1866
Two “Expositions” of this First Epistle of John came into my hands about the end of last year (1865): the one by the Rev. John Stock, late Vicar of Finchingfield, Essex; the other by Dr. Morgan of Belfast; both published in the course of that year, and both, especially the latter, of great practical interest and value. If they had appeared at an earlier date, I might have abstained from issuing this volume. But in my Lectures on the Fatherhood of God I had previously referred to these discourses of mine on this Epistle, as being completed and ready for publication. And I did not see how I could well draw back, especially as I wished my views on that subject to be looked at in the light of the beloved Apostle’s argument in his great Epistle.1
I must frankly add, also, that on a perusal of the two works, I have not found any reason for thinking that mine may not still be a contribution of some value to the theological and exegetical study of this inspired treatise.
I speak of the theological and exegetical study of it. And I do so advisedly. For I am deeply convinced, after years of thought about it, that it can be studied aright exegetically only when it is studied theologically.
Of course I do not mean that a cut-and-dry creed, accepted beforehand, is to rule, or overrule, the critical and grammatical interpretation of the ascertained text. But I think no one is competent to deal in detail with this wonderful book who is not familiar with the evangelical system as a whole, and able, therefore, to appreciate the bearings of John’s line of thought in connection with it. I do not speak of the higher qualification of spiritual mindedness. I make this remark simply as a theologian and an expositor.
The writer to whom I am most indebted is Dr. John H. A. Ebrard, Professor of Theology in the University of Erlangen. I must acknowledge my obligation also to Dr. Friedrich Lücke, of the Prussian University of Bonn. But it is Dr. Ebrard who has helped me most.2
I have not met with English commentators or expositors of much value as bringing out the full sense of this epistle.3 There are few separate expositions of it; and when it is handled in a general commentary on the whole Bible or New Testament, it is apt to be handled somewhat perfunctorily.
An exception to this remark ought perhaps to be made. Among the “Continuators” of “Matthew Poole’s Annotations,” we find the name of John Howe, to whom the three epistles of John were allotted. His notes, however, are brief, and given verse by verse, without much attempt to trace the connection of the Apostle’s successive lines of thought. In a spiritual and practical point of view, they are interesting and edifying; but they do not help much towards the exegetical interpretation of this book.
For myself, and as regards these lectures of mine, I must disclaim all intention of presenting to the learned anything like a critical commentary, properly so called. I do not quote authors, or discuss their different views and opinions. I attempt no minute analysis of texts, nor any elaborate verbal and grammatical construing of them. My object is a wider and broader one. It is to bring out the general scope and tenor of the Apostle’s teaching, as simply and clearly as I can.
I do not, therefore, discuss any questions about our Lord’s titles, proper to him in his pre-existent state;—such as “the Word of Life,” or “the Life” (1:1, 2);—titles which are better studied in the beginning of John’s Gospel, and which have no material influence on his reasoning in this Epistle; at least none that does not come out sufficiently in the course of his argument. For the same reason, I abstain from other critical discussions. And for an additional reason also I do so in some cases.
Thus, in regard to the doubtful reading (3:16), I rather evade the question; for I hold it to be of no importance whatever. I am willing that the disputed words—“of God”—should be omitted. But then the clause must run:—“Hereby perceive we this love, because he,” the Son of God (ver. 8), “laid down his life for us.” I might notice other points of criticism, but I forbear.
I have only to say further, that I ask special attention to the table of contents, as indicating the successive lines of thought which I have tried to trace in this epistle. I cannot say that I am quite satisfied with the divisions I have indicated, although I have followed generally some preceding authorities. Still I would like my book to be read in the light of the table of contents, as giving at least a tentative sketch of the general lie of the country.
At the risk of a charge of egotism, I may mention that this course of lectures was begun in October 1860, and continued, with frequent interruptions, till January 1864; that the lectures, as they were delivered, were carefully written out, in a way tolerably fit for the press; and that in preparing them for the press now, I have found little or nothing to alter beyond verbal corrections and improvements. They were all finished before the delivery of the Cunningham Lectures on the Fatherhood of God in February and March 1864. And I referred to them, as thus finished, when the Cunningham Lectures were published, about a year after. ↩
I know both of these works through the translations published by Messrs. Clark; that of Lücke in 1837, and that of Ebrard in 1860. The last is especially valuable, and for an English reader, acquainted with theology, very easily intelligible. ↩
An exposition of a part of it, the first two chapters, by Dr. Nathanael Hardy, an eminent Puritan Divine (died 1670), has been recently republished in Nichol’s Series of Commentaries (Edinburgh, 1865). So far as it goes, it will be read with interest by those who can appreciate the sound evangelical doctrine and thorough learning of that school of theologians. ↩
