The whole Old Testament is a type and prophecy of the New. "The law was given by Moses;
grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (1:17). Herein lies the vast superiority of Christianity, and
yet the great importance of Judaism as an essential part in the scheme of redemption. Clearly and
strongly as John brings out the opposition to the unbelieving Jews, he is yet far from going to the
Gnostic extreme of rejecting or depreciating the Old Testament; on the contrary "salvation comes
from the Jews" (says Christ to the Samaritan woman, 4:22); and turning the Scripture argument
against the scribes and Pharisees who searched the letter of the Scriptures, but ignored the spirit,
Christ confronts them with the authority of Moses on whom they fixed their hope. "If ye believed
Moses, ye would believe me; for he wrote of me. But ye believe not his writings, how shall ye
believe my words?" (5:46). John sees Christ everywhere in those ancient Scriptures which cannot
be broken. He unfolds the true Messianic idea in conflict with the carnal perversion of it among
the Jews under the guidance of the hierarchy.
The Johannean and Synoptic Discourses of Christ.- John gives prominence to the transcendent Discourses about the person of Christ and his
relation to the Father, to the world, and the disciples. His words are testimonies, revealing the inner
glory of his person; they are Spirit and they are life.
Matthew’s Gospel is likewise didactic; but there is a marked difference between the contents
and style of the Synoptic and the Johannean discourses of Jesus. The former discuss the nature of
the Messianic kingdom, the fulfilment of the law, the duty of holy obedience, and are popular,
practical, brief, pointed, sententious, parabolic, and proverbial; the latter touch the deepest mysteries
of theology and Christology, are metaphysical, lengthy, liable to carnal misunderstanding, and
scarcely discernible from John’s own style in the prologue and the first Epistle, and from that used
by the Baptist. The transition is almost imperceptible in John 3:16 and 3:31.
Here we reach the chief difficulty in the Johannean problem. Here is the strong point of
sceptical criticism. We must freely admit at the outset that John so reproduced the words of his
Master as to mould them unconsciously into his own type of thought and expression. He revolved
them again and again in his heart, they were his daily food, and the burden of his teaching to the
churches from Sunday to Sunday; yet he had to translate, to condense, to expand, and to apply
them; and in this process it was unavoidable that his own reflections should more or less mingle
with his recollections. With all the tenacity of his memory it was impossible that at such a great
interval of time (fifty or sixty years after the events) he should be able to record literally every
discourse just as it was spoken; and he makes no such claim, but intimates that he selects and
summarizes.
This is the natural view of the case, and the same concession is now made by all the
champions of the Johannean authorship who do not hold to a magical inspiration theory and turn
the sacred writers into unthinking machines, contrary to their own express statements, as in the
Preface of Luke. But we deny that this concession involves any sacrifice of the truth of history or
of any lineament from the physiognomy of Christ. The difficulty here presented is usually overstated
by the critics, and becomes less and less, the higher we rise in our estimation of Christ, and the
closer we examine the differences in their proper connection. The following reflections will aid
the student:
(1) In the first place we must remember the marvellous heighth and depth and breadth of
Christ’s intellect as it appears in the Synoptists as well as in John. He commanded the whole domain
of religious and moral truth; he spake as never man spake, and the people were astonished at his
A.D. 1-100.