Ax..LYs1s.] felt that the synoptic picture of the shepherd “leaving the ninety and nine sheep in the wilderness” while He seeks the single wanderer, requires at least to be supplemented by the picture of Him who putteth forth His sheep, and is followed by them, so that none of them wander. But a principal reason for introducing this parable at the conclu- sion of the doctrine of light, and before the narration of the death of Christ, is to prepare the way for that death, by exhibiting the reason for it in a clear light. It is true that Jesus has, before 110w, predicted that He is to be “lifted up ” (iii. 14, viii. 28) and slain (vii. 19, viii. 40); but it needs to be distinctly stated that Jesus will not only be slain, but voluntarily slain; and the motive requires to be expressed. This is explained in the synop- tists by saying that He came to give His life as a ransom (At?-rpov) for many (Mat. xx. 28 ; ;Ik. x. 45). But to whom was this “ ransom ” to be paid ‘i To God or to the evil one’! The question was a difficult one to answer ; and the Fourth Gospel avoids, though it does not solve, an insoluble diffi- culty by substituting a new metaphor for that of ransom : “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep.” Then, in a n1aster—piece of deli- cate spiritual subtlety, while the expression “the Good Shepherd will even be slain by the wolf for the sheep’s sake ”—which would have introduced all sorts of intricate difliculties—is avoided, the same thing is, by antithesis, indirectly suggested—“But the hireling seeth the wolf com- ing, aud leaveth the sheep, and fleeth.” A repetition of this statement leads to a more emphatic reiteration that the Shepherd will lay down His life of His own free will (the essence of sacrifice), “in order that He may take it again ” (x. 17)——thus entirely neutralizing the suspicion (so carefully avoided above) that the Good Shepherd may be doomed to succumb to the wolf.‘ Two points remain to be considered in this chapter The words, “ All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers,” have naturally caused some difficulty ; but it is possible that some words, such as “in comparison with Me,” are to be understood; and if the meaning was, “all pre- vious redeemers of mankind have been, in comparison with the true Redeemer, self-interested and ambitious,” then, such language becomes compatible with the author’s point of view ; and, even looked at from the synoptic side, GOSPELS 837 did sin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither this man nor his parents ; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (ix. 2, 3). But if all men pre-exist, and if to all men in a certain sense, may be addressed the title of “ God,” it would follow that even the Eternal Son of God, by whom the world was made, would be b11t the eldest among many brethren. It is scarcely possible that the evangelist intended his readers to follow out this train of thounrht ' but it is unquestionable that in spite of the readiness tocadniit supernatural incidents, the author’s habit of referring all phenomena to the action pi C(€]I‘l)fill(11 eilen1ents—1—watelr,. spirit,l light, darkpessi ilesh, oo , an t 1e rest— ear s _nm (per raps unconscious y into a habit of describing and perhaps even conceiving the life and work of Christ Himself as conforminrr itself to an unalterable law, which is none the less a lawc: because it is also a will, the will of our Father. The works that He does are “ prepared by the Father.” His sheep hear Him; those that are not His sheep do not hear Him. The same thought is expressed, whether the law be regarded as the fixed order of thinrrs or as the will of the Father: “No man can come untii Me except the Father which has sent Me draw him.” Again and again He disclaims caprice, and even the exercise of an independent will : “ I came down from heaven not to do Mine own will but the will of Him that sent Me ” (vi. 38). Thounrh judgment is committed to Him by the Father, yet so cfigidly is His power and desire to judge restrained by facts or laws (or by whatever other name the truth may be called), that He solemnly declares that He does not really judge, it is thefucts that judge. “ I do not judge,” He says (xii. 47), but “ the word that I have spoken. shall judrre him "’ and even where He accepts the task of judging, DHe declares that Hejudgcs “ as He hears ” (v. 30), and “ with the Father that sent Him” (viii. 16) z'.e. accord- ing to truth. The same conception of the work of the Word as being (like the working of the elements) universal, continuous (v. 17) and according to law, is expressed both in the prologue to tlie Gospel (J olfii i. 1-9), and in the Epistle also, where the writer declares that the commandment which he gives to the church from Christ is “ no new com- mandment,” but an old commandment which men had had “from the beginning.” it presents little more difficulty than the saying that John the Baptist, though the greatest of the prophets, was less than the least in the kingdom of God.2 But the second We come nowto the last of the pre-resurrection “signs "' of The. J esus—the raising of Lazarus. Even those who maintain “SW8 the historical accuracy of every detail of this narrative will ‘iazarlm point is of more importance. In defending Himself (x. 35) against the charge of making Himself God, Jesus is made by the author to argue that, if the judges of Israel in the Psalms are addressed as, in a certain sense, divine and gods,—‘‘ 1 have said ye are gods,”——-av, forliori might He Himself with- out blasphemy call Himself the Son of God. But, if this argument might be adopted, then it might be urged that the Son of God differed from other sons of God only in degree, or, if in anything else, only in pre—existence, and the special privilege of pre-existence has been already destroyed by the evangelist ; for, in the introduction to the healing of the blind man, he has caused the disciples of Jesus to take for granted, and Jesus not to impugn, the doctrine that all men exist before birth: “ Master, who 1 The use of z‘n.]xoi3u (“ exalt") to denote what the synoptists (Mat. xx. 19; xxvi. 2; Lu. xxiv. 7) denoted by cr-ravpofiu (“ crucify ") is very remarkable. In the synoptists, bi]/ofiu always means “ to honour higllly" (“every one that exaltrth himself shall be abased” (Mat. xxiii. 1? ; Lu. xiv. 1]); but, in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus uses it in addressing (viii. 28) His future murderers, “ When ye exalt (z';]/u';a"n'r6) the Son of Man”: comp. viii. 40, “Yo seek to slay Me." Strictly speaking, of course, we must say that fir]/oiiv is not the trravpoiiu, but the result of it. " Compare Philo, Abraham, 44, where a similar contrast is drawn between the distinctive “ kingdoms ” of human rulers and the benefi- eent “ kingdom" of the ideal man. scarcely deny that its symbolic meaning goes down, and is intended to go down, to an act far deeper and far vaster than the revivification of the brother of Mary and Martha. Remembering the teaching of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 45) that there are two men, the former the “ living soul” or fleshly animal nature (l,DvX'i] (Goa), the latter the “quickening or life-giving spirit” (1rV£ii,ua. éoiovrotofv) ; the former the first Adam, the latter the second Adam—we see at once in this miracle the second Adam raising up the first Adam from spiritual death, by imparting to him His own life. The very word used by Paul to describe the second Adam (émovrotsiv) is used by our author to describe the preroga- tive of the Son—“the Son quickeneth (§wo7roLs'[) whom He will” (v. 21). Other meanings may, no doubt, be con- veyed beneath this central incident of the Fourth Gospel ; nor is it impossible that the author, before describing how the Saviour laid down His life for mankind, wished to give the best possible proof of the spontaneousness of the action (asseverated above, x. 17, 18) by showing that He was actually the source of life to others. As a preparation for His resurrection on the third day, what could be better than that He should raise from the dead one who had been four days lying in the grave’! If, also, a preparation was needed
for the doctrine of the Spirit, which is soon to come before