By Alfred E. Garvie
Parts III - V
III. THE CALL OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES (i. 35-51). In this narrative two questions present themselves for answer.
(1) It is
usually assumed that John, the
son of Zebedee, was one of the
two disciples of the Baptist who
left him for Jesus, and that as
Andrew found first (πρῶτον)
his own brother Simon, so John
next found his brother James,
and thus the two pairs of
brothers were the earliest
disciples of Jesus. It is true
that John, the son of Zebedee,
is closely associated with Peter
in the records of the ministry;
but it does not necessarily
follow that he was one of the
two who first came to Jesus; and
it is also mere conjecture that
James as well was brought to
discipleship at this time. If
the unnamed disciple was the son
of Zebedee, the fact would be
one reason for assigning to him
the authorship of the Gospel. If
this identification is
challenged, however, the
question remains, Was the
evangelist the unnamed disciple? The grounds on which I am
inclined to answer the question
affirmatively are: (a) the
tokens of an eyewitness which
the narrative offers in its
minute and vivid detail; and
(b) the probability that the
evangelist (except in a few
passages to be afterwards noted)
confined his narrative to first-hand reports of
what he had himself passed
through.
(2) While the narrative bears
the tokens of an eyewitness, it
must be admitted that the
reminiscences are coloured by
reflexions in two respects. (a)
First of all the evangelist
assigns to these first disciples
a much more definite confession
of Jesus' Messiahship (verses
41, 45, 49) than in view of the
Synoptic representation is at
all probable. If Jesus welcomed
Peter's confession of His Messiahship at
Caesarea Philippi
as a revelation, not of flesh
and blood, but of the Father
(Matt. xvi. 17) is it at all
likely that such a confession
would be made by any of the
disciples at the very beginning
of their contact with Jesus? Even if in His intercourse
James was less reserved than He
found it needful to be afterwards, it is not at all likely
that so definite a conception
was
given to the first disciples. In
recollecting the past, it is
impossible to exclude the
influence of later experiences,
or
of our reflexions upon them;
and we must admit that the
evangelist here represents Jesus
as already being to His
disciples what only at a much
later stage of their life and
thought He became to them. We
may raise the question
also whether the words to Peter
in verse 42 are not antedated, and must be assigned to a
time when Jesus had
gained a more intimate knowledge
of the character of His
disciples.
(b) This verse and verse 48 also
illustrate the tendency of the
evangelist to exaggerate the
supernatural character of Jesus'
knowledge. That Jesus had an
exceptional foresight, based on
insight regarding those with
whom He came into contact, the
Synoptists also testify; but it
is evident that the evangelist
in verse 48 is thinking of
something altogether
miraculous. That Jesus may
actually have seen Nathanael with the bodily eye
as he was engaged in his
devotions under the fig-tree
need not be questioned. How did
He in that moment gain the
knowledge of Nathanael's inner
life, the commendation of him
implies? One cannot exclude the
possibility of a supernatural
intuition given to Jesus in the
case of Peter as well as Nathanael, and to this
explanation I was inclined in my
Studies in the Inner Life of
Jesus (pp. 151-2); but we
must also admit the probability
that the evangelist's history
has here been influenced by his
theology. Some indications of
insight of an exceptional kind
must have been given, and would
have excited wonder and
stimulated, faith; for that
seems implied in the saying of
verse 51. The use of the term
Son of Man and the reference to
Jacob's dream at Bethel in that
utterance make it highly
probable that we have here a
genuine logion of Jesus; and its
contents need not raise any
doubt. Jesus based His insight
into man, as all His other
gifts, on His relation as Son to
Father; and what He here
promised the disciples was that
in His companionship they should
witness a constant and intimate
communion of God and man.
IV. THE MARRIAGE AT CANA OF
GALILEE (ii. l-12).
In this story three matters call
for notice. (1) As we find that
in the rest of the Gospel the
evangelist confines himself
almost entirely to Jesus' work
in Judea and Jerusalem; and
the simplest explanation of that
fact is that he was a Judean
disciple, who did not at least
usually accompany Jesus in
Galilee, we may raise the
question, whether he was himself
present at the marriage feast?
If he were not here an
eyewitness, we might conjecture
that he had got an inaccurate
report of the actual occurrence,
and that would relieve the
difficulty about the nature of
the miracle, to which we must
return; it might be conjectured
to be a natural provision
misunderstood. As the mother of
Jesus was entrusted to the care
of the beloved disciple (xix.
26, 27), she might be supposed
to be his informant, especially
as the incident had a poignant
personal interest for her (verse
4). It is more probable,
however, that the evangelist did
on this journey accompany Jesus,
as he would not be inclined so
soon after the first interview
to depart from Him.
(2) We must accordingly face the
difficulty of the nature of the
miracle. I am a firm believer in
the supernatural endowment in
knowledge and power of Jesus,
and His miraculous activity;
but I must admit that this
miracle, as well as that of the
feeding of the five thousand (of
which the story of the feeding
of the four thousand is probably
only a variant tradition)
presents a greater difficulty
than the healing works or even
the stilling of the storm and
the walking on the sea; one
cannot conceive the process by
which loaves and fish were
multiplied, or water was
transformed into wine. The
explanation of accelerated
natural process, poetically
expressed in the hymn,
"Twas springtide when He blest
the bread,
does not afford adequate relief
to the mind. Probably we must be
content to say that the
Inconceivable to us need not be
impossible. As we are here
concerned primarily with the
Fourth Gospel, it may be added,
however, that the difficulty
here is of the same kind, not
more, and perhaps even less than
in the miracle of the feeding of
the five thousand, which all the Synoptists record; so that in
this respect the Fourth Gospel
does not appear less trustworthy
than the others.
(3)
As the miracle is sometimes
treated as symbolic of the
transformation of human life by
the influence of Christ, and its
reality is even: denied on the
ground that it is a
misunderstood allegory, it may
be noted that in the narrative
itself there is no hint that the
evangelist himself so regarded
it. If he had, would he not, as
he has not hesitated to do in
other cases, have added
reflexions to reminiscences to
fulfil this intention? Surely
we need not go beyond verse 11
for his interest in the event.
We need not turn aside from our
main purpose to defend the
character of Jesus against the
charge suggested by the jest of
the ruler of the feast (verse
10).
V. THE VISIT TO JERUSALEM (ii.
13-25).
(1)
This narrative at once confronts
us with one of the most
formidable objections to the
historicity of the Gospel. It
records a number of visits to
Jerusalem at the time of the
feasts, whereas the Synoptists
record only the last visit, and
confine the ministry to Galilee
and the surrounding regions.
Does this difference justify our
dismissing the Fourth Gospel as
unhistorical? Some reasons in
arrest of any such hasty
judgment may, however, be given.
(a) The completeness of the
Synoptic record is an
assumption which the results of
modern scholarship are more and
more disproving. According to
the Two-Document hypothesis,
the main sources of the Synoptists are two. Mark's
reports of Peter's
reminiscences, and the
collection of sayings of Jesus.
In his recent book on Gospel
Origins, Professor Holdsworth
gives this hypothesis a form
which at least challenges close
scrutiny and respectful
consideration. He maintains that
Mark himself prepared three
editions of his own work, so
accounting for some of the
differences of Matthew and Luke
from Mark, and from one another
; and that it was Matthew who
first arranged a mere collection
of detached sayings of Jesus in
a series of discourses, which he
fitted into a Markan framework. This statement of the
hypothesis is mentioned to throw
into bolder relief the fact that
the Synoptists cannot be
regarded as giving an
exhaustive account of the
ministry of Jesus. While Luke
had access to another source
dealing with a ministry in Perea
on the way to Jerusalem for the
last visit, and may have gleaned
a few additional facts on his
visit with Paul to Jerusalem
(Acts xxi. 15), yet for the
record of events Peter is the
only eyewitness. His interest as
a Galilean was in the ministry
in Galilee. His silence about
his first meeting with Jesus, as
recorded in John i. 41, 42, is
certainly difficult to explain.
One would have thought that the
story would often be upon his
lips; but is not a possible
explanation this, that after a
short period of intercourse
Peter and Andrew returned to
their homes and their callings,
until Jesus transferred His
ministry for reasons to be
immediately noted from Judea
to Galilee; and that he regarded
his discipleship as beginning
with the call to constant
companionship in the Galilean
ministry, and so made no mention
of the previous less intimate
and constant relation? It is
extraordinary that there is no
mention of Peter's presence with
Jesus in Jerusalem at any of the
feasts except the last, although
in the sixth chapter, when the
scene of the ministry is shifted
to Galilee, he is mentioned. We
have no evidence that all the
twelve went with Jesus on all
these visits to Jerusalem. The
organisation was probably less
formal and fixed than later
ecclesiastical associations lead
us to regard it as being. And it
may have existed primarily for
the work in Galilee, as all the
twelve except Judas were
Galileans. Peter may, therefore,
have said nothing about the
visits to Jerusalem as he had
nothing to report as an
eyewitness. For it is certain
that in his discourses nothing
was further from his mind than
to furnish a complete biography
of Jesus. I may throw out a
suggestion which has occurred to
me, but which would require
further testing before it could
be urged with any confidence.
May not Mark have first heard
Peter give an account of the
Galilean ministry for the
instruction of the primitive
community in Jerusalem, for whom
any report of visits in
Jerusalem would be unnecessary,
even if he had been able to
speak with special knowledge? This local circumstance may have
given its form to the Petrine
tradition of the life and work
of Jesus. The account of the
last visit would be added when
Peter went on his missionary
travels; and the present form of
the Gospel according to Mark
would be determined by the needs
of the readers to whom it was
addressed. Is it not highly
probable that Peter's teaching
in Jerusalem would include the
account of the Galilean ministry? We must always remind
ourselves that our ignorance is
much greater than our knowledge
of the life and work of Jesus;
and there is room for
conjecture which accords and
does not conflict with the
evidence we have.
(b) If the Synoptic records are
incomplete, we may welcome an
additional source of
information, if its authenticity
can be maintained on historical
grounds. Is it not only
probable, but even certain that
Jesus as the Messiah of the
Jewish nation could not be
content to offer Himself for its
acceptance or rejection in the
comparatively insignificant
province of Galilee, but must
have felt constrained to press
His claims upon it at the very
centre of its national religious
life at the seasons when Jews
from all parts of the world had
come together to worship? More
than London is to the British
Empire was Jerusalem to the
Jewish nation; it had a sanctity
such as Rome has perhaps for the
Roman Catholic, if not even
greater. Could the full
responsibility of refusing His
claims be cast on the nation, if
the full opportunity for
considering these claims had not
been given?
But the Synoptic record of the
last visit to Jerusalem
presupposes a previous ministry
there. The mere reports of His
sayings and doings in Galilee
would not have affected the
priests and scribes and the
populace in Jerusalem, as the
story witnesses. Surely the
lament over Jerusalem (Matt.
xxiii. 37-39) would become
unreal rhetoric if Jesus had not
made a more persistent and
passionate endeavour to overcome
unbelief and hate than the
Synoptists record. How could He
have said, " How often would I
have gathered thy children, and
ye would not! " if He only at
the end of His ministry made
such an attempt?
Other evidence may be mentioned.
Luke records the visit of Jesus
to the home of Martha and Mary
(Luke x. 3842), and there is no
good ground for suspecting
John's statement that it was in
Bethany. Had this been a first
visit to former strangers, would
such a conversation be credible? Jesus had adherents near
Jerusalem before the last visit.
The same fact is proved by the
arrangements Jesus made both for
the use of the ass for His entry
and of the upper room for the
supper (Matt. xxi. 2, 3; Mark
xiv. 13, 14). In neither case
need we suppose supernatural
knowledge on the part of Jesus,
but a preconcerted sign with
devoted disciples, ready to put
their possessions at the
Master's disposal. There was a
Judean as well as a Galilean
circle of disciples, and these,
and not the twelve, may be
referred to in some passages in
the Fourth Gospel.
(c) This fact also suggests the
answer to a question which may
be raised regarding the beloved
disciple, or the evangelist. It
is usually taken for granted
that he must be sought for among
the twelve; and with this
assumption Westcott starts in
seeking to prove that the son of
Zebedee must be, and could alone
be, the author of the Gospel. If
one so appreciative of and
devoted to Jesus as Mary of Bethany was not one of the
women following Him and
ministering to Him, but remained
in her home in Bethany; if one
or more disciples in Jerusalem
not only were ready to offer ass
or room for the Master's use,
but seem even to have been
unknown to the Galilean
disciples who were sent on the
errand, is it impossible that
the "beloved disciple," who
could receive and retain the
deeper teaching of the Master,
after a short period of
following Jesus, even in
Galilee, returned to his home
in Jerusalem, but was afterwards
with Him only when He renewed
His " forlorn hope " to win the
city to Himself from its doom? We have evidence in the Synoptists that Jesus after the
confession at Caesarea Philippi
failed to find in His constant
companions the responsive
sympathy with His teaching about
His death that He sought. These
quarrels about precedence in the
kingdom show how far their minds
were from His. It was John, the
son of Zebedee, who joined in
the request for the nearest
places to the throne in the
kingdom (Matt. xx. 20-28). It
was He
too who wanted to call down fire
on the Samaritan village (Luke
ix. 54). It will not do to say
that it was the grace of God
which changed the son of
Boanerges into the apostle of
love; for the capacity to
receive and retain His deeper
teaching must seem credible in
this disciple as he was at the
time of the ministry, not as he
might afterwards become. We may
conclude then that the beloved
disciple was with Jesus in
Jerusalem, but did not usually
follow Him in Galilee. In
Galilee a public movement was
possible which would have been
at once suppressed in Jerusalem;
and so probably the Judean
disciples were doing secretly a
work for the Master, which
showed their devotion, and
tested their courage not less,
but even more than the open
following of Jesus in his
Galilean ministry. The reason
why Jesus went up only at the
feasts was probably that the
presence of the Galilean
pilgrims in the city and its
environs did offer Him a measure
of protection which at other
times would have been denied Him
(see Mark xiv. 2, "Not during
the feast, lest haply there
shall be a tumult of the people
").
(2) The record of the cleansing
of the temple in the Fourth
Gospel at the beginning of the
ministry also raises a
difficulty, as a similar action
is recorded in the Synoptists at
the end. But the difficulty is
not insuperable. The quotation
in verse 17 suggests that it was
in the mood of prophetic
inspiration, in "holy
enthusiasm," under the influence
of the Spirit manifested at His
baptism, which in Mark's vivid
phrase," driveth Him into the
wilderness" (i. 12), and
sustained Him there through His
long fast, that He performed
this act. It was not an open
claim of Messiahship, but such a
challenge to the corrupt
priesthood as any zealous
reformer might have offered. The
second cleansing, following on
the entry into Jerusalem, was an
assertion of His Messianic
authority, not less but more
significant because of the
repetition. The claims He had
made with growing frankness
and boldness on successive
visits He confirmed by this act:
the first cleansing was an
appeal for reform; the second
was a condemnation of resistance
to that appeal. Notice the
greater severity of the rebuke
on the second than on the first
occasion. " Make not my Father's
house a house of merchandise"
(verse 16) becomes "Ye have made
it a den of robbers " (Mark xi.
17). What makes this difference
the more significant is that the
tone of the Fourth Gospel
towards the Jews is usually
more severe than that of the Synoptists. Imprudent the act
was not, as it was necessary for
Jesus to test the feelings of
the Jewish rulers towards a
reform movement, so that He
might adapt the ·method of His
ministry to the actual
situation. There was zeal, but
it was also according to
knowledge.
(3) A third question arises in
connexion with the
interpretation of the sign by
the evangelist (verses 19-22).
Is it likely that Jesus at this
stage in His ministry would
already be anticipating His
death and resurrection? And
even if He did, would He refer
to that in replying to the
Jewish rulers? Significant as
the resurrection was for the
evangelist in later days, and
inclined as he was both to
antedate events and utterances,
and to ascribe to Jesus a
knowledge more supernatural than
the historical evidence requires
us to assume, it is natural that
he should give the saying this
meaning; but valuable as his
reminiscences may be
historically only a superseded
view of inspiration can require
us to regard his reflexions as
infallible theologically. We may
attempt an interpretation
congruous to the situation.
Jesus, confident of His vocation
and endowment, challenges the
priesthood to destroy the
religion concentrated in the
temple, and declares His ability
to compensate for that loss by
restoring the worship of God. We
must add that it is just
possible that Jesus, conceiving
His vocation in terms of the
prophecy of the suffering
Servant, was Himself aware
that the conflict so begun with
the Jewish rulers would have a
tragic close, and yet was sure
that the Father would secure to
Him the final triumph. But it is
not likely that this was the
meaning He intended His
utterance to convey.
(4) The twenty-fifth verse in
the English translation appears
another instance, of the
evangelist's tendency to ascribe
to Jesus supernatural knowledge
in an extreme form. It suggests,
as we read it, that He was
independent of information
given to Him, and possessed all
knowledge as a personal
endowment; but it is to be noted
that the verb used here is
γινώσκειν,
and not εἰδέναι. Unless the
papyri give proof that the
distinction of the words had
been obliterated in the Koine,
of which the articles of Drs.
Moulton and Milligan in the
EXPOSITOR give no indication, we
may acquit the evangelist even
of this suspicion. He
represents the knowledge, not
as intuitive, but as
experimental; not as innate,
but as acquired. It was by
testing men, as He had in this
act tested the rulers, that He
came to know what was in man.
(5) A question does arise in
connexion with the twentythird verse. What were "the signs
which Jesus did"? The Gospel
has not recorded any miracles in
Jerusalem at this point. Had
they occurred, and did the
evangelist omit the record
because he could not attach any
symbolic significance to them,
nor find any other personal
interest in them? Or is it
unlikely that at so early a
stage in the ministry Jesus
would freely work miracles? And
is it not: possible that either
verses 23 and 24 may be
displaced, or, in view of the
reference to signs in iii. 2, we
must allow a considerable
interval of time for a
continuous ministry in
Jerusalem between the cleansing
of the temple and the
widespread movement of
untrustworthy belief to which
these verses refer? It is not
improbable that in the first
inspiration which followed His
baptism Jesus did use His
supernatural power more freely
than He did afterwards, when the
evident peril of His being
treated as merely a
wonder-worker inspired a
restraint, which only urgent
need and confident faith could
overcome. Had the evangelist
been possessed by the desire for
miracle-mongering, he would
assuredly not have been content
with noting only the failure of
the signs to produce the kind of
faith which Jesus desired, and
to which He could trust His
person and His cause.
|
|