Page images

unless the mere position of it establishes this, he has not done it; for he merely says that the Passover was nigh, which, for any thing to the contrary, but that position, may have been, as appears from the other Evangelists, the last Passover.

The main cause, surely, of St. John's retracing the miracle, is to be found in its having given rise to the remarkable discourse in the synagogue at Capernaum, which he alone has recorded,-remarkable both in itself, and in its effects on the worldly-minded among his disciples. And there was yet another reason. He alone has transmitted the remarkable fact that the people were, in consequence of this miracle, about to take our Lord by force and make him a king. There is no similar circumstance related in the Gospels; and the recording of this was of much more importance than any merely chronological reason could be.

Why then did the Apostle mention the date? I answer, that it was according to his custom to do so, as we see in various instances respecting hours or days or festivals: if therefore he had no particular reason for it in this individual case, still he would be likely, from his habitual tendency, to specify the time. But from the position of the record in his Gospel, the specification of the date was really requisite, lest the position should perplex the readers of the other Gospels. The date being assigned, perplexity was prevented: and, accordingly, those of the Christian Writers of the first four centuries who regarded the ministry of Christ as including more than two Passovers, and even Eusebius, who began, in the fourth, the system of four Passovers, and whose mind was habituated to historical method, included the events following the imprisonment of John, and conseqnently the miracle of the Five Thousand, in the year preceding the Crucifixion.

The difficulties attending the supposition that the record actually stands in chronological order, will soon be stated: at present we may confine ourselves to some observations on the structure of this Gospel, which may lessen the influence of the opinion that might naturally be derived from a general survey of it, unattended by a comparison with the succession of events in the other Gospels.

examination of all the observations of that able critic tending to confirm his opinion that the record of the miracle of the Five Thousand is in its true chronological position. I do not here repeat that examination, regarding it as now unnecessary, while it interrupts the train of my own argument, in which I have not discovered any error, and gives an appearance of personal controversy which I gladly avoid. This last motive has influenced me in some omissions in relation to Mr. Greswell. If my views are solidly supported, it is enough.

2. On the Structure of St. John's Gospel.

1. It was not the Apostle's object to give a general connected view of our Lord's Ministry. He, more than any other, must have been qualified to do this, from his having been acquainted with the whole of the period from the Baptism to the Ascension of Christ, aud from the personal friendship with which his Master honoured him. To show, however, that this was not his purpose, it is sufficient to mention the following occurrences, recorded in the other Gospels, but altogether unnoticed by him :-the Baptism and Temptation of our Lord; his own Call, and the Public Progress through Galilee which followed it; the Sermon on the Mount; the remarkable circumstances which succeeded-such as the Cure of the Gadarene Demoniacs, and that of the Paralytic at Capernaum, the Raising of the Daughter of Jaïrus, &c.; the Appointment and Mission of the Twelve, and of the Seventy; the Imprisonment and Death of the Baptist; the Transfiguration; the circumstances connected with our Lord's leaving Galilee, and with his Last Journey to Jerusalem: his last Discourses in the Temple, and those on the Mount of Olives; the Institution of the Lord's Supper; his Agony in Gethsemane; and his Ascension into Heaven.

2. What this Evangelist does record, authorizes us to regard his Gospel as, intentionally, supplementary to one or more of the other Gospels. It principally consists of the details, partly of discourses and conferences, and partly of single miracles and other facts, of which some did not come within the scope of the other Gospels, and others might not have been known to the writers of them. It has few narrations in common with the other Gospels; and these are obviously introduced only when he had to record circumstances in them which are not recorded elsewhere, or to connect with them discourses which he alone records.

3. Previously to the Crucifixion-Passover, the preceding Evangelists have not recorded occurrences at any Feast of the Jews: St. John records the transactions of Christ at a previous Passover, a festival which we have reason to regard as the Pentecost, a Feast of Tabernacles, and a Feast of Dedication. If his Ministry included only two Passovers, then he has recorded transactions at every festival.

4. On considering the occurrences actually recorded by St. John, we are enabled to say that his leading object was, to record the Ministry of Christ in Judea, particularly at the festivals; showing, in an especial degree, the means which had been afforded to the Jewish Rulers and Chief Priests, of knowing the authority of Jesus. The first part of his Gospel, (ch. i.-v.), which is a connected series of events prior to our Lord's preaching in Galilee, appears to have had peculiarly in view to display the

testimony given to Jesus by the Baptist, whose follower St. John had been; and to record events connected with the commencement of Christ's Ministry, with which this Evangelist had been peculiarly conversant as an early disciple. After the narration of his Master's first miracle, all that he records, respects our Lord's Ministry in Judea, (at the Passover and afterwards, and at the Pentecost), or circumstances associated with his leaving that country. See ch. iv., especially ver. 1-4, 43-45, and 54. There is, next, one isolated portion, ch. vi. vii. 1, respecting Galilee alone, the purpose of recording which has already been considered, (p. xxxi.); and at the close of the whole, there is a supplementary chapter (ch. xxi.) peculiarly respecting the Evangelist's personal history and that of Peter, the scene of which is in Galilee. The whole of the intervening part (ch.vii.-xx.) records the transactions of our Lord at or near Jerusalem.

5. The very nature of St. John's Gospel-giving, as it does, detailed accounts of particular periods of our Lord's Ministry, and not recording the intervening events by which, in point of time or locality, they were connected, might lead us to expect that it would be found to consist of independent Parts, the subordinate sections of which would again be marked with a greater or less degree of independence. In point of fact, the Gospel does consist of four such Parts, two of which are capable of distinct sub-divisions into sections. The division may be specified as follows:

PART I. The Early Part of the Ministry of Christ as far as the Feast of Pentecost inclusive.

§. 1. The Introduction: ch. i. 1-18.

§. 2. Testimonies given by the Baptist; and their Effect on some of his Disciples: ch. i. 19-51.

[blocks in formation]

§. 4.

His Transactions at the First Passover: ch. ii. 13-iii. 21.

§. 5.

The Ministry of Christ in Judea; with the consequent Testimony of the
Baptist: ch. iii. 22-36.

§. 6. The Ministry of Christ in Samaria, on his way from Judea to Galilee :

ch. iv. 1-42.

§. 7.

Our Lord's Second Miracle in Galilee: ch. iv. 43-54.

§. 8.

Miracle and Discourse at the Pentecost: ch. v.†

• Eusebius (Ecel. Hist. lib. iii. c. 24) says that John regarded the first three Gospels as defective in relation to the period towards the beginning of Christ's Ministry; and that he particularly intended to give an account of the acts of Christ before the imprisonment of the Baptist.

+ It is observable that St. John merely says at the beginning of the fifth chapter, 'a feast of the Jews;' and he obviously says so much to show why 'Jesus went up to Jerusalem.' It is not improbable that this chapter was originally a separate record, committed to writing on account of the transcendently important discourse which it contains; and afterwards introduced, in its proper place, into the series of records of which his Gospel is composed. But whether this conjecture is well-founded, or whether the record did not exist till the Gospel was written, his silence as to the festival may be regarded as a proof that chronological notation and arrangement were not specifically in his view.

PART II. An insulated Record of the Miracle of the Five Thonsand, in Philip's Dominions, with the consequent Discourse in the Synagogue at Capernaum,—when a Passover was approaching: ch. vi. 1—vii. 1.

PART III. A connected Series of Records, respecting the Transactions of Christ, in Jerusalem, or its immediate Neighbourhood, beginning with the Feast of Tabernacles, and ending with the Evening of the Resurrection.

Div. i. §. 1. Transactions connected with the Feast of Tabernacles: ch. vii. 2—

§. 2.

§. 3.

x. 21.

Occurrences at the Feast of Dedication: ch. x. 22-42.

The Resurrection of Lazarus at Bethany; the Determination of the Sanhedrim in consequence; the Visit of Christ at Bethany, when he went to the Passover; and the concourse of the People thither to see him and Lazarus, leading the Sanhedrim to desire to put Lazarus also to death: ch. xi. 1-xii. 11.

§. 4. The Entry of Christ into Jerusalem, followed by the Voice in the Temple: ch. xii. 12-50.

Div. ii. §. 5.

§. 6.

§. 7.

The Occurrences in the Paschal Chamber: ch. xiii.-xvii.
From the Apprehension to the Interment of Christ : ch. xviii. xix.
The Day of the Resurrection: ch. xx.

PART IV. Personal Record respecting the Mecting of Christ with John and Peter and others at the Lake of Galilee: ch. xxi.

6. The third Part of the Gospel, according to the foregoing analysis, consists of two leading divisions: the second of these commences with the last day of our Saviour's mortal life: the first consists of a very remarkable series of transactions which are connected by locality, and still more intimately by subject; peculiarly disclosing the evidence which our Lord afforded of his Messiahship to the Chief Priests and Rulers, in the later part of his Ministry; and unfolding their malignant opposition against him, the attempts which they made to kill him, and their official decision, in consequence of the resurrection of Lazarus, to take away his life by public authority. The third of these four sections, (including ch. xi. and the first eleven verses of ch. xii.), details the resurrection of Lazarus and the circumstances which arose out of it, extending to the determination of the Pharisees to put Lazarus also to death. The connection of subject, of cause and effect, is so strongly marked in this portion of the Gospel, that no one intimately acquainted with its contents would willingly interrupt that connection by the insertion of circumstances which we know must have occurred during it. Why then should St. John have interrupted

I refer especially to those recorded by St. Luke in the portion beginning with the 4th verse of the seventeenth chapter, and going on to the 28th verse of the nineteenth ; which portion, in a strictly chronological arrangement, must be inserted between our

that connection, in order to introduce an isolated record, of a very important nature indeed, but entirely unconnected by locality and by subject, respecting occurrences in the district north of the Lake of Galilee ?*

7. We have no means of judging what were the intentions of St. John in composing his Gospel, except what are afforded by the Gospel itself. And after often-repeated and careful examination of it, with this particular view, I feel myself justified in the two following conclusions. First, that we have no reason to think that he followed the order of time in writing his Gospel, (or in arranging the records of which it is composed), with any intention to correct chronological errors, or supply chronological difficulties, in the other Gospels; or for any other purpose than what his subject, and the course of events, would naturally suggest to a mind obviously characterized by method, clearness, and definiteness. Secondly, that there is nothing in the purpose or in the system of his Gospel, which should oblige him, in the arrangement of his records, to maintain the order of occurrence, when, by so doing, he would interrupt the connection, and disturb the order arising from locality, from subject, or from the connection of cause and effect.

8. From the foregoing considerations I derive the following conclusion, that, since the inserting of the insulated record contained in the sixth chapter, in its chronological position, (as ascertained by the date in the fourth verse compared with the narratives in the other Gospels), would have interrupted the intimate connection of that portion of the Gospel to which, in point of time, it belongs, it was natural and proper for the Evangelist to place that record where he has placed it, with a chronological notification to determine its position in relation to the time of its occurrence.

3. Objections to the Tripaschal Theory.

Since the Tripaschal Theory depends, solely, upon an inference from the position of the record respecting the miracle of the Five Thousand in the Gospel of St. John, I am now authorized in saying that the inference is not conclusive in itself; and I proceed to state some of the difficulties which

Lord's sojourn in Ephraim after the resurrection of Lazarus, and the near approach of the Passover, that is, between the 54th and 55th verses of the eleventh chapter.

• No part of the Review of this Harmony in the Christian Examiner, (Boston, U. S.), gave me more pleasure than the sentence in which the able Critic expresses his accordance with these views. "This consideration, to us at least, accounts satisfactorily and "beautifully for the position which the miracle of the five thousand occupies in St. "John's Gospel, and removes the only serious objection which that Gospel presents to "the bipaschal hypothesis." Christ. Exam. March 1837, p. 56.-See Preface.

« PreviousContinue »