is left for doubt that we have here an allusion
to the popular Jewish doctrine of the fall of a heavenly
host from their prior dominion («/>X'/) to a state of
bondage and punishment. If it is said that Satan
must be regarded as included in this host, it is still to
be remembered that the deutero-canonical character
of the books in which these references occur, together
with the certain dependence of these descriptions
upon apocryphal sources such as the Book of Enoch,
makes the derivation of a doctrine from the passages
quite precarious. It is probable that the description
in Gen. vi. 2 of the "sons of God" (angels) taking
as wives the " daughters of men " lies at the root of
the popular tradition which is found in the Book of
Enoch. When the sources :>nd affinities of the pas-

1 " Announce to the watchers of the heaven, who have aban-
doned the high heaven and the holy, eternal place, and have
defiled themselves with women," etc. (xii. 4) ; "Wherefore have
ye left the high, holy, eternal heaven?" etc. (xv. 3); "I heard
the voice of the angel saying : ' These are the angels who
descended to the earth, and revealed what was hidden to the
children of men, and seduced the children of men into com-
mitting sin ' " (Ixiv. 2). From the translation by R. H. Charles,
Oxford, 1893.

144 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

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

1 Der Johunn. Lehrbegriff, pp. 330, 307.

THE DOCTRIXF/OF SIX 145

taken in connectiuu with the author's interpretation of
aV ap-y?)^ in the absohite sense, approximates the
Gnostic conception of the essential evil of matter and
of an original dualism in the universe. One must go
behind the text, and behind any results which legiti-
mate exegesis can yield, if he will make the name
Satan a symbol of the " sensuous principle " or an
" evil tendency." In his whole discussion of this
subject Frommann is really dealing with the thought
of Paul more than with that of John, and proceeds,
moreover, upon important misapprehensions of the
teaching of the former.

So far as the Johannine writings bear upon the idea
of the nature and origin of the devil we may sum the
matter up by saying that all the passages assume the
personality of Satan, but do not state or imply any-
thing as to his origin. Speculation on this point,
however, seems to be shut up to a single path. It
can rest in no idea except that of a fall without giving
])lace to conceptions which are inconsistent with the
absoluteness, or subversive of the goodness of God.

Two ideas in John — scarcely less difficult than
that which we have just been considering ^remain to
be examined, that of "antichrist" (I. ii. 18, 22; iv.
3 ; II. 7), and that of " sin unto death " (I. v. 16, 17).
A clue, however, is afforded us for the understanding
of the former term in the connection. In I. ii. 22, we
are told that the antichrist is "he that denieth the
Father and the Son ; " in I. iv. 3 that " every spirit
that confesseth not Jesus " is " the spirit of the anti-

UCy THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

Christ," and in II. 7 that he who confesses not Jesus
Christ as coming in the flesh ^ is " the deceiver and
the antichrist." The distinguishing peculiarity of the
sin which the term " antichrist " comprehends is the
denial of the incarnation or mcssiahship of Jesus.
Tliis is a feature of the Gnostical tendency to which
the Epistles so often refer. According to this doc-
trine the world is essentially evil, and nothing divine
can abide in contact with it. The heavenly Christ
could not really inhabit a material body, hence the
denial of the incarnation ; just as little could he sub-
mit to suffering, hence the denial that he came both
" by water and blood " (I. v, 6). Against this denial
John asserts that Christ was not only incarnate at his
baptism (" came by water," St' v8aTo<i) but at his cruci-
fixion (" came by blood," St aifxaro^). The antichrist-
ian spirit consists, then, in the denial of the Son's
incarnation and passion which springs from a false
notion of the divine transcendence, and from a corre-
sponding error concerniug the world and human
nature in their relation to God.

The question remains, however, whether in speak-
ing of antichrist John had in mind a person, or a
tendency, or both. The prevailing view in the Church
has been that " antichrist " designates a person. This
view rests, however, upon the supposition of a close
correspondence, or even identity, of the antichrist of

1 The Greek is 'itjaovu Xpiaruu epxofifvoi' eV aupKi. Neither of
our English versions seems quite to reproduce the idea of the
text.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 147

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

The first of the four passages in which antichrist is

148 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE DOCTRINE OK SIN 14!^

to me, therefore, that the term is used to designate
either a tendency, principle, or spirit, or to dcscrihe
the men who embody that temper of denial which the
apostle describes in the connection. If we reason
from analogy it is certainly natural, in view of the
references which are found in both canonical and non-
canonical literature to persons who should embody
special forms of wickedness, to think that John may
have expected that some man was to appear who
would be "the antichrist" by eminence. His refer-
ences to the subject, however, do not warrant this
conclusion, although they do not exclude it. It is
better to abide by the actual indications of his lan-
guage than to adopt the more uncertain course of
reading him in the light of representations which, at
most, are only analogous to his own. The discussion
of the term "antichrist" in our sources has been too
much complicated with the consideration of the terms
of Paul and of the Apocalypse. The subject has been
commonly treated as a general doctrinal topic, instead
of a question of exegesis. Two of the most competent
recent interpreters,^ regarding solely the natural force
of the passages Avhere the term occurs in the First
Epistle, pronounce in favor of the interpretation for
which we have expressed a preference.

One further theme remains to be discussed, — sin
unto death. The one passage which brings this topic
before us is I. v. 16, 17 : " If any man see his brother

* Holtzmann, Hand-Commentar, in loco, and Westcott, The
Epistles of St. John, in loco.

160 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God
will give him life for them that sin not unto death.
There is a sin unto death (^afxaprta Trpo? Odvarov) : not
concerning this do I say that he should make request.
All unrighteousness is sin : and there is a sin not unto
death." It is obvious that the writer means here to
distinguish differing degrees of wickedness in sin.
But this is almost the only assertion which can be
made with certainty respecting the passage. Passing
by minor points which do not essentially affect the
meaning of the phrase a^iaprla irpo'^ ddvarov, we need,
if possible, to answer two questions : (1) Is a particu-
lar act of sin, or a certain kind of sin, here referred to ?
— that is, is d/jLapria best rendered as in our English
versions, '• a sin," or as in the margin of the R. V.
" sin " ? (2) In either case, what is the force of irpof
Odvarovt What distinguishes this sin, or this kind
of sin, from all others ?

Respecting the first question I think, with Westcott
and a majority of modern interpreters, that the trans-
lation " a sin " is too definite. If the apostle had in
mind some particular act of sin, such as the denial of
the Messiahship of Jesus (so Ebrard and Diistcr-
dieck), or envy (so Augustine) it seems likely that
he would have specified it, or that he would, at
least, have written d/xapria rt? or /xia. Nor may we,
on the other hand, make the expression so vague and
general as to interpret it to mean a state of extreme
moral obduracy (so Bcngel). Wc should rather
understand by d/xapria here a certain ti/pe of sin, a

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 151

kind of sinninp; wliicli might find expression in many
different specific acts, all of which would, liowevw,
spring from one certain spirit or disposition. We
think it pi-oliable that some particular attitude or
habit of mind must have l)ccn in the ajiostle's thoughts
in using this term. The question what this sinful
disposition was is dependent upon the view which is
taken of our second inquiry.

Several points connected with the passage as a
whole require to be taken into account in estimating
the force of a^iapria 7rp6<i Odvarov. From the very
terms of the passage it appears that the apostle, in
the case which he supposes, is thinking of this sin as
the act of a Christian, or at least of a professing
Christian : " If any man see his brother sinning," etc.
It would seem from this that the sin in question is
something which is in a special manner the negation of
the Christian profession. It seems also probable that
other descriptions in the Epistle of specially heinous
sins or sin would throw some light upon the meaning
of this sin. Bearing in mind these two general con-
siderations, let us briefly pass in review the leading
theories respecting " sin unto death " in our passage.^
It is well known that this passage is one of the sup-
ports of the distinctions made by Roman Catholic
theologians lictween venial and mortal sins. The latter
are such as destroy the friendship of God and cause
the death of the soul. They are seven in number:

1 For an account of the jjatristic comments on the passage,
see Westcott, Epistles of St. JoJm, pp. 210-"il J.

152 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

1 Commentaries, in loco.

THE DOCTRIXE OF SIX 153

from salvation, it seems strange that he shouhl speak
of it as the sin of a "brother" and sh(juld put his
counsel regarding prayer for it in a negative and
guarded form. .

Bishop Westcott has advanced the view that " sin
unto death" is sin "which in its very nature ex-
cludes from fellowship with Christians," ^ He thinks
examples would be : hatred of the Ijrethren, selfishness,
and faithlessness. He defines d/xapTia 7rpo<; Odvarov as
sin " tending to death, and not necessarily involving
death. Death is, so to speak, its natural consequence
if it continue, and not its inevitable issue as a matter
of fact." It appears to me that this interpretation does
not really distinguish " sin unto death " from any
other sin. All sin tends to death if it continue, and
even if some sins, such as those named, had a special
effect to exclude the doer of them from Christian
society, it would not thereby be proved that they were
inherently worse than other sins. On Dr. Westcott's
view it is difficult to find any reason for the apostle's
hesitation in encouraging his readers to pray for the
forgiveness of those who should sin unto death.

Those interpreters ^ seem to me to follow the indica-
tions of the Ei)istle who hold that sin unto death is
the disposition or temper which expresses itself in
the denial of Christ's incarnation, Messiahship, and
saving work. This view sets our passage in close
relation with the passages concerning antichrist, and

1 The Epistles of St. John, p. 20!).

2 See, for example, Ebrard, Commentary, in loco.

154 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

proceeds, we believe, in the right direction. The un-
derlying thought in respect to the antichristian spirit
and in respect to sin unto death is probably the same.
But the latter idea need not be made so definite as to
mean a specific act of denial, but may most natur-
ally be held to designate, as the term " antichrist "
does, a temper of denial, a renunciation, on the part of
one who has professed discipleshij) to Christ, of the
saving significance of his person and work. We there-
fore hold that sin unto death is here equivalent in
principle to the spirit of antichrist, and consists in
apostasy or desertion of Christ.^ With the authors
just cited we hold that the New Testament passages
outside our Epistle which are most closely analo-
gous to that under review are Hebrews vi. 4-8 and
X. 26-31, in which apostasy from Christ and its con-
sequences are depicted. In these passages the thought
probably is. If a man deserts Christ he will find no
other Saviour ; there is no sacrifice for sins (Heb. x.
26) which can avail for him except that which Christ
has made. Thus the impossibility of renewal which is
asserted in case of any who have fallen away (Heb.
vi. 6) is not absolute, but relative ; it is an impossi-
bility wliich lies within the limits of the supposition
which is made in the immediate connection. In the
case of one who turns away from Christ, and so long

1 So Iloltzmann, Hand-Commentar, in loco; Weiss, Bibl.
TheoL, ii. § 151 c. note 10 (in tlie original of the 5tli ed., note
8), and Dwight, in his notes appended to Iliither's Commentary
on the Catholic Epistles (in the JNIeyer-series), page 817.

TIIK DOCTIIINE OF SIN 155

as such apostasy lasts (note the present participles
avaaTuvpoOvTWi and irapaSeiyfiaTi^ovTa^), there is no
possibility of renewal.' This view alone accords with
the drift and purpose of the Epistle as a whole, as
the view which makes " antichrist " and " sin unto
death " in 1 John refer to renunciation of Christ
accords with the aim of that letter. The passages in
Hebrews do not exclude the possibility of renewal
in case the course of apostasy is repented of and for-
saken ; nor do the passages in 1 John pronounce
this penalty of death upon any who tnin away
from the path of denial into which they have been
beguiled. The idea which underlies both sets of pas-
sages is that the way of apostasy is the road to
death ; that renunciation of Christ is the renuncia-
tion of God's saving mercy, which will not be found
elsewhere. This fearful goal, to which the repudia-
tion of Christ will inevitably lead those who persist
in it, is pointed out in the most solemn manner by
both writers in order that their readers may be
warned of the danger to which they are exposed in
giving heed to the representatives of a fanatical and
narrow Judaism, on the one hand, or to those of a
proud and superficial Gnosticism, on the other.

^ Cf. Dwight's notes on the passage in Liinemann's Commen-
tary (Meyer-series), p. 551, and Farrar on Hebrews, in loco, in
the Cambridge Greek Testament.

CHAPTER VII

THE WORK OF SALVATION

Literature. — Weiss : Der Johann. Lehrb., Die Errettung
der AVelt, 157-164, and Bill. TheoL, The Salvation in Christ, ii.
347-302 (orig. pp. 614-626); Reuss : Hist. Christ. TheoL, Of the
Influence of the Word upon the World, ii. 429-445 (orig. pp.
479-498); Beyschlag : Neutest. T/^eoL, Die Heilsstiftung, i.
261-277, Das Heilswerk, ii. 436-446 ; Wendt : Teaching of Jesus,
Significance of the death of Jesus according to the Johannine
discourses, ii. 251-262 (orig. pp. 530-539); Sears, The Heart
of Chi-ist, The Johannean Atonement, 501-511 ; Feommann :
Johann. Lehrb., Jesus ist als der Christ der Heiland der Welt,
418-480 ; Kostlin : Der Lehrbegriff, u. s. ic, Das Werk Jesu iin
Besondern, 100-209; Baur: Neutest. T'Aco/., Die Lehre von der
Erlosung, 368-389 ; Dale : The Atonement, The Testimony of
St. John, 151-172.

A REVIEW of the references in the writings of John
to the redemptive work of Christ may well begin with
the claim which he makes for himself as the dis-
penser of life and as the bread of life in the fifth and
sixth chapters of the Gospel. The way in which
Jesus is led to assert his prerogative as the giver of
life (v. 19 sq^ is significant. He had healed a man
on the Sabbath. The Jews accused him of profaning
the sacred day. He replied that in doing good on
the Sabbath he was acting in accord with the unceas-

THE WORK OF SALVATION 157

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

158 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

occur in the thought, which now passes over into the
future and dwells for a moment upon the consumma-
tion of the life-giving process : " Marvel not at this :
for the hour cometh^ in which all that are in the
tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth," etc.
(verse 28). This resurrection, which is defined as a
resurrection " of life " or " of judgment," according to
its basis (so Weiss) or issue (so Meyer), can only be
that which is conceived of as taking place at the end
of the current age. While these expressions are very
explicit in ascribing the work of salvation, both in
its present realization and its future completion, to
Christ, they are too general to indicate clearly by what
means he effects this salvation.

After the miracle of the loaves (vi, 1-14) many
followed Jesus in hope of securing further supply
(vi. 26). He urges them to seek from him rather
that spiritual food which he has come to provide for
them (verse 27). To this they reply : What would
you have us do ? What do you hold that God re-
quires of us ? Jesus answers : He requires no deeds
whereby you may win his favor ; he requires only that
you receive and obey me (verses 28, 29). To the Jew-
ish mind the question at once presents itself: By
what miracle do you sustain your claim to be a mes-
senger of God and the bearer of life to the world ?
(verse 30.) Moses attested his mission by giving the
people manna : " what workest thou ? " (verses 30, 31.)

Such were the preliminary circumstances which
occasioned the discourse on the bread of life. The

Tin: WORK OF SALVATION 159

reference to the manna which supplied only the tem-
porary pliysical need of the passing hour affords .losus
an opportunity to set in contrast with it the spiritual
nourishment which he gives for the permanent satis-
faction of the soul. He tells them that the manna
which Moses gave them was not the true, ideal bread
of God {top aprov top a\r]div6v) ; this genuine bread
from heaven God is now giving (St'Stwcrii/) them (verse
32); it is himself (verse 35). The saying gives great
offence (verse 41), but Jesus reasserts, in other terms,
his claim as the bearer of spiritual life. He is the
way to the Father ; he is the giver of the resurrection-
life (verse 44) ; those who really hear God's voice
recognize his message as divine ; faith in him is the
condition of eternal life (verses 45, 47). This stage
of the discourse reaches its culmination in the repeated
assertion that he is the living bread from heaven, and,
especially, in the more specific statement that the life-
giving bread is his flesh, which he will give for the
life of the world (verse 51).

The final paragraph of the discourse presents the
thought that spiritual life is secured by eating the
flesh of the Son of man and drinking his blood
(verse 53). What is its import? One answer is that
reference is here made to the Lord's supper. This
was the prevailing interpretation among the Latin and
later Greek Church fathers, and is adopted by Roman
Catholic writers and by several modern Protestant
scholars.^ But the exegetical difficulties connected

1 E. g., by Pfleideier, Ilariiuck, H. Holtziaaiin, and, in a
modified form, bv Pluininer.

IGO THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

with this view are very great. Jesus speaks of a
present and continuous eating and drinking (verses
54, 56) ; moreovei', it is difficult to conceive of Jesus
as referring to the last supper in an argument with the
Jews at a time so far in advance of its establishment,
and especially in terms so mystical and so widely dif-
ferent from those actually used at the institution of
that sacrament. If the words as they stand are re-
ferred to the eucharist, the conclusion can hardly be
avoided that this application of them is due to the
writer of the Gospel, — a conclusion of which those
who deny its genuineness have naturally availed
themselves. Westcott justly criticises tliis interpre-
tation as follows : " To attempt to transfer the words
of the discourse with their consequences to the sacra-
ment is not only to involve the history in hopeless
confusion, but to introduce overwhelming difficulties
into their interpretation, which can only be removed
by the arbitrary and untenable interpolation of quali-
fying sentences." ^

The prevailing interpretation among Pi'otestants
refers the words to the propitiatory death of Christ.
This was the opinion of Augustine and of the Re-
formers, and is presented in the commentaries of
Lange, Godet and Meyer. It is favored by the follow-
ing considerations : (a) The term I ivill give (^Bcaaco,
verse 51) points to a future saving act; (i) the ex-

1 Comvientary, in loco. For ;i detailed refutation of tlie in-
terpretation just stated above in tiie text, see also Meyer, hi
loco

Tin: WOIIK OF SALVATION' HU

prcssion, to drink his bloody necessarily refers to liin
death; (c) passages like i. 29, iii. 1-4, and I. iv. 10
confirm this explanation. All three of these points,
however, are of doubtful validity. It is improbable
that a reference to the death of Christ can be legiti-
mately derived from the term / will give (Boiaco},
either on account of the tense or on account of the
significance of the word itself. The future may refer
to a continuous giving of himself for the life of the
world, as well as to one definite act, and the con-
nection seems to show that the verb ScSovai is used
throughout, not in the sense of giving himself up to
God in sacrifice, but in that of giving himself as food
for man's nourishment (c/". verses 31-34).

The reference to the drinking of the blood of tha
Son of man (verse 53) may be regarded as parallel
to that which is made to the eating of his flesh. If
the latter does not necessarily refer to his expiatory
death, it cannot be convincingly shown that the
former does so. Certainly the fact that Christ is else-
where spoken of as the Lamb of God (i. 29) and as a
propitiation for our sins (I. iv. 10), does not of itself
prove that he is presented in the same light in the
discourse under consideration. It is almost as diffi-
cult to suppose that in this address to hostile Jews
Jesus meant to dwell on the necessity of his sacrificial
death as it is to suppose that his words had reference
to the significance of the last supper. It would seem
that his meaning must have been, in that case, al-
together incomprehensible to his hearers.

1G2 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

* Commentary, in loco.

2 Life of Christ, iii. 7. Weiss adds that the evangelist sees
in thi'se words intimations of Jesus' violent death, — an idea
whicli is not involved in their original meaning.

THE WORK OF SALVATJOX 163

man.'"^ Otlicrs do not 'attempt to assign distinct
senses to the words flesh and blood or to 11 nd in the
statements concerning them any specific reference to
Jesus' lowly human form, but understand that to eat
liis flesh and drink his l)lood is to make Christ wholly
ours, to participate spiritually in his life.

Dr. John Lightfoot confirms this view by citations
from Talmudic sources. In connection with them he
says : " There is nothing more common in the schools
of the Jews than the phrases of ' eating and drinking '
in a metaphorical sense." " Bread is very frequently
used in the Jewish writers for doctrine. So that when
Christ talks of eating his flesh, he might perhaps hint
to them that he would feed his followers not only with
his doctrines^ but with himself too." One Rabbi
speaks of " eating the years of the Messiah ; " another
of " devouring " him, Lightfoot concludes : " To par-
take of the Messiah truly is to partake of himself, his
pure nature, his righteousness, his spirit ; and to live
and grow and receive nourishment from that partici-
pation of him, — things which the Jewish schools
heard little of, did not believe, did not think ; but
things which our blessed Saviour exprcsseth lively
and* comprehensively enough, by that of eating his
tlesh and drinking his blood." ^

It appears to me probable that this third interpre-
tation corresponds best with the primary import of
the discourse. It is not impossible, however, that, as

* Teaching of Jesus, ii. 182 (orig. p. 475).

* Horce Hebrakce. in loco, Oxford trans., iii. 307-309.

164 thp: johannine theology

Weiss suggests, the writer, in reproducing the sub-
stance of the discourse in the light of subsequent
events, thought of them as fulfilled in a special manner
in Jesus' giving up his body to death, and even as
directly referring to this event. But the discourse as
a whole does not seem to warrant the supposition of
a primary and direct reference to his atoning death,
and in seeking an answer to the question, how,
according to the Johannine writings, Jesus effects
man's salvation, we are not carried by this discourse
beyond the general truth that he does this by giving
himself to men as spiritual food, or, dropping the fig-
ure, by offering himself as the object of faith and
by entering into loving fellowship with men. More
specific references to the work of salvation must be
sought elsewhere.

In several places Christ is said to have come to
save men. " God sent not the Son into the world to
judge the world ; but that the world should be saved
(I'm awOrj 6 Koafjio^') through him " (iii. 17; cf. xii. 47).
The connection shows that " the world " designates
mankind in general, and that men are regarded as
exposed — apart from his saving work — to condemna-
tion or destruction {cf. verse 16), but the manner in
which the salvation is effected is not intimated. Faith
in himself and appropriation of the light which he has
brought to men are spoken of (verses 18-21) as the
conditions of the divine approval, but no ground of for-
giveness in his death or sacrifice is alluded to. Else-
where, in defending himself against the criticisms of

THE WORK OF SALVATION 16')

the .Ji'ws, he alVu-ins that although the testimony of
the JJaptist, which the Jews hail sought, was favor-
able to him, he docs not himself api)eal to it for his
own advantage, since his claims bear the direct au-
thentication of God, and adds: "I say these things "
(concerning John's testimony) " that ye may be
saved " {'iva v^eU acodfjTe, v. 34) ; it is for ^our sake,
not for mine, that I refer to John's " witness," in the
hope that you may heed it and believe on me. Here
also we find only an implied reference to the believ-
ing acceptance of his Mcssiahship as the condition of
salvation.

The passage in the allegory of the Door of the
>Shcei)fold : " I am the door : by me if any man enter
in, he shall be saved {awOriaeTat), and shall go in and
go out, and shall find pasture " (x. 9), is figurative,
and contains only the general idea of security through
Christ from harm or danger. When we are told that
" the salvation " {-q awTijpia) — that is, the promised,
long-expected Messianic salvation — " is from the
Jews " (iv. 22), it is, no doubt, implied that Jesus is
the Saviour who brings this salvation ; but no sugges-
tion of the way or means of accomplishing it is made.
After the conversation with the Samaritan woman, in
which the foregoing expression occurs, her country-
men declare that they are convinced by w^hat they
have heard from Jesus himself that he " is indeed the
Saviour of the world " (iv. 42). In one other passage
only is he designated as the Saviour (T. iv. 14) but the
means by which he becomes such are not specified —

166 THE JOHAXNTXE THEOLOGY

beyond the mention of confessing him and abiding in
him as necessary (verses 13, 15). From this group
of passages we may indeed infer the sinfuhiess of
mankind; salvation is /yow shi and its consequences,
but whether by an atonement for sin or not, we have as
yet no indication. Thus far the whole soteriology of
our sources may be summed up in the words : life-
fellowship with Christ.

There are two passages, standing in close connec-
tion in the First Epistle, in which reference is made
to the cleansing {KaOapi^eiv) of men from sin (i. 7, 9).
The apostle had declared that the substance of the
gospel message is that God is light (verse 5) ; it fol-
lows that Christians must walk in the light (verse 6) ;
in so doing they have fellowship with one another,
and the blood of Jesus cleanses them from all sin
(verse 7). The thought, then, is that the saving effi-
cacy of Christ's blood is experienced only by those
who walk in the light, that is, those who desire and
strive to be pure and Godlike. The author now ad-
vances to the necessity of confession ; if Christians
confess their sins God's faithfulness to his promises
and to his very nature is the guaranty of their for-
giveness and cleansing (verses 8, 9). It will be
noticed that in both these passages it is the cleansing
of the Christian from the sin that still clings to him
that is spoken of, and that in one case (verse 9) this
cleansing is predicated of God, in the other (verse 7),
of the blood of Jesus, his Son. From these passages
we derive tlie same general conception as from those

THE WORK OF SALVATION 107

which speak of mvhu/ men ; namely, that Jesus Christ
wrought a deliverance for man from sin ; and also
the additicmal idea that this deliverance stands in
some way connoetcd with his death, since his blood is
said to lie the means of cleansing-. It is further evi-
dent that the apostle speaks here, not of a juridical
deliverance or acquittal, but of an actual moral puri-
fication.^ It seems to be clearly implied in the first
of these passages (verse 7) that the shedding of
Christ's blood is the culminating act in his saving
work. This is the only passage in John's writings
where cleansing from sin is explicitly attributed to
liis blood or death. It remains to be seen whether
this idea is clearly implied in other passages.

Closely resembling the passages just noticed are
two others in which the taking away {aipeiv) of sin is
ascribed to Jesus. In I. iii. 5 it is stated that " he was
manifested to take away sins " (Iva Ta<i d/xapTia<; aprj),
or more exactly, " the sins," the sins of mankind. The
other passage contains the exclamation of the Bap-
tist when he saw Jesus ap])roaching : " Behold, the
Lamb of God, which taketh away (6 aipoov') the sin
of the world ! " (i. 29.) Some interpreters have taken
aipeiv in the first passage in the sense of to hear as
a sacrifice, in order to procure forgiveness,^ and this
meaning has been still more commonly given to the
word in the second passage. But while alpnv in

^ So Liicke, Huther, Ilaiipt; per contra, Weiss, Bibl. ThcoL
§ 148, b. 3.

2 So, €, (/., Liicke and De Wette.

168 THE JOHAXXINE THEOLOGY

itself might in these passages mean to hear, the
Johanninc usage strongly favors another signification.
The word is uniformly used by John in the sense of
to take away (ef. xi. 48 ; xv. 2 ; xvii. 15 ; xix. 31, 38).
Moreover, the Septuagint employs cfiepeiv to denote
the hearhig of sin, while it uses alpetv to express the
idea of taking away. The context seems clearly to
require the meaning to take away for apr) in I. iii. 5,
since the point of the argument lies in the antagonism
between the Christian life and sin, as shown by the
purpose of Christ's manifestation, namely, to take away
sins. If this view of I. iii. 5 be adopted, the presump-
tion that 0 alpcov means " who takes away " is greatly
strengthened.^ In that case, the idea expressed in
aipeiv is substantially the same as that which we
found in KaOapi^eiv. Especially close would be the
connection between I. i. 7 and i. 29, since the " blood "
in the one passage corresponds with the " Lamb " in
the other, and each term suggests the idea of a sacri-
ficial victim.

On the interpretation of 6 a'lpcov in i. 29 which we
think to be best supported, the question whether the
sacrificial idea is found in the passage, will turn
chiefly on the meaning of the phrase : " the La ml)
of God." The sense in which we have taken alpetv is
not prejudicial to this idea in the passage, since it
may appear that the sin of the world is conceived of
as taken away only through the expiation of it in the

1 Among the interpreters wlio render 6 a'ipcDv '• wlio takes
away," are Meyer, Westcott, Weiss, Godet, and riuinnier.

Tin: WORK OF SALVATIOX 169

suffcrinirs and death of Christ. The ^grammatical
force of the phrase, as determined In- the article and
the genitive, seems cleaily to l)e : the exj)ected Lamb
which Ood has fnrnished or appointed, that is, the
Lamb which (Jod has set apart to a special function,
and of whicli prophecy speaks. In the view of many
the reference of the term is to the paschal lamb.
This lamb was the symbol of Israel's deliverance
from bondage,* and Jesus may be regarded as the
antitypical passover Laml) inasmuch as he accom-
plishes for men their deliverance from sin. It seems
unnatural, however, to suppose that the Baptist
should, at this time, have regarded Jesus in this spec-
ial character ; and this impression is somewhat
strengthened if the view be taken that in the quota-
tion in xix. 36 : " A bone of him shall not be broken,"
the reference is not to the paschal lamb (Ex. xii.
46 ; Num. ix. 12), but to the description of Jehovah's
protection of the righteous man in Ps. xxxiv. 20. But
even if the apostle John does identify Jesus, after his
death, with the paschal lamb (as Paul clearly does,
1 Cor. V. 7), a similar reference in our passage would
not thereby be rendered especially probable, except
on the view that this conception was imported into
the Baptist's words by the evangelist ex eventu.

It seems, on all accounts, more natural to suppose
that the phrase " the Lamb of God " is a reminis-
cence of Isaiah liii. 7, where the meekness of the
suffering Servant of Jehovah is depicted by saying :
" As a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a

170 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

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

In one passage (I. ii. 1) Christ is called a wapd-
KXi]To<i with or ]>efore the Father (tt/jo? tov irajepa) :

Tin: WOHK OF SALVATION 171

" If any man sin, wc have an Advocate with the
Fathei", Jesus Christ the righteous." The word
7ra/3a'/cX7/To<? designates Christ as one who is sum-
moned to our aid and who represents us in relation
to (tt/jo?) the Father. This passage does not, how-
ever, aid us in defining specifically the way in which
Christ effects man's salvation. It bears mainly upon
the mediation of Christ in securing forgiveness to the
Christian man who falls into sin (^d/xdpTrj, note the
aorist). The thought is : If the Christian commits
sin (in contrast to living in an habitual state of sin,
I. iii. 6-9) lie has as his Advocate before the " right-
eous Father" (xvii. 25) the sinless One who, having
himself perfectly fulfilled his moral destiny in his
Innnan life, enters into perfect sympathy with those
who are passing through the same process of trial.
The passage bears, not upon the cause or ground of
salvation, but upon its completion in the Christian
man.

There are several passages in which some act of
Christ, usually his death, is said to have been on
behalf of (virep) men. The first of these, "The bread
which I will give is my flesh, for (virep) the life of the
world " (vi. 51), we have already noticed incidentally
in our review of the discourse on the bread of life.
On the interpretation of that discourse which I have
adopted, a reference in these words to the death of
Jesus for men cannot be confidently affirmed. For
our present purpose this passage may be passed over,
both because of the uiicertaintv of its mcaninir and

172 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE WOIJK OF SALVATION 1 ( -3

robe," than the laying down of a ransom price. It is
certain that the passages outside of this parable where
our ))hrase is used do uot support the idea of paying
a ransom, c. //., xiii. 37 where Peter says : " I will lay
down my life lor thee " (t7]i> yjrv^^ijv f^ov vTrkp aov O/jao)).
When in xv. lo Jesus alludes to his death he does so
under terms of friendship which do not suggest the
ransom-idea : " Greater love hath no man than this,
that a man lay down his life for his friends " (Jva rt?

T^l' "^V^^rjV aVTOV 6t] VTTCp TOiiV <^l\oiV UVTOv) . lu tllC

remaining passage (I. iii. 16) the apostle makes the
laying down of Christ's life for men parallel to that
laying down of life for one another which is the duty of
Christians, and expresses both acts in the same terms :
" He laid down his life for us (e/ceti^o? virep rjfxcov tjjv
■\jrv'x^r]v avTov edi]K€v^, and we ought to lay down our
lives for the brethren " (vTrep tmv a8eX(f)6!)v ra'; ■^v^a<i
Bdvai). Surely no payment of life as a ransom-price
can be thought of in the mutual laying down of life
for one another among Christians ; if not, it is un-
warranted to derive this idea from the parallel
phrase.

The opinion of Meyer does not seem to be war-
ranted by the facts of tlTe case. The substitutionary
idea can be derived from the references to the giv-
ing of his life by the good shepherd only in case the
preposition virep can be shown to involve this idea.
This preposition sti'ictly means on behalf of, for the
benefit of, and not instead of (ayri). It is more gen-
eric than avTL, and might comprehend its idea if the

174 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE WORK OF SALVATIOX 175

giving his life, in that he thereby delivers it from death
and keeps it in lifc."^

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

1 BiOl. T/u'ol. § 148, c.

176 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

It is clear that the suggestion of Caiaphas was dic-
tated by selfish policy. It is through wicked enmity
to Jesus, and cruel betrayal of him, that the advantage
of his death is to be secured to the people. They are
to shield themselves hy turning base injustice to
Jesus into a semblance of devotion to Rome (verses
49, 50 ; cf. xviii. 14). On this counsel of Caiaj)has
the evangelist now makes a comment based ui)on the
Old Testament idea of the high priest as the reci[)ient
of oracular communications from Jehovah (Ex. xxviii.
30 ; Num. xxvii. 21). He says that the very words
which Caiaphas uttered in a worldly and wicked
spirit contained, despite his purpose, a great divine
truth ; he, in virtue of his sacred office, was made the
organ of a word of God of which he was all uncon-
scious. His words — little as he meant them so —
express the great truth that Jesus was to die for
iyirdp) the Jewish nation, and not only that, but that
by his death he was to gather together into a spiritual
unity all those In every nation Avho are true, obedient
sons of God (verses 61, 52). Whatever view we may
take of John's assertion of a divine determination con-
trolling the w^ords of Caiaphas and directing them to
the expression of truth wholly foreign to the mind of
the speaker, it is evident that the whole narrative
assumes it to be a great central truth of Christianity
that Jesus died to save the Jewish nation, and to
constitute all the children of God into one family.
Moreover, as in I. i. 7 fellowship among Christians
and their cleansing from all sin bv tbe blood of

THE WORK OF SALVATION 177

Christ were placed side by side, so here vvc have a
correlation of the idea of salvation and of Christian
unity as together representing the object of Cbrist's
death. For our purpose the main point to be noted
is the way in which the whole narrative assumes
the centrality of the truth that Christ's death was
the means of effecting the Messianic salvation for the
Jewish nation, and of constituting the one communion
of true believers. But in wliat sense, iu the light of
our passage, does Christ die for (virep) men ? We
certainly cannot carry the idea of a divine overruling
of Caiaphas' words so far as to find in them the true
conception of Jesus' vicarious death. To the high
priest's mind his death would be the result of crafty
policy, whereby suspicion of political treachery should
be averted from the Jewish people. He did not con-
nect the death of Christ with God's order, or contem-
plate it as subserving moral and spiritual ends. Our
passage, then, does not involve more than the asser-
tion which the evangelist held to be fundamental and
axiomatic, that Christ secured the salvation of men
by his death ; but to the (piestions, why, or iu w hat
way, our author gives us, as yet, no answer.

In XV. 13 Jesus refers to his laying down his life
as a proof of his great love : " Greater love hath no
man than this, that a man lay down life for {yirep)
his friends." It accords with the purpose of the dis-
course in which this })assage occurs that Jesus should
speak of his death here as being experienced for the
benefit of his immediate disciples, without thereby

178 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

justifying any limitation of its intended benefits. But
the passage does not carry us beyond those previ-
ously cited in respect to the way in which his death
secures the benefits to which the preposition points.
The same may be said of the kindred passage I. iii.
16 : " Hereby know we love, because he laid down
his life for (yirep) us : and we ought to lay down our
lives for (uTrep) the brethren." In this case, how-
ever, if we are to press the parallelism, we should
have to conclude that the death of Jesus is for the
benefit of men only in the sense in which self-sacri-
ficing suffering on the part of men is for the benefit
of its objects. The context shows that in this pas-
sage the death of Jesus stands as a symbol of self-
sacrificing love which men are to share and illustrate.
That this is, in general, its entire significance in
John, would be, however, an unwarranted conclusion.

The words " For their sakes (yirep amoiv) I sanc-
tify {dyid^Q)) myself, that they themselves also may
be sanctified in truth " (xvii. 19) are understood by
most inter])reters ^ in a sacrificial sense, and dyid^eiv
is taken as equivalent to Trpoacfyepeiv Ovaiav (Chrysos-
tom, cf. Eph. V. 2). On this view tlie meaning would
be : For the salvation of my disciples I consecrate
myself, througli death, as a sacrifice unto God. This
explanation is sustained by Septuagint exanii)les of
tlie use of dytd^€Lv in the sense of consecration to death
in sacrifice (Ex. xiii. 2 ; Deut. xv. 19, etc.). Consider-
ations drawn from the connection in which our jias-

^ So, e. ff., Liicke, DeWette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Ilultziiiaiiii.

TIIH WOltK OF SALVATION' 179

sage stands, liowovor, iviulcr this view, to say the
least, very doubt I'lil. Jesus prays for the consecra-
tion of Ills discii)les (xvii. 17), and adds that he conse-
crates himself for them that they themselves also (/cat
avToi'} may be consecrated in truth (xvii. 19). It seems
includible that dyidl^eiv as applied to the disciples
should refer to their consecration to death as martyrs
(so Chrysostoni), and, if it did, the usage would not
be parallel to that in which it applies to Jesus, who,
according to the supposition, dies, not as a martyr,
but as a sacrifice. The language of verse 19 most
naturally '-implies two consecrations of a homogene-
ous character " (Godet). It seems unnatural to attrib-
ute, as Weiss does, a double sense to dyLci^etv in the
passage. It appears to me preferable to understand
the words comprehensively of Christ's whole devotion
of himself to his appointed work, which would include
his life as well as his death. The thought is unduly
narrowed by Neander, who defines Christ's self-con-
secration as " the realization of the ideal of holi-
ness." ^ The phrase more naturally denotes that
whole self-giving of Jesus to men by which he be-
comes the author and finisher of their salvation.^

Jesus implies the necessity of his death for the real-
ization of his saving work in the statement, " Verily,
verily, I say unto you, except a grain of wheat fall
into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone ; but
if it die, it beareth much fruit " (xii. 24). But neither

' Planting and Trainhuj. ii. 39 (Bohn ed.).
2 So. substantially, (Judet and Westcott.

180 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the figure in which the principle of sacrifice is pre-
sented, nor the context of the passage, suggests the
idea of vicarious or sacrificial death. The principle
is directly applied to the life of the disciples, who are
not to " love " their lives, but to " hate " them (xii. 25),
that is, not to withhold from others their interest, sym-
pathy, and efforts, but freely to give them. To follow
Christ in a life of service and self-giving is the prac-
tical thought of the passage, " If any man serve me,
let him follow me " (xii. 26).

The necessity of Jesus' death is, however, presented
in other terms : " As Moses lifted up the serpent in
the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted
up (v-yjrcodrjvaL Sel) : that whosoever believeth may in
him have eternal life" (iii, 14, 15; cf. xii. 34). The
comparison here made involves (a) that as the brazen
serpent was lifted up on a pole (Num. xxi. 8 sq.), so
Jesus must be lifted up on the cross (cf., especially,
viii. 28) ; and (h) that, as looking upon the serpent se-
cured healing, so belief on the crucified One secures
eternal life. This passage and those in which Jesus
is described as the Lamb of God (i. 29, 36) it is par-
ticularly important to bear in mind in seeking to
determine the idea which underlies tlui assei-tions of
his voluntary devotion of his life for the good of men.

Again, Jesus says : " And I, if I be lifted uj) from
the earth, will draw all men unto myself " (xii. 32),
which the evangelist explains by saying : '' This he
said, signifying by what manner of death he should
die " (xii. 33). Merc ibe cross seems lo he ilntiightof.

THE WORK OF SALVATION 181

not only as the symbol of death, but of exaltation above
and beyond the earth (e/c rr)? 7J79). The combination
of ideas is similar to tliat which is presented by Paul
in Phil. ii. 8, 9, where the humiliation to the death of
the cross is presented as the ground of the exalta-
tion. Since the heavenly reign and kingly authority
of Jesus were attained on the path of suffering, the
cross may fitly stand, not only as the symbol of the
suffering, but of its result also. In asserting that in
consequence of being lifted up on the cross he would
exert his great attractive power upon mankind, Jesus
seems not only to have signified, as John affirms, the
manner of his death, but also to have proclaimed the
ground of his exaltation and the impelling motive of
his matchless influence in the world.

The two most important passages, in their bearing
on the Johannine idea of atonement, are found in
the First Epistle : " He is the propitiation (iXacrfi6<;)
for (vre/Ji) our sins," etc. (ii. 2), and, '' Herein is love,
not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent
his Son to be the propitiation (iXacr/to?) for (Trepi) our
sins " (iv. 10). These are the only passages in which
any of the technical terms which express the ideas of
atonement, reconciliation, or propitiation (KaraWda-
aetv^ KaraXXwyr], IXciaKeadaL^ iXaarT^piov, k. t. X.)
occur in the Johannine writings ; they are also
the only passages in which the word iXaafx6<;, on
which their meaning chiefly turns, is found in the
New Testament.

In order rightly to estimate the force of these pas-

182 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

sages it is necessary to give a brief account of the
Biblical use of IXda-KeaOaL and its kindred forms.^ In
the Scptuagint the two principal uses of i\aa/jL6<i (and
of its strengthened form i^iXaa/jLO'i) are, (a) as the
equivalent of Dn33, "coverings " [of sin by sacrifice],
meaning atonement or expiation (e.g., Lev. xxv. 9;
Num. V. 8) ; (b) as a translation of nxon, sin offer-
ing (Ezek. xliv. 27 ; xlv. 19) ; and (c) in the sense of
hp'Sd, forgiveness (Ps. cxxx. 4 ; Dan. ix. 9). The verb
iXdaKeadai and its compound i^iXdaKeaOaL are chiefly
used to translate "i??, to cover, that is, to atone for,
sin. The subject of the action, expressed or implied,
is, in this usage, God or some human agent ; the object
is the sins expiated, expressed in the accusative (Ps.
Ixv. 4), dative (Ps. Ixxviii. 38), or after irepc (Lev.
V. 18) or virep (Ezek. xlv. 17) ; the verb is also used
to translate hSd, to forgive, and in the passive signi-
fies to be merciful (as in Luke xviii. 13). This verb is
found but twice in the New Testament, in both in-
stances in accord with Scptuagint usage. In Luke
xviii. 13, IXdaOrjTi /xoi tQ> dixaproiXo) means, be propi-
tious, etc., as in 2 Kings v. 18, IXdaerai tm BovXcp ; ef.
Ps. xxv. 11 ; Ixxix. 9. In Hebrews ii. 17 the phrase
et9 TO iXd(TKecr6at ra<; dixapTia<i rov Xaov corresponds
to the prevailing Scptuagint usage, and means, " in

^ For a full exhibition of the Septuagint usage I would refer
to Westcott's note on the subject in his Epistles of St. John, pp.
85-87. The Biblical use of this and other terms bearing upon
the doctrine of atonement is fully discussed in Cremer's
Bihl.-llifiol. Lexicon, sub voce, and in Trench's New Testament
Si/noni/ms.

THE WORK OF SALVATIOX 183

order (as high priest) to expiate by sacrifice the sins
of the people."

Attention has often been called — and justly — to
the diiiference between the classical and the Bibli-
cal use of this class of words. In Homer and most
ancient authors IXdaKeaOai means to render the gods
favorable by sacrifices or prayers, — the assumption
being that they are not, apart from these appeasing
acts, disposed to be favorable to men. In Biblical
Greek the conception is quite different ; only in
Zech. vii. 2, do we find any expression which seems
to answer to the idea of iXdaKeaOac rov 6e6v. There
the phrase is, i^iXdaaaOat rov Kvpiov, which, as the
context and the Hebrew show,i is not used in a sac-
rificial sense, but means to implore or " intreat the
favor of the Lord" (R. V,). We have therefore no
example of a phrase meaning " to propitiate God."
Biblical language avoids the expression of the idea
that God is, in his disposition or feeling, averse to
forgiveness. He does not have to be made willing
by expiations to forgive sin. He is, and always has
been, willing. The Biblical idea is that the obstacle
to forgiveness lies in his essential righteousness which
so conditions his grace that without its satisfac-
tion God cannot, in self-consistency, forgive. In the
heathen view expiation renders the gods willing to
forgive ; in the Biblical view expiation enables God,

1 The Hebrew is, Hin; 'J3-n^ ^'^^^'l, literally, to smooth
or stroke the face of Jehovah. The verb is frequently used of
imploring the favor of men (Job. xi. 19; Prov. xix. 6).

184 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

consistently with his holiness, actually to do what he
was never unwilling to do. In the former view sac-
rifice changes the sentiment of the gods toward men ;
in the latter it affects the consistency of his proced-
ure in relation to sin. The divine character is in
no way changed. In the expiation (which God him-
self provides) is fulfilled a condition of the operation
of that grace in which the whole work of salvation
has its origin and ground. In heathenism men win
the favor of the gods ; in Biblical religion God's
favor is sovereign and free, but it manifests itself in
accord with the whole nature of God ; its operation
in the forgiveness of sin is conditioned upon the
manifestation, at the same time, of the divine dis-
pleasure at sin and the assertion of its desert of pun-
ishment. God cannot forgive as if he were mere good-
nature. He can forgive only in accordance with his
changeless, essential righteousness, which must be vin-
dicated and satisfied. To effect this vindication and
satisfaction is the function of sacrifice or expiation in
the Bible.

In the light of the foregoing considerations there
can hardly be a doubt that when Christ is said to be
an l\aafio<i irepl to)v ajxaprLoiv rjfXMv (I. ii. 2 ; iv. 10)
the meaning is that he accomplishes for us a recon-
ciliation with God on account of our sins by himself
atoning for them. He is tbe means of rendering God
favorable in so far as by his sacrificial death he has
accomplished, on our behalf, the ends of i)unishment,
and is tlnis in respect to our sins a means of reconcil-
iation with God.

Tin: WORK OF SALVATION' 185

It is frequently asserted that in John's writintrs we
have no trace of an objective atonement for sin, or of
those legal conceptions of God's character or govern-
ment which are the presuppositions of the sacrificial
idea.^ It is true that John has not developed the
idea of expiation for sin by the suffering and death
of Christ, but it is none the less true that he several
times alludes to it in such a way as to show that it
was an underlying assumption of his teaching. After
making the fullest allowances for the doubtful pas-
sages, there remain several references to the sacri-
ficial idea of Christ's work which no unprejudiced
exegesis can set aside. Such are the description of
Jesus as " the Lamb of God" (i. 29, 36) ; the desig-
nation of him as our Advocate, in respect to sin,
before the Father (1. ii. 1) ; the statement that he
died for (yrrep) men (xi. 51 ; xv. 13 ; I. iii. 16) ; the
allusion to the necessity of his death (iii. 14), and
the presentation of it as the condition of founding
his kingdom (xii. 32) ; and the assertion that he is
the propitiation or reconciliation in respect to the
sins of the world (I. ii. 2 ; iv. 10). To these may be

1 "We have not been able to discover anywhere in the
writings of the apostle John any trace whatever of a vicari-
ous satisfaction," etc. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol. ii. 443 (orig.
ii. 496).

" The atonement (according to John) ... is the believer him-
self brought into harmony with the divine mind, purpose, and
will, through the ^lediator ; and it involves a know ledge of the
love of Christ, and its exceeding and abounding peace." —
Sears : The Heart of Christ, p. 501.

186 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

added tho reference in I. ii. 12 to the forgiveness of
sins "for his name's sake" (Sm to ovo^a avrov).

We have seen that several expressions which have
been thought to illustrate the sacrificial conception of
Christ's saving work are, at least, of doubtful appli-
cation to it. We may summarize a part of the fore-
going discussion by quoting the following as the
principal examples: cleansing from sin (I. i. 7, 9),
probably refers, not to satisfaction for the guilt of
sin by atonement, but to actual deliverance from the
power and defilement of the sin itself ; 6 aipwv (i. 29)
probably refers to the taking away of sin, that is,
the abolition of it, and not to the penal endurance of
its guilt ; the giving of his flesh, etc. (vi. 51), is probably
a symbolic expression for Christ's self-communica-
tion to the believer, rather than an assertion respect-
ing his sacrificial death ; I incline to a similar
explanation of xvii. 19 : " For their sakcs I sanctify
myself;" and when in xii. 32 the drawing of oil
men to Christ is conditioned upon his being lifted up
from the earth, this last expression seems to include
not only his death, but his resurrection and ascension.
In that case the passage bears, indeed, upon the
saving significance of Christ's death, but less directly
and exclusively tlian it would do if the lifting uj)
referred only to the cross, as in iii. 14 and viii. 28.

There is no doubt that John dwells less than most
of the New Testament writers upon the legal aspects
of tlic divine nature, but there are not wanting evi-
dences that the conception of the divine love wliicli

THE WOIIK OF SALVATION 187

undoi'lics all his religious ideas includes the notion
of rij^hteousness, that self-respecting attribute of God
which occasions his holy displeasure at sin and re-
(juires to be expressed and vindicated while sin is
forgiven. It accords with John's mystical type of
mind to dwell more upon the union of the believer
with Christ than uj)on the ground of forgiveness
which is laid by Christ's redemptive work. The
npostle is fond of leaving behind " the fii'st principles
of Christ" and of pressing on unto "perfection"
(Heb. vi. 1) or maturity. He is less concerned with
(he method in which salvation has been provided
than with the actual realization of that salvation in
its fulness of blessedness and peace. He thinks and
speaks less of the provision for forgiveness than he
does of the life of fellowship with Christ and of like-
ness to God ; in a word, he is less concerned for
theology tlinn for religion.

John wrote after the great conflicts with Judaism
in the Church, which were at their height about the
middle of the first century, had ceased to stimulate
and shape the thought of Christian teachers. Except
in certain allusions in the First Ejjistle, his writings
(leaving aside for our purpose the xVpocalypse) are
not controversial. He undertook to interpret to his
readers, in a constructive spirit, the gospel of Christ.
He wrote after many years of Christian experience
and reflection. He had little or no occasion to use
the wcajions of a distinctively Jewish logic, or to
run his thouii-hts into Jewish IcG-al forms. He did

188 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

CHAPTER VIII

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPTRTT

Literature. — Weiss : DM. Theol., The Paraclete, ii. 405-
410; Juhann. Lekrb., Der Paraklet, 280-285; Reuss : Hist.
Christ. r/ieuL, Of the Spirit, ii. 4G9-481 (orig. 524-538) ; Kost-
Lix: Johann. Lehrb., Geschaft des Geistes, u. s. w., 196-209;
Messxer : Lehre d. A pastel, Der Geist,pp. 343—345; Beyschlag :
Neatest. Theol., Die lleilswirksainkeit des erhohten Christus, ii.
444-44G ; Bekxaud: The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ (John
xiii.-xvii.), /?o»\s7'/rt ; Dods : llie Gospel of St. John, The Spirit
Christ's Witness, ii. 20.5-225 ; Ewald : Old and New Test.
Theol., The Power of the Holy Spirit, pp. 324-340; Baur :
Neutest. Theol, Die Mittheilung des Geistes, pp. 384-380;
^Iaurice: The Gospel of St. John, The Comforter and his Test-
imony, pp. 39li-410 ; Hake : Tlie Mission of the Comforter.

The teacliing concerning the nature and office of
the Holy Spii-lt is found chiefiy in chapters xiv.-xvi.
of the GospeL Tliis teaching is the leading theme of
those farewell discourses which appear to liave been
spoken in connection with the last supper. It was
called out by the wonder and grief of the disciples at
the Lord's approaching departure. Its primary object
seems to have been to assure the disciples that, al-
though he was soon to be no more with them in visible
form, a substitute for his Ijodily presence would be
given them in the indwcUinii- Spirit. The work of

190 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the Spirit, therefore, is the final subject of his iustriic-
tioii, and stands connected with the completion of liis
own mission.

Let us first ))ass in review the principal designations
of the Spirit, from wliich we shall naturally be led to
consider the questions concerning his personality and
work. Besides the term ro nrvev^ia, or to irvevixa ro
djtov, the Spirit is designated as 6 irapaKk-qTo^; ^ the
Paraclete, in four passages: "And I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another Comforter
{aWov 7rapdK\r)Tov), that he may abide with you for-
ever " (xiv. 16) ; " But the Comforter (o irapaKXijro'i)^
even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name," etc (xiv. 26) ; " But when the Comforter
(6 Trapd.KXijro'i) is come, whom 1 will send unto you
from the Father," etc. (xv. 26) ; " If I go not away,
the Comforter (6 Tra/ja/cA-T/TO?) will not come unto
you," etc. (xvi. 7).

The rendering " the Comforter," for 6 Tra/aa/cX^roq-,
dates from Wicklif's translation, and has Ijeen j)er-
petuated in almost all later English l>ibles, including
our Revised Version. It is formed from tlie Latin con
andfortis, confortare, and means one who strent/thens.
While in these various English translations, from Wick-
lif's onward, Trapd.KXijTO'i is rendered Conifoi'ter in the
Gospel, it is translated Advocate in the First Epistle
(ii. 1), — a fact which is probaljly due to a similar
variation in the nuidering in several ancient versions.
Although the word "Comforter" conveys very well
the practical import of the Spirit's work, it cannot be

TllK DOCTllIXK OF 'IIIK II()I,V SIMKIT T.M

(lefondtMl as an accurate translation of TrapaKXijro^.
It will not serve as a renderinu,' in 1. ii. 1, where Christ
is called our 7rapdK\T]T0<; tt/oo? tov irarepa ; nor does it
bring out the passive force of the word irapdK.Xriro'i.
In the passage just referred to it is evident that
'jrapdK\i)To<i means advocate or interccx.sor. Now
sinee in xiv. IG the Holy Spirit is designated as dXXo<i
7rapdKXr]To<;, — that is, since the Holy Spirit is a Para-
clete as really as Christ is, — it is evident that some
uniform translation of 7rapdKXi]ro<; should be adopted.
The passage a|)plies I)y clear implication the same
designation to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, and ap-
plies it in the same sense. The word should, there-
fore, be rendered, in both applications of it, in the
same way. Furthermore, the word 7rapdKXr]To<; is
passive in termination ; it means one who is called in
to the side of another, and, in usage, one who is called
to counsel or help. In its classic use it is applied to
an advocate in a case at law, especially to the adv(»-
cate for the defence. ^ From these considerations it is
evident that the term is best translated Advocate or
Helper (margin, R. Y.). This translation, no less than
the other, implies the positive, active work of the
Spirit, since it portrays him as One who pleads the
Christian's cause, instructs him in the truth of Christ,
and accuses and convicts tiu; world of sin.

Another kindred designation for the Spirit is "the
Spirit of truth " {rh Trvevfia t/}? dXi]0€ia<;) (xiv. 17 ; xv.

^ Cf. the Couuueutarieti ui Westcott und Luuge, uii Joliu
xiv. IG.

192 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

26 ; xvi. 13 ; cf. I. iv. 6 ; v. 7). The plirase denotes
the Spirit who belongs to the truth in such a sense
that he is its possessor, bearer, and mediator. The
passages just cited set its meaning in clear light. As
" the Spirit of truth " the evil world does not receive
or know him (xiv. 17), because it has no spiritual
affinity for "the truth" which Jesus has revealed, and
which the Spirit seeks to make effective in human
life. Again, he is " the Spirit of truth " because he
bears witness of Christ to the disciples, that is, inter-
prets and enforces the teaching of Jesus, and fosters
in them the life which corresponds to it (xv. 26).
Even more explicitly is the function of the Spirit of
truth defined in xvi. 13 sq.^ where it is said that he
shall guide the disciples " into all the truth " (eZ? ti-jv
bXr]Oetav iraaav), that is, into the knowledge and ex-
})erience of that specific truth which Jesus reveals and
embodies in his own person {cf. xiv. 6). The truth as
Jesus proclaimed and illustrated it, the truth as
matter not of knowledge only, but of conduct and life
(iii. 21 ; II. 4), is the sphere of the Spirit's work. His
work is, therefore, set in the closest connection witli
the work of Christ in the world, since in unseen but
effective ways he continues to intcrj)rct and apply his
ti'uth, and to make men feel the need and the blessing
of its possession.

Of the two terms descriptive of the Spirit which we
Ikivc reviewed, the former is more general, designating
him as our Ilelpei', but not describing the nature or
method of his help ; tlie latter is more specific, and

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 103

indicates the means by which his work for imni is
accomplished. ''Paraclete" is a legal term, and the
relations which it implies need to be understood in
the light of what is said of the Spirit of truth and of
the relation in which his ministry stands to the work
of Christ. But before entering further upon this
topic, it is necessary to discuss the question whether
the Spirit in John designates an impersonal principle
or a distinct personality.

Many scholars have called in question the current
view that by the Holy Spirit in our sources is meant
a self distinct from Christ, and have asserted that
under this term we must understand Christ himself
glorified into a spirit, or the s})iritual presence and
manifestation of Christ to his disciples after his
departure from earth. ^ The principal exegetical con-
siderations which are urged in supi)ort of this view
are the following : In close connection with the prom-
ise of the Spirit's coming, and as apparently identical
with it, Jesus mentions his own coming to his disci-
ples, " I will not leave you desolate {op<^avov^) : I
come to you " (xiv. 18). This promise, it is said,
must refer to his own spiritual presence with his
followers to the end of time ; " it follows that these
are not two distinct and different manifestations, but
that what is said of the Paraclete is a theological for-
mula by which the idea of the relation between Christ
and the believer is analyzed and changed into a liypos-

^ So Tholuck, Commentanj on John, ad loc. xiv. IG; Reuss,
Hist. Christ. TheoL, ii. 469 sq. (prig. ii. 52i sq.).

194 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

tasis " (Reuss). To the same purport is the assur-
ance that they shall soon see him again (xiv. 19 ; xvi.
1(3). Moreover, after his resurrection, Jesus, on one
occasion, breathed on his disciples and said : Receive
ye the Holy S})irit (xx. 22). This, it is said, was a
symbolic act in which Jesus conferred on them a
power from himself, a principle of spiritual life which
was derived from his own invisible presence with
them. The Spirit is identical with himself. Apj)eal
is also made to 1. ii. 27, 28, where "the anointing"
(^To ;(;/Jto-yu.a), that is, the bestowment of the Spirit, is
closely associated with Christ's own promised manifest-
ation. Before discussing the bearing of these pas-
sages upon our subject, let us review the exegetical
arguments which are presented in support of the view-
that the S[)irit is conceived of in the discourses of chap-
ters xiv.-xvi. as a personality distinct from Christ.

We direct attention, first, to those passages in
which the Holy Spirit is expressly distinguished
from Christ. He is described as dXko'i TrapaKXyro^,
" another Advocate " (xiv. 16). Christ was an Advo-
cate ; the Holy Spirit will be another, distinct from
Christ and supplying his place, as the term aXXo^,
which designates a distinction of persons, necessarily
implies. Again, it is said that the Father will send
the Holy Spirit in Christ's name, and that he will
bring to the remembrance of the disciples what Christ
has taught (xiv. 20). Here tlie Spirit is clearly dis-
tinguished from Christ. Similarly in xv. 26 Jesus
says that he will send the Paraclete from the Father,

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOEY SPIRIT 195

anil adds : " He shall bear witness of inc '' (Trept i/xov).
To tlie same effect is the repeated assertion that the
Spirit shall take of that which is Christ's — that is,
his truth — and shall declare it unto the disciples
(xvi. 14, 15). IIow could the distinction of personal-
ities be more clearly marked than by the juxtaposition
of the two emphatic pronouns which we oljservc in
this passage : eKecvo'i ifie So^daei, " Me shall he (the
Spirit) glorify " (xvi. 14). Even more explicitly, if
possible, does Jesus distinguish the Spirit from him-
self in the words, " It is expedient for you that I go
away : for if I go not away, the Paraclete will not
come unto you ; but if I go, I will send him unto
you" (xvi. 7).

Let us next observe the use of pronouns in connec-
tion with the passages just noticed. Since the word
irvev/xa is grammatically neuter, all pronominal desig-
nations of the Spirit which have Trvevfia for their
immediate antecedent must, of course, be neuter.
These words obviously have no bearing upon the
question of the personality of the Spirit.^ That which
is of especial importance in this connection is that as
soon as irvevfia ceases to be the immediate antecedent
of pronouns designating the Spirit, masculine forms

1 The ueuter relative o, which occurs three times with irvtvfia
for its antecedent (xiv. 17, 20 ; xv. 26), is rendered " whom " in
both our versions except in the last instance (xv. 26), where it
is rendered " which," no doubt to distinguish it fi'oni the imme-
diately preceding ov, which has 6 irapaKKrjTOi for its antecedent.
Similarly is aird rendered "him" in xiv. 17 where it occm-s
twice, referring to nvevixa.

196 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

are employed. In xiv. 26, for example, we read : to
TTvevfJia TO ajLov o 7re'/xi^€t 6 irarrjp ev tw ovo/xari fiov,
iK€Lvo<; vfxd^ BiBd^ei irdvra^ k. t. X. The force of the
change of pronouns may be exhibited in English thus :
" the Holy Spirit 2vhich (o) the Father will send in
my name, he {iK€lvo<;) shall teach you all things," etc.
The same usage is observed in xv. 26 : ro Trvevfxa
T?}9 a\r]6eca<i o irapa rod 7rarpo<; i/CTTopeveTai, eKelvo^
fiaprvp-qaei irepX ifiov, which we may render thus :
" the Spirit of truth, tvhich (o) proceedeth from the
Father, he (e/cetz/o?) shall bear witness of me." It is
obvious that, in John's usage, as soon as the necessity
of referring to the Spirit by neuter pronouns which
arises from the immediate antecedence of ro irvevixa, is
removed, he instinctively adopts masculine designa-
tions. Accordingly in all the passages where the
neuter word irvevixa is not used, we find the masculine
pronouns avro'i and ifcelvo^ employed (xvi. 7, 8, 13, 14).
In the first of these passages (xvi. 7, 8) the pronouns
avrov and eKelva (7refx,yfrco avrov Trpo? v/ia?. koI eXdcov
eKelvQi; iXey^ei, k. t. X.) have, indeed, the noun irapd-
KkrjTo^ for their antecedent, but in neither of the other
passages is the form of the pronoun influenced by a
masculine antecedent, and in one of them (xvi. 13)
iKelvo'i is used notwithstanding the apposition to it
of TO rrvevp-a (oTav he eXOrj iK€iV0<i, to irvevp-a t?)?
akrjdeiasi). It thus appears that John, when not ])re-
vented from so doing by the grammatical gender of
TTvevfxa, uniformly designates the Spirit by masculine
pronouns implying personality.

Tin: DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 197

What, now, docs John predicate of the Spirit to
whom he thus refers in personal terms ? To the
Spirit is ascribed speaking (\aX7]a€i, xvi. 13), teacli-
ing (3t8a|e£, xiv. 26), the announcing of future events
and the ])roclamation of the truth of Christ (avaj-
7e\et, xvi. 13, 14), Ihc guiding of the disciples into all
the trutli (of Christ) (oSrjjriaei v/j.d<i et? r^y aX^Oeiav
iraaav, xvi. 13), the bringing of the teachings of
Jesus to the recollection of the disciples {viroixvija-et,
K. T. X., xiv. 2(5), the glorification of Christ (eVetvo?
ifie Bo^cicrei, xvi. 14), the bearing of testimony con-
cerning Christ {fiapTvprjaei irepl ijuLov, xv. 26) which is
likened, by implication, to the testimony which his
disciples bear concerning him (xv. 27), and the con-
viction of the world concerning sin, righteousness, and
judgment (^iXey^ei, k. t. \., xvi. 8). To this series of
pei-sonal actions which are ascribed to the Spirit may
be added the references to his always being in fellow-
ship with the disciples (iva ^ fieO' v/xmv eh rov alcova,
xiv. 16), and to his abiding at their side for succor
(jrap" vp.lv p^evei)^ and within them (/cat iv vp.lv iari'v
xiv. 17) as a power and inspiration. We summarize,
then, the considerations which have been adduced in
proof of the personality of the Spirit : (1) the Spirit
is expressly distinguished from Christ ; (2) he is de-
scribed by personal designations ; and (3) to him is
ascribed a series of personal activities. We regard
these considerations as decisive upon the point now
at issue. Even Reuss admits that exegesis alone sus-
tains this conclusion. He thinks it inconsistent with

198 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

"practical logic," and therefore deems it necessary
to seek some explanation of the way in which John
was led into this inconsistency. He declares that
" the solution of the problem (as to the personality
of the Spirit) does not belong to exegesis." ^ As we
are here concerned primarily with the exegesis of the
text, while Reuss is chiefly concerned with an effort
to explain the alleged misconceptions which the text
presents, we may decline to follow this author on his
a jjriori road. He finds, however, in the text itself,
as we indicated on an earlier page (p. 193), traces of
the true, rational idea that the Spirit is " a power, a
manifestation, a quality." There are thus, in his
view, two inconsistent representations respecting the
nature of the Spirit. One of these accords with prac-
tical logic ; the other is a si^fCculative idea whose
motive is to be accounted for. Let us turn again to
the principal passages which present, in the judgment
of Reuss, the tenable view that the Spirit is an im-
personal force, and test their alleged inconsistency
with those which so clearly describe the Spirit as
personal.

We think there can be no doubt that the passages
which presuppose the distinct personality of the Spirit
are much more explicit than those which have been
supposed to imply the opposite idea. We might
therefore justly a})j)cal to these clearer and more
numerous passages as furnishing tlie norm for the
interpretation of those which are more vague and
1 Hist. Christ. Throi, ii. 472 (orig. ii. 527).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 199

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

Assuming, then, the correctness of the third inter-
pretation, does it involve any inconsistency between
this passage and the idea of the personality of the
Spirit? Since the Spirit comes, as we have seen, as

200 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 201

tation of xiv. 18 is, of course, determining for these
verses.^

Whatever view be taken of the meaning in detail
of the passage which describes Jesus as breathing on
his disciples and saying, " Receive ye the Holy
Spirit " (xx. 22), and of its relation to the scene at Pen-
tecost, it furnishes no just objection to the view that
between Christ and the Holy Spirit a distinction is
implied. Even if, as Reuss supposes,^ the scene pre-
sents a parallel to the narrative in Genesis (ii. 7)
which describes Jehovah as breathing into the nos-
trils of man the breath of life, it would by no means
necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit designates here
Christ's own spirit, subjectively considered, and is
undistinguishable from his own person. If the dis-
tinction is well founded upon other clear passages, it is
applicable here without violence to the passage.

* There is almost as much variation of opinion respecting
the coming referred to in xiv. 3, "I come again, and v/ill re-
ceive you unto myself," as in respect to the coming spoken of in
the later verses which we have just reviewed. Some refer it to
his spiritual personal presence (De Wette, Scholten, Keim) ;
some to the coming of the Paraclete (Liicke, Olshausen,
Xeander, Godet) ; others to the coming of Christ at the death
of his disciples (Reuss, Tholuck, Lange, Holtzmann) ; and still
others to the personal second advent of Christ (Frommann,
Ilofniann, Lechler, ^leyer, Weiss). This last interpretation
harmonizes best with the immediate context, which speaks of
Christ's going away to prepare a place for his disciples, and of
his taking them unto himself at his coming; only upon the
second of the views above mentioned could the passage have
any direct bearing upon our subject.

2 Hist. Christ. Theol., ii. 480 (orig. ii. 537).

202 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE DOCTRINP: of the holy SPHIIT 203

g:racc of the Spirit, is closely associated in idea with
abidinir in Christ, and with preparedness for his
parousia, but it is also to be noticed tliat the chrism
is said to have been received from Christ, and is not
identified with him. Tiierc is throughout the pas-
sage, as so commonly in the Epistle (cf., e. g.^ iii. 2, 3),
a use of pronouns which is grammatically ambiguous,
and an abrupt transition from one subject to another,
but tliore is no confusion of the Spirit with Christ.
Even if to xpta-fia (])ersonified) be regarded as the
subject of iSiSa^ev, there can be no doubt that the
following eV avray refers to Christ, and that he is the
subject of all that is said in the following verse (28).
We conclude that the close association of the gift and
work of the Spirit with the ideas of abiding in Christ
and of readiness for Christ's coming, can give no
ground whatever for denying or doubting the distinc-
tion between Christ and the Spirit which is elsewhere
80 explicitly affirmed. Reuss, indeed, candidly admits
that " literal exegesis pleads for the distinction of per-
sons," and that " speculative reason admits and sanc-
tions it; but (he adds) practical logic demurs."^ We
are here concerned with exegesis, and it is no pre-
sumption to maintain that the results of exegesis
must be abandoned, and an a priori method of dealing
with the subject must be adopted by him who would
call in question the personality of the Sjjirit.

Let us now turn from the question of the nature to
that of the mission and work of the Holy Spirit. For

1 Op. cit. ii. 478 (orig. ii. 534).

204 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

this purpose we must review several of the passages
already examined, but from a different point of view.
Three points require to be considered: (1) the rela-
tion of the Spirit to the historical work of Christ ;
(2) the work of the S])irit in believers; and (3) his
work in the unbelieving world.

Under the first head we notice that God sends the
Spirit in Christ's name (iv rw ovofxaTi /xov, xiv. 26).
The force of the expression will be a])prcciatcd by recall-
ing the significance of the " name " in the Hebrew mode
of thought. The name is the symbol of the nature,
essence, and import of the thing or person which it
represents. The name of Christ, therefore, stands
for that which Christ is; it is the symbol of his saving
life and power. When, then, the Spirit is said to be
sent in Christ's name, the meaning is that the sphere
of the Spirit's working is the same as that of Christ;
that the mission of the Spirit is a part of the redemp-
tive economy in which lie the whole purpose and
meaning of Christ's work. The work of the Spirit is
therefore inseparably linked to God's historic ac-
tion in the redemption of mankind through Christ.
" Christ's 'name ' — all, that is, which can be defined
as to his nature and his work — is the sphere in which
the Spirit acts ; and so little by little through the long
life of the Church the meaning of the primitive con-
fession ' Jesus is Lord ' (Rom. x. 9 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3)
is made more fully known." ^ " God sends the Spirit
in the name of Jesus, that is, so tliat what the name
^ Westcott, Commentanj, in loco-

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIIUT 205

of Christ 0()iui)rises in itself forms the splicrc in
wliieh the tliviiie th()ii,<i:ht, cuunsel, suul will lives."'
It is "this luune the complete saving knowledge of
which, its confession, influence, glorification, etc., is
to be brought about and advanced through the mission
of the Spirit, as, in general, all that God has done in
the carrying out of his rcdem])tivc counsel he has
done iv 'S.piaru) (Eph. i. 3 sy.)." ^

Of kindred significance are the assertions that the
Spirit shall bring to the remembrance of believers all
that Jesus had said to them (xiv. 26), that he shall
bear witness of the Saviour (xv. 26), guide the dis-
ciples into all the truth (xvi. 13) and glorify Christ by
taking of his and declaring it unto them (xvi. l-l, 15).
The operation of the Spirit is wholly in the line of
Christ's work on earth ; it belongs to the same sphere,
and contemplates the same ends. It represents a
stage of the redemptive process which lies beyond the
historic work of Christ ; it is the continued operation
of God's saving, redeeming love, interpreting, apply-
ing, and perfecting the work of the Saviour. The
Spirit's work is the invisible operation of those forces
and influences of divine grace which were revealed in
visible manifestation in the earthly life of Jesus. This
work, therefore, represents a carrying forward and
completion of God's redemptive purpose. Hence the
historic action of God in the work of Christ on earth
must come to its close and find its fulfilment in this
final stage of the great saving process. Such seems
^ Meyer, Commentary, in loco.

206 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

to V)e the import of the Saviour's "words: "It is ex-
]»c'(licnt for you that I go away : for if 1 go not away,
the Paraclete will not come unto you ; but if I go, I
"will send him unto you " (xvi, 7).

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

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPHIIT 207

cerniiig all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even
as it taught you, ye abide in him " (I. ii. 27).

These ])assagcs which connect the Spirit's work
with that of Christ involve to some extent the second
topic to be considered, — the work of the Sj)irit in
believers. This work is to foster the Christian life
in those wlio receive Christ. The principal terms
in which it is defined arc teaching (xiv. 26 ; I. ii. 27),
guidbvj into all the truth (xvi. 13), and hearing icitness
of Christ (XV. 26; I. v. 7). The faith of the first
believers was largely due to the visible presence of
Jesus with them. Because they saw and heard him
and witnessed his miracles, they were led to trust in
him. It was the purpose of Jesus that men should
be brought more and moi-e to ground their faith, not
upon signs or miracles or the impression made by his
visil)le presence, but upon that which he taught and
was. Those who believed on him because they beheld
the signs which he did, Jesus himself did not confi-
dently trust (ii. 23-25). It was necessary that the
faith of men be founded upon deeper and more endur-
ing reasons. Only the experience of the joy and rich-
ness of the new spiritual life, only the certainty
which the living fellowship with God imparts, can
supply an immovable foundation for faith. Hence
Jesus said to Thomas : " Because thou hast seen me
thou hast believed : ])lessed are they that have not
seen, and yet have believed " (xx. 29).

We are to read the statements concerning the work
of the Sjiirit in the light of these ideas. Certain

208 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

defects in the faith of the disciples were connected
with their inborn prejudices and misunderstandings,
and even with their attachment to his own person.
Faith must become larger, deeper, more spiritual.
It must rest upon more adequate grounds. It must
be fortified by richer experience. It must penetrate
beneath the surface of Christ's person, to his very
heart, and must draw its life from his own inmost,
divine life. This could only happen by his departing
from them. For this reason, he said, his departure
was expedient, for if he went not away the Paraclete
would not come to them (xvi. 7). He seems to mean
that while he is present with them, a veil of sense
hangs before their eyes and prevents them from seeing
the deepest things of his gospel. ^ Only under the
guidance of the Spirit can they live their way into an
appreciation of these. Under this guidance his truth
shall open to them its hidden depths ; it shall disclose
its inner meanings ; it shall assert in their lives its
inherent power. Their traditional prejudices shall
gradually give way; their failures to comprehend his
mission and to learn the nature of his kingdom shall
be overcome ; they shall cease to know Christ after
the flesh. The narrow limitations which their Jewish
training led them to set to his work shall be broken

1 " So long as he continued witli them, they lived by siglit,
rather than by faith; and sight disturbs faith, and shakes it,
and weakens it. Sight, as belonging to the world of sense, par-
takes its frailties and imperfections. To put forth all its power,
faith must be purely and wholly faith." — Hake : The Mission
of the Comforter, p. 140.

TIIK DOCTRINE OF TIIK Unr.V SI'IItlT 209

dowu and the world-wide significance of his mission
and kingdom shall appear.

The whole history of the apostolic age is an illus-
tration and fullilment of the promise of Jesus con-
cerning the work of the Spirit. The slow but certain
process by which his truth and kingdom burst the
Itonds of Jewish particularism and asserted their
universal significance and destination ; the gradual
enlightenment of the minds of the apostles whereby
they were led to see that God is no respecter of per-
sons ; the providential opening of the door of faith to
the Gentiles ; and the matchless missionary career of
that champion of a universal gospel, the apostle Paul,
— are proofs of the Spirit's presence and power in
guiding the disciples into all Christ's truth and in
revealing to them its true import for themselves
and for the world.

No less marked was the work of the Spirit in deep-
ening the personal lives of those men. How many
illustrations do the gospels give us of the utter failure
and inability of the first disciples to understand their
Master's words. " Are ye so without understanding
also?" (Mark vii. 18) was his sorrowful rejoinder to
them when they asked the meaning of one of his
plainest lessons. When he portrayed the nature of
his kingship John tells us that his disciples did not
understand his meaning (xii. 16), and he himself
asserted that he had many things to tell them which
as yet they could not bear (xvi. 12). The author of
the writings which we are studying is a striking

210 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

illustration of the Spirit's influence in deepening the
first disciples' understanding of the person and truth
of Jesus. Like the others he at first looked for an
earthly kingdom, to be founded and extended by force
(Luke ix. 54) ; his views of the aim of the gospel
were as inadequate as those of his associates ; his
appreciation of his Master's spiritual truth was as
defective. Yet it was he who gave us that interpre-
tation of the gospel which has been aptly called " the
heart of Christ." No other mind has risen to con-
ceptions so broad, so lofty, and so purely spiritual
concerning the great themes of religion. His con-
ception of God's nature is the sublimcst which the
New Testament anywhere presents ; his insight into
the depths of Jesus' person and teaching is the pro-
foundest ; and to his thought the gospel is as wide
and all-embracing as the needs of man and as the
love of God which gave it birth. It is utter folly to
attempt to explain the matchless splendor of these
conceptions apart from the working of that i)romised
Spirit which unsealed the heavenly secrets of Ciirist
to the mind of his beloved disciple.^

Our third and final topic is the relation of the Holy
Spirit to the unbelieving world. This relation is most
fully set forth in xvi. 8-11 : " And he (the Paraclete),
when he is come, will convict the world in res])ect of

1 Fitly, therefore, did the inedioeval cliurch, in its effort to
express this heavenward flight of the apostle's spirit, adopt as
his symbol the eagle soaring against the sun. This conception
finds expression in the noble hymn, conunoiily attributed to

THE DOrTUlXK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 211

sin, and of righteousness, and oi' juduincnt : of sin,
because they believe not on me ; of righteousness,
because I go to the Father, and yc behold me no
more ; of judgment, because the prinCe of this world
hath been judged." Several particular points con-
nected with the passage require brief mention before
its import as a whole is considered. The wordeX.e7^ei
should be rendered ivill convince or convict (R. Y.),
instead of ivill reprove (A. Y.), which is too weak a
translation. The term is a legal one. The Spirit is
represented as having a controversy, so to speak, with
the world respecting sin, righteousness, and judgment ;
and the Spirit asserts and maintains his true view
as against the world's false view. The Spirit sets
the world clearly in the wrong, that is, convinces it
in respect to the matters of difference, and pronounces
the world's guilt in consequence, that is, convicts it.
Both the ideas of convincing and convicting are, no
doubt, involved in iXey^ei, but I am of opinion that
the condemnatory idea expressed by convict is rather
secondary than primary, and that ivill convince is the
best available English translation.

The rendering of the preposition Trept by " of "

Adam of St. Victor, a stanza of which we here quote in the
original and in Dr. Washburn's translation : —

Volat avis siua meta Bird of God ! with bouudless flight

Quo nee vates nee propheta Soariug far beyond the height

Evolavit altiiis ; Of the bard or prophet old ;

Tarn implenda, tarn impleta, Truth fulfilled, and truth to be, —

Nunquani vidit tot secreta Never purer mystery

Purus homo purius. Did a purer tongue unfold.

212 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

in the A. V. did much to obscure the sense of the
passage. The meaning is not merely that the Spirit
will, in general, convince the world of its sin, of the
true righteousness, etc., but that in respect to the
matter of sin, etc., the Spirit will work a certain spe-
cial conviction by certain special means. The on
clauses of verses 9-11 explain the special manner or
means of the convincing in respect to sin, righteous-
ness, and judgment. Some interpreters assign to 6tc in
these clauses a simple causal meaning, and connect
them with the verb iXey^ei, and thus the sense would
be (to take one example) : He will convince the
world concerning sin because of its unbelief. Others
make oti mean so far as, and treat the otl clauses
as more exact definitions of the preceding nouns
(^dfjiapTia<;, k. t. X.) ; for example : He will convince
the world concerning sin in so far as they do not
believe on me. The former is simpler and more nat-
ural, and I shall proceed upon that view of their force.
While there are scarcely any generic differences
among critical interpreters in regard to the meaning
of this passage, there are considerable variations in
respect to emphasis and to the scope of its terms.
Speaking very generally we may say that there is a
narrower, and a broader view of its meaning. The
narrower view holds the terms of the passage in close
relation to the person of Jesus. It is the specific
sin of rejecting him of which the Spirit convinces
the world ; it is his personal righteousness which the
Spirit vindicates ; it is as the enemy of his work and

THE DOCTRINE OF TIIK HOLY SPIRIT 213

kin<;(l(»m tljat the Spirit proves Satan to have been
judged. This mode of treating the passage, which
Hmits the terms more closely, is illustrated in the
comments of Meyer and Weiss. This view of the
passage is certainly just as against those loose and
vague interpretations which explain " sin," " right-
eousness " and " judgment " almost without reference
to the special explanatory statements of verses 9-11.
The older theologians, for example, explained " sin "
as sin in general as a condition of condemnation,
and " righteousness," as justification by faith, or even
as imputed righteousness. But without falling into
these inaccuracies, many interpreters, like Godet and
Westcott, assign a larger sense to the terms than that
which we have just described. My judgment is that
strict exegesis requires ns to adhere to the more
specific reference of the words, but we do not thereby
limit the wider ranges of truth which they suggest
and involve.^ The meaning of the passage, taking its
three snl)jects in order, seems to be : The sinful world
rejects Christ ; in this it is contrary to truth and right.
The Spirit in his work will take up the cause of truth
and right, and set the world clearly in the wrong in
this matter of refusing to believe on Christ. The
Spirit will prove the world to be in the wrong in this
matter, just because it is in the wrong ; that is, the
Spirit will take the world in its wrong attitude

1 The larger bearings of the passage, without carelessness
of exegesis, are admirably set forth in Hare's Mission of the
Comforter.

214 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

toward Christ and show it that it is wrong ; the Spirit
will disclose to the world the real nature of its oppo-
sition to Christ as sin. The passage treats, in this
part of it, primarily and directly of the sin of reject-
ing Christ and his mission, and of the fact that the
Spirit will convince the world that in so rejecting
him it was in the wrong, and will convict it of its
guilt in consequence. By analogy, however, the pas-
sage may be ai)plied to the relation of unbelief to sin
in general, as by Westcott : " The want of belief in
Christ, when he is made known, lies at the root of all
sin, and reveals its nature. . . . The Spirit therefore
starts from the fact of unbelief in the Son of Man, and
through that lays open what sin is." ^

The second proposition of the passage is more diffi-
cult : The Spirit will convince the world concerning
righteousness, because Jesus is going to the Father,
and the disciples will see him no more. If the sin
which the previous indictment contemplates is pri-
marily the sin of rejecting Christ, the righteousness in
question here is probably the righteousness of Christ.
The world has deemed him unrighteous, and has put
him to death as such. The Spirit will j)rove that he
was righteous, and will put the world in the wrong.
This the Spirit will do by appeal to Christ's ascension
and glorification. The withdrawal of his visible pres-
ence from them is the condition of the Spirit's com-
ing and work (xvi. 7), and the ascension to heaven
is the perfect vindication of his mission. These
^ Commentary, hi loco.

THE DOCTRINE OF rilK IIOI.V SI'IIII'I' 'Jl")

facts the Spirit can, as we may say, urge against
the world's view of Clirist's cliaiactcr. When tlic
Father takes him to his side, and when the hindrances

— siieh as prejudice, disappointment, and personal
antipathy — to a just appreciation of him which liavc
been incidental to his visible presence among them
are withdrawn, then it will appear that the world
misjudged him. If the strict demands of exegesis
yield this more limited sense of the words, it is not
thereby denied that they suggest, and are legitimately
applied to, the true idea of righteousness as repre-
sented in the life of Jesus. This apj)lication of them
is made by President Dwight : " The Spirit, while
laying hold upon and pressing the fact that Christ
goes away to the Father, so that he is seen no more,

— that is, the great consummation of his work in the
ascension to heaven, — will convince the world of his
idea of righteousness : that righteousness consists in
the union of the heart with God, the entrance to
which is through faith." ^

The third element in the conviction of the world
by the Spirit is in respect to judgment. The Spirit
will prove to the world that its princj stands con-
demned (/ce'/cptrat). This result is viewed as already
accoraj)lished when Jesus spoke. The work of Jesus
is the victory over Satan. " Now," he says as he
contemplates its completion, "now is the judgment
of this world : now shall the prince of this world be

^ Notes added to the American edition of Godet's Commen-
tary, ii. 514.

216 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

cast out" (xii. 31). The finished work of Jesus in-
volves the final sentence of him in whom the spirit of
opposition to himself is concentrated ; the Spirit will
affirm and justify that sentence and so in the matter
of judgment convince the world.

In what manner is this worlv of the Spirit effected ?
Is it by his direct operation upon the hearts of un-
believing men, or indirectly, through the testimony
and teaching of believers ? The indications point to
the latter as the method which the passage contem-
plates. The work of the Spirit in question is de-
scribed in immediate connection with the statement
that he will be sent to the disciples (tt/so? vyua?,
verse 7). The phrase: "When he is come" (eXdcov)
in verse 8 clearly refers back to the coming to the
disciples (iXevaerai') spoken of in verse 7. The
specific conviction of the world which our passage
describes is wrought through the instrumentality of
the disciples in whom the Spirit dwells. The illus-
tration or proof of it which lies nearest at hand is
found in the successful preaching of the apostles.
Nothing is here said as to how far the world will
acknowledge itself to be in the wrong respecting sin,
righteousness, and judgment. According as it does or
does not acknowledge the truth of the Spirit's indict-
ment against it, is the way open to faith and conver-
sion, or to increased unbelief and moi-al hardening.
In understanding, with most interpreters, that the
conviction of the world in question is conceived of as
wrought mediately through boli(!vers, wc in no way

THE DOCTRIXE OF THE HOLY SPFRIT 217

call in question the universal operation of the Holy
Spirit upon mankind ; especially is this the case if the
more specific interpretation of the Spirit's eX.e7|t<? be
adopted. The considerations which favor the view
of the Spirit's work here described, as mediated
through believers, are favorable to the more specific
reference of the passage as a whole.

CHAPTER IX

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION

Literature. — Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theoi, Of Faith, ii. 455-
46S (orig. ii. 508-524); Weiss: Johann. Lehrb., Der Begriff des
Glaubens, pp. 18-28, and Bihl. TheoL, Faith and Fellowship
with Christ, ii. 363-370 (orig. 626-632); Wendt : Teacliing oj
Jesus, Faith in Jesus according to the Johannine Discourses,
ii. 329-339 (orig. 595-602); Fuommaxn: Johann. Lehrh., Aneig-
nung des Heils, u. s. w., p. 548 sq., especially pp. 551-563;
Beyschlag : Neutest. TheoL, Der Glaube, u. s. w., ii. 447-4.52;
Neander : Planting and Training, Faith as the Principle of a
New Life, ii. 41-47 (Bohu ed.).

Salvation is appropriated by faith. We accordingly
turn to a study of its nature and contents. The word
faith (ttiWi?) does not occur in the Fourth Gospel,
and is found only once in the Epistles (I. v. 4). The
verb to believe {wLaTevetv') is, however, one of the com-
monest words in our sources, occurring more than
one hundred times. There is no lack of emjihasis,
therefore, upon the idea of faith in John's writings.

We shall soon see that the conception of faith is
not so uniform and definite in John as in Paul and
the Epistle to the Hebrews. I do not think that any
definition of faith could V)e framed which would ade-
quately cover all the shades of meaning and vai'iely

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 219

of cin])liasis in which Jolin employs the word. It
naturally results from this variation in nsnj^e that
intcrj)rcters dilVcr considerably in their judgment as
to the central and characteristic idea in Joiin's doc-
trine of faith. It will be our first task to illustrate
this variety by studying the uses of the terms in
question.

There are numerous passages in which Triareveiv is
used in the sense of believing that a thing is true.
It is assent to a pro})osition, a FUrivahrhaJtrn. Thus
the aj)Ostle states that his aim in writing the Gospel
was that his readers might '• believe that Jesus was
the Christ, the Son of God," although he immediately
carries us beyond the idea of mere theoretic assent
by adding : " and that believing ye may have life in
his name '' ( xx. 31). In the First Epistle, where the
writer is refuting and condemning that false gnosis
which denied the true incarnation and saving work
of the Son of God, he represents faith as the oppo-
site of this denial : " Whosoever believeth that
Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God" (I. v. 1).
This belief is the "confession" (ii. 22; iv. 15) of
Jesus as the Son of God in contrast to the anti-
christian spirit of denial. In this connection, there-
fore, faith is an aflirmation. Similarly in xi. 27
Martha asserts her faith in the words : " I have be-
lieved that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, even
he that cometh into the world ; " and in his high-
priestly prayer Jesus asks that his disciples may be
one, in order that the world may believe that the

220 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

Father sent him (xvii. 21). We can only justly esti-
mate the full religious significance and contents of
this assent to Jesus' sonshij3 to God and mission to
the world after we have passed in review other classes
of passages.

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

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION' 221

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

222 THE JOIIAXNINE THEOLOGY

did not yield his confidence to them (avTb<i 8e 'Irja-oO^
ovK iiriarevev avrov avroU, ii. 23, 24). Why ? Because
the greatest clement of their belief was mere wonder
at his miracles. Their faith was based upon no
proper appreciation of his person and work. It was
wanting, therefore, in real spiritual power ; it rested
upon deficient grounds, and was itself correspondingly
defective. The point which the apostle emphasizes
by the play on the word Triarevecv may be partially
brought out by rendering : They believed on him, but
he did not believe in them, for lie knew the real super-
ficiality of their professed faith.

A gradation in the quality of faith corresponding
to the character of its grounds, is recognized in the
narrative concerning the belief of the Samaritan
woman and her neighbors (iv. 39-42). Many of her
acquaintances " believed on him" on the basis of her
statement respecting the supernatural knowledge of
her life which he had shown. But when they after-
wards, during two days, heard Jesus liimself, they
said to the woman, " No longer (omen) do we believe
because of thy speaking (XaXid) : for we have our-
selves heard, and know that this is indeed the Saviour
of the world" (iv. 42). The difference between a
confidence which rested upon tlie testimony of another
and a faith whicli was won from personal contact
with Jesus, is here sharply emphasized. Nor would
it be merely prophetic or supernatr.ral knowledge
which those with whom he abode two days would find
in him. This associa(i(»ii would iiicNilablv I'Mve them

Tin: Ari'ROPUIATlON OK SALVA'I'ION 223

some larger idea of his work and mission, some fuller
appreciation of his personality and spirit.

A striking- illustration of the fact that John pre-
supposes a develojtment of faith which proceeds in
))roportion as faith finds its truest and deepest grcjunds,
is seen where Jesus cxi)lains to the Jews his mission
and work, and chides them for their hostility to him-
self (viii. 12-30). " As he spake these things," says
the apostle, " many believed on him " (viii. 30). But
what was the nature of this faith ? The following
verses make the answer clear : '• Jesus therefore said
to those Jews which had believed him. If ye abide in
my word, then are ye truly my disciples ; and ye shall
know the truth, and the truth shall make you free "
(viii. 31, 32). Theirs certainly was a faith which was
but superficial and rudimentary ; it was the result of
a passing impression and interest. It was scarcely
more than a germ of real, enduring, saving faith.
Jesus did not therefore regard it as fntZy making them
his disciples, nor as yet involving the knowledge of
the truth and securing the freedom which the truth
bestows ; this it could do only if it was completed by
a continuance in his word, that is, by a thorough-
going reception of his truth, and by a life which
answered to its demands.

From those in whom the capacity for this higher
and completer faith is wanting, Jesus seeks to call
forth the lower kind of faith, for the lower contains
the germ of the higher, and is capable of I'ipening into
it. The expectation (jf the Jewish people that a very

224 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

A concrete example which illustrates a similar dis-
tinction is found in the narrative concerning the
transition of Thomas fiom doubt to belief in regard to
the reality of the Lord's appearance after the resur-

THE ArPROPRIATION-OF SALVATFOX 225

rection (xx. 24-29). Thomas demanded tanj^ible
evidence before he wonld believe. Jesus made this
demand the occasion of laying down the great general
truth, " Because thou hast seen me thou hast be-
lieved : blessed are they that have not seen and yet
have believed'' (verse 29). This is the beatitude of
those who have never seen Christ in the flesh. A
special blessing is pronounced for those who believe,
thougli not having seen, because their faith must rest
upon deeper reasons than any which can offer them-
selves to the senses. Such faith springs from a sense
of spiritual need and from the recognition of the
adaptation of Christ to satisfy it. It rests, therefore,
upon grounds which lie deep in human nature, and
has its motive in the clear recognition of Christ as
the bread of life to the soul. A true faith thus finds
itself embracing more and more that which is central
in the life and person of Jesus, and depending less
and less upon whatever is incidental or extraneous.
.Such faith rises into the heavens and finds its home
in the very heart of Christ. Its true sphere is the
sphere of the spirit. Though it may once have known
Christ after the flesh, yet as it grows and deepens, it
at last knows him so no more (2 Cor. v. 16). ^

1 The distinction which we are tracing in the Fourth Gospel
between outer and inner, or sensuous and spiritual, aids to faith,
Mr. Whittier has beautifully illustrated in his poem Palestine,
the closing stanzas of which I quote : —

"And what if my feet may not tread where He stoud,
Nor my ears hear the dashing of Galilee's Hood,
15

226 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

To these illustrations of the gradual enlarging and
deepening of faith may be added, in conclusion, an
example which is presented quite incidentally. At
the miracle in Cana of Galilee in which Jesus " mani-
fested his glory," it is said that " his disci})les believed
on him " (ii. 11), — that is, entered upon a new stage
of faith as they gained new assurance of his divine
power and glory.

A common construction with inarevetv is the prepo-
sition et9 followed by the object of faith, God, Christ,
or the name of Christ. Thus in xiv. 1: " Ye believe
in God (et? tov Oeou), believe also in me" (ei? ifj-e).
The preposition designates the act and disposition
denoted by Tnareveiv as terminating upon its object
(i. 12; iii. 16, 18, 86; vi. 40; xii. 44). We shall
have occasion later to discuss the question, what is
the nature of the relation expressed by the phrase
7n<TT€V€ip et?. Meantime let us note in passing the
connections in which several of these passages stand.
In i. 12 those who " received {eXa/3ov) him " (the
Word) or " believe on his name" are they to whom the

Nor my eyes see the cross which He bowed him to bear,
Nor my kuees press Gethsemane's garden of prayer ?

" Yet, Loved of tlie Father, thy Spirit is near
To the meek, aud the lowly, and penitent here ;
And tiie voice of thy love is the same even now
As at Bethany's tomb or on Olivet's brow.

"O, the outward hath gone ! — l)nt in glory and power,
The S/iirit survivetli tlic things of an hour;
Unclianged, undccaying, its rcntecost flame
On the heart's secrel altar is Inirning tiic same!"

TIIK APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 227

light (i^ouaia) has been given " to become children of
God." Here, evidently, faith in Christ, or the recep-
tion of him, and sonship to God are involved in
each other. In iii. 36 the result of believing on the
Son is declared to be eternal life, and it is im-
plied that faith involves obedience, since the contrast
to '' lie that believcth " is " lie that obeyeth not."

In the discourse on the Bread of Life faith is several
times referred to, as in vi. 35 : " Jesus said unto them,
I am the bread of life : he that comcth to me shall
not hunger, and he that bclievetli on me shall never
thirst." Here, believing on him and coming to him
are identical, and both phrases are equivalent to the
eating of the bread of life, as both the context {cf.
verses 33, 50, 51) and the use of the figurative terms
" hunger " and " thirst " in the verse itself show. In
verse 40 believing on the Son is associated with be-
holding him, and its result is declared to be eternal
life ; while in verse 47 believing is clearly equivalent
to coming to him {cf. verse 45), and is said to be the
result of having heard and learned from the Father. In
xii. 44-46 Ijelief on Christ is affirmed to involve belief
on God. This faith in him who is " come a light into
the world" secures for its possessor the result that he
d(jes not walk in darkness. It will be necessary to
recur to these ideas with which faith is associated, in a
closer consideration of the nature of faith, to which
our review of passages will conduct us.

In several i)assages iriaTeveii' stands without an
object and without any expressed or implied explana-

228 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

tion (^e. g.\.l\ iii. 12), In these cases it is obvious
that it denotes the right religious attitude or disposi-
tion of the soul toward Christ. Eternal life is said
to be its consequence : " He that believeth hath eter-
nal life " (vi. 47, cf. iii. 15). This believing is con-
ceived of as identical with that possession of Christ
which is mentioned in the First Epistle, whose result
is also " the life " (jq ^w??), that is, the true, eternal
life : " He that hath the Son hath the life ; he that
hath not the Son of God hath not the life" (I. v. 12).
The fact, too, that the consequence of faith is the
present possession of eternal life — " hath (e;)^et) eter-
nal life " ■ — is not to be overlooked in considering the
nature of faith. In John's view faith is certainly
used in a sense sufficiently comprehensive to include
all that man can do, or is required to do, in appro-
priating the salvation which is offered in Christ.
When, therefore, the disciples asked Jesus what they
must do that they might work the works of God, his
answer was : " This is the work of God," — the sum
of God's requirement, — "that ye believe" (note the
present, Xva 'inarevr]Te, "continue to believe;" cf.
the aorist, iW Tna-revaTjre, xiii. 19) " on him whom
he hath sent" (vi. 28, 29).

Our review of the principal passages which bear
upon the subject gives rise to the general inquiry as
to the nature and contents of Christian faith as pre-
sented in our sources. The ojnnion of Weiss on this
question is that faith in John's writings is the per-
suasion that Jesus is what he claims to be, the con-

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 220

fession that he is the Christ or the Sun of God. This
author rejects the view that the notion of mystical
union with Christ is any jjart of the Johannine idea
of faith. " The confident persuasion that Jesus is the
Son of God " is faith.^ The result is that faith is
rcjrarded as a stage of knowledge, and we have al-
ready seen (pp. Q6, 67) that Weiss seeks to exclude
from the knowledge of God and of Christ every
touch of mysticism. Our author, therefore, makes
a sharj) distinction between faith in Christ and being
in Christ. " Abiding in Christ is not faith, but it
presupposes faith. This abiding is the personal sur-
render to him in which the new relation to Christ
which faitli has brought about is continually com-
pleted anew with conscious self-determination." ^ It
is obvious that faith is thus conceived as the subjec-
tive condition of abiding in Christ, or the condition
precedent of the religious life, rather than as the
actual entrance into that spiritual relation to the
Redeemer. Union with Christ is a result of faith,
tjuite distinct from it and following upon it both
logically and chronologically. Faith is an intellec-
tual assent to the claims of Jesus, a mental afhrma-
tion of the ])roposition : lie is the Messiah or the
Son of God.

It is a matter of si^nc interest that on this point
Weiss coincides with the school of Ritschl, to whose
opinions in general he is so strenuously opposed.

1 Bibl. Tlieoi, § 149 a, note 2. Cf. Johann. Lehrbegriff, p. 19 sq.

2 Bihl. Theol, § 149 c.

230 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

^ Teaching of Jesus, ii. 331 (orig. p. 597).
2 Ibid., ii. 335 (orig. pp. 599, 600).

THE APPROPRIATIOX OF SALVATION 231

not only excluded from faith, but it is banished alto-
<rethcr from Christianity ; it docs not even remain as
a result of faith, distinct and gencrically different
from it, as in the opiniim of "Weiss.

For purposes of comparison let us now set beside
these anti-mystical expositions of faith in John, some
examples of another mode of view. For Neander,
faith is, with John as with Paul, self-surrender to
Chi'ist and entrance into communion with him. " By
this faith entrance is made into fellowship with the
Redeemer, and at the same time a ])articipation
obtained in his divine life. . . . According to
John's conception, it is impossible to separate either
faith or knowledge from the life." ^ The definition
of Frommann is of similar import : " Faith presup-
poses the knowledge of Christ, and is a necessary con-
sequence of It. But according to its inner nature
faith is an inward, humble trust in the saving love of
God which is revealed in Christ, and must accord-
ingly express itself in a trustful obedience to the
Redeemer, and in the life and conduct of men." ^

Beyschlag has taken up this question with special
reference to the opinions of Weiss.^ He maintains
that in the Johannine applications of the idea of faith
the two sides, conviction and confidence or trust, are

separably bound together, and that the recent opin-
ion as held by Weiss (" If I rightly understand him,"

^ Planting and Training, ii. 42, 43 (Bohn ed.).
"^ Johann. Lehrbegrijf, p. 557.
8 Neutest. Theol, ii. 447-449.

232 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

adds Beyschlag in a note) that in distinction from
Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews, John means by
faith only the conviction of the truth of the fact that
Jesus is the Christ, but not trust (das Vertrauen)
in God's love in Christ, is as incorrect as possible
(moglichst verfehlt). "The full Johannine idea of
faith is, the laying hold and appropriation of eternal
life, which God offers in Jesus." ^

Our review of the leading passages which speak of
faith in the writings of John has already shown to
which of these expositions we must give our adher-
ence. The opinion of Weiss may be maintained in
its application to some passages, but it cannot be
made to square with others. When in the First
Epistle John is contrasting faith with the spirit of
antichristian denial, it is no doubt assent to the Mcs-
siahship and divine sonship of Jesus which he means
by faith, although it can be shown that, in the nature
of the case, faith, in that connection, also involves
much besides. But to make the passages which
speak of faith in {jnareveLv ek) Christ or in his name,
and especially when they are associated with the idea
of receiving him, appropriating him as the heavenly
bread, or as involving the present possession of
eternal life, — to make these passages, I say, refer only
to a conviction of Jesus' sonship to God, is little less
than preposterous. Wlio can believe that when Jesus
said, "Ye believe in God, believe also in me " (xiv. 1)
he meant, " You believe that God exists, believe also

1 Neutest. TheoL, ii. 449.

Tin: APPROPRIATION OF SALVAIIOX 233

that I am the Christ " ? To Ix-lievc is to have the
Son (1. V. 12) ; it is to receive Jesus Christ (i. 12, 13) ;
it is to come to the Sou (vi. 35) ; it is to enter into
the possession of eternal life (vi. 47). It is im-
possihle that such functions and effects should he
ascrihed to any faith which is not in its very nature
a trustful surrender of the soul to Christ, a self-re-
nouncing acceptance of his person, and an entrance
into life-fellowship with him.

It is true, as our examination of the passages has
shown, that there is recognized in John an incipient
or rudimentary faith which, in certain specified cases,
amounted to little more than an intellectual convic-
tion. Such was the "faith" of those who were won
by miracles only, to whom Jesus would not trust
liiraself (ii. 23, 24); such was the "faith" of the
Samaritans, who believed from hearsay that Jesus
had supernatural knowledge (iv, 39). But it is easy
to see that this sort of " faith " is represented in the
gospel as inadequate. Eternal life is never said to
be the effect or reward of such faith. True faith, the
believing reception of Christ as Saviour, is clearly dis-
tinguished from this mere belief or opinion. Where
the true nature of faith is set forth, it is seen to in-
volve the constitution of a new spiritual relation to
Christ.

If the question be considered abstractly rather than
exegetically, the view of Weiss does not commend
itself. There lies in the very nature of the objects of
faith a reason for maintaining that faith is no mere

234 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THP: APrROPRIATIOX OF SALVATION 235

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

It remains to define more particularly the various
grounds of testimony or evidence upon which Christ-
ian faith is represented in the Johannine writings as
resting. Three sources of testimony are recognized
which are adapted tu awaken faith. The first is the

236 TiiK JoiiAXXiXE theoloi;y

word of human witnesses. John the Baptist is said
to have come " for witness, that he might bear witness
of the hght, that all might believe through him "
(^i. 7\ ^ that is, through John's testimony. Here the
believing reception of the light of the Logos is re-
garded as mediated through the witness-bearing of
John. This testimony consisted in John's asserting
the pre-eminence and pre-exisionoe of Jesus (^i. 15),
and the fact of the Spirit's descent upon him at his
baptism (i. 32). which he witnessed, and on the basis
of which he declares that Jesus is the Son of God
(i. 84).

The second source of evidence is Jesus' own testi-
mony concerning himself. His teaching springs from
his direct, intimate knowledge of the thing's of God,
and bears in itself the marks of a divine origin for
those who can perceive its true meaning and charac-
ter (iii. 11, of. verses 20. 21V The Son penetrates the
depths of the Father's will and working, and his whole
mission of teaching and labor is a revelation of the
Father's nature (v. 19-21). Only the Son who is in
the bosom of the Father can adequately reveal him
(i. 18; vi. 46). and this revelation carries its own
attestation ; those who liave an affinity of mind for
divine things believingly accept it and come to Christ
(vi. 45).

But chief emphasis is laid on the testimony of God
to the truth of the claims made by Jesus. Of him-
self, that is. apart from God. Jesus does nothing,
llis witness of himself is not an isolated self-witness.

Tin: APPROPUIATIOX OF SALVATION '23 1

The evidence which attests liis cUiims is primarily
divine. John, indeed, testified to his Messiahship, but
he does not rest his case upon human testimony.
His miracles also attest his divine mission, but only
because they are the works which the Father gave
him to accomplish. All testimony is secondary to
that which God himself gives. Human attestation,
his own self-witness, and the evidence of miracles are
all grounded in the fact that God has set his seal
upon him as the true Messiah and Saviour. Other
testimony is valuable only as it accords with and
reflects the direct testimony given by the Father.
This testimony God has already given in the Old
Testamoit. and the force of it appears to all who can
discern the true import of Sacred Scripture in the
correspondence between the person and work of Jesus
and the prophetic Messianic ideal. The Jews fail to
appreciate and receive this testimony because they
search the Scriptures to so little purpose. Their
spiritual blindness, their seltish wilfulness, their lack
of love to God, their vainglorious spirit, — these are
the reasons why they do not receive God's testimony
concerning the Messiah and accept him (^v. 30-47 ;
cf. xii. 41-43).

Jesus makes his appeal to the minds and hearts
of men on the ground that the Father dwells in him
and speaks through him (xiv. 9, 10). He oft'ers him-
self to men on the assumption that those who have
the capacity and disposition to perceive God revealing
himself in him will do so, and will take a practical

238 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

attitude towards him which corresponds to this per-
ception. He is, indeed, attested by works which none
who came not from God could do. This s])ecies of
testimon}^ John sums up in the First Epistle in stating
the three-fold witness which God has borne to Jesus :
" There are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and
the water, and the blood : and the three agree in one"
(I. V. 8). The bestowment of the Spirit, his Messi-
anic consecration at his baptism, and his redemptive
sufferings and death, sum up into themselves the tes-
timony by which his mission is attested. They stand
out as prominent and significant features of the incar-
nation. The work of the Saviour is authenticated not
only by the significance and attending circumstances
of his baptism, which proved him to be the true
Messiah and the incarnate Son of God (as the Docetic
errorists whom the apostle is confuting would them-
selves admit), but also by his sacrificial death, and by
the pouring out of the Spirit upon the early Church,
both of which bear the evidence in themselves of
divine saving deeds.^ In close connection with this

' T have given wliat seems to me to be the ]irobable meaning
ol' this passage. There are, however, many (littering interpreta-
tions. By some "the Spirit" is understood to mean the Spirit
which descended upon him at his baptism, and by others is in-
terpreted subjectively of Christ's own spirit. " \Vater and
blood " are sometimes referred to the water and blood wliicli
issued from Christ's side at the crucifixion (xix. 34), but are
more commonly supposed to designate the sacraments. A ma-
jority of interi)n'ters could probably be cited for the view which
T have embodied in the text.

THE APPROPRIATION OF SALVATION 239

objective testimony on which faith is foiinded, is the
inner experience which corresponds to it. The ex-
ternal becomes internal, so that " he that believeth on
the Son of God hath the witness in him," " and the
witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life,
and this life is in his Son" (I. v. 10, 11).

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

240 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

CHAPTER X

THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE

Literature. — Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Christus das Lebeu, und
das Leben in Chri-sto, pp. 29—11, Das Sein in Christo, u. s. w.,
pp. 68-85, and Die Geburt aus Gott, u. s. w., pp. 86-100; Bill.
Theol., Fellowship with God and Sonship with God, ii. 371-376
(orig. 633-637) ; Westcott : The Epistles of St. John, Divine
Fellowship, pp. 174,175; Baur: Neutest. Theol., Die Lehre und
die Reden Jesu, u. s. w. (chs. v., vi.), pp. 372-378 ; Wexdt : Teach-
ing of Jesus, The Life-bringing Message, etc., ii. 203-211
(orig. pp. 492-498) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol., Das Leben in
Gott; die Gotteskindschaft, ii. 452-455; Lechlek: Apostolic
and Post- Apostolic Times, Fellowship with the Father and with
the Son, ii. 201-207 (orig. pp. 473-479) ; Van Oosterzee, Theol.
of the New Test., The Son of God in relation to the World,
pp. 93-100 (Pt. ii. ch. ii. § 20) ; Schmid ; Bibl. Theol. of the
New Test., Fellowship with Christ, etc., pp. 540-548.

In the present chapter I wish to collate the principal
materials for the study of John's conception of the
nature and sources of the religious life and character.
We have considered faith as the act by which a new
relation to God is constituted. It is the subjective
condition of the realization of salvation. Correspond-
ing to faith as initiating the work of salvation from
the human side, is the impartation of life from God,
or the birth from above, which expresses the objective

242 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

or divine side of the sinner's change of relation. Fol-
lowing the spiritual birth comes the spiritual life, which
is described under various terms, such as fellowship
with God, abiding in Christ, partaking of his body and
blood, and so forth. Tlie subject of this chapter, then,
is, John's conception of this life of religion which is
begotten of God in the soul. The theme stands in
close connection with the idea of faith which we have
already examined, and certain special sides or aspects
of it will come into view in the subsequent study of
the doctrines of love, prayer, and eternal life. Our
present inquiry is particularly directed to ascertaining
the import of such terms as, begotten from God, son-
ship to God, abiding in Christ, and feeding upon him.
We begin with an examination of the phrase
"born" or "begotten from God," or "from above"
{<yevvr)6rivaL e'/c deov^ e'/c tov deov, a^co^ey), which occurs
eight times in our sources (counting the whole passage
iii. 3-8, and verses in which the word is repeated, as
furnishing single instances of its use). The first ex-
ample of the employment of the phrase meets us in
the prologue (i. 13) where a contrast is drawn between
the natural and the spiritual birth. The thought is :
The Word came to the Jewish people, who of right
belonged to him by reason of their privileges and
training, but they rejected him (verse 11). He then
offered himself to any and all who would accept him,
and opened to them the privilege of sonship to God
(verse 12). This he did on conditions which were
purely spiritual, and irrespective of natural birthright

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIP^E 243

or inheritance. Not descent from the theocratic peo-
ple, but acceptance of a new life from God, was his
reiiniremcnt. The nature of this divine impartation
of life is not defined, except so far as a definition of
it is implied in its contrast to natural birth or descent,
and in its co-ordination with receiving Christ and
believing on his name (verse 12).

Attention may here be called to the fact that the
phrase in question is best rendered " begotten " rather
than " born of God " except in the passage iii. 3-8,
where the thought is slightly different. The A. V.
rendered " born "' in all cases except in I. v. 1, and 18.
In the first of these passages the active participle
{^€vvi]aavTa) occurs, which can only be translated
" begat ; " but notwithstanding this, the passive forms
(ye'y€vvi]TaL, ')e^evvi)ix€vov) were rendered in one case
" born," and in the other " begotten." In verse 18 two
passive participles occur {^ejevvrjiJievo'; and yevvqOei'i),
and the same inconsistency is observed in the render-
ing of the A. v., where no apparent reason diverted
the translators from their favorite rendering (" born "),
as was the case in verse 1. The R. V. has correctly
translated the terms by " begotten " in all cases in the
First Epistle, but in i. 13 has rendered " born" ("be-
gotten " in the margin), ])robably in view of the
passage iii. 3-8. The correct translation here (i. 13)
is " begotten," since the thought relates primarily to
the first origin of life, and not to a change in the sphere
or mode of life. The phrase ^ewijdijvai eV 6eov in this
passage, and uniformly in the First Epistle, refers to

244 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the initiation of spiritual life from God, to a divine
begetting or impartation of life. The force of the
phrase is amply illustrated in the First Epistle.

In I. ii. 29, the habitual doing of righteousness is
said to be the test which determines whether or not
one is begotten of God : " If ye know that he [God] is
righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth right-
eousness (6 TTOibiV TTjv SiKatoavvrjv') hath been begotten
of him " (e| avrov ye'yevvrjrai,). Likeness of character
to God is the mark of those to whom God has imparted
his own life, so that they become and remain his sons
(note the force of the perfect tense). ^ The thought is
similar in I. iii. 9 : " Every one that has been begotten
of God [and that remains his child — yeyevvrj/xevo';]
does not do sin (afiapriav ov iroLel'), because his seed
abideth in him," — the new germ of life which God
has imparted to him remains as a transforming ])o\vcr
in his life, — " and he cannot sin," that is, cannot live
the sinful life, cannot habitually sin (dfxapTdvetv is
here equivalent to iroidv dfiapTLav), " because he has
been begotten of God " (eV rov 6eov 'yeyei'vrjTaL). As
in the two passages just noticed, the doing of righteous-
ness and the not doing of sin are given as the tests of
having been begotten from God, so in iv. 7 love is pre-

1 I have rendered the Greek perfect tense in all cases by oiu-
English perfect, instead of by the present, " is begotten " (R. V.).
This tense expresses a porinanent relation begun in the past and
continued in the present. The present tense in English re-
produces only the second element in this two-fold force, which
our perfect, no doubt, fails in part to represent.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 245

scntcd in the same relation : " Beloved, let us love
one another : for love is of God ; and every one that
loveth hath been begotten (yeyevvrjTai) of God, and
knoweth God." It is obvious that righteousness and
love are regarded as tests of the divine impartation of
life because they are its consequences. The divine
begetting is the logical pi-ins of the spiritual life and
of all its fruits. This relation of the thoughts is made
clear in I. iii. 0, and is particularly emphasized in the
conversation of Jesus with Nicodemus (iii. 3-8).

Still another test of the divine begetting is faith :
" Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ hath
been begotten of God : and whosoever loveth him that
begat {tou yevvr](xavTa, that is, God) loveth him also
that hath been begotten of him (God) " (T. v. 1) : He
that loves God who bestows spiritual life, loves also
the child of God upon whom he has bestowed it ; love
to God involves love of the brethren. Nothing is here
intimated as to the logical or chronological relation
of faith to the divine begetting ; it is only said that
every one who believes in Jesus as the Christ has
been begotten from God and is a child of his. Such
faith is the unfailing mark of sonship to God. An
effect of the possession of divine life is stated, in an
abstract form, in I. v. 4 : " Whatsoever hath been be-
gotten of God overcometh the world." This reminds
one of the statement in I. iii. 9 that the divine life-
principle brings about a moral impossibility of sinning.
How closely the begetting from God and faith — the
divine and human factors in salvation — are co-ordi-

246 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

nated by John is apparent from the parallelism of
this verse (I. v. 4), where to the statement that what
is born of God overcomes the world, he adds that faith
is the power that overcomes the world.

The final passage in the Epistle (v. 18) resembles
in general iii. 9. It reads : " We know that whoso-
ever hath been begotten of God (6 ^e'yepvy/j.e'po'i Ik tov
deov} sinneth not ; but he that was begotten of (Jod
(6 yevvrjdeh e'/c tov Oeoii) keepeth him {rr}pel avrov)
and the evil one toucheth him not." Considerable
difficulty besets the phrase 6 yevvrjOeU e/c tov 6eov Trjpel
avTov (or eavTov). Most modern editors (Treg., Tisch.,
Alf., W. <fe H., R. V.) adopt the reading avTov (so A^
B Vulg.). Some, however, support the reading of the
Textus Receptus, eavTov (so ^( A^ K L). If eavTov
be read, the meaning is plain : He that was born of
God keeps himself, that is, maintains his proper char-
acter, as a Christian (cf. iii. 3; 1 Tim, v. 22; Jas. i.
27). The great majority of interpreters favor this
view of the text and meaning, notwithstanding the
contrary verdict of the textual critics.^ Other exc-
getes, however, adopt the reading avTov.^ In that
case, 6 yevvrjOeL'; is most naturally referred, so far as
grammatical considerations are concerned, to Christ.
Westcott and Plummer adopt this su))])Osition, and
regard it as explaining the change from the perfect

^ See, for example, the Commentaries of Liicke, Hutlier,
Haupt, "Weiss, and Holtzmann. The same view of the meaning
is presenter! in our King James's version.

2 So Alford, Westcott, Plummer.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 247

participle (uniformly used by Jolin in application to
the believer) to the aorist. The theory is that
ry€vvT]6ei<; refers to a past fact, or a " timeless rela^
tion " (Plummer). But the fact that John never
elsewhere applies the verb yevvTjdrjvat to Christ pre-
sents a great dithculty for this interpretation. Alford,
therefore, thouLi'h adopting the reading avrov, holds
that 6 yevvrjOek refers to the same person as 6 yeyev-
vr]lx€vo<;, and supposes that the construction is broken
after the word y€vvi]0€i<;, and that the immediate sub-
ject of rijpel is the idea or fact of the divine begetting
which is implied in 6 yevvrjdei'i. To bring out this
interpretation the sentence may be rendered : " But
he that was born of God, — the divine begetting
keeps him." Weiss says that if avrov is read, this is
the correct interpretation of the sentence. ^ On this
view the change to the aorist participle is explained
as marking his divine birth as a past fact which sev-
ered his connection with the prince of the world and
with evil (Alford). This explanation avoids the diffi-
culties which beset that of Westcott, but, in point of
grammar, is very harsh and arbitrary. All things
considered, the interpretation seems preferable which
rests upon the reading iavrou, and which translates :
" He that was begotten from God [the Christian]
keeps himself," — with which should be compared
the words of this same Epistle : " Every one that
hath this hope [of seeing Christ as he is] set on

' The Vulgate embodies this explanation : sed generatio Dei
conservat eum.

248 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

him [Christ] purifieth (^dyvi^ei eavrov)^ even as he
[Christ] is pure " (I. iii. 3). But whichever readincj
and interpretation be adopted, the main thouglit is
that it is against the nature of tlie new life to con-
tinue in sin, and that the Christian is to be kept free
from Satan's power,

Tlie final example of the form of thought under
consideration is found in the conversation of Jesus
with Nicodemus (iii. 3-8). Here, as we have before
intimated, the form of thought seems to lie that of
birth rather than of begetting. Jesus speaks rather
of a transformation than of an origination of life.
" Except a man be born anew (^avcodev), he cannot
see the kingdom of God " (iii. 3). For our purpose it
makes no essential difference whether avcodev be ren-
dered "again" (A. V.), "anew" (R. V.), or "from
above " (so most commentators). In any case the
meaning is that a spiritual renewal, wrought by God,
is necessary for participation in the divine kingdom.
After the incredulous question of Nicodemus as to
the possibility of a birth in addition to that by which
we enter the world, Jesus repeats the thought in
somewhat different terms ; " Except a man be born
of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is
flesh ; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born
anew " (verses 5-7). Nicodemus had spoken of natural
birth as the only one that was conceivable. Jesus re-
plies that man is related to two spheres, the natural

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 249

and the spiritual ; that as physical hiith marks the
l)cginning of his personal natural life, so a spiritual
birth marks the beginning of the higher life of the
spirit. lie implies that as great a change in man's
disposition and character is involved in his entering
the divine kingdom as took place in liis natural life at
his birth. The new birth is a spiritual transforma-
tion ; it is an entrance into a new world of motives,
interests, and hopes. This spiritual process is, he
adds, an inscrutable mystery, like the movement of the
wind, whose sound is heard, but whose nature and
sources none can trace.

Such is the general import of the conversation.
The principal excgetical dilhculty appears in connec-
tion with the phrase (verse 5), " born of water and the
Spirit" (e| vSaTO'i kuI Trvev/xaro'i'). Most commen-
tators, ancient and modern, hold that there is in the
word " water " some kind of a reference to baptism.
This supposition is considerably strengthened by the
passage, " There are three who bear witness, — the
Spirit, and the water, and the blood : and the three
agree in one " (1. v. 8), where " the water" is most nat-
urally taken as referring to Christ's baptism, Weiss
is the only modern interpreter among those whom I
have consulted, who supposes that " water " is here con-
templated only symbolically as the purifying element
which takes away sin. He does not make " water "
and " spirit " mean the same thing (as Calvin and
Grotius luid done, on the supposition of a hendiadys),
but regards the effective, life-giving power of the

250 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE NATURK OF THE SPIKITrAE LIFE ^ol

of a now life. There is thus a natural progress of
thought in passing from the idea of birth by water to
that of birth by Spirit. Although in speaking to
Nicodemus Jesus would hardly think directly of
Christian baptism, the distinct and yet complementary
significance of vScop and irveviia is in principle equally
applicable to it. We think, then, that the sense is,
substantially, this: Repentance and forgiveness (ex-
pressed in baptism) and the bestowment of a new
life from God are essential to participation in his
kingdom.

Those who have been begotten from God, or born
anew, are children of God. That to believe, to be
begotten of God, and to be a child of God, are kin-
dred and inseparable ideas is clearly shown by the
passage, " As many as received him, to them gave
he the right {e^ovaCav) to become children of God,
even to them that believe on his name ; which were
born (or begotten), not of blood, nor of the will of
the fiesh, nor of the will of man, but of God " (i. 12,
13). The complete co-ordination of receiving Christ,
believing on Christ, and l)cing l)cgotten of God shows
that faith is not here contemplated merely as a con-
dition precedent of becoming a son of God (as Weiss
insists). To believe, and to be begotten of God are
two inseparable aspects of the same event or process
(I. V. 1), and in being begotten of God one becomes
a child of God ; equally, therefore, does he become
such in the very act of believing. Faith, therefore,
does not merely make sonship to God possible ; it is

252 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY.

the actual entrance into tlie relation of sonship so
far as man has to do with constituting that relation.
Weiss stands alone, so far as I know, among critical
interpreters in sharply separating off from one another
the various phases and stages of the work of salva-
tion which Jolin designates by the different words
or phrases which we have quoted. His version of
the passage just cited is : " To those who accept him
by faith, Christ has given not sonship itself, but the
power to become the sons of God ; the last and high-
est realization of this ideal, a realization for the
present fathomless, lies only in the future consum-
mation." 1 But the word i^ovaia here is best taken,
not as referring to a mere future possihility Avhich
faith opens, but as emphasizing the loftiness of the
privilege of becoming sons of God which is accorded to
believers.2 The arbitrary analysis of Weiss involves
liis whole discussion of tliis and allied subjects in a
maze of refinements, which illustrate, not tlic apostle's
method of religious thought, but an over-subtle qual-
ity of some modern minds which the Germans them-
selves aptly designate as " Spitzfindigkeit."

It may be well to notice here again what we have
observed in another connection, that John always
speaks of tckvu toO Oeov, not of viol rod Beov. Weiss
suggests that John may have chosen the word reKva
" so as not to seem to approach too near " (in the lan-
guage which he applies to Christians) " the peerless

i Bibl. Theol § 150, d.

2 So Beyschlag, Neutcxt. ThcoL, ii. 453.

THE XATUm: OF THE SPIRITUAL EIFE 2aPj

position of the only begotten Son of Ood." ^ A more
satisfactory motive for the choice of this -svord juay
be found in John's mode of religious thought. The
term tckvov suggests the personal and intimate rela-
tions which are iuxolvcd in sonship rather than the
legal standing and prixilcgcs which Paul's favorite
word vio^ expresses. The force of TeKvov, as used by
the apostle, and the distinction between it and f/oV,
are thus stated by Bishop Westcott : " The idea of
reKvov, as it is thus presented by St. John, includes
the two notions of the presence of the divine prin-
ciple and the action of human growth. The child is
made to share in his Father's nature, and he uses
in progressive advance the powers which he has
received. It is therefore easily intelligible why St.
John never nses the title vc6<;, the name of definite
dignity and privilege, to describe the relation of
Christians to God. He regards their position not
as the result of an ' adoption ' (vlodeaia), but as the
result of a new life which advances from the vital
germ to full maturity." ^

The way in which John associates the idea of child-
ship with relations of loving fellowship between man
and God may be easily seen from the First Epistle.
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath be-
stowed upon us, that we should be called children of
God" (iW T€Kva 6eov Kk-qOcaixev — should bear a title

1 Bihl. Theol. § 150, d.

2 The Epistles of St. John, additional note ou I. iii. 1, pp.
123, 124.

254 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

of such honor and dignity) : " and such vre are " {kuI
ia/xe'v): "We not only bear the name of children of
God, but we are in reality that which the name im-
ports. " Beloved, now are we children of God,"' etc.
(I. iii. 1, 2). It is the purpose (iva) of God's love
to secui-e to us the high privilege of sonship, and
this privilege is not a mere possibility or prospect,
but a present possession : Kal iafiev • vvv rcKva deov
iafjLev.

Not only is a loving relation to God involved in
childship to him ; loving fellowship among men is
equally involved in it. The test of childship to God
is the doing of righteousness and the loving of one's
brother, that is, fellow-Christian (I. iii. 10). Both
the relations of love which we have just mentioned —
that to God and that to man — are emphasized to-
gether in I. V. 1, 2 : " Whosoever belie veth that Jesus
is the Christ is begotten of God : and whosoever
loveth him that l)egat [God] loveth him also that is
begotten of him [the Christian brother]. Hereby we
know that we love the children of God, when we love
God, and do his commandments." These examples
show that with John sonship to God is a personal
relation of obedience and love, involving mutual
devotion among all who share this relation. They
illustrate his spiritual mode of viewing the nature
and obligations of religion. These relations are
viewed quite simjjly, and are described under natural
analogies which widely remove them from all sug-
gestions of legal processes or of an extended ordo sa-

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 255

lutis. It may be oljscrvcd in passini^ that they also
confinn the view taken in an earlier chapter in re-
gard to the question whether or not in John all
men are regarded as sons of God (pp. 70-73).

A passage of great interest in its bearing upon
our theme is found in the speech of Caiaphas before
the Sanhedrin (xi. 49-52). He declared that it was
expedient that Jesus should die, not for the (Jewish)
nation only, but " that he might also gather together
into one the children of God that arc scattered
abroad " (verse 52). The contrast between ra reKva
Tov 6eov and " the [Jewish] nation " shows that by
the former certain Gentiles are meant. It must not
be forgotten that it is here the high priest, and not
the evangelist, who is speaking and giving his phil-
osophy of vicarious sacrifice, — in certain respects a
false and perverse one. Still, the apostle gives the
opinion of Caiaphas as expressing certain truths
which lay beneath the speaker's immediate, conscious
meaning. We may then regard the idea that there
were " children of God " outside Judaism as true to
John's mind, especially if it be involved in other
passages. The question arises, How are we to con-
ceive and define this idea ? Hilgcnfeld understands
the words to refer, in a dualistic sense, to a natural
sonship of some men to God, in contrast to others
who are children of the devil. ^ This opinion is
connected with the theory of the Tiibingen school
respecting the origin and character of the Fourth

^ Das Evangelium unci die Briefe Johannes, p. 297 sq.

256 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

Gospel as a specimen of Gnostic speculation applied
to Christianity. Most interpreters hold either that
some Gentiles are spoken of as " children of God "
b}^ anticipation, as being such in the purpose of God
(Calvin, Luther, Meyer, Holtzmann), or that they are
so described because they have an incipient faith,
a susceptibility or predisposition, which would lead
them to accept the truth and work of Christ when
the knowledge of it should be brought to them (so,
substantially, Liicke, Weiss, Godet, Westcott). This
is the preferable view. These scattered believers
among the heathen are already children of God, not,
indeed, naturally, but by the grace of God which
manifests itself wherever there is a receptivity for it.
Jesus recognizes in men different degrees of recep-
tiveness for his truth. He says to a certain company
of Jews : " He that is of God " — he that has the dis-
position and desire of obedience — " heareth the words
of God : for this cause ye hear them not, because ye
are not of God " (viii. 47). We hold, therefore, that
these Gentile " children of God " are the " other
sheep {aWa irpo^ara) which are not derived from
(e/c) this [Jewish] fold " which he would brings (aya-
7etv), that all his sheep may together constitute one
flock under the one Shepherd (x. 16). It docs not

1 Many interpreters (as IMeyer, Weiss, Westcott, rimiiincr)
render Ayaytlv to lead, and do not find the idea of briiuj'tiKj to-
gether the scattered sheep, either to himself or into one flock,
contained in our passage (per contra, Tholuck, Lnthardt,
Godet). This question does not essentially concern our pres-
ent use of the passage.

THE NATURE OV THE SriRITUAL LIFE 257

seem natural (with Meyer and others) to take the
Avoids *• Other sheep 1 have " as [trophetie, espc-
eially in view of the statements of the prologue that
the life of the Logos " was the light of men " (i. 4),
"the true light which lighteth every man, coming
into the world " (o (pcoTiX^i irdvra avdpcoirov ep-)(6iMevov
€l<i rov Koafiov, i. 9). Whichever of three possible
constructions ^ be adopted for the participle ep^o^J^^vov
here, the passage asserts the universality of revela-
tion through the Logos ; nor does it merely assert
that the Logos enlightens all men in general (Travra^
avOpctiTTov';'), but that he lighteth every individual man
(iravra dvOpcoTrou'). If God reveals himself to each
man in some way and measure and touches men uni-
versally with the influences of his grace, it is cer-
tainly conceivable that there should be at all times
and in all nations those who — notwithstanding the
limitations of their light and knowledge — may, by
reason of their disposition and susceptibility, be truly
called " children of God " and members of Christ's
true flock. In this view sonship to God does not rest

^ 'EpxofjLfvov may be construed (1) with ^u at the beginning

of the sentence, making a periphrastic form : The true light

which lighteth every man teas cominf/ (or came) into the world

(so Liicke, DeWette, Weiss, Godet, Westcott, Rev. Vers.) ; or

(2) with the relative 5 : There was the true light which, by (or

on) coming into the world, lighteth every man (so Luther's

first ed., ^^ durch seine Zukunft," u. s. to.) ; or (3) with avdpwTTov :

which lighteth every man that cometh (or as he cometh) into

the world (so most of the Fathers and Reformers, Vulg., A. V.,

Meyer, Plummer, Dwight). A majority of modern exegetes

adopt the first construction.

258 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

upon a basis of nature or of desert : it rests u])on
divine grace alone, but upon a grace which is not
restricted, but world-wide in its operation.

The nature of the Christian life is further exhibited
by the use of a considerable variety of descriptive
phrases, the most important of which are, abiding or
being in Christ (or in God), the dwelling of Christ
(or of God) in the believer, — both forms of expres-
sion are sometimes combined, — fellowship with Christ
(or with God), and eating the flesh of the Son of
Man and drinking his blood. ^ What the significance
and consequences of this " abiding " are may best be
determined by a careful observation of the connec-
tions of thought in which the expression occurs. The
test of abiding in Christ is said to be obedience to
his commandments and the following of his example :
" Hereby know we that we are in him : he that saitli
he abideth in him ought himself also to walk even as
he (Christ) walked " (I. ii. 5, 6). Again, the holding
fast of the truths which were first taught his Christ-
ian readers is urged by the apostle as the condition
of abiding in the Son and in the Father (I. ii. 24).
This verse has been paraphrased thus : " Let the
truths which were first taught you have a home in
your hearts : if these have a home in you, ye also
shall have a home in the Son and in the Father"
(Plummer). In verses 27 and 28 the abiding of the
believer in Christ is closely associated (not strictly

1 The passages are tabulated iu Westcott's Epistles of St.
John, pp. 174, 175.

Tin: XATniK of the spiritual life 259

identified) with the "anointing" (^xpi^ixa^ wiiii-h tlie
Christian has received, that is, with the gilt of the
Holy Spirit. This chrism is personllicd and repre-
sented as abidinor in the Christian and teaching him,
— a Nvoi-k wliich seems to be thought of as a condi-
tion or preparation for his abiding in Christ. Tliesc
verses appear to be explained by T. iv. 13 : " Hereby
know we that we abide in him, and he in ns, because
he hath given us of his Spirit." Another clear note
respecting the meaning of abiding in Christ is struck
in I. iii. 6 : " Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not
(ov^ afiaprdvet — does not live the sinful life) : whoso-
ever sinneth (Tra? 6 d/xaprdvcov — every one who lives
the life of habitual sin) hath not seen him, neither
knoweth him."

From these passages it appears that to abide in
Christ (or in God) is to forsake the sinful life, to
keep his words and to exemplify his spirit. In short,
it is to live the life of love : " God is love ; and he
that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth
in him " (I. iv. 16). But the further question arises,
whether a personal, mystical relation is also involved
in this and kindred expressions. It seems difficult to
doubt that this is the case when one reads the alle-
gory of the Vine and the Branches (xv, 1-6). Even
Weiss, who seeks to exclude all mysticism from the
Johannine idea of faith, admits that '' abiding " in
Christ implies a " mystical union, a oneness of person
with him." ^ The allegory depicts the necessity of

1 Bibl. Theol. § 149, d, note 12.

260 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

an organic and vital union between the believer and
Christ. To abide in him (verse 4) is equivalent to
bearing a relation to him analogous to that of the
branch to the vine (verse 2) from which it draws its
life. Such a union is the condition of all fruitfulncss
(verses 4, 5). Apart from him the disciple can do
nothing, that is, can bear no fruit of Christlike love
and service. It is noticeable that the thought passes
directly from the figure of the vine to that of loving
fellowship between him and his disciples : " Even as
the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you :
abide ye in my love" (verse 9). The fundamental
idea of the allegory is that of the close, constant,
loving fellowship of life between the believer and his
Lord.

This fellowship of the believer with Christ involves
fellowship with the Father and the indwelling of Christ
and of God in the Christian man. " Our fellowship
is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ "
(I. i. 3). He who keeps God's commandments abides
in God, and God in him (I. iii. 24). God abides in
those who love one another (I. iv. 12). A reciprocal
abiding of the believer in Christ, and of Christ in him,
is more than once mentioned (xiv. 20 ; xv. 5) ; and the
possible closeness of this union is empliasized by its
being compared to that which subsists between the
Son and the Father : " And the glory wliicli thou
hast given me I have given unto them ; that they
may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and thou
in me, that thoy may be perfected into one ; that the

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 261

world may know that thou didst scud me, and lovcdst
them, even as thou lovedst mc " (xvii. 22, 23).

We have already had occasion, in treating of the
.rohannine doctrine of salvation, to consider the three
principal interpretations of the expressions eating the
llesh, and drinking the blood of the Son of man
(vi. 52-59 ; see pp. 159-1G4). In the view which we
adopted these phrases are descriptive of the living
appropriation of Christ to the heart. " Flesh " and
'•blood" stand as symbols of his very self. To par-
take of these is spiritually to appropriate Christ by
an intimate life-union with him. This conception of
his meaning is the most comprehensive one. It does
not wholly exclude the ideas which are derived from
them by other explanations, l)ut, in a measure, includes
them. The appropriation of Christ, in the fullest
sense of the word, includes the believing acceptance
of the benefits of his sacrificial work which arc per-
petually symbolized and attested in the Lord's sup-
per. Christ is himself, in his whole person, work,
and spirit, the bread of life ; and to eat his flesh and
drink his blood is the same as to feed upon that living
bread of God which came down out of heaven (verses
57, 58) ; it is to live " because of him ; " it is to strike
the roots of one's life into Christ.

This review of the passages which illustrate the
nature of the relation which the Christian sustains to
the source of his spiritual life, may fitly close with a
notice of a passage which is a complex of the religious
ideas fomid in the writings of John : " Yet a little

262 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

while, and the world beholdeth me no more ; but yc
behold me : because I live, ye shall live also.^ In
that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and
ye in me, and I in you" (xiv. 19, 20). Jesus had
just been speaking of his coming to them through th'e
})rcsence of the Spirit (verse 18), and now adds that
soon his bodily form — which is all that the world
can see of him — will be withdrawn from human
sight ; the literal, physical beholding of him will be
no longer possible, but his disciples will continue to
behold him with the eye of the spirit; he will still
seem real and present to them through the spiritual
perception which they have of him. When the senses
can no longer discern him he will still disclose him-
self to the mystic vision of the soul. To this concep-
tion is added that of living through his hfe. Re-
moved though he will be from the world's natural
sight, his life will not be quenched. He will live on
and work on in unseen, unknown ways in the world
of the Spirit. Because his life and power are change-
less and eternal he will continue to be the source of
spiritual life to all who look to him. Such words
carry the mind beyond the realm of time and sense

1 Many scholars (so Meyer and Weiss ; per contra, Godet and
Westcott) would translate the latter part of this verse thus :
"but ye behold nie because I live and (because) ye shall
live," making the two assertions "I live" and "ye shall live"
assign the reason for the statement "ye behold me," instead of
treating them as together constituting an independent proposi-
tion. The rendering of our English versions appears to me to
give the more forcible sense.

THE NATURE OF THE SPIRITUAL LIFE 263

into the world of eternal reality. To this world
Christ belongs, — in it he lives and works; into that
world the eye of faith pierces, and np to its heavenly
heights of holy peace and calm he lifts those who join
their lives to him.

But even in this region of transcendent mystery
the mind is not " in wandering mazes lost." Thought
is still held captive by the sense of those personal
relations which lie at the basis of all religious life and
experience. " In that day ye shall know that I am
in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you " (xiv.
20). The spiritual vision of Christ, and spiritual life
through his life, shall but make more clear and certain
his own perfect union with the Father, and the mutual
fellowship of his disciples and himself. And what
is the bond of this union ? Love (verses 21, 22).
These high, mystic terms — beholding, living, indwell-
ing— are at once translated into that practical but
all-embracing principle of love. He who loves and
obeys me, he it is to whom the vision of God comes.
Our passage, therefore, forms a fitting transition to
the special study of the idea of love in our sources.
But before passing on to the consideration of that
subject, let us cast a glance backward over the relig-
ious conceptions whicli wc have just reviewed, and
seek to make some practical estimate of their import.

In the first place, the ideas which we have been con-
sidering illustrate what I may call an intensely religious
view of Christianity. I mean that they all rest upon
the supposition that God is very neai us, and that the

264 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

forces of the spiritual and eternal order constantly
penetrate our world. Religion is a ver}' personal affair.
It is not depicted as consisting in the performance of
sacred rites, or even in the doing of specific duties. It
is ]"ather a relation of fellowship with God as revealed
in Christ, and therefore a relation of likeness to him.
The religious life is not a play of feeling within our-
selves ; it is not a mere collection of good deeds and
virtues which we have achieved ; it is a divine im-
partation from God; it is the response of the human
spirit to the life-giving touch of the Father of our
spirits. The descriptions of Christian life and expe-
rience which we have studied assume that religion
is the divine life in man ; that the world of religious
thought and feeling is a world of realities, and not
of phantoms.

Again, the Johannine conception of religion is es-
pecially favorable to devotion. It appeals powerfully
to the imagination and the heart; it keeps alive the
sense of a real and present Saviour ; it fills life, not
merely with hopes of a future blessedness, but with
a present fulness of joy and richness of experience.
No New Testament writer has so vividly conceived
tlie powers of the heavenly world as operative lierc
and now, as the apostle Jolm. If, as his legend de-
scribes, lie has soared into the sun, he lias brought
down into our sinful world and common life some-
thing of the warmth and glory of the everlasting
Light. Eternal life is already here ; the world of
time and sense is swallowed uj) in the world of the

THE NATURE OF THE sriKITFAL LIFE 265

spirit; and life is transfigured by the presence and
the love of God.

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

CHAPTER XI

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE

Literature. — Reuss : Hisl. Christ. TkeoL, Of Love, ii. 482-491
(orig. ii. 538-549); Westcott : Epistles of St. John, The Idea of
Love, pp. 130-133 ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol., Die Liebe,
ii. 459-462 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol., Die Liebe des Vaters zum
Sohn und Gottes zur Welt, pp. 397-400 ; AVendt : Teaching of
Jesus, Admonition to love in the Johannine farewell discourse,
i. 357-362 (orig. pp. 287-292) ; INIessner : Lehre der Apostel,
Die Liebe, pp. 351-354 ; W G. Ballextixe : Art. " Lovest Thou
meV in the Bibliotheca Sacra for July, 1889, pp. 524-542 ; E. A.
Park : Sermon on " God i.s love," in his Discourses, pp. 155-180.

The principal passages which ilhistrate the idea of
love as presented in our sources, are very familiar, and
to a considerable extent have been already quoted.
The passages have been fully tabulated by Westcott.^
It will be sufficient for our purpose to give a brief
resume of his grouping. The passages are distributed
into classes with reference to two points . (1) the term
which is used to express the idea of love, and (2) the
subject and ol)iect of the love that is predicated.

Two verbs meaning to love arc frequently used in
John's writings, a'^airav and ^ikelv. The noun ajdirTj,

1 The Epistles of St. John, pp. 130-133.

THE DOCTRINE OF EOVE 267

corresponding^ to a'yairav^ also occurs frequently, but
(f)i\ia^ vvliich would cori'ospond to (^tXetv, is not found. ^
The proper difference between these two verbs has
been frequently defined by scholars with great care.
I can therefore do the reader no better service than
to quote two or three of these definitions. ^^'Ayawdv
properly denotes a love founded in admiration, vener-
ation, esteem, like the Latin diligere, to be kindly dis-
posed to one, to wish one ivell ; but (^iXety denotes an
inclination prompted by sense and emotion, Latin,
aniare ; ut scircs, eum a me non diligi solum, verum
etiam amari (Cicero)." '^

" 4>t\etv denotes the love of natural inclination,
affection, — love, so to say, originally spontaneous,
involuntary ; a^airav, on the other hand, love as a
dircctionof the will. . . . The range of <^t\ety is wider
than that of a'^a-nav, but a'ya'rrav stands all the higher
above (fiiXelv on account of its moral import. It does
not in itself exclude affection, l)ut it is always the
moral affection of conscious deliberate will which is
contained in it, not the natural impulse of immediate
feeling."^

" ^iXelv (amare) denotes a passionate, emotional
warmth, which loves and does not care to ask why ;
the affection which is based on natural relationship, as
of parents, brothers, etc. 'Ayairdv {diligere) denotes

^ This word occm's in the Xew Testament only once, — James
iv. 4, " the friendship (t^tXia) of the world."
^ Thayer's Lexicon, sub voce, (piKeco.
Cremer, Bihlico-Theolugical Lexicon, sub voce, dyandui.

268 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

a calm, discriminating attachment, which loves be-
cause of the excellence of the loved object ; the affec-
tion which is based on esteem, as of friends. ^iXelv
is the stronger, but less reasoning ; ayairdv the more
earnest, but less intense." ^

It is evident, if these definitions are correct, that
ayaTrdv is the word of loftier meaning ; it is the word
which expresses the ideas of choice, esteem, reverence,
and the like, while <^i\eiv designates rather those
natural or friendly relations which spring from the
affections. Accordingly, love to God is always denoted
in the New Testament by ayaTrdv, and the noun for
love in the religious sense is always aydwr]. Men are
commanded to love their enemies with the love of
benevolence or the love that seeks their true good
{dyairdv), not with the love of complacency or per-
sonal affection and attachment (<^ikelv). It would,
indeed, be incongruous to cojiimand love in the sense
of (fiLXelv, but not in the sense of ayaTrdv. From such
examples of the usage it appears that ayaTrdv relates
rather to the judgment or the will ; (fyiXelv rather to
the emotional or sensuous nature.

In general these distinctions seem applicable in
John. 'AyaTrdv is many times predicated of the love
of the Father to the Son, e. g., " The Father loveth
(^dyaTra) the Son, and hath given all things into his
hand "' (iii. 35, cf. x. 17 ; xv. 9 ; xvii. 23-26). It is
once used of the love of God to the world : " God so
loved {'qycLTrr^a-ev) the world " etc. (iii. 16), and several

^ I'lummor, Comnictilarj/, on xi. ").

THE DOCTRTXE OF LOVE 269

times of his love to men (xiv. 21, 23 ; xvii. 23 ; I. iv.
10, 11). Once (}}iX€iu is used to designate the love of
the Father to the .Son: "For the Father loveth
{(j>t\ei) the Son, and showeth him all things that him-
self doeth " (v. 20). If the accurate distinction of
the terras is here to be preserved, (piXelv must, in this
case, refer to the intimate, personal relation of the
Father and the Son (so Meyer, Godet, Weiss, et al).
In one passage also (xvi. 27) the love of the Father for
the disciples of Christ is designated by (f>iXetv: "For
the Father himself loveth (cpiXei) you," etc. Here, in
the judgment of most interpreters, the thought is, The
Father loves you as his children because of your love
to me (Christ), and therefore hears and grants your
requests. In these two cases where ^Ckelv is used of
God's love to another it is not difficult to assign to it
an appropriate forc(? as designating the close attach-
ment of personal affection.

Again, John applies h'^airav to the love of the
Son to the Father (xiv. 31), and to his love for his
disciples, either individually or generally (xi. 5; xiii.
1, 34 ; xiv. 21) ; while ^Ck^lv is also found to describe
the love of Jesus for a disciple or friend (xi. 3, 36 ;
XX. 2). Tiie love of the Master for the " beloved
disciple " is four times designated by a^airav (xiii. 23 ;
xix. 26 ; xxi. 7, 20) and only once by c^LXelv (xx. 2),
This example of the use of (f)iXeiv seems to show
that John sometimes employs the words interchange-
ably, although it does not necessarily prove that they
bear precisely the same shade of meaning. But in

270 THE JOIIANNIXE THEOLOGY

such cases the proper distmction of the words must
not be overpressed. Another instance of an appar-
ently interchangeable use of the words is found in
the narrative of Jesus' relations with the family at
Bethany, His love for Lazarus is designated by
<f)i\€iv (xi. 3, 36), while that for the three members
of the family, who are named in succession, is ex-
pressed by ayaTrdv (xi. 5). This usage is sometimes
explained by saying that in verses 3 and 36 the
sisters and the Jews, who speak of Jesus' love for
Lazarus, naturally use the more emotional word,
while the evangelist, who speaks in verse 5, uses the
loftier and less impulsive word (so Plummcr and
Westcott). Others think that the higher word ayaTrdv
(in xi. 5) is chosen with great delicacy by John be-
cause the sisters, Martha and Mary, are also men-
tioned (so Meyer and Weiss). H. Holtzmann regards
the two examples just cited (iii. 35, cf. v. 20; xi. 3,
36, cf. xi. 5) as proving that John uses the two verbs
promiscuously.

The love of the disciples for Christ (viii. 42 ; xiv.
15 sq.) and for their brethren (xiii. 34 ; xv. 17 et al.')
is generally designated by ayairdv, although (^CKelv is
also found (xvi. 27; xxi. 15 sq.). The passage last
cited is one of considerable interest and difliculty in
its bearing upon the usage of the words. Jesus twice
asks Peter : dya'7rd<i /m€ ; and Peter replies : (^iXoi ere.
The third time the question is : <^t\el<; /xe ; and Peter
still answers : ^l\o) ere. The almost universal opinion
of interpreters is that the change of words is inten-

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 271

tional, and tliai tlif iioiiit of the conversation is largely
lost by overlooking- the distinction. Tiic view gener-
ally adojjted is that Jesus uses the loftier word ex-
pressing deliberate choice and devotion, and that
Peter hesitates to claim such a love, but affirms the
love of personal affection : (f)t\(3 ae. Jesus then drops
to the level of Peter's own assertion, and says : Are
you sure that you love me even thus — </)iXet9 fie; —
alluding, probably, to Peter's previous denial of him,
and, perhaps, asking the question three times be-
cause of the three denials. To this question Peter
replies anirmativcly, but without claiming more than
the affection denoted Ijy (fiiXelv. Some have called in
question the distinction upon which the foregoing
interpretation proceeds, on the ground of the seem-
ingly interchangeable use of the terms which we
have already noticed. Even Weiss, who observes the
natural distinction of the words in the other cases,
thinks it doubtful whether it is applicable here. If
Jesus had throughout employed ayuTrdv, while Peter
uniformly used cf^iXelv, the recognition of the distinc-
tion would be, in my judgment, more natural than it
now is. The supposition of an intentional change
from ayaTrdv in the first two to (jaXecv in the third
question, is unnecessary to the sense and force of the
passage, and seems somewhat over-subtle. Moreover,
it must be remembered that this conversation, in all
probability, was held in Aramaic, in which no such
distinction as that between the two Greek verbs could
have been marked. To this difficulty it is replied that

272 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

we must deal with the Greek version of the event as
we liave it, and that by some additional words or ges-
tures the Lord may have made such a distinction as
the Greek has preserved.^

Whatever opinion be adopted respecting these few
doubtful cases which we have just mentioned, there
can, I think, be no reasonable doubt that the distinc-
tion between ccyairav and (fiiXetv is, in general, appli-
cable in the writings of John.'-^ Even in those few
instances where the two words appear to be used
synonymously there is a certain presumption that a
difference of meaning is really implied. In any case,
we have here to do with love in the distinctively
moral and religious sense, which is specially denoted
by ayairdv and ayaTrr]. It is necessary next to no-
tice what is affirmed of the subjects and objects of
this love, and then to inquire into its nature and
significance.

When God is the subject of this love there are

1 So Schaff, in Lanrje on John, in loco.

2 Dr. W. G. Ballentine, in an elaborate article on the subject
(Biblioiheca Sacra, July, 1889), not only denies that there is any
distinction between ayanav and ^tXeiv in John xxi. I.') sq., but con-
tends that the distinctions commonly made between them are
not applicable in the New Testament generally. His evidence
is drawn almost wholly from the Septuagint, where he shows
that the words are often used without discrimination. A
promiscuous use of the terms in the New Testament would not
necessarily follow from such a use in the Septuagint, nor would
a few cases in which the distinction between them is doubtful
suffice to prove that the New Testament writers in general
used the words synonymously.

THE DOCTKIXK OF l.OVE 273

three objects upon which it is said to terminate, the
Son (iii. 35 et al.), the world (iii. 16), and the disci-
ples of Christ (xiv. 21, 23). In I. iv. 10, 11, John
speaks of the love which God has shown to his
readers in sending Christ as the propitiation for
their sins. This passage refers, therefore, to God's
love to them while they were yet sinners, and belongs,
practically, with iii. 16, which speaks of his love to
the world (6 /coV/io?). Of similar import is I. iii. 1, 16 :
" Behold what manner of love the Father hath be-
stov/ed upon us," etc. While, therefore, the love of
God to the sinful world is not often explicitly men-
tioned, it is several times referred to, and is assumed
in many passages besides those just cited. The Son
is said to love the Father (xiv. 31), and his disciples
(xiii. 1 ; xiv. 21). Christians arc spoken of (I. v. 1,
2) in contrast to non-Christians (v. 42; I. ii. 5), as
loving God, and still more frequently as loving Christ
(xiv. 21-28) and one another (xiii. 34, 35 ; I. iii. 10-
14). Over against this true religious love to God and
man stands the love of darkness (iii. 19), or of the
world (1. ii. 15).

It will be seen that the love which is so central in
John's conception of religion is a personal relation
between man and God, on the one hand, and among
men themselves, on the other. The apostle reaches
his highest point of contemplation in placing the seat
of love in the very nature of God himself. The duty
of men to love one another springs from the nature
and source of love. It is a divine principle, a

274 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

quality of God's own nature and action ; nay, it is
a name for God's ethical nature itself. The life of
true love is therefore a divinely imparted life. It is
derived from God and involves fellowship with him.
Whence it follows : " He that loveth not knoweth not
God ; for God is love " (I. iv. 8). For the mind of
John the ethical nature of God determines the nature
and demands of the Christian life. To be like God
is the sum of all Christian obligations. " If we love
one another, God abideth in us, and his love is per-
fected in us " (I. iv. 12). " God is love ; and he that
abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in
him " (I. iv. 16).

It should not, of course, be supposed that in saying
" God is love " the apostle intended to construct a
scientific definition of the moral nature of God. In
the very nature of the case, love scarcely admits of
accurate and exhaustive definition. The analysis of
the divine attributes to which we in modern times are
accustomed did not engage the minds of the New
Testament writers, who spoke in popular language
and for practical religious ends. But while it is im-
possible to maintain that John had ever projioscd
to himself to construct a precise conception of love
which should answer the demands of scientific thought,
he has, nevertheless, given us a concise statement of
God's moral nature upon which theological thought
cannot improve. It is, at any rate, quite unjustifiable
to treat his statement as if it meant only that God,
as a matter of fact, ha» love for men, or that he has

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 275

chosen — thouirh ho ini<j;ht have done otlierwisc — to
love his creatures, on the theory that love is only a
subordinate attribute of God which it is optional with
him to exercise or not. Wiiatover be the scope or
content of love, as John uses the word, it certainly
represents to his mind an essential and constituent
element in the divine nature, and theology has never
been able to construct a better definition of the ethical
perfection of God than is contained in the apostle's
words : " God is love." ^

I am persuaded that no proposition could be more
directly contrary to the fundamental principles of
John's teaching than that which has been so com-
monly affirmed in theology that justice is the central
and all-determining attribute of God, to which love is
only subordinate and secondary. This is the formula

1 " The saying of the apostle, ' God is love,' is the best com-
pendiuiii of the Christian idea of God." — Van Oosterzee, Christ-
ian Dogmatics, i. 269. " Love is the supreme, the only adequate
definition of the essence of God." — Dorner, System, i. 454. " God
himself is good only as he is love, and his holiness and right-
eousness depend upon his love." — Miiller, The Christian Doctrine
of Sin, i. 113. "God is love, the perfect, the absolutely good
and only good Being, so that no attribute or activity can be as-
cribed to him which cannot be derived from his love." — Xitzsch,
Systein, p. 145. " In the Old Testament love is an attribute
of God, one of many exercised in particular relations. In the
New Testament first love can be shown to be the very Being of
(iod as answering to the revelation in Christ ; and we may see
a certain fitness in the fact that this crowning truth is brought
out in the latest of the apostolic writings." — Westcott, The
Epistles of St. John, p. 168.

276 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

which a rigorous, formal logic has sought to apply in
theology, upon the assumption that God is a judge
rather than a Father, and that the world which he
has made is a legal rather than a moral world. Some
show of justification for this view may be found in
the legalism of the Old Testament, although an appeal
in support of it to the Talmud, which represents the
later religious thought of Judaism when juridical con-
ceptions had wellnigh supplanted moral ones, would
be far better warranted. It may seem to be favored
by the survival in Paul of some traces of Pharisaic
thought, but with both the language and spirit of
John it is in irreconcilable contradiction. This sub-
ject will meet us again when we come to consider the
relation of love to righteousness.

John neither gives us a definition of love, nor fur-
nishes the material for a formal definition. What his
conception of love is, we are left to infer from the
qualities which are ascribed to it and the actions
which flow from it. The more important of these we
will enumerate.

(1) Love is a personal relation of communion or
fellowship, or, at least, looks forward to the constitu-
tion of such a relation. The intimate fellowship of
the Father and the Son illustrates the highest form of
love. It involves perfect fellowship of sympathy and
interest, and the perfect mutual delight of each sub-
ject in the object of love. John ])rescnts this ])erfcct
('<)mmiinion as the tyj)e of love among men : " Even
as the Father hatli loved me, I uls(^ have lov('(l

THE DOCTRINE OF LOVE 277

you : abide ye in my love. . . . This is my command-
ment, that ye k>ve one another even as 1 have loved
you " (xv. 9, 12). Here the love of the Father for
the Son is the norm of the Son's love for his disciples,
and this love, in turn, is the type and measure of
all true love among brethren. Love is a personal
life-union involving reciprocal delight, interest, and
attachment.

This relation is sometimes described as an indwell-
ing, or abiding, of one person in another. This mode
of expression is doubtless chosen in order to empha-
size the closeness of the relation. Love involves a
certain " oneness " of those whom it unites. Each is
at once the subject and the object of love. Love is
mutual, or, at least, naturally tends to become so. A
community of feeling, thought, and interest springs
up where love binds persons together. Jesus prays
that his disciples " may be one " even as he and the
Father are one, and explains in what follows that this
unity of which he speaks is a unity which is born of
love : " 1 in them, and thou in me, that they may be
perfected into one, that the world may know that
thou didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou
lovedst me " (xvii. 23).

Love is, therefore, the true unifying bond among
men. It is the principle which leads each to make
the interest of all his care. From this consideration
it appears, as John says, that " love is of God " (e«
Tov deov, I. iv. 7) ; it is a principle essentially divine.
The capacity to love is implanted in man by him in

278 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

whose image he is made. As God is the ground of
all unity and harmony in the universe, so God-likeness
among men, that is, love, is the true bond of brother-
hood. Selfishness is the principle of isolation ; love
alone binds men together in helpful and happy rela-
tions. All love among men is a reflection of the
divine nature in them, and a trace of the presence in
human life of him who is ever seeking to reconcile
men to himself, to one another, and to their true
destiny ; to solve the contradictions and abolish the
discords of life, and to unite men in the kingdom of
love and peace.^

(2) It follows from what has been said that love
is by its very nature a social virtue. Love carries us
out of ourselves. It is essentially inconsistent with
the indifferent temper. It is an active, forthputting
quality whose very nature is violated by the hermit-
spirit. Love implies mutual relations and common
interests. It is the social principle in man. Mutual
service and helpfulness, which spring out of love,
make social life possible. If these were wholly want-
ing, society would revert to barbarism, which is sim-
ply extreme individualism involving utter disregard
of others or of the general weal. Love is therefore
the only principle on which a true civilization can
be built.

This idea is involved in the doctrine which John so
often presents, — that love is the true basis of union

1 For an ample discu.s.sion of " uniting love," see Sartorius
on The Doctrine of Divine Love, pp. 200-309.

Tin: DOCTRINE OF LOVE 279

ill the kingdom of God. One Iji'otlicrliood knit to
gcther by love is the ideal society. The kingdom of
God is realized among men in proportion as they live
the life of love, that is, in proportion as they love one
another as Christ has loved them. As the provisions
of redemption proceed from the divine love, so the
realization of its results in the life of the Avorld must
be brought about by the reign of love in mankind.
The divine love is redeeming the world into itself.
Salvation springs from love and man is saved unto
love. This is but to say that God in redemption is
bringing men to himself, and uniting them into a
brotherhood through their common likeness to him-
self. Here again we see illustrated a peculiarity of
John's thought which we have more than once ob-
served, — the tendency to ground the whole nature
and all the requirements of the religious life in the
being of God. Love must be the true principle of
fellowship in the divine kingdom and the law of
Christian duty, since God is love. Religion is man's
fellowship with God, and involves fellowship among
men, and neither is, in its best sense, possible except
upon the basis of ethical likeness to God.

(3) The possession of love is the guaranty of right-
eous living. The life of love and the life of sin arc
essentially incompatible. The apostle puts this prin-
ciple forward in the sharpest possible form when he
says : " "Whosoever is begotten of God " — that is,
has entered the life of love — " does not commit sin
{ajxapriav ou Trotel), because his seed abidetli in him :

280 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

The centrality of love in the Christian life is ex-
plained by the fact that the apostle has a comprehen-
sive and i)i-ufound view of the nature of love. It so

TIIK DOCTRIXK OF T.OVK 281

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

282 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

exercise of pity, compassion, or grace, is good. Yet
it is held to be optional with God whether to be good
to that extent, or not. It has been claimed that what
is false in philosophy may be true in theology. This
appears to be the only principle on which the theo-
logical dictum to which we have just referred can be
justified. 1 have more than once referred to it in
order that it might be looked at from different sides
and tested by the various expressions of the apostle,
which illustrate his conception of love. If it is true
in dogmatic theology, it is certainly false in John's
whole philosophy of revelation and life. It affirms a
possible disposition or mode of action on God's part
which, according to John, would vitiate the character
of a Christian man. The argument which John's
writings furnish against the dictum in question might
be briefly summed up in saying: God is Christian;
that is, Christ is, in his character and commands,
the interpreter of the nature and action of God, and
the import of his message is that God is love, and
that love is in its very nature pitying, generous,
and forgiving.

At the risk of some possible repetition let us follow
out the conceptions of God as love and of the essen-
tial unity of righteousness and love, which we find
in John. Love is essential and constituent in God's
nature. If God is love, he must act as love, A
quality or attribute without which God would not be
the perfect Being he is, cannot be merely subordinate
in his nature, and cannot be conceived of as merely

Tin: DOCTRINE OF LOVE 283

passive or quiescent. Love has been eternally opera-
tive within the internal relations of tiie Deity, In
those relations it is not only constitutive but it operates
from an ethical necessity springing- from the nature
of God. Let us apply the subject to created spirits
who have never sinned. If love moved God to create
them and to sustain them in life, is it rational to sup-
pose that God can withhold his love from them, — that
in the case which we have supposed love is a purely
oi)tional attribute ? To me this seems quite incon-
ceivable, it being understood that the necessity to love
of which I speak is a purely moral necessity spring-
ing, not from any source outside the Deity, but from
his own immanent perfections. If love is a quality
so essential in God that without it he would not be
God, it is surely no presumption to say that God must
love, at least, his sinless creatures, since love cannot
be essential and constituent in his nature and purely
optional as to its exercise.

It is needless to follow out in detail the application
of the dictum in question to the suljject of redemption.
It is sufficient for our purpose to show that the theoiy
that retributive justice is superior to and independent
of love in God, and that there springs from his very
nature a necessity that he should be just, but no
necessity that he should be gracious or generous, is
incongruous with the teaching of the apostle John.
We may, however, add that since, as all admit, God
has always loved exen sinners, it is probably according
to his nature to do so. If love were only secondary

284 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

and subordinate to justice, it would be unlikely that
the lower attribute would always prevail. If, as Cal-
vinistic theology has so urgently asserted, there is a
conflict in the Divine Being between love and justice,
it is certainly strange that the supreme attribute
Avhose exercise is absolutely necessary did not triumph
over the subordinate and optional quality, and exclude
the sinful world from salvation altogether. This
theology really lays no logical ground for a plan of
grace for sinners. It is inconceivable that a work of
gracious salvation could ever be begun if God were
what this theory defines him to be.

Respecting the attitude of God as love toward sinful
men, it is important not to confound two widely dif-
ferent conceptions, that of any obligation on God's
part to love sinners as such, and that of his obligations
to himself as the perfect Being. There is nothing, of
course, in the sinful man as such which can make a
claim upon God's mercy or constitute a basis of obli-
gation, but there is an obligation to show mercy
which is grounded in the Divine Being himself as
morally perfect, that is, as uniting in his own nature
all possible excellences. When it is argued that as
men must be righteous but may or may not be kind,
so God must be just, but may or may not be merciful,
the premises should be carefully tested. Suppose a
man chose not to be kind, is he, in that case, the
sort of a man which he uti(j/it to be ? Is he as good,
as morally excellent, as he would be if he were kind ?
Certainly not, unless one denies thai kindness is a

Tin: DOCTRINE OF LOVE 285

virtue. A man even is under obligation to l)e kind.
IIow preposterous to claim that God is less obligated
to perfection of life than man. His obligation to pos-
sess and to exercise all virtuous attributes is al)Solute,
but it is founded in notiiing above or outside himself,
but in his own eternally perfect ethical nature.

The view that love can be a passive, quiescent, or
potential quality only, is contrary to the very idea of
love. Love is an active power, an energizing affec-
tion. To conceive of it as possibly quiescent or non-
operative in the perfect Being is to misconceive its
nature. Such a conception cannot be applied even in
human relations, to say nothing of its inapplicability
to God in his relations to his creatures. What would
be said of a man who maintained that he was at
liberty, at will, to love his fellow-men or not ? The
character of the strictly and merely just Shylock who
felt that it was optional with him whether he should
be kind or merciful, and who chose not to be so, has
not been generally admired. It is amazing that theo-
logical speculation should ever have held that such a
disposition may be regarded as conceivable and possi-
ble for the God of all grace.^

^ Cf. my review, in the New Englander for June, 1888, of Dr.
A. II. Strong's Philosophy and Religion, — a work in which it is
maintained that holiness and love are essentially different; that
holiness is the fundamental and determining attribute of God,
and that justice, therefore, must he exercised, while benevolence
or love — the self -imparting impulse in God — viay be exercised
or not. " As we may be kind but must be righteous, so God,
in whose image we are made, may be merciful, but must be

286 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

(4) Love is presented in John as the giving im-
pulse in God, the motive of his self-communication.
" God so loved the world that he gave " (iii. 16), is
the keynote of John's doctrine of love in this aspect
of it. The gift of the Son for the salvation of the
world is the supreme expression and proof of God's
love for the world. As this greatest of his gifts is
born of love, so also are all his benefactions and self-
impartations. It is the ver}' nature of love to give
and to bless, and this giving is, in the last analysis,
self-giving. " Behold what manner of love the Father
hath given to us {BeScoKev r,fjilv'), that we should
be called children of God " (I. iii. 1), exclaims the
apostle. God bestows his life upon us ; he imparts
his own nature to us in making us his children. We
become children of God by a divine birth, by an im-
partation from God himself. Thus he who is love
bestows his love upon us so that we abide in love,
that is, abide in God, and God in us (I. iv. 16). So
too the gift of Christ to the world is God's gift of
himself to us, since Christ shares eternally in the
Father's nature and comes forth from the bosom of

holy. JVIercy is optional with him ' (page IDfi). The same view
underlies the whole soteriology of thifs author's Sijsle)natic The-
ology, as it does that of Dr. Shedd's Dof/malic T/ieology. I ven-
ture also to refer to mj' reviews of both these works in the Netv
Englander for January, 1887, and for February, 1889, respec-
tively. See, also. Dr. E. A. Park's sermon (on the text : " (lod
is love"): All (he Moral Attributes of God are comprehended in
his Lone, in the volume entitled, Discourses on some Theological
Doctrines, etc., Audover, 188.5.

THE DOCTRIXK OF LOVK 287

lln' Father. Creation, redemption, and providence
arc all gronnded in tlie essential and eternal love of
(Jod. Love is the bond of intercommunion in the
innnanent and eternal relations which are involved
in the equal deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These eternal relations within the Deity ever give
scope to the exercise of love, so that, even apart from
creation, it is rightly defined as the transitive attri-
bute of the divine nature. " Love can be described
as a need that can be satisfied only by giving. . . .
Love is no external attribute, needing created rela-
tions in order to its exercise, for it was before crea-
tion, and creation was through it ; and it is no
attribute of pure immanence, for though it lives
within Deity, and has there the necessary conditions
of its life, yet it ever strives from within outwards, —
struggles, as it were, towards creation." ^

(5) Love is the motive of sacrifice and service.
" Greater love hath no man than this, that a man
lay down his life for his friends" (xv. 13). A pas-
sage in the First Epistle closely akin to this seems to
indicate the sense in which Jesus speaks of laying-
down his life: "Hereby know we love, because he
laid down his life for us : and we ought to lay down
our lives for the brethren " (L iii. 16). We have
seen in an earlier chapter (pp. 172-175) that the laying
doivn of life here spoken of is not naturally understood,
as some scholars hold, to refer to the paying doivn of
life as a ransom-price. The term seems rather to

* Fairbairii. The Place of Chrisl in Modern Theoloyij, p. 411.

288 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

bear a general ethical import. Christ's giving of his
life is here spoken of in the most comprehensive
possible sense. His whole work of self-giving, cul-
minating in his death, is the product of love. The
expiatory idea is not necessarily excluded from such
expressions, but it is not directly signified. Such a
special idea is lost in the general conception. It is as
if John had said: The Saviour's labors and sufferings
on behalf of men, whatever their import, were the
language of love, and they teach us how Christian
love should express itself among brethren. The com-
prehensiveness of the terms used is noticeable. The
giving of life seems to include much more than the
experience of death, since Christians are to give their
lives for one another as Christ gave his for them. All
the forms in which Christ gave himself in serving
love to men, seem fairly included in that laying down
of his life of which the apostle here speaks.

(6) Love involves faithful devotion to its object.
This thought is pictorially presented in the descrip-
tion of the scene in the familiar home at Bethany
where Mary anoints the feet of Jesus with precious
spikenard and wipes them with her hair (\ii. 3).
This is a picture of the grateful love of the disciple
for the Master. With cijual vividness is the love uf
the Lord for his disci]>k's depicted on the occasion
when he takes a towel and girds himself, and, pouring
water into a basin, i)roceeds to wash the disciples'
feet (xiii. 3-5). The event has its pernmncnt signifi-
cance as a picture of devotion and of service. The

THE DOCTRINE OF LOYE 289

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

CHAPTER XII

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER

Literature. — No -writer on the Theology of John, so far as I
have observed, has discussed the doctrine of prayer as a dis-
tinct subject ; but certainly the interest and importance of the
theme, and the special difficulties which are connected with the
references to it in John, entitle it to careful consideration.
For the discussion of the points involved, I nmst refer the student
to the critical commentaries on the passages to be reviewed.
The following references will be found useful in respect to cer-
tain phases of the subject : Weiss : Johann. Lehrb., Der erhbhte
Chi-istus, pp. 270-280, and Bibl. TfieoL, The Church of the Dis-
cii^les, ii. 398-40-i (orig. G5i-658) ; Westcott : The Epistles of
St. John, The Divine Name, pp. 243-245 ; Ezka Aubot ;
Critical Essays, The Distinction between aiV/co and ipwrdu),
pp. 113-136 (reprinted from the North American Review, Jan.,
1872) ; Bernard : The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, pas-
sim; F. W. Robertson's sermon on Prayer (Am. ed. pp. 044-
051). Tlie general subject is discussed in most treatises on
Doctrinal Theology and Christian Ethics.

The subject of prayer as presented in the Johan-
nine writings may be naturally divided into four
sub-topics : (1) The words by which prayer is de-
scribed; (2) The references which are made to the
l)rayers of Christ; (3) Indications respecting the
nature and s])irit of prayer on the part of the disci-

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 291

pies; and (-4) assurances in regard to the answering
of prayer.

It is noticeable that John does not employ the
words Beladat and Trpoaev-^^eadai, which are so com-
monly used in the New Testament in reference to
prayer. Instead of these he uses two words both of
which priiperly mean to ask: alrelv, to ask in the
sense of making a request, and ipcordv, to ask in the
sense of interrogating. In the Xew Testament,
however, this latter word frequently bears the non-
classical meaning, to request or to beseech; and in
John it is several times applied to the making of
requests to God in prayer. This Xew Testament
sense of ipcoTav is, no doubt, connected with the
Septuagint use of that verb as a translation for ''t^p,
to ask, which often means to ask in the sense of
making a request.

The question as to the distinction between alrelv
and ipcordv in John's usage, where the latter means
to request or beseech, has been much disputed among
scholars. It is observed that the word ipcordu is
regularly applied to the prayers of Jesus, ^ while
ahelv is used in describing the nrayers of his dis-
ciples. A few typical examples may be given : " I
will pray (epfyT?7<Ta)) the Father," etc. (xiv. 16); "I
pray (ipcorcb) for them ; I pray (ipcorc!)) not for the

1 In the judgment of some interpreters epcorav is once applied
to the prayers of Christ's disciples : " In that day ye shall ask
{epoTr](TfT() me nothing" (xvi. 23). This point we shall con-
sider later.

292 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

world," etc. (xvii. 9); "Neither for these only do I
pray" (ipcoT(o), etc. (xvii. 20). The usage of alrelv,
on the other hand, may be illustrated thus : " And
whatsoever ye shall ask (alrrjcreTe) in my name, that
will I do," etc. (xiv. 13); "If ye shall ask {alrtjaere)
anything of the Father, he will give it you in my
name" (xvi. 23) ; " And whatsoever we ask (alrM/xev),
we receive of him," etc. (I. iii. 22),

It is certainly quite natural, in view of the pecul-
iar uniformity with which John applies these tAvo
words to the prayers of Jesus and to those of his dis-
ciples respectively, to seek for the distinction be-
tween the words in some difference between the rela-
tion which Jesus bears to God and that which others
bear to him. Such an explanation was put forward
by Archbishop Trench ^ and has been accepted, appar-
ently on his authority, by many other scholars.
He explains the difference between the words as
follows : —

" AiVew, the Latin j:>eto, is more submissive and suppli-
ant, indeed the constant word for the seeking of the in-
ferior from the superior. . . . "Epwrdw, on the other hand,
is the Latin rogo ; or sometimes wterrogo, its only mean-
ing in classical Greek, where it never signifies to ask, but
only to interrociate, or to inquire. Like rogare, it implies
that he wlio asks stands on a certain footing of equality
with him from whom the boon is asked, as king with

' Neir Teatament Si/nmvpns, § xl. Trench's explanation of
the distinction hctweeii the words has been more or less fully
adopted by Wordsworth, Lightfoot, Alford, and Westcott,

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 293

king, or, if not of equality, on such a footing of familiarity
as lends authority to the request.

"Thus it is very noteworthy, and witnesses for the
singular accuracy in the employment of words, and in the
record of that employment, which prevails throughout
the New Testament, that our Lord never uses alrttv or
(UT(ia6aL of himself, in respect of that which he seeks on
behalf of his discii)lGS from God ; for his is not the peti-
tion of the creature to the Creator, but the request of the
Son to the Father. The consciousness of his equal dig-
nity, of his potent and prevailing intercession, speaks out
in this, that often as he asks, or declares that he will ask,
anything of the Father, it is always cpwrw, cpom^o-w, an ask-
ing, that is, as upon equal terms, never aiTc'w or aiT7;crw."

This theory of the distinction is certainly attrac-
tive, and seems plausible in view of the fact which
we have observed, that in the usage of John ipcordv
is applied to Christ's prayers and acrelv to those of
his disciples. The assertions of Trench, however,
that ipcordv implies "a certain footing of equality"
between the one making the request and the object
of the request, and that airelv is used " for the seek-
ing of the inferior from the superior," rest on no
known etymological distinction between the terms,
and cannot be maintained unless supported by un-
questionable usage. Dr. Ezra Abbot has shown
that the distinction breaks down utterly when this
test is applied. 1 The student need only consult the

^ " The Distinction between aheut and fpajraoi," North American
Review, January, 1872, reprinted in Critical Essays, pp. 113-
136.

294 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

passages reviewed by Dr. Abbot to be convinced
that Trench's distinction will hold neither in the
New Testament in general, nor even in John's
writings in particular. In order to show that no
"footing of equality" is necessarily implied in the
word epcordv , it is sufficient to point out that the
request of the Syrophccnician woman that Jesus
would cast the demon out of her daughter (Mark
vii. 26) is expressed by that verb. The centurion
also asked (ipcoroyv) Jesus to heal his servant (Luke
vii. 3), and the Gerasenes besought (■^pcorrja-av) him
to depart from them (Luke viii. 37). In these
requests certainly there can be no tone of authority
or assumption of equality between the persons
concerned.

If the uses of ipcordv in the Gospel of John (out-
side of the passages where it is applied to the
prayers of Jesus) be carefully considered, it will be
found that they do not bear out the idea that ipcordv
refers to an asking " upon equal terms. " The dis-
ciples besought (rjpdiTcov) Jesus to take food (iv. 31);
the Samaritans besought {'^pcorcop) him to remain
with them (iv. 40), and the nobleman of Capernaum
besought {rjpwTa) him to come and heal his son
(iv. 47). These are but a few of the .instances in
which the definition of ipcordv as denoting an asking
on equal terms, or with a tone of authority, is inap-
plicable. It is also found that there are many cases
where alrelv cannot be shown to express "the seek-
ing of the inferior from the superior," such as Luke

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 295

i. 63, xii. 48; Acts xvi. 29; 1 Pet. iii. 15; and Deut.
X. 12 [Scptuagint] : "What doth the Lord thy God
require (aiTeiTai) of thee?"

Although Trench's theory of the distinction I)e-
tween the words in question is certainly disproved,
it is still a noteworthy fact that the prayers of Jesus
are referred to in John by ipcordv, and not by alrelv^^
and that, as Trench says, the former word " is in no
single instance used in the New Testament to express
the prayer of man to God, of the creature to the Crea-
tor." While the fact that in John epwTav is fre-
quently used of the petitions which various persons
addressed to Christ, is fatal to Trench's general
theory, it still seems to be a fact requiring explana-
tion that this term alone is used of the prayers of
Jesus, and is not used of the prayers of men ad-
dressed to God, while alrelv is frequently so used.
Dr. Abbot's explanation of the difference is as
follows : —

"The main distinction appears to be this: AtVe'w is, in
general, to ask for something which one desires to receive,
something to be given, rarely for something to be done ;
it is therefore used when the object sought, rather than
the person of whom it is sought, is prominent in the mind
of the writer ; hence also it is very rarely employed in
exhortation. 'Epwraw, on the other hand, is to request or
beseech a person to do something, rarely to give some-

^ III one passage (xi. 22) Martha uses ntVeti/ of Jesus' prayers,
a fact to ^Yhich Trench appeals as showing "her poor, unworthy
conception of his person."

296 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

thing ; it refers more directly to the person of whom the
favor is sought, and is therefore naturally used in exhort-
ation and entreaty." ^

On this view of the difference between the words,
the application of ipcordv to the prayers of Jesus
might, perhaps, be naturally explained by saying
that his perfect fellowship and trust, and his knowl-
edge of the Father, gave his prayers more of a refer-
ence to the Father's person and were more of a
committing of himself to the Father's will and
action than are the prayers of others, who ask rather
that specific things be given them. The prayers of
other men are more of the nature of petition, while
those of Jesus arc more of the nature of resignation
and self-commitment to the Father. If this view be
taken, it is obvious that ipcordv, as applied to prayer,
has a higher quality than alrelv. Cremer regards
the difference as formal rather than material, alrelv
expressing the desire of the will and ipcordv marking
the/o?-w of the request as a desire expressed to God
in prayer. 2 Even in this view ipcordv would suggest
a certain closeness of fellowship and naturalness of
relation between the worshipper and God which
would not be associated with alrelv.

The distinction in usage which is observable in
John can scarcely be accidental. There seems to be
an element of truth in Trench's too broad and sweep-
ing generalizations. Some higher import and asso-

1 Critical Essayx, p. 127.

2 Bibl.-Theol. Lex., sub voce, axTia).

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 297

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

298 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

Tin: DOCTIIIXE OF PRAYER 299

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

300 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

THE DOCTRIXE OF PRAYER 301

lie then prays for tlie unity of all believers:
"That they may all be one; even as thou, Father,
art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in
us: that the world may believe that thou didst send
me" (xvii. i^l). Perfect harmony and fellowship
among- his disciples, like that which exists between
the Father and himself, would, he implies, be effect-
ive in convincing the world of his divine mission.
If his spirit could heal the divisions and harmonize
the discords of earth, such a result would prove the
most convincing possible evidence of the divineness
of his work. He came to bring to the world the
true principle and bond of brotherhood among men,
— love. The work of love bears within itself its
own attestation. Wherever men make it the guiding
light of their lives, it commends itself to all with
irresistible power as divine in its source and as
divinely adapted to secure the best good for man.
From the idea of unity among men through his in-
dwelling in them (xvii. 23) the thought of Jesus
mounts up to dwell upon their perfect union with
him and with the Father thro\igh love, reaching its
culmination in the words : " that the love wherewith
thou lovcdst me may be in them, and I in them "
(xvii. 26).

This intercession was special in its import and
purpose. It does not have in view the world in
general : " 1 pray not for the world, but for those
whom thou hast given me " (xvii. 9). Pie asks bless-
ings for them which, in the nature of the case, could

302 THE JOHANNIXE THEOLOGY

not be received by the world. He commends his
disciples to God for special guidance and favor since
they have shown a disposition to receive the truth
and to live righteously. They have special needs,
special capacities, and special claims upon the pater-
nal sympathy of God. The exclusion of the world
from this particular intercession has the effect to
emphasize the higher relation in which those who
have received the Son and his message stand to the
Father. It does not imply any limit in the love and
interest of Christ for the world. In the same prayer
he expresses the desire that through the consecration
and unity which he is now seeking for his disciples
the world may be led to believe (xvii. 21). Just as
earnestly as Jesus here seeks special grace for those
who had responded to his call, would he at other
times pray for the conversion of the world which he
had come to save (i. 29; iii. 16; iv. 42; xii. 47).

Our third theme is, the prayers of the disciples.
The first inquiry which arises is, What is meant by
prayer in Christ's name ? We have already observed
how Jesus said: "H?lherto," that is, previous to the
gift of the Spirit, "have ye asked nothing in my
name " (xvi. 24). He then proceeds to assure them
that in the dispensation of the Spii-it they shall ask
in his name (xvi. 26). Clearly, therefore, prayer
" in his name " involves some higher element, and
this element is the result of the gift and illumina-
tion of the Spirit. It is a ])art of that fuller bless-
ing which the Spirit is to bring, and which makes it

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 303

expedient that Jesus should go away in order that
the Spirit may come to apply and perpetuate his
work (xvi. 7). The capacity to pray to the Father
in Christ's name results from that fuller enlighten-
ment and more profound experience in Christian life
to which Jesus refers in saying that the Spirit will
hear witness of him, will guide the disciples into all
the truth, and will take of his and declare it unto
them (xv. 20; xvi. 13, 14). Further light is thrown
upon the expression in question hy the statement
that (according to the best text) the Father gave to
Jesus his own "name" to make known to the world;
" in thy name which thou hast given me " (eV tm 6v6-
/xaTL aov u) heh(i)Kd<i /xoi, xvii. 11); "I made known
unto them thy name, and will make it known"
(xvii. 26, cf. 6). The "name" of God is, according
to a Hebrew method of thought, a symbol for God's
nature. The Father gives to the Son his name to
manifest to men in the sense that he commissions
the Son to reveal himself as he truly is, to disclose
his nature, thought, and feeling more adequately
than they had ever been disclosed. This manifesta-
tion of God Christ makes to the w^orld in his own
person. He reveals to men, through the whole power
and spirit of his life and work, the grace, the love,
and the fatherliness of God.

"What, then, is the force of the sayings, " If ye
shall ask [me] anything in my name, that will I do "
(xiv. 14); "That whatsoever ye shall ask of the
Father in my name, he may give it you " (xv. 16) ?

304 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

Place beside these assurances another in which dif-
ferent terms are used : " If ye abide in me, and my
words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it
shall be done unto you" (xv. 7). To ask in Christ's
name must, therefore, be practically equivalent to
asking while abiding in him, and while his words
are abiding in the petitioner, that is, to ask in him,
in his spirit, in accord with the whole aim of his
work for and in the believer.^ It should be noted,
in addition to what has been said, that the Spirit
himself who, through his teaching and guidance,
leads believers into that experimental knowledge of
Christ and his work which enables them to pray in
his name, is said to be sent in his name (xiv. 26),
and also that God is said to answer prayer in
Christ's name : " If ye shall ask anything of the
Father, he will give it you in my name" (xvi. 23).
Thus it is seen that the phrase which we are consid-
ering is very comprehensive. The Spirit is sent,
prayer is offered, and the answer is given in Christ's
name. The person and work of Christ sum up in
themselves the whole gracious purpose and proceed-
ing of God for man's salvation and spiritual growth.
All that God does for us is held within the scope of
that revelation of God and communication of divine
life to men which Jesus accomplishes. The perpetu-

1 The import of the term " name " as a symbol in tlie Fourth
Gospel may be more fully tested by consulting the following
passages: i. 12; ii. 23; iii. 18; v. 43; x. 25; xii. 13; and
XX. 31.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 305

ution ctf the work of salvation in the world through
the ministry of the Spirit and the fostering and
strengthening of spiritual life through answers to
prayer, stand in direct connection with Christ's per-
son and work. The significance and end of his work
are normative for all divine action in redemption
and sanctification. As applied to prayer, therefore,
the phrase " in his name," implies a right apprecia-
tion of Christ as revealing God to man and as re-
vealing man to himself, and a right relation to this
saving work. Bishop Westcott has this comment :
" The meaning of the phrase ' in my name ' is ' as
being one with me, even as 1 am revealed to you.'
Its two correlatives are in me (vi. 56; xiv. 20; xv.
4 sq.\ xvi. 33; cf. I. v. 20), and the Pauline in
Christ. . . . Augustine remarks that the prayer in
Christ's name must be consistent with Christ's char-
acter, and that he fulfils it as Saviour, and therefore
just so far as it conduces to salvation." ^

The question now arises. How can we adjust the
statements that in the day of the Spirit the disciples
shall ask in his name (xvi. 26), and that if they shall
ask him anything in his name he will do it (xiv. 14),
with the assertion that in the day when he has de-
parted and the Spirit is come they shall ask him
nothing (xvi. 23 «). It is noticeable that in this
last passage it is the verb ipwrdv which is used to
describe the askiny of the disciples. The Greek is :
Koi ev eKeivr) rrj -q^iepa i/xe ovk ipcoTqaeTe ovSev. The

^ Commentary, in loco, xiv. 13.
20

306 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

common view is that the word ipcorav in this passage
has its proper classical signification (frequent also
in John and in the New Testament generally), to in-
quire, to ask a question ; and that the meaning of the
statement is : In the time when you become enlightened
by the Spirit you will ask me no such questions as
you have been doing : " How know we the way ? " (xiv.
5.) " Whither goest thou ? " (xvi. 5.) " What is this
that he saith, A little while ? " (xvi. 18.) Others under-
stand it to mean, to make request of me in jyra^er.
On the former view the statement stands directly con-
nected with verse 19 : " Jesus perceived that they Avere
desirous to ask him (ij6e\ov avrov ipcorav), and he
said unto them, Do ye inquire among yourselves con-
cerning this, that I said, A little while, and ye behold
me not, and again a little while, and ye shall see
me?" With this meaning corresponds also the use
of ipcorav in verse 30. This view avoids the diffi-
culty of applying ipcorav in this one passage to the
prayers of the disciples, whereas elsewhere in John it
is a])plicd to the prayers of Jesus only. Another
consideration favoring the meaning inquire rather
than request in our passage is that otherwise the
statement here seems to clash with that found in
xiv. 14, especially in case the pronoun me {/xe) is
genuine, as it probably is. In the case just supjjoscd
we should have in xvi. 23 the statement that in the
disi)ensation of the S{)irit the disciples should address
no prayer to Jesus, while in xiv. 14 he says that if
they ask him anything in his name, he will do it.

'11 ii; DOCTRINE OF I'll AVER 307

On the more eunuuoii iuterpiefiitiuii of ipo)Tr]a-eT€
the moaning of verses 23, 24 is well given in
Godet's paraphrase : " You will no longer address
your (piestions to me, as when I was visibly with
you ; and in general I declare to you that, as to
what you may have need of, you will be able, be-
cause of the communion established henceforth through
the Holy Spirit between yourselves and the Father,
to address yourselves directly to him." ^

To this interpretation of epcorrjaere it is, however,
objected that it unduly separates the two parts of
verse 23. Trench, indeed, athrnis that " every one
competent to judge is agreed that ' ye shall ask ' of
the first half of the verse has nothing to do with
' ye shall ask ' of the second." ^ But it is certainly
unusual for the two parts of a verse to " have nothing
to do with " each other, especially where a certain
definite subject is being consecutively presented.
Moreover, it is observed that in the sentence under
review the pronoun me (e/ie) is emphatic both in
form and by position. This emphasis seems to imply
that it stands in contrast with some other personal
term. What, then, is its correlative ? On the former
interpretation, which separates the two })arts of the
verse, no antithesis is expressed. It may be sujiplied
in some such way as this : In the time of the Spirit
ye shall ask me no questions, but the Spirit will teach
you ; or, you shall, instead of asking me, have direct

* Commeiitarij, in loco, xvi. 2:?.

2 Syrionyms of the New Teslament, p. 143.

308 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

access to the Father in prayer. But it is urged that
by assigning to epwT'qaeTe the meaning ye shall re-
q^iest, the two parts of the verse are brought into
natural connection, and the correlative to the em-
phatic })ronoun me of 23 a is found in the Father of
23 b. In that case tlie verse would mean : In that
day you shall indeed make no requests of me, as you
have been doing during my visible presence with you,
but you may go direct to the Father, and he will
give you whatever you need in my name. Dr. Ezra
Abbot also raises, on behalf of this view, this ques-
tion : Why should our Saviour say that when he was
gone from earth and the Spirit had come, they should
ask him 7io questions ^ Why should he tell them that
they would not do wdiat, in the nature of the case, was
impossible ? ^

These considerations seem to me to be overbalanced
l)y those which favor the former interpretation. It
might be said of the discijdcs that they would ask
him no such questions in that day as they had been
asking, if the meaning were that they would not

1 The student may he interested to see liow modern eoni-
mentators stand divided on the interpretation of epMrrjcrfTe. I
have accordingly made a list of representative scholars on
either side. In favor of the meaning ask no questions, are Tho-
luck, Liicke, DeWette, Alford, Trench, Lange, Meyer, (Jodet,
Westcott, H. Holtzmann, and Plummer. Favoring the meaning
make request, are E. Abbot, ^Veizsiicker, >Veiss, O. Holtzmann.
The views of older interpreters and of lexicographers are given
in Dr. Ezra Al)b(jt's article on " The distiiictlou between alria) and
(puTau)," in his Critical Essays.

THE DOCTRINE OF PRAYER 309

harbor them in their minds, or that they would not
bring them to him in i)raycr. Moreover, the emphasis
on the pronoun tne may be naturally explained in the
words of President Dwight : " The real force of this
emphatic e'/xe is this, that their permanent joy was to
be connected with a new intercourse with the Divine
Being, not that of questions presented to 7«'m, but of
prayers offered to God the Father in his name." ^ If,
then, the meaning ask no questions (such as you have
been asking) be assigned to epwrrjaere the passage
xvi. 23 a will furnish no special difliculty when set
alongside of the clear implication in xvi. 14 that,
after his departure from earth, his disciples will make
requests of him. It should also be noticed that the
word for " ask " in xvi. 23 h is alrelv. This fact, I think,
lends probability to the view that in the first part of
the verse ipoorav has a sense specifically different
from aWelv in the second part. Otherwise the change
of verbs would have no apparent motive, while if
ipcorav in 23 a means to ask -questions, the use of dif-
ferent words in the two clauses is naturally explained.
On neither interpretation of epcor-qaeTe is there any
conflict with xvi. 26. If the asking in the two pas-
sages is specifically different, there can be no conflict,
because there is no direct relation. If, on the other
hand, the askint/ is the same in kind in the two cases,
there is no inconsistency, because in xvi. 23 a an ask-
ing from Christ (as contrasted with the Father) is

1 Notes appended to Godet's Commentary, in loco, xvi. 23. .

310 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

denied, while in xvi. 26 an asking directly from the
Father is affirmed.

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

THE IHXTRIXK OF PRAYER 811

of prayer in Christ's name is well indicated in such
passages as I. v. 14: "If wo ask anything according
to his vN-ill, he heareth us," and xv. 7 : "If yc abide in
me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye
will, and it shall be done unto you."

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

CHAPTER XIII

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE

Literature. — Wendt : Teaching of Jesus, Eternal life in
the Johannine discourses, i. 242-248 (orig. pp. 188-193);
Weiss : Johann. Lehrh., Der Begriff des ewigen Lebens, pp. 1-
11, and Bibl Theol, Christ the Life of the World, ii. 347-352
(orig. pp. 614-618) ; Reuss : Hist. Christ. Theol, Of Life, ii.
492-505 (orig. ii. 549-564) ; Westcott : The Epistles of St.
John, The idea of Life, pp. 214-218 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol.,
Das ewige Leben als Gegenwart und Zukunft, pp. 403, 404;
Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol., Himmeh-eich und ewiges Leben, i.
262-264.

The passages and topics which are to be con-
sidered under the heading " Eternal Life " are closely
akin to those which we have already studied under
the title, "The Origin and Nature of the Spiritual
Life " (chapter X). It has seemed to me, however,
that there was enough that was distinctive in the
teaching concerning eternal life to entitle it to a
separate treatment.

"Eternal life," or "life" in the absolute sense, is
a name for the heavenly good which Jesus brings to
men in the gospel; it is conferred upon men upon
condition of faith in him. It is noticeable that in
the Johannine writings it is usually described as a

TIIH DOCTRIXK OF ETKIIXAL T.TFE 313

present possession of believers. In tht' b>ynoj)tic
Gospels, in which the term is less frequently used,
it has a future reference, as in ^lark x. 30, and the
parallel passage, Luke xviii. 30, where "eternal life"
stands in contrast to "this time" : "He shall receive
a hundredfold now in this time, . . . and in the
world to come eternal life." In John, however,
emi)hasis is laid upon the view that the believer
already lias eternal life, — an idea which, in other
forms, is abundantly recognized in the Synoptists.
We read, for example, in the Fourth Gosj)cl : " He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life. Verily,
verily, 1 say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God; and they that hear shall live" (v. 24, 25).
And again: "He that believeth hath eternal life"
(vi. 47) ; " He that eateth my flesh and drinkcth my
blood hath eternal life; and 1 will raise him up at
the last day" (vi. 54). From passages like this just
quoted, however, {cf. vi. 40) we see that eternal
life, though a present possession of the Christian,
looks forward to the " last day" for its completion ;
and thus we find in John a combination of pres-
ent and future references which corresponds sub-
stantially to the twofold representation by the
Synoptists of the kingdom of God as both present
and future.

What, now, is this great gift, this heavenly bene-

314 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

lit, which is called "eternal life"? In the opinion
of many interpreters we find in xvii. 3 a description
of its nature: "And this is life eternal, that they
should know thee the only true God, and him whom
thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." Weiss says
that this passage states "wherein the essence of
eternal life consists," and Westcott affirms that
"the definition is of the essence of eternal life," and
the same general position is taken by the great
majority of commentators. But those who hold that
we have here a definition of eternal life are not
wholly agreed as to what it is defined to be. One
point of difference concerns the force of iVa, k. t. X.,
rendered, "that they should know," etc. The two
scholars just quoted take different views of this
phrase. Weiss argues that just because the clause
"that they should know," etc., describes the nature
of eternal life, it is impossible that the connective
(Jva) can have the telle force. The clause in ques-
tion, he contends, states the co7itent of eternal life,
and cannot, therefore, be a clause of i)urpose.
Westcott, however, ingeniously says: "Eternal life
lies not so much in the possession of a comj)l('lc(]
knowledge as in the striving after a growing knowl-
edge. The that (iva) expresses an aim, an end, and
not only a fact. So, too, the tense of the vcrl)
('yivcoa-Kwcn) marks continuance, progress, and not a
perfect and past api)rehension gained once for all."
I cannot but regard this view of Westcott as over-
subtle, and, in general, on the force of iva in such

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 315

passages {rf. iv. 34; vi. 29, 39, 40; xv. 12; xviii. 39)
I prefer the view of Weiss. ^

But apart from tliis point, and on the assumption
that eternal life consists in the knowledge of God
and of Christ, there is room for considerable differ-
ence of view on the question. What is the nature of
this knowledge which is eternal life ? How much
does it include ? Is it to be understood as being
absolutely synonymous with eternal life, or as being
its root or subjective principle, as Liicke and Meyer
maintain ? This last mode of viewing the passage
is but a step removed from a second general method
of interpretation which sees in it, not a statement
of the nature of eternal life, but an assertion of the
condition on which eternal life is attained. We find
that John frequently represents Jesus as identify-
ing a result with the means or agent by which it is
obtained. Accordingly, he is the resurrection and
the life (xi. 25), that is, the means whereby these
are secured to men. Similarly he is said to be the
way, the truth, and the lite (xiv. 6), and his " words "
and " commandment " are said to be eternal life
(vi. 63; xii. 50), where the meaning must be that
they are the means or condition of securing eternal
life. In view of this Johannine "pregnant mode
of expression" Wendt infers that "Jesus is not
there (xvii. 3) stating wherein eternal life consists

1 Cf. Burton, New Testament Moods and Tenses, § 213. The
views of "Weiss and Westcott are quoted from their Couimeu-
tai'ies on xvii. 3.

316 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

as to its essetice, but wherein lies the means of
obtaining it. " ^

A similar view of our passage is maintained by
Bejschlag, who holds that it would have been incon-
gruous for Jesus to define the nature of eternal life
in his intercessory prayer, while the phrase is fre-
quently used elsewhere in his teaching without
formal definition. He therefore holds that the
words, "that they may know thee," etc., are in-
tended to indicate in what way and by what means
Jesus imparts eternal life, and that the phrase
"this is eternal life " is used in the sense of "there-
upon rests," or "thereby is mediated eternal life."
He further holds that the nature of eternal life
required no formal definition, since it is made
sufficiently evident by its contrast with death (v. 24)
and destruction (iii. 16), and by the figures by
which its bestowment is described, such as "the
bread of life" and "living water" (vi. 35; iv. 10-
14; vii. 37), and concludes: "The life is just that
true, perfectly satisfying, blessed life which flows
into the soul of man from communion with God. " ^

^ TeacJiing of Jesus, i. 244 (orig. p. 190).

2 Neutest. TheoL, i. 263, 2G1. In a note appended to the
passage suniniavized above, Beyschlag characterizes AVeiss's
view, tliat in xvii. 3 the nature of eternal life is defined as con-
sisting in the knowledge of fiod, tlius : " An erroneous concep-
tion, wiiich is carried so far that lie (Weiss) says {Dihl. TheoL,
p. G63, Eng. tr. ii. 411), with reference to v. 26 and vi. 57 : ' As
the Father and the Son are one, because there is common to
them the life of tlie complete knowledge of God,' "etc., — an
interi>n'lation wliich, naturally enough, leads Beyschlag to
e.xclaiiii: "Die vulle Gotteserkenntniss Gottes?"

THE DOCTUIXK OF ETERNAL LIFE 317

Wliilt' it seems to lue iiuiirolialtle that Jesus in-
tended, in tlie passage under review, to give a de-
finition of the nature of eternal life, it is none the
less true, as Beyschlag alKinns, that eternal life and
the knowledge of God are closely related concej)-
tions. If this knowledge is thought of as a condi-
tion of i»ossessing eternal life, it is still vitally and
essentially related to that life. It is necessary,
therefore, in seeking the meaning of " eternal life," to
determine as accurately as possible what this knowl-
edge of God and of Christ fairly includes. The
question has already been touched upon in our dis-
cussion of the idea of God and of the way in which
God is known (pp. 65-67).

It seems to me certain that by the knowledge in
question is meant a vital and practical apprehension
of God in his true character as he is revealed in
Christ. It is not a mere intellectual conviction, but
an appropriation of God to the heart and life by the
whole nature; it is such a spiritual intuition of God,
such a laying hold upon the revelation of him as dis-
closed in Christ, as makes him the supreme object
and determining power in life. In this view most
interpreters of John are substantially agreed; it
accords with a quality of John's thinking which we
noticed in our opening chapter, — that is, the ten-
dency to contemplate all the powers of the indi-
vidual in their unity, and so to regard the total man
as involved in all his acts and choices. Weiss
admits the view stated above, but stops short of con-

318 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

ceding Luther's claim that the idea of inward fellow-
ship {innere Gemeinschaft) is involved in the tcrni.^
This seems to be an effort to make a distinction
where there is no real difference. If, as Weiss says,
this knowledge is "a spiritual beholding, a sinking
of one's self into the highest object of knowledge by
means of which it is inwardly appropriated and
elevated so as to become the determining central
point of the Avhole spiritual life, "^ it must involve
an inward fellowship with God. The simplest way
of testing the correctness of this opinion is to review
some of the more important passages in John, where
he speaks of the knowledge of God or of Christ.

Let us first notice several passages in which the
possession of this knowledge is denied, and observe
the class of persons who are said 7iot to have it, and
the grounds on which they are so described. The
"world" is said not to have known the true light
which was shining in its darkness, and this saying is
illustrated and enforced by reference to the rejection
of Christ by the Jews (i. 10, 11). Jesus tells the
hostile and wicked Jews that they have not known
God, and adds, "but I know him" (viii. 55). It is
obvious that as his is the knowledge of i)ersonal
intimacy or fellowshij), so their lack of the knowl-
edge of God is due to their moral unlikeness to God
and want of sympathy with his Avill. In xiv. 7
Jesus says to the disciples: "If ye had known me,

^ C'orniiientari/, in loco, inAx; ([>. f)!!).
* Commeiituri/, in loco.

THE DOCTRlXi: OF ETERNAL LIFE 31i>

ye would have known my Father also," and the con-
versation which ensued shows very clearly that it is
through the deeper api)rehension of his person and
through closer unity with his life that they were to
know the Father. In this connection the Spirit is
l)romised, who shall unveil Christ and his truth to
them that they may thereby know God. But some,
he says, have no affinity for the Spirit. The woi'ld
cannot receive him, "for it beholdeth him not,
neither knoweth him: ye know him; for he abideth
with you, and shall be in you " (xiv. 17). The Jews
will persecute the disciples, said Jesus, "and these
things will they do, because they have not known the
Father, nor me " (xvi. 3). The sinful world knew
not God, but Jt-sus knew him and made him known
to men, and will continue to make liim known; and
what is the aim of that knowledge? "That the
love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them,
and I in them " (xvii. 26). These passages show
how inseparabh; is the knowledge of God from the
life of love in fellowship with God. Several pas-
sages in the First Epistle emphasize the same con-
nection of ideas: "For this cause the world knoweth
us not, because it knew him not" (1. iii. 1). "He
that loveth not knoweth not God ; for God is love "
(I. iv. 8).

So far, therefore, as eternal life consists in, or is
dependent upon, a knowledge of God, there is in-
volved in it a spiritual fellowship with God. It
makes little practical difference whether we regard

320 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

xvii. 3 as a formal definition of eternal life or as a
statement of the method of its attainment. The
conditions of entering the kingdom of God are also
conditions of continuing to participate in its hene-
lits. Humility, meekness, hunger and thirst after
righteousness, and kindred qualities are as truly
characteristics of the member of the kingdom as
they are conditions of his becoming such. What,
then, is eternal life ? It is the fulfilment of man's
true destiny in fellowship with God as revealed in
Jesus Christ; it is life after the divine pattern, —
Christ-like life. It is the correspondence of man to
his true idea, the realization of that sort of charac-
ter of which Christ is the type. After a careful
collation of all the passages in which John presents
the idea of life. Bishop Westcott sums up their sig-
nificance in the following statement : —

" If now we endeavor to bring together tlie different
traits of ' the eternal life,' we see that it is a life which,
with all its fulness and all its potencies, is now ; a life
which extends beyond the limits of the individual, and
preserves, completes, crowns individuality by phicing the
part in connection with the whole ; a life which satisfies
while it quickens asi^iration ; a life which is seen, as we
regard it patiently, to be capable of conquering, recon-
ciling, uniting the rebellious, discordant, broken elements
of being on which we look and which we bear aliout with
us; a life Avhich gives uiiily to the constituent i)arts and
to the complex whole, which brings together heaven and
earth, which offers the sum of existence in one thought.
As we reach forth to gi'asp it, the revelation of God is

THE DOCTRINE OF ETERNAL LIFE 321

seen to luive been uiifoKK'd in its parts in Creation; and
the pai'tH are seen to luive been brouy,liL together again
by the Incarnation." ^

This general view of the nature of eternal life
may be further tested by reference to those dis-
courses in chapters v. and vi. of the Gospel, to which
for another purpose we have already referred (pp. lo(j-
164). If the interpretation of these discourses which
we adopted be correct, we may find in them a strong
confirmation of the mystical conception of eternal
life. The moral blindness, pride, and obduracy of
the Jews are depicted as the reason why they will
not come to Christ that they may have life (v. 37-40).
Had they possessed a humble and teachable spirit,
had they penetrated to the real truth of the Scrip-
tures and lived the life of obedience and fellowship
with God which corresponds to that truth, they
would have had eternal life.

Still more explicitly in the discourse on the bread
of life does Jesus represent eternal life as dependent
upon spiritual fellowship with himself. He is him-
self the bread that possesses and gives life. This
bread must be eaten ; that is, his own person, his
very spirit and life, must be appropriated in order
that eternal life maybe secured. "He that eatcth
my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life;
and I will raise him up at the last day. He that
eateth me, he also shall live because of me "
(vi. 54, 57). There is a passage in the First Epistle

» The Epistles of St. John, pp. 217, 218.
21

322 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

which, though not very i)hiiii in its grammatical
form, is clear in its bearing upon the nature of
eternal life: "And we know that the Son of God
is come, and hath given us an understanding, that
we know {ha r^ivwaKOfiev) him that is true [God], and
we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.
This one [God] is the true God, and eternal life "
(I. V. 20). The essential thought of the passage is
that Christ has disclosed God to men in his real
character so that they may truly know him, and they
do thus know him by being in him as they are in
Christ. Union with Christ involves union with
God, and this true God to whom we are united
through Christ becomes eternal life to us. In the
knowledge and fellowship of God we realize the true
life. This " knowledge rests on fellowship and issues
in fellowship " (Westcott).

Our inquiries have thus far led us to a generic
conception of " eternal life " in John's writings. It
remains, however, to examine more particularly the
force of the phrase so far as it is dependent upon the
word "eternal" (atco^to?). The phrase "eternal life "
occurs seventeen times in the Gospel and six times
in the First Epistle. In none of these cases does
there appear to be any distinctive emphasis upon
the word eternal, and in but few instances is the
phrase so used as to throw any light upon the force
of that word. There are five i)assagcs, however,
which should be noticed in this connection. In two
idaces eternal life is contrasted with perishing or

Tin: DocTKixi: of eternal ufk 323

destruction (aircoXeia) : "' God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believcth on him should not perish (firj diroXriTat), but
have eternal life" (iii. 10); "And 1 give unto them
eternal life; and they shall never perish" (ou /xr)
aTToXwvTai), etc. (x. 28). The idea contained in the
word perish is probably that of an ethical destruc-
tion, the loss of man's true destiny as a child of
God; the opposite of this idea, "eternal life," would
not, in that case, emphasize primarily the continu-
ance of existence, but the attainment of the true
goal of man's being in fellowship with God. It lies,
no doubt, in the very idea of this life that it is im-
perishable or endless, but the stress of thought does
not lie upon its perpetuity, but upon its nature or
content. The same will be found to be the case
where eternal life is contrasted with death: "He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and comcth not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life " (v. 24). It
is (piitc certain that the death here spoken of is the
moral death of sin, the state from which it is the
mission of the Son to raise men (of. verse 21). Here,
too, the spiritual life which is bestowed is eternal,
not primarily in the sense of being endless, but in
the sense of being akin to God, as the closing words
of the passage intimate: "He that heareth, etc., hath
passed out of the death [ek tov Oavdrov, the death
which is really such] into the life " [et? t7jv ^oorjv, the
life which is truly life].

324 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

riiK DocTKixK OK p:teiinal life 325

every truth of rcligiuu up beyond all associations of
time and sjtace, and to ground it in the very essence
of God. Now, since it is not the perpetuity of God's
existence, but liis moral perfection, which chiefly
constitutes his glory, it would follow that the dignity
of the life which springs from union with him is
found, not primarily in its continuance, but in its
(Jodlike quality.

I may, in passing, indicate the way in which the
Johannine teaching concerning eternal life may be
made to bear ui)on the doctrine of "conditional
immortality." If death or destruction, with which
eternal life is set in contrast, be understood, not
merely or chiefly in the ethical sense, but also in the
sense of cessation of existence, and if the emphasis
in the phrase "eternal life" be laid upon the idea
of continuance, it would follow that eternal life in
Christ involves immortality for those only who
believe on him. This life, we are told, is in his
Son (I. V. 11), and in iii. 15 the correct text most
naturally yields the translation found in the Revised
Version : " that whosoever believeth may in him have
eternal life " (so Meyer, Weiss, Wcstcott, and Plum-
mer). Eternal life in Christ will therefore mean
immortality through union with Christ if the terms
are taken in what I have called a quantitative,
rather than a qualitative sense, — that is, as refer-
ring to perpetuity, as contrasted with cessation of
being. It docs not seem to me, however, that this
application of the passages in question is naturally

32() THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

sii,a;gcste(l by their language or context, or by the
apostle's methods of religions thought. Life seems
to denote, lor his mind, fulness and richness of being,
the realization of man's true destiny through union
with God and likeness to Christ. Such a life is, of
course, by its very nature, imperishable. Death can
claim no dominion over it : "" If a man keep my word,
he shall never taste of death" (viii. 52); that is,
he shall pass through ])hysical death unharmed;
"though he die, yet shall he live" (xi. 25; cf. vi.
50, 51, 58). This last group of passages, which
assert continuance of life for the believer, nuiy seem
to justify the inference that for unbelievers there is
no continuance of being. There is, however, no
indication that the apostle himself associated this
inference with his doctrine of life, and the actual
statements which he makes or rejjorts seem to show
that for his mind the perpetuity of the true life is
incidental to its nature. The direct contrast to
eternal life, therefore, would not be extinction, l)ut
depravation, loss, moral destruction.

But if persistence of being is not the primary idea
which John associates with life considered as eter-
nal, how shall we deline the notion which that word
adds to the noun which it qualifies? I think no
better answer can be given than that of J]ishop
Westcott: Eternal life "is not an endless duration
of being in time, but being of which time is not a
measure. We have indeed no powers to grasj) the
idea except through foi'ms and images of sense.

THE DOCTUIXE OF KTERXAL LIFE 327

These must lie used ; but we must not transfer them
as realities to another order. "^ Reuss sums up the
meaning of "eternal life" in three ideas: (1) "the
idea of a real existence, an existence such as is
proper to God and to the Word ; an imperishable
existence, — that is to say, not subject to the vi-
cissitudes and imperfections of the finite world ; "
(2) "the idea of poAver, an operation, a communica-
tion, since this life no longer remains, so to speak,
latent or passive in God and in the Word, but through
them reaches the believer;" and (3) the idea "of
satisfaction and happiness, . . . direct results of
union with Christ." ^

1 Epistles of St. John, p. 215.

2 Hist. Christ. TheoL, 11. 490 (orig. 11. 553, 554).

CHAPTER XIV

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY

Literature. — Weiss: Johann. Lehrb., Die Eschatologie, pp.
179-191, and Bibl. TheoL, The Last Day, ii. 416-421 (orig. G67-
671) ; Wendt : Teaching of Jesus, Coining again to tlie disci-
ples according to the Johannine discourses, ii. 294-303 (orig.
565-573); Reuss : Hist. Christ. TheoL, Of Judgment, ii. 446-
454 (orig. ii. 498-508) ; Beyschlag : Neutest. Theol, Das Welt-
gericht, Die Auferstehung und das ewige Leben, i. 287-293,
and Die letzten Dinge, ii. 464-466 ; Frommann : Johann. Lehrb.,
Das Gericht, u. s. w., pp. 660-701 ; Baur : Neutest. Theol, Die
Eschatologie, u. s. w., pp. 404-407; Neander : Planting and
Training, Resurrection and Judgment, etc., ii. 48-53 ; Messner ;
Lehre der Apostel, Die A'ollendung, i:)p. 357-360.

Those themes of religious thought which are
commonly comprehended under the term "escha-
tology " are less prominent in John than in most of
the New Testament writers. This fact is naturally
ex])lained by his tendency to contemplate religion
as a ])rescnt ))ossession and experience. We have
seen a consi>icuous illustration of this tendency in
our study of his doctrine of eternal life, A mystical
theology like John's dwells with special fondness
upon such truths as union with Christ and spiritual
fellowship with God, — truths which arc independent

11 IK -lOHANNINK ESCIIAT0L0(;Y S29

of time, and \vliicli tend to make tlie mind wliicli
is absorbed in them relatively indifTerent to fntuio
events and changes. In the judgment of some
scholars wo find almost no eschatology at all, in the
ordinary sense, in John's writings. Reiiss is one of
these, lie says: "The current eschatological ideas
of |uiniitivc Christianity ai'c not found in the Gos^jcI
of Joiin, or, at the most, if they are adverted to in
some popular forms of expression, they are so iso-
lated that they in no way affect the system as a
whole. ... Of all the facts of eschatology, the
only one of which passing mention is made, is the
resurrection of the dead. "^

These statements we shall have occasion to test in
the course of our inquiries. We will, however, fore-
warn the reader that we shall often find in John a
close association of mystical ideas, such as that of
a spiritual coming of Christ and that of a spiritual
resurrection, Avith those of current eschatology, such
as the idea of a visible second advent and that of
a resurrection from the dead. This apparent com-
mingling of two sets of notions will often make it
difficult, and, perhaps, sometimes impossible, to
draw a clear line of division between the literal and
the spiritual. There are three themes in connection
with which the eschatology of John can best be
studied. They are : (1) the second advent, (2) the
resurrection, and (3) the judgment.

The terra advent or coming {irapovaCa), which is

' Hist. Christ. TheoL, ii. 408, 499 (orig. ii. 556, 558).

330 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

so frequently used bj' Paul to denote the personal
return of Christ to raise the dead and judge the
world, is used but once in our sources: "And now,
my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall
be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be
ashamed before him at his coming " (iv rrj irapovaia
avrov, I. ii. 28). Reuss admits that this passage
expresses the expectation of the second coming, but
regards it as an illustration of the imperfectly
developed mysticism of the First Epistle, which
finds its completion only in the Fourth Gospel. The
Epistle, he maintains, differs widely in this respect
from the Gospel, "and makes use of many theses
borrowed from ordinary eschutology. " ^

An obvious general allusion to the approaching
end of the age is found in the words, " It is the last
hour" (I. ii. 18). The bearing of I. iii. % 3 is not
quite certain. The statement in the first part of
verse 2, "It is not yet made manifest (ovTrco e^av-
epoyOr]) what we shall be," may be regarded as favor-
ing the translation of the last part whicli is found
in the margin of the Revised Version: "We know
that, if it [that is, what we shall be] shall bo mani-
fested {eav (f)avepco6rj\ we shall be like him," etc.
On this construction of verse 2 the "hope" which
is spoken of in verse 3, as set on God or Christ,
would refer directly to the expectation of being like
God or Christ. If, however, the subject of "shall
be manifested " {(^avepcoOfi) is supjiosed to be Christ

•■^ Hist. Christ. Tkeol., ii. 50:5 (orig. ii. 501).

'iiii: .loiiAXXiXE ks('iia'I()L()(;y 331

(so lioth our Englisii versions), then the "hope" of
verse 3 wouM refer, at least indirectly, to the
anticii)ation of his advent. It is impossible to
decide confidently between these two possible ren-
derings, but I think the balance of probability favors
the rendering found in our English versions. But
whatever view be taken of this doubtful passage, it
will be seen from the other two just quoted that the
idea of a literal second coming of Christ is not
absent from John's Catholic Epistle.

The passages of principal interest and difficulty,
however, which bear upon our topic, are found in
chapters xiv. and xvi. of the Gospel. 1 shall
examine these passages, and try to ascertain their
natural meaning by a study of the language and
context. The effort will be to interpret what our
author has written ; the task of determining by
conjecture the precise words and meaning of Jesus
himself, in the utterance, sixty years or more before
they were written down, of those discourses which
John had reported, I shall not attempt.

The first passage which we have to consider is
xiv. 3: "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I
come again {irakiv ep^oixai), and will receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be
:ilso. " There are four interpretations of the words
'' I come again " which deserve notice : (1) Some
refer them to the coming of Christ to the believer
at death, by which he is taken to the Saviour's
heavenly abode (so Tholuck, Lange, Reuss, H.

332 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

* Commenlaries^, in loco.

TIIK JOIIANNINK KSCll ATOLOfJY 333

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

334 THE JOHANNTNE THEOLOGY

The connection seems to me to make it practically
certain that this coming refers to the gift of the
Spirit. In the preceding verse (17) the abiding
presence of the Spirit is promised, and in the follow-
ing (19) Jesus says : " Yet a little while, and the
world bcholdeth me no more; but ye behold me:
because I live ye shall live also." The world has
only physical sight, and when I am no longer pre-
sent in bodily form, the world has no more knowl-
edge of me; but ye, through the Spirit's illumination
and teaching, continue, in a spiritual sense, to sec
me. Our communion is a fellowship of life. I shall
still exist for you, my disciples; I shall still come
to you and abide with you through the presence and
power of the Spirit. The great majority of recent
interpreters agree in referring this passage to the
coming of Christ in the Spirit.^ Others have re-
ferred the words to Christ's appearances after his
resurrection;^ others to the parousia;'^ and still
others have given to the words a double sense and
applied them l)oth to his corporeal and to his sj)i ritual
return.* Westcott gives the words a continuous
sense: "/come, ever and at all times I am coming."
The application of the words to the Spirit is, how-
ever, confirmed by the subsequent verses.

In xiv. 23 Jesus seems clearly to speak of a spirit-

^ So Liicke, Meyer, Godet, Reynolds, riuinmer, Dwight.

'^ So Ewald and Weiss.

^ So Hofiiiann and LuLliardt.

* So DeWette, Kbrard, Lange, H. IIulLznianii.

THE JOIIAXXIXE esciiatoi.o(;y 335

iial "coiniiiii:" of both tlic Father ami liiiusclf to
those who h)ve him: "'If a man h)V(' mo hi; will keej)
my word: and my Fatlier will love him, and we will
come unto him, and make our al)ode with him; " and
what he afterwards says in xiv. 28 can hardly be
meant in a sense specifically different: "Ye heard
how I said to you, I go away and I come again to
you/' Since his departure from earth and the send-
ing of the Spirit are coimtorparts (xvi. 7), it would
follow that his "coming" to them after his departure
would be most naturally understood to refer to his
coming in the gift of the Paraclete.

In chapter xvi. Jesus speaks of his disciples and
himself as i^eehiii each other after his departure: "A
little while, and ye behold me no more; and again
a little while, and ye shall see me " (verse 16). " Ye
therefore now have sorrow : but I will see you again,
and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one
taketh away from you " (verse 22). The interpreta-
tion which is adopted for xiv. 18 will have consider-
able influence in the effort to determine the meaning
of these ])assages. Some, however, who do not refer
xiv. 18 directly or solely to Christ's appearances
after his resurrection, understand the seeing, which
is here spoken of, as occurring in connection with
those appearances.' While, as we intimated, the
spiritual sense of xiv. 18 would ]»robably be found to
be supported by a majority of modern commentators,
the same cannot be said of xvi. 16, 22. These

' JSo Lange and Ebrard.

336 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

verses have been more commonly referred to the
reunion of Christ with his disciples after his resur-
rection. ^ Some have applied them to the parousia,^
and still others have understood them to relate to
a process or series of "comings,"*^ in accordance
with the " perspective view " of such prophecies.
The choice seems clearly to lie between the refer-
ence to the appearances after the resurrection and
that to the spiritual vision of Christ. The whole
context, especially verses 23, 25, and 26, seems to
me to speak strongly for the latter view. Spiritual
fellowship in the dispensation of the Spirit (" that
day," verses 23, 26), a completer apprehension and
ap])ropriation of himself, is the theme of the dis-
course. Jesus assures the disciples that, though he
will soon withdraw his bodily presence from them,
he will, through the Spirit, even more fully disclose
himself to them, so that he and they shall spiritually
see and speak to one another. This inter])retation
will be found in the writings of Liicke, Meyer, Reuss,
Godet, and Dwight.

One further ])assage remains to be considered.
After Jesus had given to Peter the charge, "Feed
my sheep" (xxi. 17), he speaks to him of the martyr-
dom which awaits him in his old age, and then adds,
"Follow me " (verse 19). Peter thereupon sees the
beloved disciple John following, and at once inquires

^ So I^uther, Ilongstenberg, Ewald, Weiss.
'•^ So Aiigustiiie, nofinaun, Lechler.
" So Alford and Westcott.

THE JOIIAXXIXE ESC'H A'lOl.Ot; V .^^37

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

1 So Ewald, Olshausen, Lange.

2 So, with some variations, Luthardt, Godet, Alford, and
Westcott.

888 THE JOHANNINE TIIEOLOfiY

John outlived tlio dcstnictiou of Jerusalem by many
years, not much is gained by this view in the way
of harmonizing the possibility suggested with the
actual fact.

It seems, on the whole, preferable to refer the
words "till 1 come" to the parousia,^ and carefully
to observe the hypothetical form in which they
are set. Peter is to suffer a violent death before
the parousia; he is actuated, perhaps by sympathy
(Weiss, Godet, Plummer), or possibly by curiosity
(Bengel, De Wette), or by jealousy (Llicke, Meyer), to
ask the fate of John. Jesus replies to Peter that he
need not concern himself about that; if it be his
will that John should live till his coming, that can
make no difference with his own divinely appointed
course. This hypothetical statement easily became
transformed into a categorical assertion, — though
without warrant; for Jesus did not say: He shall
live till I come, but only : If I will that he do so,
that does not concern thee.^

It will l)e seen that, according to the interpreta-

1 So Liicke, De Wette, Meyer, Weiss, H. Holtzmann.

2 Dr. A. P. Peabody, in his essay on the Fourth Gospel, re-
ferred to in the Preface, presents the view that the words /o//of«
and come in the conversation really related only to nMuarks
concerning local movements, wliich the disciples partially over-
heard, and "not unnaturally connected with the inofoundly
solemn subjects on which he had, no doubt. bcfMi talking witii
them as with Peter, and tliey imagined that by 'staying till
T come back ' he meant ' living till my second coming. ' " See
p. Ill of the volume of essays entitled. The Fourth Gospel.

Tin: .lOIIANNTXE eschatolo(;y 339

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

340 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the lifetime of persons then living (Matt. xvi. 27,
28; xxvi. 64; Mark ix. 1; xiii. 20; Luke ix. 27;
xxi. 32)?

In close connection with the allusions to the
parousia, and as showing the association of the
resurrection and the judgment with it, stand certain
references to the "last day." In the discourse on
the bread of life, the statement is four times re-
peated that Christ will "raise up at the last day"
those who have been renewed through faith in him
and fellowship with his life (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). In
xi. 24 Martha speaks of the resurrection of her
brother " at the last day. " This " day " is, there-
fore, the day of resurrection ; that it is also the day
of judgment is evident from xii. 48: "The word
which I spake, the same shall judge him in the last
day;" and I. iv. 17: "Herein is love made per-
fect with us, that we may have boldness in the day
of judgment." Although the language in John is
less explicit than in the Synoptists and in Paul
respecting the relations of the parousia, resur-
rection, and judgment, there can be no reasonable
doubt that they are conceived of as occurring in
close connection, in the order named, at the nearly
a])proaching end of the i)resent age.

We turn next to John's teaching concerning the
resurrection. The passages which we have just
noticed (vi. 39, 40, 44, 54) in connection with the
expression "tlie last day," clearly assert a future
resurrection of the believer from the state of death,

THE .lOIIANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 341

though they do not dijliue the nature of it. Ileuss
legards the words "1 will raise him up" as only a
l)oi)ular form of saying that "to the hcliever there is
no death'' (xi. '2ij).^ But while there is a certain
kinship between these two ideas, the former is too
definitely exjiressed to permit of identification with
the latter. A passage of much interest and impor-
tance for our present theme is v. 19-29. The idea
of resurrection is here three times presented, in
verses 21, 25, and 29, and is again indirectly referred
to in verse 24. Yerse 21 reads: "For as the Father
raiseth the dead and quickeneth them, even so the
Son also quickeneth whom he will." These words
were spoken just after the healing of the impotent
man at the pool of Bethesda. The Son, we are told,
has wrought this miracle on the Father's authority
and in accord with the Father's own beneficent
activity (verse 19), but the Son will do even greater
works than such miracles are (verse 20), for he will
raise the dead and quicken them (verse 21). What
sort of a resurrection is here meant ? Before at-
tempting to decide, let us follow the discourse a few
steps farther. Jesus explains that judgment, as
well as resurrection, belongs to the Son, Avho is en-
titled to equal honor with the Father (verses 22, 23)
and continues: "Verily, verily, I say unto you. He
that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent
me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment,
but hath passed out of death into life. Verily,

1 Hist. Christ. TlieoL, ii. 500 (orig. ii. 558).

342 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

verily, I say unto you, the hour cometh, and now is,
when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of
God ; and they that hear shall live " (verses 24, 25).
Then he speaks of the Father as the absolute source
of life, and the Son as the mediate source of life,
and the bearer of judgment, and continues: "Marvel
not at this : for the hour cometh in which all that
are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall
come forth; they that have done good, unto the
resurrection of life; and they that have done ill,
unto the resurrection of judgment " (verses 28, 29).

Shall we regard this whole passage as literal
throughout, or as figurative throughout, or as partly
literal and partly figurative ? It has been inter-
preted in all three ways ; I unhesitatingly follow the
great majority of modern interpreters in deciding
for the third view. In that case we may either
regard verse 21 as introducing the conception of
spiritual resurrection, which is found also in verses
24 and 25, ^ or we may suppose that Jesus' life-
giving work in both its spiritual and its physical
aspects is presented, and that verses 24, 25, and
verses 28, 29, respectively, set forth these two sides
of his salvation.^ This is a minor point of differ-
ence, and the language of verses 21-23 is not deci-
sive. But since this language is very general and is
intended to describe the " greater works " (verse 20)
than miracles of healing wliich the Son shall do, it

' So Liicke, De Wette, Olshausen, ISleyer, Plummer.
2 So Tholuck, Godet, Weiss, Westcott.

THE JOHANNINE ESCHATOLOGY 343

seems to iiic most iKitunil to take verses 21-23 as a
comprehensive description of Christ's life-bringing
and judicial mission, -which is described in the
verses that follow both on its ethical or spiritual
(verses 24-27) and on its physical side (verses 28,
29). In any case, the language of verses 24, 25 can-
not, without violence, be made to refer to anything
but a spiritual resurrection, and just as little can
that of verses 28, 29 refer to anything but a physical
resurrection. In the former passage Jesus is speak-
ing of the believer as already possessing eternal life,
and declares that the hour when the dead shall hear
the voice of the Son of God is already present. A
spiritual quickening from moral death which is
already taking place must be meant. But in verses
28 and 29, the dead who are " in the tombs " are
spoken of, and they are described as coming forth
to a resurrection, either of life or of judgment, ac-
cording as they have done good or ill. Here only
physical resurrection can be meant.

What we see, then, in this passage is not, as
Reuss says, a comparison between the spiritual
resurrection and the physical, with a declaration
of the superior importance of the former {cf. ^ei^ova
epya, verse 20),^ but a juxtaposition of the two ideas
which, taken together, illustrate the greatness and
completeness of the Saviour's life-giving mission.
We must now look more closely at verses 28 and 29,
and place alongside of them the few other passages

» Hist. Christ. Theol., ii. 499 (orig. ii. 558).

344 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

which iUustrate the idea of physical resurrection in
John. In verse 29 it is said that they that have done
good shall come forth unto the resurrection of life
(ek avdaraaiv ^wf/?), and they that have done ill unto
the resurrection of judgment (et? avdaraaiv Kpi'aeco^;),
The genitives " of life " and *' of judgment " may be
understood as conveying the idea of belonging to, and
so may designate, respectively, a resurrection which
results in life in the Messiah's heavenly kingdom,
and a resurrection which issues in a condemnatory
judgment. 1 These words are also taken as defining
and limiting the terms on which they depend, so that
the sense would be: a resurrection which results
from the possession of life, and a resurrection which
results from the judgment which is already outstand-
ing against those who have rejected Christ (iii. 18).'-^
I can see no reason why both ideas may not be in-
volved. Those who possess the true life enter upon
its completion at the resurrection; those who, by
reason of sin and unbelief are already judged, find
that sentence confirmed and ratified in the final
assize. When it is said that unbelievers are judged
already, that believers do not come into judgment,
and that those who have done ill come forth to a
resurrection of judgment, the word " judgment " is
used in the sense of an unfavorable or condenmatory
judgment, so that the idea of a judgnu'iit for the
righteous in the sense of a favorable sentence ])ro-

' So Jjiicke, ]\Ieyer, (iodot.

'^ So Luthardt, Weiss, H. Ilultzniann.

Tin: JOIIANNINE ESCIIATOLOCY 345

noiinciiig their aciiuittal and acceptance is nut
excluded. It will he seen that our passage — in
contrast to Paul — explicitly asserts the resurrection
of all men; hut there is no hint of a sej»aration in
time hetween the resurrection of life and the resur-
rection of judgment (as Meyer holds). Only the
former resurrection, however, carries with it the
idea of the fulness of life and blessedness which
characterizes John's conception of salvation.

We find nothing further in John bearing directly
ui)on the resurrection, excei)t the references to it in
connection with the death and raising of Lazarus.
When Jesus said to Martha: "Thy brother shall rise
again " (xi. 23), she replied: "I know that he shall
rise again in the resurrection at the last day " (verse
24) ; to which Jesus answered : " I am the resurrec-
tion and the life : he that believeth on me, though
he die, yet shall be live: and whosoever livcth and
believeth on rac shall never die " (verses 25, 26). It
is evident that Martha is here represented as cher-
ishing a belief in a resurrection at the end of time.
Reuss says that, in his reply to her, Jesus does not
exactly negative this idea, but "deprived it of all
theological value, in comparison with that other
belief, that life and resurrection begin even now,
triumphing over death in him who receives both
directly from the Saviour." ^ But the contrast
between the thought of Jesus and that of Martha is
not the contrast between spiritual and physical resur-

1 Hist. Christ. TheoL, ii. 500 (oiig. ii. 558).

346 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

We turn to the doctrine of the judgment. Just as
the life-giving work of the Son is presented chiefly in
its present aspect, so John emphasizes the process of

THE .lOHAXXINE ESCIIA lOI.OGY 347

jtul^mout wliii'li is continually taking place more than
he does the final' jndgniont at the end of the present
world-period. And as the futnre resnrrection seems
to be viewed as an element, and, in some sense, as
the consummation of the Son's hcstowmcnt of life
upon mankind, so the future judgment api)cars to be
regarded as the culmination of a process of judgment
which is inseparably connected with the presence
and effect of divine light and truth in the world.

There arc several distinctions which need to be
carefully kept in mind in seeking to construct from
the scattered notices in John a doctrine of the judg-
ment. They arc such as these : (1) the distinction
between judgment when it stands in contrast to sal-
vation, and judgment in the sense of the moral test-
ing of men according to their acceptance or rejection
of the truth; (2) the distinction between judgment
in the neutral and in the condemnatory sense; (3)
the contrast between present and future judgment,
and the relation of Christ to each.

I have already (pp. 63, (34) pointed out the solution
of the apparent contradiction between certain pas-
sages which deny that Christ judges men and certain
others which represent him, not only as actually
judging them, but as coming into the world for that
purpose. I will Ijricily call attention to them again.
The principal passages are : '' I judge no man "
(viii. 15); "And if any man hear my sayings and
keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to
judge the world, but to save the world" (xii. 47);

348 THE JOriANNINE THEOLOGY

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

'J'lIK .lOIIAXXINi: KSCIIATOLOGY 349

their s|iiiitiial ijriilo, say *we sec,' verse 41] may
become l)liiul/'

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

350 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

belicvcth not hath been judged already, because he
hath not believed on the name of the only begotten
Son of God " (iii. 18, 19) ; his judgment is involved
in his attitude toward the truth which Jesus embodies
and reveals. The Saviour does not come to judge him,
but to save him, but by his rejection of salvation he
turns the saving message itself into a judgment.

This distinction must, I think, be the key to the
understanding of a passage where Jesus disclaims
even the exercise of condemnatory judgment in the
last day upon those who reject him and receive not
his sayings : " If any man hear my sayings and keep
them not, I judge him not : for I came not to judge
the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth
me, and rcceiveth not my sayings, hath one that
judgeth him : the word that I spake, the same shall
judge him in the last day " (xii. 47, 48). Only the
two-fold distinction (1) l^etween judgment as moral
testing and as condemnation, and (2) between Christ's
direct personal work (salvation) and the judicial
effect of his truth (if rejected), can enable us to
adjust this passage to those which describe Christ as
judging. He is not the judge in the sense that his
personal desire and the whole direct aim of his
mission contemplate salvation; yet he is the judge
in so far as his truth necessarily tests and separates
men, and pronounces condemnation against those
who reject it. His " word " shall judge men at the
last day, as it is constantly judging those to whom it
comes.

Tiii; JoHAXXiXK i:sciiaT()[.()(;y -'551

HavinLT seen in wliat senso Christ is hotli the jircs-
cnt ami t'utur(> jiulgo of men, we nahii-ally ask,
What is tho import of the sayini^ that tho Father
judges no man, but hath committed all judgment to
the Son, and especially of the further statement that
the Father has given the Son " authority to execute
judgment because he is the Son [or a son] of man "
(v. 22, 27) ? On this passage Beyschlag has this
suggestive comment: "The eternal love condcnms
no one because he is a sinner; as such it does not at
all condemn ; it leaves it to men to judge themselves,
through rejection of the Saviour who is presented to
them, ' The Son of man ' is the judge of the world
just because he presents the eternal life, the king-
dom of heaven, to all, and urges all to the eternal
decision, and thus urges those who continue unbeliev-
ing to a continuing self- judgment. " ^ Much here turns
upon the saying that Jesus executes judgment
" because he is Son of man. " Many have supposed
this to mean that he does this as Messiah, since
judgment is a part of Messiah's work ; but in New
Testament usage both terms have the article where
the phrase " the Son of man " refers to Jesus as Mes-
siah. It is noticeable that here the title is vlo<; avOpdu-
TTov. Meyer supposes the title to point specifically to
the incarnation. As incarnate Son he is judge,
because in the economy of redemption he was
ajjpointed to do his work through becoming man.
This view seems to ground his judicial function too
much in an " economy " or decree, and too little in

1 Neutest. Tkeol., i. 200.

352 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

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

1 Jnhnnn. Lelirli., p. 221.

2 Commentary, in loco. This general view of the passage —
with variations — is ilhistratcd in Ihe expositions of Augustine,
Luther, Baur, Holtzmann, I'lumnicr, and many others.

TIIK JOHANNINE ESCII A TOI.O(;Y 353

express the sense ot Christ's triuiiii)h in his rodemp-
tivG work, the certainty of the overthrow — seen as
already accomplished — ot" Satan's kingdom. They
resemble the saying of Jesus upon hearing the report
of the successful work of the seventy disciples: '"I
heheld Hatan falling as lightning from heaven "
(Luke X. 18).

The passages which we have thus far examined
illustrate, almost exclusively, the idea of a process
of judgment going on continuously in this world,
and constituting the reverse side of the work of
redemption. Several of the terms, however, which
are used in connection with the teaching respecting
the resurrection, such as " resurrection of judgment "
and resurrection "at the last day," prepare us to
find that judgment is also represented as a future
event. Accordingly, we read not only of resurrec-
tion but of judgment "in the last day" (xii. 48).
Thus the two events are coupled together. In like
manner, the parousia is associated with these events
where the apostle exhorts his readers to abide in
Christ, "that, if he shall be manifested, we may
have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his
coming" (I. ii. 28). That the prospect of judgment
is here associated with Christ's coming is evident
from the language of the passage, and is confirmed
by the kindred expression, "that we may have
boldness in the day of judgment" (I. iv. 17).

It will thus be seen that there are only a few
passages in John which directly speak of the future

354 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

1 " Die Weltgescliichte ist das Weltgeiicht. " — Resignation.

CIIAPTKn XV

THE THEOLOGY OP PAUL AND OF JOHN' COMPARED

Literature. — Rktss : Hist. Christ. ThcoL, Paul and John,
ii. ol8-r);3() (orig. ii. r)7-J-000) ; Lixhlkr: Apostolic and Post-
Apostolic Times, John and Paul, ii. 2.50-259 (orig. pp. 516-524) ;
Lange : Das aposlolische Zeitalter, Das Stadium und der Typus
der Lt'hre des Johannes, ii. 603-613 ; Frommaxn : Der Johann.
Lehrb., Verhiiltniss der johanneischeu Christologie zu der aiider-
weitigen neute.stamentiichen Lehre, pp. 480-547; ]\Iessxf,i; :
Lehre d. Apostel, Yergleichung der apostolischen Lehrbegriffe,
pp. 381-421 ; Van Oosterzke : Bibl. Theol. of the New Test.,
The Harmony of the Apostles with each other, pp. 253-260 :
B.\UR : Neutest. Theol., Verhiiltniss zum Paulinismus, pp. 393-
395; ScHAFF : Apostolic Christinnili/ (vol, i. of his History of the
Christian Church), The Theology of the Apostolic Church, pp.
510-564; Mtrphy : The Scienlijic Bases of Faith, Paul and
John on the Person of Christ, pp. 391-418.

Paul and John represent the two most distinctive
types of apostolic doctrine. Their marked differ-
ences in personality and in methods of thought make
a comparison of the types which they represent at
once a difficult and a fascinating task. Paul is the
representative Christian schoolman of his time; he
is practised in analysis and argument. John ilhis-
trates rather the meditative and intuitive order of
mind. Paul is alwavs seeking to argue out the

356 THE JOIIANXINE THEOLOGY

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

I'AIL AND JOIIX CO.MI'AltKl) 357

wclcomiuii" of the liuht, ;iih1 walkiiij^' in it,— in slioif,
as a lilc ut" li'll()\vslii|) with God.

With these hints respoeting certain generic differ-
ences in the modes of religions thonght which the
two apostles illnstrate, let ns briefly review the
princi[)al doctrines which they have in common, and
note such j)oints of difference and of likeness as may
present themselves.

1. The Idea of God. — Both apostles hav an
intense sense (characteristic of the Jewish mind) of
the direct efficiency of God in all things. For both,
the will of God is sovereign, and definite particular
events are regarded as necessarily happening in
order that specific Old Testament predictions may
l)c fulfilled. In both writers we observe the Jewish
mode of thought respecting God and the way in
which he makes known his wull in the Old Testa-
ment and accomplishes his purj)oses of mercy; but in
Paul the Jewish type of thought is much more per-
vading and determining. In him God is conceived
of in a more legal way than in John; he is a judge
on the throne of the world. The problem of religion
is, how man may appear before him so as to be
accepted and acquitted. To John, God appears
rather as the Being in whom all perfections are
met. The problem of religion is, whether men will
desire and strive to be like him. For Paul, God is
certainly essentially gracious as well as essentially
just, yet he has nowhere comprehended the ethical
perfections of God in a single conception such as
John's, — "God is light, " or, "God is love."

358 THE JOHANXINE THEOLOGY

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

2. The Person of Christ. — Both writers empha-
size the pre-existence of Christ and his exaltation to
heavenly glory; bolli cniplKisi/.c his relation to ilie

PAUL AND JOHN COMrAKEI) 359

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

360 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

toi'ic manifestation of the Logos is clearly intro-
duced, llic thought still recurs, now and again, to
the universal truths which that manifestation illus-
trates. In the 0[)ening verses (i. 1-4) the absolute
nature and action of the Logos are described, ending
with the statement, "and the life was the light of
men." Then the description enters the sphere of
history and the shining of the light of the Logos in
the world's darkness is depicted (verse 5), and then
comes John's witness in preparation for the coming
of the true Light (verses 6, 8). This Light now
appears, but the description of it uses the broadest
terms. He was coming into the world and lighting
every man ; he was from the beginning in the world
which he had made (verses 9-10). The Logos is for
John the universal principle and agent of revela-
tion; he has been perj)etually operative in the world.
In every time he has touched the lives of men, and
his revelation of himself in the incarnation is
grounded in what he essentially is, and in those
relations which he has ever borne to the world which
he has made and in which he has dwelt. While,
therefore, both apostles have the same general con-
ception of the exaltation of Christ's person, John
develops more distinctly than Paul the idea of the
eternal personal pre-existence of the Son, and of his
perpetual activity since the beginning of time in
revealing the divine light to men, and in blessing
and saving those who received it.

3. Tltc Work of C/iiimt. — Both apostles agree in

I'.UL AND .lOlIX CO.Ml'AKKl) 3G1

ascribing a sacrificial significance to tlie saving mis-
sion of Christ. For Paul liis death on the cross is
the central pcjint of his work, and for Jolm he is the
Lanil) of (Jod whose tleath takes away the world's
sin, and llie propitiation for the sins of the worhl.
Jiut John appears to coiieeive of the idea of sacrilice
more comprehensively than Panl. For Panl, Christ's
death is a ransom-price by which men are redeemed.
Some kind of eqnivalence is assumed to exist be-
tween the Saviour's sufl'erings and the penalty due to
human sin. The sufferings of Christ in some way
meet the ends of the remitted punishment; they
vindicate God's holy displeasure against sin as fully
as the punishment of sin would do, and thus they
stand in stead of that punishment, and make it
morally possible for God to withhold the penalty of
sin from all who trust in the Redeemer.

This Pauline method of thought respecting re-
demption clearly has its roots in the Old Testament
and in Jewish thought. As in the sacrificial system,
the animal which is slain in sacrifice is regarded as
a victim which suffers vicariously in the place of
the sinful man, so the Saviour is regarded as suffer-
ing in the sinner's stead, and as bearing in some
real sense the penal consequences of the world's sin.
Christ's death is vicarious in the sense that his
sufferings are substituted for sin's punishment, and
they serve the ends of that punishment by vindicat-
ing the righteousness of God as fully as the punish-
ment of sin would have done.

362 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

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

PAUL AND ,1011 X COMPARED 3G3

scanty niateiial for a doctrine of the atonement, bnt
I am jK'rsuadcd that his idea of vicariousness is
rooted in his idea of God as love. In love as the
giving, sympathizing, burden-bearing quality of
God's nature lies the starting-point of John's
thought respecting the method of redemption. The
idea of outward substitution and transfer, which is
still observed in Paul, is lost in John, because the
whole subject is carried to a higher standpoint and
seen in a higher light. The essential vicariousness
of love is the principle which, in John, carries the
notion of substitution up out of the sjjhere of out-
ward, legal relations, and places it in the very bosom
of God. Satisfaction does not represent an act of
appeasing God's righteousness ah extra, but a process
within the divine perfection whereby love — which
is God's perfect moral nature — finds its satisfaction
in giving and sufl'ering for others.

The standpoints of Paul and John are not really
inconsistent. The Johannine idea of God, if made
the ])rcmise of Paul's argument, would lead him
along the path which conducts to John's conception
of salvation. It is Paul's more legal method of
thought concerning God, and his less jjcrfectly unified
concei)tion of the divine nature, which makes him
seem to follow a different track of thought from
John. But in the last analysis the two types of
doctrine meet and blend. Paul teaches that in the
suffering and death of Christ God exhibited his
righteousness so that he might be just in justifying

364 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

the believer. But wlieii we inquire, Wliat is God's
righteousness, and how docs God exhibit it ? we can
find no rational answer except that God's righteous-
ness is the self-respect of perfect love, and that all
the perfections of God are exhibited by their exer-
cise. God satisfies his perfections only by reveal-
ing them and by realizing in the universe the ends
which accord with them. If God is love, the doctrine
of Paul as well as of John carries us in all reflection
ui)on the atonement out of the realm of temporal
substitution and satisfaction into the realm of those
truths which are esssential and eternal in God.

4. The Doctrine of jSiii. — In the main features of
this doctrine there is an obvious agreement between
Paul and John. Sin is for both universal and guilty.
Paul connects sin in its origin and diffusion with
the transgression of Adam, whilg John — so far as
he intimates any view of sin's origin — appears to
ascribe its introduction into the world to Satan.
Both ideas rest u])on the narrative of the fall in
Genesis, and coincide so far as the idea of the ])rimal
source of temptation is concerned. The forms in
which the two writers speak of sin are, in some
cases, similar; in some, different. Both represent
sin as a bondage or slavery, in contrast to the true
freedom which is the boon of the Christian man;
both depict it as a state of moral death, — the oppo-
site of the true life of the soul. But Paul's charac-
teristic conception of sin is that of a world-i'uling
power or personified principle which makes men its

PAUL AXD ,IOIIX COMrAHED 365

captives, shuts th«ni up in prison, and pronounces
coiulcnination upon them. John, in accordance
with a peculiar dualistic method of thought, is more
accustomed to speak of sin as darkness in contrast
to light, or as hate as contrasted with love. The
true life consists in walking in the light, while the
sinful life consists in walking in darkness. Light
is for John the symbol of goodness or God-like-
ness ; (hirkness the synonym of evil or unlikeness
to (iod.

The contrast between flesh and spirit which has so
important a connection with Paul's doctrine of sin
is quite incidentally presented in John, and does not
carry the same associations which it has in Paul.
In Paul's writings "the flesh " is the sphere of sin's
manifestation, and thus comes to be used in an ethical
sense and almost to be identified with sin itself.
"The spirit" in man is what w^e should call his
religious nature, in which he is allied to God, — the
liighest element of his personality, which leads him
to aspire after holiness. Between the flesh and the
sjtirit there goes on in the natural man a constant
conflict, with the result that the flesh keejis its
supremacy. It is only Avhen Christ is received in
faith that the victory of the spirit is achieved.
John has essentially the same doctrine, but he does
not develop it in this form. "Flesh" and "spirit"
represent for him two contrasted orders of being, —
the sphere of the lower or outward to which we are
related by our natural life, and the higher realm of

366 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

reason and spirit with which our begetting from God
sets us in relation.

5. The Method of Salvation, — In describing the
way of salvation Paul's great words are, justification^
and righteous7iess; John's are, birth from God, and
life. In no other particular are the characteristic
differences of the two apostles so clearly illustrated.
Paul, in accordance with his Jewish training and as
a result of his controversies with Pharisaic opponents,
wrought out the doctrine of salvation in juridical
forms. God is a judge whose sentence of condemna-
tion is out against sinful man ; Christ by his death
provides for the annulling of the sentence. Faith is
the condition on which this effect could be secured;
that condition being met, the claim is cancelled and
a decree of acquittal is issued. Righteousness for
Paul is the status of a man so acquitted. The pro-
cess by which the result is reached is called justifi-
cation. Not that all this is conceived of by Paul as
a mere court-process. It has its ethical counterpart
in the spiritual transformation of the justified man,
but the legal idea determines the form of the doc-
trine. With John the case is quite different; he
has relinquished the forms of Jewish legalism. No
controversy with Judaiziiig opponents requires him
to meet them upon the plane of their own concep-
tions. Salvation is not thought of as the result of
a divine declaration, but as the result of a divine
impartation of life. It is not described as a legal
status, but as a condition or character.

PAl'L AND JOHN COMPARED 367

But even lierc, sharp as llic formal dilTorence is,
there is an undcrlyini;- unity; hoth aposth'S have
at the lieart of their teaching- tlie same profouiul
mysticism; for hoth, the Christian life is realized in
union with Christ. To be in Christ, to abide in
him, to feed upon him, are terms which represent
equally the profoundcst thoug'hts of both writers.
Both coincide perfectly in making the divine grace
the source of salvation, and a self-renouncing accept-
ance of that grace the condition of appropriating it,

6. The Doctrine of Faith. — In this article the
apostles closely coincide. For both, faith is more
than mere belief; it involves personal relation and
fellowship. With Paul it is associated with such
ideas as are expressed in the phrases "in Christ,"
"dying with Christ," and "newness of life." With
John it is associated with "abiding in Christ,"
"living through Christ," and "eating the flesh and
drinking the blood of the Son of man." In both,
therefore, there is a pronounced mystical element.
Faith -is life-union with Christ. It is no mere pos-
session of truths which lie dead and cold in the
mind ; it is a vital alliance with Christ, the hiding
of our life with him in God. By lioth apostles
equally is faith regarded as the very opposite of a
meritorious achievement which saves by its inher-
ent excellence ; it is the correlative of grace, and
therefore involves the explicit renunciation of merit
before God. Faith has its power and value, not in
itself as an exercise of the human powers, but in its

368 THE JOIIANNINE THEOLOGY

object, Christ, to which it links us. The saving
power of faith lies in the fact that it joins our life
to Christ. It is, therefore, not so much an achieve-
ment as an acceptance.

It does not follow, however, that faith is a mere
passive receptivity. The verj- nature of faith, as an
acceptance of a divine life, involves the possession of
a new moral energy. Faith works by love. In
faith a new life-force is received and new powers
stir within the Christian man. It would be equally
out of harmony with Paul and with John to regard
faith as a mere act standing at the beginning of the
religious life but isolated from it. Faith penetrates
the whole Christian life; it is an active, energetic
principle. If it carries us out of ourselves, it does
so in order that it may bring us undei- the power of
new spiritual forces which shall inspire and ennoble
our whole nature, and impart an unwonted energy
to our every faculty.

7. The Doctrine of Love. — Both apostles magnify
the idea of love and give it a central place in their
conceptions of religion. Although John is often,
and properly, called the apostle of love, there is no
passage in his writings which lays greater sti-oss
upon the duty of love and upon its centrality in the
gosjjcl than does that sublime "Psalm of Love," the
thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. It would be
an interesting and instructive study to compare this
chapter in detail with the First Epistle of John,
where his doctrine of love is most fully developed.

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 36'J

In both, love is made the sum of all goodness. For
raiil, love best summarizes 'Uliat which is perfect ;"
it best represents spiritual maturity in contrast to
all such partial gifts and graces as knowledge, or the
power to prophesy or to speak with tongues. Love
is the quality which gives unity and worth to all
other virtues; it is the very essence of goodness
without wdiich all outward acts which arc commonly
esteemed to be good are really without value in the
sight of God.

In like manner in John love is the "command-
ment," at once old and new, which comprehends all
specillc duties and obligations. But John also urges
that this principle is true both in Christ and in
his disciples (I. ii. 8), that is, it is the law of the
divine nature as well as of the human, — a universal
principle or law of being. Hence he urges that as
Christ out of love "laid down his life for us," so
"we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren"
(I. iii. 16). It follows from this conception that
"every one that loveth is begotten of God, and
knoweth God " (I. iv.7) since " God is love " (verse 8).
In love we enter into fellowship with God and be-
come like him, since his moral nature is itself love.
"God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in
God, and God ahideth in him " (I. iv. 16).

It will thus be seen that John carries his doctrine
of love one step further than Paul, and that this
step is a most important and significant one. Paul
applies the principle of love to the mutual duties and

370 THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY

relations of men, but he does not show, at least, not
explicitly, that the application of this principle
among men is grounded in the very nature of God.
This step is taken by John ; or rather, it would be
more exact to say that he starts from this conception
of God's nature and finds in it the divine law which
ruled in the life and work of Jesus, in which men
must also find the ideal for their own lives. In this
difference between the two ways in which the
apostles deal with the same great principle, we find
a conspicuous illustration of John's more abstract
and deductive method of thought, as contrasted with
Paul's more concrete and inductive method. It can
hardly be doubted that the statements of Paul respect-
ing love in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians
would, if carried out, inevitably lead to the great
conclusion (which to John, however, was rather a
presupposition) that God's nature is essentially love,
and that love is the highest duty and the most com-
prehensive virtue, because the ideal of all goodness
and the law of all duty must always lie in the very
being of God.

It appears to me, therefore, that the two apostles,
notwithstanding the formal differences in the devel-
opment and application of their ideas of love, are
essentially one, and that if we should carry up the
law of love which Paul so eloquently describes as
tlic sum of virtue, we could find no other source or seat
for it — no other ground for its authority and value
— than that to which John refers it when he says:

PAUL AND JOHN COMPARED 371

"Let lis love one miotlier: for love is of God"
(I. iv. 7).

From the brief comparative sketch which we have
given of the teachings of Paul and of John, it will
be evident that the latter furnishes us to a much
smaller degree than the former with the elements of
a t<i/ste7n of thought. Paul has to a great extent put
together for us the various elements of his teaching
so as to give them a certain completeness of form.
John has given us only single truths, a series of
glimpses into great dej)ths which he has made no
effort to explore in detail. We can hardly speak of
a Johannine system at all, and we are left to corre-
late as best we can the disjecta membra of doctrine
which John has left us in his writings. The two
great Christian teachers, however, in many ways sup-
plement each other, and both illustrate and enforce
wath peculiar power the great truths of God's love
and grace which constitute the changeless substance
of the gospel of Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY^

I. Tkeatisks on Tin: -lonANNiNK Theology.

B. ^^'EISs, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff in seinen Grundzugen

utitersuckt. Berlin. 1802.
K. Fkommann, Der Johanneische Lehrbegriff' in seinem Verhiiltnisse

zur gesammlen biblisch-christlichen Lehre. Leipzig, 1839.
K. R. KosTLiN, Der Lehrbegriff des Ecangeliiuns itnd der Briefe

Johannes, u. s. u\ Berlin, 18-43.
A. HiL(;i"..\KELi), Dds Eraiigelium und die Briefe Johannes nach

ihrem Lehrbegriffe dargesfellt. Braunschweig, 1849.
K. II. Sears, The Fourth Gospel the Heart of Christ. Boston,

1872.
J. J. Lias, The Doctrinal System of St. John considered as evidence

for the date of the Gospel. London, 1875.
(). HoLTZMAXX, Das Johannesevangeliian untersucht and erkldrt.

Darmstadt, 1887.
K. IIaui'T, Der erste Brief des Joliannes, ein Beitrag zur bib-

lischen Theologie. Colberg, 1870. English translation. Edin-
burgh, 1879.

^ New Testament lutroductiuus, Commeutaries on the writings of
John, and treatises on the literary and historical questions connected
with these writings (with the exception of two or three such works
which are largely Biblico-theological in method), are omitted from this
list, since they do not strictly belong to the subject of the Johannine
Theology. Ample references to these branches of literature may be
•found in Gloag's Introduction to the Johannine Writint/s (London^ 1891),
in Schaff's Histori/ of the Christian Church, Vol. I. (New York, 1882),
and in Watkins's Bampton Lectures for 1890 on ^^odern Criticism con-
sidered in its relation tu the Fourth Gospel (London, 1890).

374 BIBLIOGRAPHY

W. W. Peyton, The Memorabilia of Jesus, commonltj called tlie
Gospel of St. John. London and Edinburgh, 189"2.

J. H. SciiOLTEN, Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 1'ranslated
from Dutch into German. Berlin, 1SG7.

F. D. Maukice, The Gospel of St. John, a Series of Discourses-,
also The Epistles of St. John, a Series of Lectures on Christ-
ian Ethics. London and New York, 1893,

II. Works on more Comprehensive Subjects, which
INCLUDE A Treatment of the Johannine Theology.

B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der biblischen Theolocjie des Neuen Testa-
ments. 5 Aufl. Berlin, 1888. Translation from the third
edition. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1882-83.

H. H. Wendt, Der Inhalt der Lehre Jesu, Gottingen, 1890.
English translation under the title. The Teaching of Jesus.
2 vols. Edinburgh and New York, 1892.

E. Reuss, Histoire de la Theologie chrctienne au Siecle aposto-
lique. 2 vols. Strasbourg and Paris, 1864. English trans-
lation. 2 vols. London, 1872.

W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie. 2 vols. Halle,
1891 ; also Die Christologie des Ntuen Testaments. Berlin,
1860.

W. F. Adeney, The Theology of the New Testament. New
York, 1894.

C. F. SCHMID, Biblisrhe Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 5 Aufl.
1886. Translation from the fourth edition. Edinburgh,
1877.

H. Ewali>, Revelation ; //*• Nature and Method. Ediidnirgh,
1884. Old and New Testament Theologij. Edinburgh. 1888,
These volumes ai'e ti^anslations of jiarts of the work, Die
Lehre der Bihrl von GotI, u. s. w. 4 vols. Lei}>zig, 1871-76.

F. C. Bauij, Vorlesungen iiber neutestamentliche Theologie. Leip-
zig, 186L

H. Messnkk, Die Li'hre der Apostcl. Leipzig, 1856.
J. P. Thompson, The Theology of Christ from his own Words.
New York, 1870.

iniJLiodKAi'iiv 375

J. J. Van Oostkrzek, The Tlipolofin of the Neio Testament.
Translated from tlie Dutch by M. J. Evans. London, 1870;
also by Vi. K. Day. N<'W Haven, 1871.

A. ] MMKK, Theolof/ie 'le.i Neuen Testaments. Bern, 1>'77.

A. N'kaxdkr, History of the Planting and Trainlnr/ of the Christ-
ian Church, etc. English translation, 2 vols. London
(Hohn ed.). Revised translation by E. (1. llubinson. New
York, 1801).

J. P. Lance, Das aposlollsrhe Zeltaltcr, Braunschweig, ISoO-jj-I.

G. V. Lechlkh, Dasapostoltsche nnd das nachapostoUsche Zeitalter.
3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1885, English translation. 2 vols. Edin-
burgh, 1886,

C, Weizsacker, Das apostollsche Zellalterder chrlstllchen Klrche.
2 Aufl. Freiburg, i. B., 1890. English translation. 2 vols.
New York, 1894.

O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchrislenthuin, seine Schrlften und Lrhren,
in geschichtlickem Zusarnmenhanr/ Berlin, 1887.

F. W. Farrar, The Early Days of Christianity. Various edi-
tions. London and New York.

P. Schaff, History of the Apostolic Church. Xew York, 18.53.
History of the Christian Church. Vol. I. New York, 1882.

P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Johannlne Writlnrjs. London,
1891.

O. Cone, The Gospel and Its Earliest Interpretations, a Study of
the Teaching of Jesus and its Doclrina! Transformations in the
New Testament. New York, 18!):5.

ITT. Treatises or Essays on Special Topics.

A. II. Franke. Das (die TeslnwenI hii Johannes, eln Beltrag znr
Erkldrung und Beurthellung der Johanneischen Schrlften. Col-
tingen, IBS."}.

T. D. Bernard, The Central Teaching of Jesus Christ, a Study
and Exposition of the Fire Chapters of the Gospel according to
St.John,XUl la XVII iiiclusire. London and New York,
1892.

376 BIBLIOGRAPHY

J. C. Hare, The Mission of the Comforter. Boston, 1854 ; also,

London and Xew York.
B. F. "Westcott, The Revelation of the Father, short lectures on

the titles of the Lord in the Gospel of St. John. London and

New York.
H. KoHLER, Vonder Welt zum Himmelreich,oder die Johanneische

Darstelluny des Wei-kes Jesu Christi synoptisch gepriift und

erganzt. Ilalle, 1892.
T. Haring, Gedankengang und Grundgedanke des ersten Johan-

nesbriefes, in Theulogische Ahhandlungen Carl von Weizsacker

gewidmet. Freiburg, i. B., 1892.
A. Harnack, Ueher das Verhdltniss des Prologs des vierten

Evangeliums zum ganzen Werk, in the Zeitschrift fur Theologie

und kirche, 1892, pp. 189-231,
H. IIoLTZMAXN, Der Logos und der einyehorene Gotlessohn im

vierten Evangel ium in the Zeitschrift fUr wissenschaftliclie The-
ologie, 1893, pp. 385-407.

INDEX OF TEXTS

OLD TESTAMENT
BOOKS.

Oen. ii. 7

iii. 1 sij.
iii. 8 .
iv. 3 sq.
vi. 2
XV. 1-G
Ex. xii. 4G .
xiii. 2
xxii. 28
xxviii. 30
xliv. 27
xlv. 19 .
Num. V. 8 .
ix. 42
xxi. 8.
xxvii. 21
Lev. V. 18 .

XXV. 9
Deut. X. 12 .
XV. 19
xvii. 6
xviii. 15
xix. 15
2 Sam. vii. U

1 Kiug3 viii. 27

2 Kings v. 18
Job xi. 19 .

xxviii. passim
Ps. xiii. 18 .

XXV. 11 .

xxxiii. 4

xxxiii. 0, 9

xxxiv. 20

xlv. G .

liv. 4 .

Ixix. 4 .

Uix. 9 .

Ixiviii. 38

Ixxix. 9 .

Ixxxii. C

xc. 2 . .

ciix. 89 .

cxxx. 4 .

cxlvii. 15
Prov. viii. 1—1

viii. 22-30
viii. 32-30
xix. G

182
182

295

178

1U5

182

183

182

, 109

182

182'

182

183.

. 88, 90, 91-93
.... 300
. . . SSsg.

•2 88

3 89, 93

. 4 3, 15, Gl, 99, 128, 2.57

,4,5 94

, 5 '15, 99, 128, 131, 138

. G-9 94

. 7 . . . . 99, 228, 230
.9 . 15, 01, 99, 2.57, 332
.10 .15, 00, 93, 94, 134

. 10, 11 318

.11 . . 24,94, 131,242
. 12 107, 220, 242, 243, 304
12, 13, . 71, 94, 233, 251

i. 13 .... 242, 243

95, 103, 100

'. '. 96, 230

... 90

... 23

18 48,49, 70, 90, 103,100,

107, 108, 230

130, 138, 101, 107,

108, 180, 185, 180, 302

236

.... 180, 185

14 .
14-18

15 .
10 .
17

Page
. 221
. 220
. 33
. 33
. 40
38*7.
. 220
. 304
!2, 233
. 207
. 246
;, 243, 245, 248 si/.
14, 249
. 129
. 236
. 228
108, 117

14 25, 161, 180, 185, 186

15 . . . 180, 228. 3-25

16 57, 103, 110, 113,
138, 104, •i'iO, 268, 273

302, 316, 323

17 . 63, 113, 1(U, 348

18 . 103, 110, 226, 304,
344,350

18-21 164

19 133, 138, 273, 348, 350
19-21 61, 99, 131, 132
20. 21 .... . 236

10
117
268,
273
226
316
,43
165
,70

46
294
315
•233

. 21 . . .
. 31 . . .
. 35 55, 70,

. 36 .

10-14
. 20-24

103,

iv. 31

,34
. 39 .
.39-42
. 40 .
. 42 .
.44 .
-.47 .
, 2-20
, 16, 17
, 17 .

42
30, 138
4

109,
!, 109,
270,

105, 302

294

302

138

294

•;2

378

IXDEX OF TEXTS

V. 17 sq.
V. 18, 19
V. 19 .
V. 19-21
V. 19-27
V. 19-29
V. 20 .
V. 21

V. 22 .

23 .

24 .
24, 25

26 .

27 .

28 .
30
30-47

34 .

35 .
37 ,V7.
37-40
38-40

.42 .

43 .

44 .

45 .
45-47

.40
40, 47
, 1-14
, 22-(i5
, 2C-31
, 28, 29
vi."29 .
.31-34
. 32 .
. 32 sq.
.33 .
.35 .
. 38 .
.39 .
. 40

. 41 .
.44 .
.45
. 4G
47

159,

20,

159,

. 50
. 51

Page

... 70
. . . 110
38, 114, 157
. . . 235
. CO, 150 sq.
. .311 sq.

:,:,, 111, 157
157, •-'(;;», 270,

;Vj3, 324
157, 349, 351
C4, 157, 349
157, 310, 323
... 313
157, 316, 324
157, 349, 351
. 111,158
. . 64, 348
. . . 237
. 138, 105
... 3(5
. . 31, 50
. . . 321
. . 43, 44

'. '. '■ 304

... 51

... 30

30, 31

. . 31

. . 220

. . 158.SV/.

. Ill, 112

. . . 158

, . . 228

... 315

... 101

. . 159

. 230

227,' 233, 316

. 117

315, 333, 340

227, 313, 315,

324, 333, 310

159, 162

159, 340

, 1,59, 227, 230

103, 112,236

227, 228, 233,

239, 313

. 227, 326

. 52-59
.53
. 54
. 56
.57
..58
. 6-j
. 63
. 70
i. 19

160,171,174,
186,227, 326
. . . 201
. 1.59, 161

3l:!, 324, 340
1.59, 305
60, 114, 316
. . . 326
... 117
. 130, 315
. . . 139
... 36

vli. 20
vii. 22
vii. 37
vii. 38
viii. 12
viii. 12-30
viii. 15
viii. 16
viii. 17
viii. 21
viii. 23
viii. 24
viii. 26
viii. 28
viii. 30-32
viii. 31:
viii. 33-36
viii. 34
viii. 42
viii. 43
viii. 44
viii. 45, 46
viii. 47
viii. 48
viii. 52
viii. 53
viii. 55
viii. 56
viii. 58

ix. 2, 3
ix. 5 .
ix. 39 .
ix. 41 .
X. 8 .
X. 9 .
X. 11 .
X. 15 .
X. 16 .
X. 17 .
X. 18 .
X. 20 .

61,

X. 28 .
X. 30 .
X. 34 .
X. 34-36
X. 37, 38
X. 38
xi. 3 .
xi. 5 .

XI. -J'i
xi. 23-2G
xi. 24 .
xi. 25 .

xi. 34
xj. 36 .
xi. 47-^.53
xi. 48 .
xi. 49-52
xi. 51 .
xii. 1 .

128, 132
. 223

157, 347
64, 348
33, 35
. 136
.• 134
. 136
. 348

180, 186
. 223
. 135
. 135
. 136
8, 270
8

140, 141
. 220
8, 256
. 139

139, 326
. 121
(16, 318
32, 121
3, 117, 120-
122
137

63,

Paget
1391

, 33
. 310

64, 135, 348
64, 348
36
. 1C5
172, 174
24, 172
. 1.56
56, 172, 268
. 172
. 139
. ;'.(:4

4, 103, 114

. . 34
. . 220
.115, 224
. 269, 27(1
. 268-27(1
. . 295
. 345, 346
. 333, 340
5, 326, 341
. 133, 219
. . 172
. 2( 9, 270
. 175*7.
. . 1(8
. 255, 256
. . 11-5
. . 340

Page

xii. 3 . . .

, . . 288

xii. 9 . . .

. . . 346

xii. 13 . .

. . . 304

xii. 16 . .

... 209

xii. 17 . .

. . . 34(!

xii. 24 . .

... 179

xii. 25 . .

... 180

xii. 26

... 180

xii. 31 134

, 216, 319, a52

xii. 32 . .

ISO, 18.5, 186

xii. 33

... 180

xii. 34 . .

... 180

xii. 35 .

99, 128, 132

xii. 36 . .

. . 99, 132

xii. 38-41

. . . 26

xii. 41-43

... 237

xii. 44 .

. . . 226

xii. 44-46

. . . 227

xii. 46 99,1'_

8,132,133,138

xii. 47 63,

133, 138, 1,57,

10'

, 302, 347, 350

xii. 48 .

340, 350, 353

xii. 50

... 315

xiii. 1 . .

. . 269, 273

xiii. 2 . .

... 139

xiii. 3 . .

. . 15, 289

xiii. 3-5 .

. . . 288

. . . 172

xiii. 10

... 13

xiii. 19

. . . 228

xiii. 23 .

. . . 269

xiii. 34 .

. 269, 270

xiii. 34, 35

... 273

xiii. 37 .

. ... 173

xiii. 37, 38

. . . . 172

xiv. 1 . .

. . 226, 232

xiv. 3 . .

. 331 sq., 339

. . . . 306

xiv. 0 . .

. 192,2(6,315

xiv. 7 . .

. . . . 318

xiv. 9 . .

. . 4,49, 114

xiv. 9, 10

. . . . 237

xiv. 11 .

. IrS, 114, '-24

xiv. 13 .

. 292, 299, ;;io

xiv. 14 3C

i, 305, 3(.(;, 310

xiv 15

. . '.'■3

xiv. 15 sq.

. . . 27(1

xiv. 10

190, 191, 194,

291,298, 299

xiv. 17 13-

t, 191,195,319,

334

xiv. 18 19

3, 199, 262, 333,

3;<5

xiv. 19 19

1, 199, 262, 334

xiv. 20 26

0, 262, 263, 305

xiv. 21 .

. 219,273,289

xiv. 21,22

. . . . 2(3

xiv. '-1-23

. . . 68, 273

xiv. 21 28

. . . . 273

xiv. 23 . C

8,209,333,334

xiv. 24

. . 289

xiv. 26 19

(, 194,19(!,204,
5, 207, 298, 304

INDEX OF TEXTS

379

Pofte
xiv. 28 . . 110,333-335

xiv. .«> 134

xiv. 31 . . . -'i-.'.t, '.'73
XV. 1 sq. . . 23(1, 2J'J, -li'A)

XV. 2 108

XV. 4 .«7 305

XV. 5 2t!0

XV. 7 .304,311

XV. y . . . 30, 208, 277
XV. 12 .... 277, 31.-.
XV. 13 172, 173, 177, 18.-.,
287
XV. IG . . 70, 303, 310

XV. 17 270

XV. 18, 19 .... \3a

XV. li) 115

XV. 24 27

XV. 25 .... 24, 35
XV. 2G lOO, I'.M, 192, 104,

195, 190, l;i7.2(r),
207, 303

XV. 27 197

xvi. 3 319

xvi. 5 300

xvi. 7 I'.H), 195, 190, 200,

208, 214, 303, 335
xvi. 8 . 190, 197, 210, ;J52
xvi. 8, 9 . . . . 13;j, 138
xvi. 8-11 ... 210 «y.

xvi. 11 352

xvi. 12 209

xvi. 13 190, 197, 205, 200,
207 1
xvi. 13 sq. . . . 192, :i03
xvi. 14 ... . 195 -197 i
xvi. 14,15 . . . 195, 205
xvi. 16 194, 197, 2(M>, 3351
xvi. 17 . . . .195,197

xvi. 18 3001

xvi. 19 300

xvi. 22 335 1

xvi. 22 sq. . . . 332, 330
xvi. 23 70,291,292,299,
304, 305 310
xvi. 23, 24 ... . 3(17
xvi. 24 .... 2<.(8, :'i02
xvi. 20 195, 197,29s, 299,
302, 3(J.->, 310 i
xvi. 27 . 58, 209, 270, 298
xvi. 28 . . 110, 117, 133

xvi. 30 300

xvi. 33 305

xvii. 3 . .--.1,00,239,315
xvii. 5 SMI, 107, 11.3, IKJ,

117, 119, 120, 133

xvii. G .303

xvii. 9 . . 292, 299. 300
xvii. 11 . . . .03, .303

xvii. 12 24

xvii. 14 .... . 134

xvii. 15 I(i8

xvii. 17 179

xvii. 19 . . 178, 179, 186

XVII.

xvii.
xvii.
xvii.

xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xvii.
xviii
xviii
xviii
xviii
xviii
xix.
xix.
xix.
xix.
xix.
xix.
xix.

XX.
XX.

Page

20 ... . 292, 300

21 115, 220, 301, a)2

22 . . . 110,201

23 58,201,209,277,
301

.... 208
55, 90, IIG, 133
. 03, 134, 171
. 301,303,319
.... 170

23-20
24 .

300

134

315

PttRP
ii. 8-10 ... 100, 132
ii. 10, 11 . ... 280

ii. 12 180

ii. 13, 14 123

ii. 15 273

ii. 15, 16 ... 8, i:U

ii. 15-17 280

ii. 10 i;jo

ii. 18 145, 14H, 200, 330, 339

ii. 20 22, 200

ii. 21 1(1, 200

ii. 22 . . . 145, 219, -^U

ii. 23 148

ii. 24 258

ii. 27 207

31
30
37
38
41
1 sq

13
15

24-29
29
31

, 15 SQ

2(19

108

. . . . 27, 109

108

172

340

. . . . 172, 269

172

. . . . 194, 201
130

.... 225

207

100, 105, 219, 304
209

... 270-272

. . . 330
. . . 330
. . . 209
333, 337, 339

FIRST EPISTLE OF
JOHN.

, 3

5 sq.

. 0

1 . . . . 89, 100, 122

1,2 99;

.1-4 01

3, 07, 1231

. 07, 200

3, 5, 47, CO, 01, 100,

132

. . 10,128,132
7 100, 132, 166-108, 170,

i8(;

8 100

8-10 13

9(14,05,130, 137,101^., 180
10 137

1 . . 70, 170, 185, I'.VJ

2 . . . 181,184,185

4 10

5 273

5, 0 258

7-11 5

,8 ... 108, 128, 369

27, 28 . . 194, 202, 258

28 . . . 333, 339, 3-.3

29 . . 12, 04, 05, 244
. 1 57,70,71,254,273,

280, 280, 319

,2 254 280

i! 2, 3" '. '. 203,' 330,' .331

i. 3 280

i. 4 127, 130

i. 5 107, 168

I. 0 . . . 13, 137, 2.19

i. 0-9 171

. 7 . . 10, 13, 05, 2tB
i. 8 . . 8, 13(;, 140, 141
i. 9 13, 13(;, 137, 244, 280

i. 9, 10 71

i. 10 . 8, 140, 254, 281
i. 10-14 .... 273
i. 11, 12 .... 281
i. 14 .... 138, 281
i. 10 172,17.3,178,18;-.,
273, 280, 287, 309

i. 17 281

i. 19 8, 10

i. 19, 20 . . . 68-70

i. 21 192

i. 22 292

24 200

28 203

2 95, 234

3 14.5, 148

4 8, IIG

5 8, 110

6 8, 192

7 52, 07, 244, 277, 371
7, 8 ... 0, 00, 309
7-21 5

8 . 47, 52, 54, 274 sq.,
319

.... 103

9 .
9-11
10

161, 181, 184, 18.5,
209, 273

11 209, 273

12 . . . 49, 200, 274

13 100, 2,59

14 1.38, 105

15 . . . 166, 219, 234

380

INDEX OF TEXTS

Page

iv. 10 52, 55, 239, 259, 274

S(j., 28tj, 3G9

iv. 17 340, 353

iv. 19 58

V. 1 . 219, 243, 245, 251
V. 1,2 ... .254,273

V. 1-4 235

V. 4 ... 218, 234, 245

V. 5 234

V. 0 14G

V. 7 192, 207

V. 8 ..... 238, 249

V. 9 234

V. 10, n 239

V. 11 325

V. 12 . . . 228, 233, 234

V. 14 311

V. K; 297

V. 1(1, 17 . 13G, 145, 149 srj.
V. 18 . . . . .243,240

V. 19 1,U, 138

V. 20 . . . 51, 305, 322

SECOND EPISTLE OF
JOHN.

2 . 95

3, 4 70

4 10, 192

7 . . . . 145, 14G, 148

THIRD EPISTLE OF
JOHN.

OTHER NEW TESTA-
MENT BOOKS.

Matt. V. 12 ,
vi. 20
X. 23
xi. 27

118, 119
. . 118
. . 339
. . 112

Matt. xii. 31 sq.

xvi. IG .

xvi. 27, L8

XX. 28 .

xxiv. 13, 14

xxiv. 29 fq.

XXV. 34

xxvi. Gl

xxvi. 03

xxvi. G4
Mark i. 4

i. 8 .

iii. 22 sq.

vii. 18

vii. 2G

ix. 1 .

X. 30 .

xiii. 110

xiii. 24

xiv. 58
Luke i. (13

vii. 3 .

viii. 37
ix. 27
ix. 54
X. 18 .
X. 22 .
xii. 10
xii. 48
xviii. 13
xviii. 30
xxi. 32
Acts vi. 13, 14
vii. 35 .
xxi. 29
Rom. i. 17 .
X. 9 .

1 Cor. v. 7 .

xii. 3

2 Cor. V. 16
Gal. iii. 9 .

iii. 19 .
iii. 29 .
Eph. i. 3 sq.
V. 2 .

Page
152
105
340
172
339
339
119

40
1(15
340
250
250
152
209
294
340
313
340
339

40
295
294
294
340
210
144, 353
112
152
295
182
313
339, 340

85
295
235
204
1G9
!04, 2,34
225
140

85
140
205
178

Phil. i. 23 . .

. . 332

ii. 8, 9 ,

. . 181

Col. i. IG, 17 .

. . 93

2 Thess. ii. 3, G,

7 . 147

1 Tim. ii. G . .

. . 172

1 Tim. iii. G .

. . 144

V. 22

. . 24G

Heb. i. 2, 3 . .

. . 93

ii. 2 . .

. . 85

ii. 17 . .

. . 182

ii. 17, 18 .

. . 352

iv. 15 . .

. . 352

vi. 1 . .

. . 187

vi. 4-8

. . 154

X. 20-31 .

. . 154

James i. 27 . .

. . 24G

iv. 4 . .

. . 2G7

1 Pet. i. 19 . .

. . 170

iii. 15 . .

. . 295

2 Pet ii. 4 . .

. . 142

Jude 4 . . .

.142,143

14 sq. . .

. . 143

Rev. V. 12 . .

. . 170

vii. 14 . .

. . 170

xiii. 1 sq.

. . 147

XX. 2 . .

. . 141

APOCRYPHAL BOOKS.

Wisdom of Solomon vi. 22,

vu.

21 . .

vu.

24 . .

vii.

25-29 .

vni

4 .

,82

Eccl

us. I.

1, 4, 9, 20

xxiv. 3-10

,81

Foil

•th Es

dras vii.28«(?

105

xiii. 37 sq

105

xiv. 9

105

Enoch xii

4 . .

143

3 . .

143

Ixi

V. 2 .

143

2 . .

105

GENERAL INDEX

Abbot, E., cited, viii, 108. -iOO; on

the words for prayer in Jolin, 293,

296, 308.
Abiding in Ciirist, 258 si/.
Ai)a:m ok St. Victor, liynin com-

nionlv attributed to, cited, 211.
Adcney, W. F., cited, 374.
Alex.indrian riiilosophy, see Philo.
ALioiti>, H., cited, 246, 250, 292, 308,

3.32, 336, 3.37.
Antidirist, doctrine of, in .John,

145 sq.
Augustine, cited, 150, IGO, 199, 336,

352.

Ballentine, W. G., cited, 266; on
the words meaning to lore in .Joiin,
272.

Bauh, F. C, cited, 46, 74, 75, 127,
156, 189, 241, 266, 312, -328, 352,
355, 374.

'•Beast," the, in Revelation, how
different from "Antichrist'" in
John, 147.

Begetting, the divine, 242 57. ; born
of water and Spirit, 249 sq.

Benevolence, its relation to justice in
God, .53, 54.

Bk.noei., cited, 1.50.

Bi:i!NARi), T. D., cited, 189, 290,375.

Bi;y.schlag, W., cited. 1. 22. 46, 76,
90, 92, 102, 104, 127, 133, 1.56, 189,
218; on the doctrine of faith in
John, 231, 232; cited, 242, 2.52. 266.
312, 316, 328, 332, on the judg-
ment, 351, 352, 374.

Beza, cited, 152.

Bil)liograpliy, 373; cf. Preface, p. xi.
Bn-th from above or from God, see

Btgetling.
Blood, of Christ, theories respecting

the meaning of, in ch. vi., 159-164.
BuiaoN, E. D., cited, 315.

Caiai'iias, his view of .Jesus' death,
175, 17G, 255.

Calvi.v, cited, 152, 249, 256.

Chahlks, li. H., hi.s edition of tlie
Book of Enoch, cited, 14-'i.

Children of God, outside .luilaism,
255.

Childship to God. 251-255.

Christ, his work grounded by Jolm
in his person, 3, 4 , Gotl's love for,
55-57 ; the doctrine of liis person in
tlie prologue of John's Gos])ei,
88 .<7.; creation ascribed to, 93;
incarnation of, 95; his union with
the Father, 102 sq. ; meaning of
the title Son of God as applied to,
102 .«7. ,• meaning of "only-begot-
ten Son," 106 sq. ; his pre-exist-
ence, 11.5-122; charged with using
demoniacal power by the Pliarisees,
139; as the giver of life, 156 sq. ;
as the Lamb of God, 168-170; his
death on behalf of men, 171-177,
"sanctities himself" for men, 178,
179; his lifting up from the cros.s,
180, 181 ; as a propitiation for sin,
181-188; sends the H(dy Spirit,
I'M sq. ; abiding ill, 258 sy. ,• eating
the flesh of, &c., 261; fellowship
with, 262 sq. ; the prayers of,

382

GENERAL INDEX

298 sq. ; eternal life ileriveil from,
314 St/.; Ills '' cominf,^" 331 sq. ;
his function of jiuli;n)ent, 346 sq.

Cone, O., cited, viii, 1, 175.

Comforter, see Spirit.

Ckemeu, H., on the sonship of Christ,
12f), 182; cited, 267; on the differ-
ence between aireii' and ipiuTav, 296.

Cross, Christ lifted up upon the, 180,
181.

" Day, the last," 340.

Davidson, S., cited, viii.

Death, of Christ, ou behalf of men,
171-179.

Demoniacal Possession, in John and
in the Synoptics, 139.

De Wette, cited, 69, 91, 152, 167, 178,
201, 250, 257, 308, 334, 338, 342.

DoDs, M., cited, 189.

Dorner, I. A., on the theological sig-
nificance of the idea of love, 275.

Drummond, J. cited, 75.

Dualism, in John, the nature of,
129 sq. • supposed bearing of, upon
the authorship of the Fourth Gos-
pel, 132, 133

DiJsTEUDiECK, F., cited, 150.

DwiGHT, T., cited, ix, 70, 104, 155,
on the conviction concerning sin
wrought by the Spirit, 215 ; cited,
257; on the meaning of xvi. 23,
309 ; cited, 334.

P:brard, J. H. A., cited, 69, 150,

153, 199, 335.
Eccle.'siasticus, doctrine of wisdom in,

80*7.
Enoch, Book of, its bearing upon

the doctrine f]f the fall of Satan,

143 sq.
Escliatnlogy, the Johannmp, 328 .svy
"I'-ternal," meaning of the term in

John, 322 sq. See Life.
EwAi.n, H., cited, 189, 3-32, 334, 3.30,

337, 374.

F.^ihhaikn, a. M., on the theological
signiticance of the idea of love,
287.

Faith, Doctrine of, in John, 218; in
the sense of believing that a thing
is true, 219, 220; gradation in, 221-
226; constructions which express
the idea, 220-228 ; various opinions
respecting the nature of, 228-235;
its grounds, 235-238; doctrine of,
in Paul and in John, compared,
367 sq.

Fall of Satan, whether taught in New
Test., 142 sq.

Farkar, F. W., cited. 1, 155.

Fellowship with Christ, 260 sq.

Flesh, contr;isted with Spirit, in
John, 129 s^. ; " flesh and blood,"
of Christ, to be eaten and drunken,
158-164, 261.

Franke, a. IL, cited, 22, 375.

Frommann, K., cited, 74, 102, 127;
on John's doctrine of Satan, 144,
145, 156, 201, 218; on faith in John,
231; cited, 328, 355, 373.

Gess, W. F., cited, 107.

(jod, his ethical nature, 5; meaning
of the phrase, "'to be of God," 8;
idea of, in .John's writings, 46 sq. ;
as spirit, 46-48; as invisible, 48-
50; "the true," 50, 51; as love,
52-55; his love for the Son, 55-57;
for the world, 57, 58; for believ-
ers, 58, 59; as the giver of life to
men, 59, 60; as light, 00-62; as
rigiiteous, 63; his retributive jus-
tice, 63-05: knowledge of, how
attained, 05-68; the representation
of him in I. iiV 19, 20, 68-70; his
Fatherhood, 70-73; idea of, in Paul
and in John, compared, 357 sq.

GoOKT, F., ciled, 22, 75. 70, 91. 160,
108, 179, 199, 201, 2ijO, 250, 257,
202, 209, 307, 308, 332, 334, 337,
342, .344.

Gloao, p. J., cited, 1, 74.

GENERAL INDEX

383

Hakino. T., cited, 37fi.

Hahk, J. C, cited, 18'J; on the rela-
tion of the Spirit's work to faith in
Christ, 208: cited, 21:!. .170.

Hahnack, a., cited, 7tj; on the rela-
tion of tlie prologue to the Fourth
Gospel as a whole, 101, 15!), 37G.

Hai'pt, K., cited, 1; on John's con-
ception of history, 11; on God as
light and as love, GO ; cited, 67, G9,
70, 152, 167, 246, 373.

IIi:ix'/E, M., cited, 75.

Hkxgstenberg, cited, 336.

HiLGEXKKLD, A., citcd, 255, 373.

HoFMA.NN, J. C. K., citcd, 109, 332,
334, 336.

HoLTZMANN. II. J., citcd, viii, 67,
149, 154, 159, 178, 199, 201, 246,
250, 256, 270, 308, 332, 334, 338,
344, 3.52.

HoLTZMAXX, 0., cited, 22; on the
Logos doctrine of John, 99, 100;
cited. 308, 373.

FIoKTON, R. F., cited, 1.

IIuTiiEK, J. E., cited, 67, 69, 70, 152,
167, 246.

HuTTON, R. H., cited, ix.

Jews, their relation to the Messianic
salvation, 24; their view of the
Sabbath law, 37, 38; their real
ignorance of Scripture, 43 sq.

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

trine of the Logos, 74 sq. ; his teach-
ing respecting the relation of the
Son to the Katlu'r, 102 sq. ; his
doctrine of ('hrist's pre-cxistence,
1 15 sq. ; his doctrine of sin, 127 sq. ;
his "dualism," 129 sq. ; his doc-
trine of salvation, 156 sq. ; his
teaching concerning the Holy
Spirit, 189 sq, ; his symbol the
eagle, 210; his doctrine of faith,
218 sq. ; his doctrine of the spirit-
ual life, 241 sq. ; his practical re-
ligious conceptions, 263-265; his
doctrine of prayer, 290 sq. ; his
idea of "eternal life,"' 312 sq. ;
his eschatology, 328 sq. ; his doc-
trine of the "coming" of Christ,
331 sq. ; of the resurrection, 340 sq. ;
of the judgment, 346 sq. ; his the-
ology and Paul's compared, 355 sq.
Judgment, the, doctrine of, in John,
346 sq.

Keil and Delitzsch, cited, 28,
Keim, T., cited, viii, 201.
Knowledge of God and of Christ, as

connected with " eternal life,"

314 sq.
KiiHLER, H., cited, 376.
KosTLiN, K. R., cited, 1, 46, 156, 189,

373.

Lamb of God, meaning of, in John,

168 sq.
Lange, J. P., cited, 160, 190, 199,

201, 308, 331, 332, 334, 335, 337,

355, 375.
Lechler, G. v., cited, 46, 127, 201,

241. .336, 355, 375.
LiA.s, J. J., cited, 46, 74, 373.
LiDDox, H. P., cited, 74, 76, 102.
Life, God the giver of, 59, 60; laying

down of, by Christ, for men, 171 sq. ;

the spiritual. 241 sq. ; "eternal,"

doctrine of, 312 sq.
Light, its meaning 'n John, 6; as a

384

GENERAL INDEX

name for God's nature, 60-02: con-
trasted witli darkness in John,
128 S'l-

LiciiTKooT, J., on the meaning of
" eating the flesh and drinking the
blood of the Son of man,'" 10:5.

I>i(iUTF()OT, J. B., cited, viii, 292.

Lirsius, II. A., cited, 74.

Logos, John's doctrine of the, 7isrj. ;
Jewish or Alexandrian in origin,
76 sq. ; roots of, in the 0. T., 77-
79; in Apocrj'phal books, 79 sq. ;
doctrine of, in tiie Targums, 82,
83: in Philo, 83 sq. ; John's and
Pliilo's doctrine of, compared, 90
sq. ; purpose of, in John, historical
and practical, 100 sq.

Love, its place in John's teaching,
4, 5; synonymous with light, 5;
considered as the ethical nature of
God, 52-.55; John's doctrine of,
200 sq. , words denoting, 200-272;
suhjects and objects of, 272-274 ;
as the ethical nature of God, 274 s(j. ;
ciiaractcristics of. 270 sq ,• whether
a subordinate attribute of (Jod and
ojitional as to its exercise, 282-287 ;
doctrine of, in Paul and in John,
compared, 308 sq.

LtfCKK, F., cited, 07, 09, 74-76, 91,
92, 1.52, 167, 178. 199. 201,256, 2.")7,
308, 332, 334, 338, 342, 344.

LuTHAUDT, C. E., cited, 70, 107, 256,
.3.32, 334, 337. 344.

I.UTHKH, cited, 2.")0, 330, 352.

Man, a unit in all his powers, 8, 9;
" man of sin " in Paul, how differ-
ent from "antichrist," in Jului,
U7.

.ALmmuck, V. D., on the true basis of
Christian fellowship, 21 ; cited, 189,
374.

Mi'iina. the doctriue of, in the Tar-
gums, 82, 83.

Mercy, the divine, its relation to jus-
tice, 53, 54.

]\Ii:ssNKK, IL, cited, 34, 127, 189,
206, 328, 355, 374.

JIkykh, H. A. W , on John ii. 21,
38*-7. ,• cited, 75, 76. 90, 107, 114,
140, 100, 108, 172, 173, 178, 199,
201, 205, 250, 256, 2.57, 202. 209,
270, 308, 325, 332, 334, 338, 342,
344, 345, 351.

MiTi.LEH, J., on the nature of love,
275.

MuKi'HY, J. J., cited, 355.

Name, prayei in Christ's, 298, 302-

305.
Neandek, A., cited, 1, 69, 179, 201,

218; his view of faith in John,

231; cited, 328, 332, 375.
NiTzscir, K. L, on the doctrine of

love, 275.

Old Testament, John's teaching con-
cerning, 22 sq. , preparatory to the
Gospei, 22, 23 ; the necessity that
its prophecies be fulfilled, 24-29;
its unity aiul inspiration, 25; John's
method of interpreting it, 29, 30;
its Messiauii' import, 30 sq. ; John's
alleged hostility to, 34 sq.; con-
trast, according to John, between
Jesus' views of, and the popular
()|iinions, 37, 38; the Jews' real
ignorance of, 43, 44 : Jesus, the
fuUilnniit of, 44, 45; basis of the
Logos-doctrine in, 77-79.

Olshausen, H., cited, 201, 3.37, 312.

Paraclete, Christ represented as, 17(1,
171, see also Spirit.

Park, F,. A., cited, 206, 280.

Parousia, doctrine of, in John, 329 sq.

Patton, F. L., on the relation <if
justice and benevolence in God, 53.

Paul, his legalism compared with
John's type of thought, 15 sq. ; his
theology and that of John com-
pared. 355 sq.

GENKKAI. INDKX

385

Pauline Apocalypse, tho (2 Thcss. ii.
1-12), 147.

Peabouv, a. 1*., cited, viii; on tlie
meaninij; of xxi. 17 .-■'/., 'MH.

Pkyto.n, \V. \V., cited, ;!74.

Pkleidekek, O., cited, 75, 15'J, 375.

I'mi.o, his philosophy, 7H, 77 ; his
doctrine of the Logos, S'-i »</.

Plummek, a., cited, tJ7, 70, 86, 127,
159, 168, I'J'J. 246, 250, 256, 257,
268, 270, 308, 325, 332, 334, 342,
352.

Prayer, the doctrine of, 290 sq. ;
words used by Joiin to express idea
of, 291 S'j. ; the prayers of Christ,
298 s(j.; of the disciples, 302 sq. ;
assurances of answer to, 310, 311.

Pre-existence, of Christ, doctrine of,
in .loll II, 89 sq., 115 sq.

Proloi^ue, <>f John's Gospel, doctrine
of the Logos in, 88 sq.

Prophecy, as viewed in John, 24, 26-
29; necessary to distinguish its
original sense from its applications,
2:), 30; its Messianic element per-
vading in the O. T., 30-32; Jesus'
appeal to, 32 sq.

Propitiation, doctrine of, in John,
181-188.

Religion, its nature and demands, 6,
10, 12; its inward spiritual char-
acter, 14, "15; its relation to the-
ology, 18, 19; the Christian, in
relation to tlie O. T., 22; its con-
nection with .Jewish history, 24;
John's practical conceptions of,
262-205.

Resurrection, doctrine of, in John,
340 sq.

Iliass, Iv, cited, 1, 40, 74, 70, 89,
127, 133, 156; on John's doctrine
of atonement, 185; cited, 189; on
John's doctrine of the Spirit, 193,
197, 198, 201-203; cited, 218, 266,
312; on the meaning of "eternal
life," 327; cited, 328; on JoliiiV

escliatology,329 .<y. ; cited, 331; on

the resurrection, 341, 343, 345;

cited, 355.
Key.noi.i.s, II. K., cited, 332, 334.
Righteousness, doctrine of, in John,

10; of God, 03-05.
RiTscHi-, A., cited, 92.
RouEKTSoN, F. \V., cited, 290.
RoTHE, R. cited, 67.

Salmond, S. D. F., cited, 76.

Salvation, the work of, according
to John, 156 sq. i doctrine of, in
clis. V. and vi., 156-164; the use of
terms denoting, 164-107; repre-
sented as cleansing from sin, 166,
167 ; represented as the taking
away of sin, 167 sq. ; appropria-
tion of, according to John, 218 sq. ;
doctrine of, in Paul and in John,
compared, 360 sq.

Sanuay, W., cited, viii, 74.

Sartokius, E., on the divine love,
57; cited, 278.

Satan, reference of sin to agency of,
in John, 139 sq ; in what sense
sinned " from the beginning," 140
sq. ; supposed doctrine of the fall
of, in the New Test., 142 sq.

SCHAFF, p., cited, 272, 355, -373.

ScHiM.KK, cited, 3.54.

S<!iMii>, C. F., cited, 241, .374.

Sciioi.TE.N, J. H., cited, 201, 374.

ScHiJRKR, E., cited, viii, 74.

Sears, E. IL, cited, 1; on Christian
unity, 20, 21 ; on John's idea of
atonement, 185; cited, 373.

SuEDD, W. G. T., on the divine
mere}', 53, 54; on the nature of
justice and of mercy, 285, 286.

Sheep, other, " not of this [Jewish]
fold." 266, 267.

Siegfried, C, cited, 74, 99.

Sin, incompatibility of, with Chris-
tian life, 13; John's doctrine of,
127 sq. ; delinition of, 127: repre-
sented as darkness, 129; how re-

386

GENERAL TNDEX

latcd to "the world," ]33 .svy. ;
considered as bondage, 135 sij. ;
usage of the words denoting, 131!
sq. ; sense in which all Christians
do sin, and yet "cannot sin," 137
sq. ; its relation to demoniacal
agencies, 138 sq. ; referred to Sa-
tan's agency, 139 6-^. ; represented
as "antichrist," 145 sq. ; "sin
unto death," meaning of, 149 sq. ;
salvation from, 15G s'./. ; the cleans-
ing from, etc., IGO sq. ; doctrine of,
in Paul and in John, compared,
3G4 sq.

Son of God, see Christ.

Spirit, contrasted with tlesh in John,
129 sq. ; the Holy, doctrine of,
189 sq. ; designations of, in John,
190-193; whether distinct from
Christ, 193 sq. ; whether or not, a
person, 195 sq. ; his mission and
work, 203 sq. ; is sent " in Christ's
name," 204 sq. ; his work in the
apostolic age, 209; his relation to
unbelievers, 210 sq.

Stif.k, R.. cited, 3-32.

SruoNO, A. H., on the divine love
and justice, 53, 285, 286.

Targums, doctrine of the Word in,

82, 83.
Temple, meaning of reference to in

the words, " Destroy tiiis temple,"

&c., 38-42.
Thayer's Lexicon, cited, '2ti7.
Theology, John's contribution to,

15 sq. ; its relation to rL'ligioM, 18,

19; of I'aul and .loliii, couipured,

355.
Theology-, Biblical, its aim and

method, 1. 2.
TnoLUCK, A., cited, 108, 193, 199,

201, 250, 2.5G, 308, 331, 342.
TnoMi'HON, J. P., cited, 37fi.
TiHciiicNixjUK, C, cited, 140, 24G.
Toy, C. II , cited, 28.
Treqelles, S. v., cited, 24G.

TiiKNCn, li. C, on the words mean-
ing lo pray in John, 292 sq. ; cited,
307, 308.

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

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

Washburn, E. A., his translation of
Adam of St. Victor's hymn to John,
cited, 211.

Watkins, it. W., cited, viii, 373.

\Vei5e1!, F., cited, 82.

Weiss, B., cited, 1, 22; on John ii,
21, 41; cited, 46; on the knowl-
edge of God, 66; cited, 74, 76, 88,
90, 102; on the meaning of Son of
God in John, 103 s^q. ; cited, 107,
127. 140, 154, 156; on tiie meaning
of Christ's flesh and blood in cli. vi.
1G2; cited, 167, 168, 173, 178, 189,
199,201, 218; his view of John's
doctrine of faith, 228 sq. ; cited,
241, 246; on faith, 252, 253; cited,
256, 257, 259, 262, 269-271, 290,
308, 312, 316, 318, 325, 328, 332,
334, 336, 338, 342, 344, 352, 373.

WicNirr, II. II., cited; 22, 32; on
Joiui X. 8, 36; on Joiiii ii. 21, 41;
cited, 46, 72, 102, 104; on the pre-
existcncc and sonsliip of Ciirisf,
115-122; cited, 127; cited, 156; on
the meaning of Christ's flesh and
blood in ch. vi., 162; cited, 218;
his view of John's doctrine of faith,
230; cited, 241, 266, 312, 316, 328,
332, 374.

Wkizsackek, K., cited, 76, 88, 99,
308.

Wkstcott, B. F., cited, 1, 22, 40
67,69, 70, 75, 91, 108, 127, 149, 151;
on "Sin unto death," 150 .'f/.; on

GEXKKAL l.NUKX

387

the meaning of Christ's flesh nnd
blood ill cL. vi., 102; cited, 1U8, 1"!>,
182, I'JO, I'JU, -204 ; on the convic-
tion of tlie world by the Spirit, 214 ;
cited, 241, 24G, 250; on cliildshipiii
John, 253; cited, 250, 257, 202, 200,
270; on the doctrine of love, 275;
cited, 290, 292, 308, 312; on the
meaning of "eternal life,'' 320;
cited, 325; on the parousia, 332;
cited, 330, 337, 342; on the judg-
ment, 352; cited, 376.

Wi-srioTT AND HoKT, cited, 108,
240.

WuiTTiKU, J. G., his poem Palestine,
cited, 225, 220.

Wisdom, Hook of, doctrine of wis-
dom in, 81 S'/.

Word, see Logos.

WouuswoKTH, C, cited, 202.

World, John's doctrine of the, 133 iy.

Zeller, E., cited, 75.

CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES AND
HOMILETiCS.

MANUAL OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. By Prof. GEORGE
PARK FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical
History in Yale College. 16mo, 75 cents.

The aim of the l)Ook is to present the Evidences of Chrifitianity in
a concise, hicid form, for the benefit of those who have not the leisure
to study extended treatises on the subject. It is intended both for
private reading and for the use of classes in public institutions. Al-
though brief, it includes a distinct statement of both the internal and
external proofs. The arguments are shaped to meet objections and
difficulties which arc felt at the present time, and the historic evidence
is carefully confined to the present state of scholarship and learning.

THE EXAMINER.— "It la worth Its weight In gold. It Is by all odas the best
treatise on the Evidences of Christianity for general use that we know. It Is
Bound, judicious, clear, and scholarly."

THE N. Y. SUN.— "Compact, thorough, and learned. Its Blmpliclty of style
and brevity ought to commend It to a wide circle of readers."

THE GROUNDS OF THEISTIC AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. By
Prof. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D. Crown 8vo, S2.50.

FROM THE PREFACE— "This volume embraces a discussion of the evidences
of both natural and revealed religion. Prominence is given to topics having
special interest at present from their connection with modem theories and diffi-
culties. The argument of design, and the bearing of evolutionary doctrines on
its validity, are fully considered."

JULIUS H. SEELYE, President of Amherst College.—"! find it as I should
e.ipect it to be, wise and candid, and convincing to an honest mind."

paOF. JAMES O. MURRAY, o/PTirw^efon Coii^'O'e.—" It is eminently fitted to
meet the honest doubts of some of our best young men. Its fairness and candor,
its learning and ability In argument, its thorough handling of modern objectlona
—all these qualities fit it for such a service, and a great service it is."

ESSAYS ON THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF CHRISTIAN-
ITY. By Prof. GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D. 8vo,
new and enlarged edition, $2.50.

THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.— " Ills volume evinces rare versatility of intellect,
with a scholarship no less sound and judicious in its tone and extensive In its
attainments than it is modest in its pretensions."

THE BRITISH QUARTERLY REVIEW.— "We know not where the student Will
find a more satisfactory guide In relation to the great qurstlons which have grown
up between the friends of the Christian revelation and the most able of its assail-
ants, within the memory of the present generation."

en ABLE S SCBJBNER'S SONS'

THE PHILOSOPHIC BASIS OF THEISM. An Examination of the
Personality of Man, to Ascertain his Capacity to Know and
Serve God, and the Validity of the Principle Underlying the
Defence of Theism. By SAMUEL HARRIS, D.D., LL.D., Pro-
fessor of Systematic Theology in Yale College. 8vo, $3.50.

Dr. Harris embodies in his work the results of his long meditation
on the highest themes, and his long discussion and presentation of
these truths in the class-room. His fundamental positions are thor-
oughly in harmony with soundest modern thought and most trust-
worthy modem knowledge.

THE INDEPENDENT.— "It is rare that a work, which is of necessity, so
severely metaphysical in both topics and treatment, is so enlivened Ijy the
varied contributions of a widely cultivated mind from a liberal coarse of
reading. Els passionate and candid argument cannot fail to command the
respect of any antagonist of the Atheistic or Agnostic schools, who will take
the pams to read his criticisms or to review his argument. In respect to coolness
and dignity and self-possession, his work is an excellent model for scientists,
metaphysicians, and theologians of every complexion."

THE HARTFORD COURANT.—" Professor Harris' horizon-lines are nncon-
tracted. Ills survey of the entire realm he traverses is accurate, patient, and
considerate. No objections are evaded. No conclusions are reached liy saltatory
movements. The utmost fairness and candor characterize his discussions. No
more thoroughly scientific work in plan or method or spirit has been done in our
time. On almost every page one meets with evidences of a wide and reflec-
tive reading, not only of philosophy, but of poetry and fiction as well, which
enriches and Illumines the whole course of thought."

THE SELF-REVELATION OF GOD. By SAMUEL HARRIS,
D.D., LL.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Yale Col*
lege. 8vo, $3.50.

In this volume Dr. Harris presents a statement of the evidence of
the existence of God, and of the reality of His revelation of Himself
in the experience or consciousness of men, and the verification of the
same by His further revelation of Himself in the constitution and
ongoing of the universe, and in Christ.

PROF. WM. G. T. SHEDD, D.D4 in TTie rresbyterian Iieview.—"8nch a
work Is not brought out in a day, but is the growth of years of professional study
and reflection. Few books on apologetics have been recently produced that will
be more Influential and formative upon the mind of the theological or philosophi-
cal student, or more useful. It Is calculated to influence opimons, and to influence
them truthfully, seriously, and strongly."

BISHOP HURST, In Tfw Northwvslem Christian Aavocaie.—"W odo not \:x\oyf
a better work among recent publications than this one for building up old hopes
and giving a new strength to one's faith. The book is thoroughly evangelic,
fresh, uud well wrought out. It 1^ a valuable coutribution to our Amcrloou
theology."

fJTAN'DATfD TEXT POOKR.

THE THEORY OF PREACHING; or, Lectures on Homiletics.
By Professor AUSTIN PHELPS. 8vo, $2.50.

This work is the growth of moro tlian thirty years' praetiral ex-
perience in teaching. The writings of a master of stylo, of broad and
catholic mind are always fascinating ; in the present case the wealth
of appropriate and point^'d illustration renders this doubly the case.

THE NEW YORK CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.— " MlnlHters of all (lenomlnatlona
and of all Uegrecs of experience will rejoice In It as a veritable mine of wisdom."

THE INDEPENDENT. - " The volume is to 1)C commended to young men as a
Hupcrb example of the art In which It alms to Instruct them."

THE WATCHMAN.— " The reading of It is a mental tonic. The preacher
cannot Imt feel often his heart burning within him under Its Influence. We could
wish it might be In the hands of every theological student and of every pastor."

MEN AND BOOKS; OR, STUDIES IN HOMILETICS. Lectures
Introductory to the "Theory of Preaching." By Professor
AUSTIN PHELPS, D.D. Crown 8vo, $2.00.

Professor Phelps' second volume of lectures is devoted to a dis-
cussion of the sources of culture and power in the profession of the
pulpit, its power to absorb and ajipropriate to its own uses the world
of real life in the present, and the world of the past, aa it lives in
books.

PROFESSOR GEORGE P. FISHER.— "It Lq a live book, animated as well as
sound and Instructive, In which conventionalities are brushed aside, and the
author goes straight to the marrow of the subject. No minister can read It
without being waked up to a higher conception of the possiblUties of his calling."

BOSTON WATCHMAN.—" Wc are sure that no minister or candidate for tlie
ministry can read it without profit. It Is a tonic for one's mind to read a book so
laden with thought and suggestion, and written In a style so fresh, strong, and
bracing."

A TREATISE ON HOMILETICS AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY.
By W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D. Crown 8vo, $2.50.

In chis work, treating of the main points of Ilomiletics and Pastoral
Theology, the author handles his subject in a masterly manner, and
displays much original and highly suggestive thought. The Homileti-
cal part is especially valuable to ministers aud those in training for the
ministry. Dr. Shedd's etyle is a model of purity, simplicity and
strength.

THE NEW YORK EVANGELIST.—" We cannot but regard It as, on the whole,
the very best production of the kind with which we are acquainted. The topics
discussed are of the first importance to every minister of Christ engaged In active
service, and their discussion la conducted by earnestness as well as ability, and In
a stylo which for clear, vigorous, and unexceptionable English, Is itself a model."

THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— "The ablest book on the subject whioh
tbe geueratiou has produocU."

CHURCH HISTORY.

THE BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. With a View of tha
State of the Roman World at the Birth of Christ. Bjf
GEORGE P. FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Church
History in Yale College. 8vo, $2.50.

1 HE BOSTON ADVERTISER.— "Prof. FlBher has displayed in this, as in his
previous published writings, that catholicity and that calm judicial quality oi
mind which are so indispensable to a true historical critic."

THE EXAMINER.— "The volume ia not a dry repetition of well-known facts.
It bears the marks of original research. Every page glows with freBliness of
material and choiceness of diction."

THE EVANGELIST.— "The volume contains an amount of information that
makes It one of the most useful of treatises for a student in philosophy and
theology, and must secure for it a place In his library as a standard authority."

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. By GEORGE P.
FISHER, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical History in
Yale University. 8vo, with numerous maps, $3.50.

This work is in several respects notable. It gives an able presenta-
tion of the subject in a single volume, thus suijplying the need of a
complete and at the same time condensed s^urvey of Church History.
It will also be found much broader and more comprehensive than other
books of the kind.

HON. GEORGE BANCROFT.—"! have to tell you of the pride and delight
with which I have examined your rich and most instructive volume. As an
American, let me thank you for producing a work so honorable to the country."

REV. R. S. STORRS, D.D.— "I am surprised that the author has been able to
put such multitudes of facts, with analysis of opinions, deflnltlona of tendencies,
and concise personal sketches, into a narrative at once so graceful, graphic, and
compact."

PROF. ALEXANDER V. G. ALLEN, Episcopal Divinity Scfiool, Cambridoe,
Mass.— "It has the merit of l)elng eminently readable, its conclusions rest on tluj
widest research and the latest and ))e8t scholarship, It keeps a just sense of pro-
portion In the treatment of topics, it is written In the Interest of Cliristlaulty as a
whole and not of any sect or church. It Is so entirely Impartial that It is not easy
to discern the author's sympathies or lils denominational attitude, an<l It has tlu
great advantage of dwelling at due Iciiglh upon Ilngllsli and American Churcti
history. In short, It Is a work which no one but a long uud successful teacher d
Ctxurub lllstory could Lave produced."

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. By PHILIP SCHAFF,
D.D. New Edition, re-written and enlarged. Vol. I. Apos*
tolic Christianity, A.D. 1-100. Vol. Il.-Ante-Nicene Chris-
tianity, A.D. 100-325. Vol. Ill.-Nicene and Post-Nicene
Christianity, A.D. 311 600. Vol. IV.-Mediasval Christianity,

A.D. 590-1073. Vol. VI. -Modern Christianity. The German
Reformation, A.D. 1517-1530. 8vo, price per vol., $4.00.

This work is extremely comprehenBive. All subjects that properly
belong to a complete sketch are treated, including the history of Chris-
tian art, hymnology, accounts of the lives and chief works of the
Fathers of the Church, etc. The great theological, christological, and
anthropological controversies of the period are duly sketched ; and in
all the details of history the organizing hand of a master is distinctly
Been, shaping the mass of materials into order and system.

PROF. GEO. p. FISHER, Of Tale College.— "Ht. Schaff has thoroughly and
Buccessfully accompllahed his task. The volumes are replete with evidences of a
careful study of the orlgliial sources and of an extraordinary and, we might say,
unsurpassed acquaintance with the modem literature— German, French, and
English— m the department of ecclesiastical history. They are equally marked hj
a fair-minded, conaclentloua spirit, as well as by a lucid, animated mode of
presentation."

PROF. ROSWELL D. HITCHCOCK, D.D.— "In no other single work of
Its kind with which I am acquainted will students and general readers find bo
much to instruct and interest them."

DR. JUL. MULLER, of Halle.— "It Is the only history of the first six cen-
turies which truly satlsflea the wants of the present age. It Is rich in results of
original investigation."

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST, IN CHRONOLOGI-
CAL TABLES. A Synchronistic View of the Events, Charac-
teristics, and Culture of each period, including the History of
Polity, Worship, Literature, and Doctrines, together with two
Supplementary Tables upon the Church in America; and an
Appendix, containing the series of Councils, Popes, Patri-
archs, and other Bishops, and a full Index. By the late
HENRY B. SMITH, D.D., Professor in the Union Theologi-
cal Seminary of the City of New York. Folio, S5.00.

REV. DR. W. G. T. SHEDD.— " Prof. Smith's nistorlcal Tables art- the best
that I know of in any language. In preparing such a work, with so much care and
research, Prof. Smith has furnished to the student an apparatus that will be of
life-long service to him"

REV. DR. WILLIAM ADAMS.— " The labor expended upon such a work is
immense, and its accuracy and completeuess do honor to the research and
scholarship of Its author, and are an invaluable acquisition to our literature."

CHARLES SCRTBNER'S SONS'

LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH CHURCH. By
ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. With Maps and Plans.
New Edition from New Plates, with the author's latest revis*
ion. Part I.— From Abraham to Samuel. Part II.— From
Samuel to the Captivity. Part III.— From the Captivity to
the Christian Era. Three vols., 12mo (sold separately), each
$2.00.

The same— Westminster Edition. Three vols., 8vo (sold in sets
only), per set, S9.00.

LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN CHURCH.

With an introduction on the Study of Ecclesiastical History.
By ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. New Edition from
New Plates. 12mo, $2.00.

LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOT-
LAND. By ARTHUR PENRHYN STANLEY, D.D. 8vo, $1.50.

In all that concerns the external characteristics of the scenes and
persons described, Dr. Stanley is entirely at home. His books are not
dry records of historic events, but animated pictures of historic scenes
and of the actors in them, while the human motives and aspects of
events are brought out in bold and full relief.

THE LONDON CRITIC— "Earnest, eloquent, learned, with a style that Is
never monotonous, but luring through its eloquence, the lectures will maintain
his fame as author, scholar, and divine. We could point out many passages that
glow with a true poetic fire, but there are hundreds pictorially rich and poetically
true. The reader experiences no weariness, for in every page and paragraph
there is something to engage the mind and refresh the soul."

THE NEW ENGLANDER.—" We have first to express our admiration of the
grace and graphic beauty of his style. The felicitous discrimination in the use
of language which appears on every i)agu is especially required on these topics,
where the author's position might so easily be mistaken through an unguarded
itatement. Dr. Stanley is possessed of the prime quality of an historical student
vnd writer— namely, the historical fueling, or sense, by which conditions of life
ind types of character, remote from our present experience, are vividly con-
ceived of and truly appreciated."

THE N. Y. TIMES.— "The Old Testament Ulstory Is here presented as it
never was presented before ; with so much clearness, elegance of style, and his-
toric and literary Illustration, not to speak of learning and calmness of judgment,
that not theologians alone, but also cultivated readers generally, are drawn to Its
pages. In point of style It takes rank with Macaulay'a Ulstory uui the beat
obaptera of Froude."

STAND ABD TEXT BOOKS.

LECTURESOM MEDI/EVAL CHURCH HISTORY. By RICHARD
C. TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin. 8vo, S3. 00.

In this work the author discusscH the more important tpochs of
Church History, tracing the origin and growth of various sects and
eketching the careers of the great Schoolmen and Reformers. Intro-
ducing his subject with a general consideration of the study of Church
History, he devotes his eariy chapters to the beginning of the Middle
Ages, the Holy Roman Empire, the conversion of England and Ger-
many, Monasticism and the Crusa<le8, with accounts of the Mendicant
Orders and the Waldenses. His later chapters treat of the great coun-
cils of the West, Wiclif, Hus, and their followers, with a view of
Christian art, life, and work down to the eve of the Reformation.

THE CONFLICT OF CHRISTIANITY WITH HEATHENISM. By
Dr. GERHARD UHLHORN. Translated!by Prof. Egbert C.
Smyth and Rev. C. J. H. Ropes. Crown 8vo, $2.50.

This volume describes with extraordinary vividness and spirit the
religious and moral condition of the Pagan world, the rise and spread
of Christianity, its conflict with heathenism, and its final victory.

THE BOSTON ADVERTISER.— "It l3 easy to BBC Why this volume la 80 highly
esteemed. It Is systematic, thorouKh, and concise. But its power Is lu the wide
mental vision and weU-balanced Imagination of the author, which enable him to
re-construct the scenes of ancient history. An exceptional clearness and force
mark his style."

THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL TIMES.— "One might read many books without
obtaining more than a fraction of the profitable information here conveyed, and
he might search a long time before finding one which would so thoroughly fix
hlfl attention and command his Interest "

A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. By W. C. T. SHEDD,

Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological
Seminary. 2 vols>i 8vo, $5.00.

The work is divided into seven books : 1. — ^The Influence of Philo-
sophical Systems ; 2. — History of Apologies ; 3. — History of Theology;
4.— History of Anthropology ; 5. — Of Soteriology ; 6.— Of Eschatol-
ogy ; 7. — Of Symbols. The style is lucid and penetrating, the dis-
cussions move onward according to the law of the subjects themselves,
aa evoked in history ; and new light is thrown on past thought by
pertinent illustration from subsequent times.

THE NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.— "Dr. Shedd has furnished an Important
contribution to the study of Church hiistory. It Is eminently a readable book, and
will, no doubt, be extensively read beyond the circle of his own profession by
Intelligent laymen In all walks of life."

THE N. Y. EVENING POST.— "A body of theological history which is In form
as perfect as it is In substance excellent,"

BIBLICAL STUDY.

BIBLICAL STUDY. Its Principles, Methods, and History, By
CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and
Cognate Languages in Union Theological Seminary. Crown
8vo, $2.50.

The author has aimed to present a guide to Biblical Study for the
intelligent layman as well as the theological student and minister of
the Gospel. At the same time a sketch of the entire history of each
department of Biblical Study has been given, the stages of its develop-
ment are traced, the normal is discriminated from the abnormal, and
the whole is rooted in the methods of Christ and His Apostles.

THE BOSTON ADVERTISER.— " The principles, methods, and history of
Biblical study are very fully considered, and it is one of the best works of Its kind
in the language, if not the only book wherein the modem methods of the study
of the Bible are entered into, apart from direct theological teaclilng."

THE LONDON SPECTATOR.— "Dr. Brlggs' book Is one of much value, not the
less to be esteemed because of the moderate compass Into which its mass of In-
formation has been compressed."

MESSIANIC PROPHECY. The Prediction of the Fulfilment of
Redemption through the Messiah. A Critical Study of the
Messianic Passages of the Old Testament in the Order of
their Development. By CHARLES A. BRIGGS, D.D., Pro-
fessor of Hebrew and the Cognate Languages in the Union
Theological Seminary. Crown 8vo, S2.50.
In this work the author develops and traces ' ' the prediction of
ihe fulfilment of redemption through the Messiah" through the whole
series of Messianic passages and prophecies in the Old Testament.
Beginning with the first vague intimations of the great central thought
of redemption he arrays one prophecy after another ; indicating clearly
the general condition, mental and spiritual, out of which each prophecy
ari.ses ; noting the gradual widening, deepening, and clarification of
the prophecy as it is developed from one prophet to another to the
end of the Old Testament canon.

THE LONDON ACADEMY.— " His new book on Messlaulc Prophecy la a
wcrtliy compauiOTi to his indispensatple text-book on Biblical .itudy. lie li!i.i pro-
duced the first English te.xt-book on the subject of Messianic Prophecy which a
modern teacher can use."

THE EVANGELIST.— "Messianic Prophecy Is a subject of no common Inter-
est, and this Ixiok is no ordinary book. It la, on the contrary, a work of the very
Dr.st order ; the rliie product of years Of Study upon the highest themes. It la
exegesis iu a master-haud.''

STANDARD TEXT BOOKS.

THE BEGINNINGS OF HISTORY. According to the Bible and
the Traditions of the Oriental Peoples. From the Creation
of Man to the Deluge. By FRANCOIS LENORMANT, Pro-
fessor of Archaeology at the National Library of France, etc.
(Translated from the Second French Edition). With an in-
troduction by Francis Brown, Associate Professor in Biblical
Philology, Union Theological Seminary. 12mo, S2.50.

THE NEW ENGLANDER.— "Mr. Lenormant Is not only a believer in reve-
lation, but a Jevout confessor of what came by Moses ; as well as of what came
by Christ. In this explanation of Chaklean, Bahylonlan, Assyrian ami Pheniclan
tradition, he aiacloses a proillgallty of thought and skill allied to great variety of
pursuit, and dlUgunt manipulation of what he has secured."

THE NEW YORK TRIBUNE.— "The work Ls one that deserves to be studied
by all students of ancient history, and In particular by ministers of the Gospel,
whose offlce requires them to interpret tho Scriptures, and who ought not to be
ignorant of the latest and most interesting contribution of science to the elucida-
tion of the sacred volume."

QUOTATIONS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. By C. H. TOY,
D.D., Professor of Hebrew in Harvard University. 8vo, $3.50t

THE CONGREGATION ALiST.— "Textual points are considered carefully, and
ample and accurate Indexes complete the work. The minute and patient
thoroughness of his examination of passages and the clear and compact arrange-
ment of his views render his book remarkable. The dlfflculties of his task were
great and he has shown rare skill and has attained noteworthy success In meetiag
them."

THE CHRISTIAN EVANGELIST.— "Prof. Toy's collection and comparison of
the passages rinoted in the New and Old Testament is a fine, scholarly piece of
work. It surpasses anything that has been done by European scholarship in this
field."

THE CHALDEAN ACCOUNT OF GENESIS. By GEORGE
SMITH, of the Department of Oriental Antiquities, British
Museum. A New Edition, revised and corrected (with addi-
tions', by A. H. Sayce. 8vo, S3. 00.

THE N. Y. GUARDIAN.— "It la impossible in few words to give any adequate
tmpresaion of the exceeding value of this work. This volume is sure to find its
way into the public libraries of the country, and the Important facts which it
contains should be scattered everywhere among the people."

THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— " The accomplished Assyrlologist Prof
Sayce has pone over the whole with the advantage of a large number of addiUonai
texts, and has carefully brought the book up to the level nf the present knowl-
edge of the subject. The book as it stands ia a very important verification of
the early Hebrew records."

CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS'

THE DOCTRINE OF SACRED SCRIPTURE. A Critical, His-
torical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature
of the Old and New Testaments. By GEORGE T. LADD,
D.D., Professor of Mental and Moral Philosophy in Yale
College. 2 vols., 8vo, $7.00.

J. HENRY THAYER, D.D.— "It is the most elaborate, erudite, judicious dis-
cussion of the doctrine of Scripture, in Its various aspects, with wlilch I am
acquainted. I have no hesitation in saying that, for enabling a young minister
to present views alike wise and reverent respecting the nature and use of
Sacred Scripture, nay, for giving him in general a Biblical outlook upon Chris-
tian theology, both in its theoretical and its practical relations, the faithful study
of this thorough, candid, scholarly work will be worth to him as much aa hall
the studies of his seminary course."

GEORGE p. FISHER, D.D., LL.D.—" Professor Ladd's work Is from the pen of
an able and trained scholar, candid In spirit and thorough in his researches. It
is so comprehensive In its plan, so complete in the presentation of facts, and so
closely related to ' the burning questions ' of the day, that it cannot fail to enlist
the attention of all earnest students of theology."

WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. By MARVIN R.
VINCENT, D.D. Vol. I.-The Synoptic Gospels, Acts of the
Apostles, and the Epistles of Peter, James and Jude. Vol.
II.— The Writings of John— The Gospel, the Epistles, the
Apocalypse. 8vo, per vol., $4.00. Vol. III. ready.

The purpose of the author is to enable the English reader and
student to get at the origuial force, meaning, and color of the signifi-
cant words and phrases as used by the different writers. An introduc-
tion to the comments upon each book sets forth in compact form what
is known about the author— how, where, with what object, and
with what peculiarities of style he wrote. Dr. Vincent has gathered
from all sources and put in an easily comprehended form a great quan-
tity of information of much value to the critical expert aa w^ell as to
the studious layman who wishes to get at the real spirit of the Greek
text.

REV. DR. HOWARD CROSBY.— "Dr. Vincent's 'Word Studies In the New
Testament ' is a delicious book. Aa a Greek scholar, a clear thinker, a logical
reaaoner, a master In English, and a devout sympathizer with the truths of reve-
lation. Dr. Vincent Is just the man to interest and edify the Church with such a
work as this. There are few scholars who, to such a degree as Dr. Vhicent,
mingle scholarly attainment with aptness to impart knowledge in attractive form.
All Bible-readers should enjoy and profit by these deUghtful ' Word Studies.' "

DX THEO. L. CUYLER, in Tlw If. F. Evangelist.~"'nic very things which
a young minister— and many an older one aUo -ought to know about the chief
words In Ilia New Testament he will be able to learn In this affluent volume.
Years of close study by one of our brightest Greek scholars, have been condcnfled
Into its pages."

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY. ByCHARLES HODGE, D.D., LL.D.,

late of Princeton Theological Seminary. New Edition, com*
plete in three volumes, including index. 8vO| $12.00.

In these volumes are conipriBed the results of the life-long labora
and investigations of one of the most eminent theologians of the day.
The work covers the ground usually occupied by treatises on Systematic
Theology, and adopts the commonly received divisions of the subject :
Vol. I. — Theology; Vol. II. — Anthropology; Vol. III. — Soteriology
and Eschatology. The Introduction is devoted to the consideration of
method, or the princii)lc8 which should guide the student of theology,
and the different theories as to the source and standard of our knowl-
edge of divine things. Rationalism, Mysticism, the Roman Catholic doc-
trine of the Rule of Faith, and the Protestant doctrine on that subject.

The plan of the author is to state and vindicate the teachings of
the Bible, and to examine the antagonistic doctrines of different classes
of theologians.

The various topics are discussed with that close and keen analytical
and logical power, combined with that simplicity, lucidity, and
strength of style which have already given Dr. Hodge a world-wide
reputation as a controversialist and writer, and as an investigator of
the great theological problems of the day.

THE SUNDAY-SCHOOL TIMES.— "It l9 perhaps not too much to say of It.
Ihat this Is the most important contribution to the literature of theology mada
Bince the days of Jonathan Edwards. The reputation of Dr. Hodge in this depart-
ment, by reason of his life-long associations and his eminent aWllties, is such aa
to command for him, as a recognized authority, respectful hearing la all the
ehuiches."

THE NEW YORK CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.— "Tills volume is a monument
of thought and Christian scholarship, and will be welcomed and studied by
Intelligent minds In all the Christian denominations."

QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT OF THE SYSTEMATIC THEOL-
OGY of Dr. Charles Hodge, together with an exhibition of
various schemes illustrating the principles of theological
construction. By A. A. HODGE, late Professor in Princeton
Theological Seminary. 8vo, paper, $1.00 net.

The questions contained in this volume are designed to assist the
student in the .analysis of the text, and in fixing the points to be
grasped by his understanding and retained in his memory, and further
for the use of the professor during review and examination.

CHARLES SCRTBNEES SONS*

DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. By WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology. 2 vols., 8vo, $7.00.

CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.—" The pabUcatlon Of a System of Theolopy bj
Prof. Shedd marks an epoch In scientiflc religious thought. His training haa
been such as to fit him CACcptionally for this culminating work. A great charm
In these bulky volumes is the beautifully clear, precise, and simple style in which
they are written. The layman can read them with as much eaae and Interest aa
the professional theologian."

JOHN DE WITT, In Presbyterian Review.— " It Is didactic rather than
polemic. He states, expounds, and defends what he believes to be the true view,
and spends little time in expounding and opposing heresies. The discussions are
compact. The style is absolutely clear."

NEW YORK EXAMINER.— "The two volumes are the result of eighteen years
of special study and of forty years' labor in theological research. The treatment
is such as might be expected of Dr. Shedd: scholarly, devout, profound,
thorough."

PRACTICAL THEOLOGY. A Manual for Theological Students.
By J. J. VAN OOSTER2EE, D.D., Professor of Theology
in the University of Utrecht. Translated and adapted to
the use of English readers by Maurice J. Evans, 8vo, $3.50.

This is the result of instruction in practical theology, given by the
author during a period of fifteen years -at the University of Utrecht,
but its original form bas been modified or supplemented to adapt it
more completely for use as a text-book. As an additional feature of
interest the historic portion of the work contains such brief notices of
our leading Anglo-Saxon preachers, Christian poets, and catechists, aa
seemed necessary to furnish the connecting link in English Church
History between the movements of the Reformation age and those of
our own day, and to make evident the unbroken continuity of the
Church's life amidst the constant variation of outward forms.

CHRISTIAN DOGMATICS. A Text-book for Academical Instruc-
tion and Private Study. By J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D.,
Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht. Trans*
lated by John W. Watson, B.A., and Maurice J. Evans, B.A.
Two vols., 8vo, $5.00.
THE PRESBYTERIAN BANNER.— "The volumes before us are a rich mine
for the student and the theologian. The arrangement is good, the style clear
and the spirit evidently evangelical. The study of these volumes will stimulate
thought, enlarge the vision, and st 'enpthen faith, while they will supply rich
material for all whose calling it la to prcacn the gospel."

THE CHRISTIAN INTELLIGENCER.— " Dr. Van Oosterzee Is undoubtedly a
ripe and distinguished scholar, and the work before us is his greatest and most suc-
ccs.^ful effort. It has already received high commendation from some of the
abbat EngUsh scholars, and Is certified to by Prs. Smith and SrluifT as giving
'thy mature results of long-contlnucil, earnest, and devout study of llio artlclej
of our Christian faith ;' who also add that 'it wlU prove a safe and useful guide
to Btadcnts In our InstituUoas of Icaruiug.' "

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Johannine theology; a study of the doctrinal contents of the Gospels and Epistles of the apostle John"

See other formats