4. Contents.—The Gospel begins with a pro logue, in which the author presents the great theme of which his subsequent narrative is to furnish the detailed illustration—` the theological programme of his history,' as one has called it, and which another has compared to the overture of a musical composition in which the leading idea of the piece is expressed (i. 1-5). The historical exposition begins with ver. 6, and the rest of the book may be divided into two parts. Of these the former (i. 6-xii.) contains the account of our Lord's public ministry from his introduction to it by John the Baptist and his solemn consecration to it by God, to its close in the Passion week. In this portion we have the Saviour presented to us chiefly in his manifestation to the world as a teacher sent from God, whose mission is authenticated by signs and wonders, and whose doctrines, truly divine, trans cend in their spiritual import the narrow limits of human speculation, and can be comprehended only by a spiritual discernment. The second portion (xiii.-xxi.) may be divided into two parts, the one of which is introductory to the other. The former (xiii.-xvii.) presents to us our Lord in the retirement of private life, in his intercourse with his immediate followers, to whom. he pours out his soul in loving counsel, warning, and promise, in the prospect of his departure from them ; and in communion with his heavenly Father, with whom, as one who had finished the work he had received to do, He inter cedes for those whose redemption from sin and evil is the coveted recompense of his obedience. To this succeeds the account of the Passion, and the appearances of Christ to his disciples after his resurrection (xviii. -xxi.), which forms the other part of the second portion of the book.
The greater part of the book is occupied with the discourses of our Lord ; the plan of the evan gelist being obviously to bring the reader as much as possible into personal contact with Jesus, and to make the latter his own expositor. Regarding the discourses thus reported, the question has arisen, How far are they to be accepted as an exact report of what Jesus uttered ? and in reply to this three opinions have been advanced :--t. That both in substance and in form we have them as they came from the lips of Christ ; 2. That in substance they present what Christ uttered, but that the form in which they appear is due to the evangelist ; and 3. That they are not the discourses of Christ in any proper sense, but only speeches put in his mouth by the evangelist to express what the latter con ceived to be a just representation of his doctrine. Of these views the last has found adherents only among a few of the sceptical school ; it is without the slightest authority from the book itself, is irre concilable with the simplicity and earnestness of the writer, is foreign to the habits and notions of the class to which the evangelist belongs, and is contradicted by the frequent explanations which he introduces of the sense in which he understood what he rcports (comp. ii. 19, 21 ; VI1. 38, 39 ; xii. 32, 33, etc.) by the brief notices, which evince an actual reminiscence of the scenes and circum stances amid which the discourse was delivered (ex. gr., xiv. 31), and by the prophetic announce ments of his impending sufferings and death ascribed to the Saviour, and which are couched in language such as be /night naturally use, such as accounts for those to whom he spoke, even his disciples, not understanding his meaning, but such as it is utterly incredible that one not desirous of reporting his very words should, writing after the fulfilment of these predictions impute to Him (comp. vii. 33-36 ;
viii. 21, 22 ; X. 17-20 ; Xii. 23-36 ; xiV. 1-4, 18, 28 ; XV1. 16, 19, etc.) Some of these considera tions are of weight also as against the second of the opinions above stated ; for ifJohn sought merely to give the substance of the Saviour's teaching in his own words, why clothe predictions, the meaning of which at the time of his writing he perfectly understood, in obscure and difficult phraseology ? Why especially impute to the speaker language of which he feels it necessary to give an explanation, instead of at once putting the intelligible statement in his discourse? Undoubtedly the impression which one gets from the narrative is that John means the discourses he ascribes to Jesus to be re ceived as faithful reports of what He actually uttered ; and this is confirmed when one compares his report of John the Baptist's sayings with those of our Lord, the character of the one being totally different from that of the other. To this view it has been objected that there is such an identity of style in the discourses which John ascribes to Christ with his own style, both in this Gospel and in his Epistles, as betrays in the former the hand, not of a faithful reporter, but of one who gives in the manner natural to himself the substance of what his Master taught. In this there is some force ; but it seems fully met by the suggestion that John was so imbued with the very mind and soul of Christ, so informed by his doctrine, and so filled by his spirit, that his own manner of thought and utterance became the same as that of Christ, and he insensibly wrote and spoke in the style of bis Lord. Reuss objects to this, that on this supposi tion the style of Jesus must have been a very uni form and sharply defined one, and such as excludes the very different style ascribed to Him by the Synoptists ' (Gesch. der H. S. des N. T, p. 203). But the facts here are overstated ; the style of our Lord's discourses in John is by no means perfectly uniform ; nor is it further removed from that as cribed to Him by the Synoptists, than the difference of subject and circumstance will suffice to account for. As for the objection that it is inconceivable that the evangelist could have retained for so many years a faithful recollection of discourses heard by him only once, we need not, in order to meet it, resort to the foolish suggestion of Bertholdt, that Ile had taken notes of them at the time for his own behoof ; nor need we to lay stress on the assur ance of Christ which John records, that the Holy Ghost whom the Father should send to them would teach them all things, and bring all things to their remembrance whatsoever he had said unto them (John xiv. 26), though to the believer this is a fact of the utmost importance : it will suffice to meet the objection if we suggest that, as the apostle went forth to the world as a witness for Christ, he did not wait till he sat down to write his Gospel to give forth his recollections of his Master's words and deeds ; what he narrates here in writing is only what he must have been repeating constantly during his whole apostolic career.