I SEND forth the volume now in the reader's hands, wifh much diffidence, and a very deep sense of responsibility. It is no light matter to publish an exposition of any book in the Bible. It is a peculiarly serious undertaking to attempt a Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.
I do not forget that we are all apt to exaggerate the difficulties of our own particular department of literary labour. But I think every intelligent student of Scripture will bear me out when I say, that St. John's Gospel is pre-eminently full of things " hard to be understood." (2 Pet. iii. 16.) It contains a large portion of our Lord Jesus Christ's doctrinal teaching. It abounds in " deep things of God," and " sayings of the King," which we feel instinctively we have no line to fully fathom, no mind to fully comprehend, no words to fully explain. It must needs be that such a book of Scripture should be difficult. I can truly say that I have commented on many a verse in this Gospel with fear and trembling. I have often said to myself, " Who is sufficient for these things?" — " The place whereon thou standest is holy ground." (2 Cor. ii. 16; Exod. iii. 5.)
The nature of the work now published, requires a few words of explanation. It is a continuation of the " Expository Thoughts on the Gospels," of which four volumes, comprising the first three Gospels, have been already Bent forth. Like the volumes on St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke, the basis of the work is a continuous series of short expositions, intended for family or private read ing, or for the use of those who visit the sick and the poor. But, unlike the previous volumes, the work now in the reader's hands contains full explanatory notes on every verse of the portions expounded, forming, in fact, a complete Commentary.
This "Commentary" is so extensive that it occupies far more space than tll§ " Expository Thoughts," and is, I must honestl}^ confess, the principal part of the work. To some it may appear far too long and full. But the circumstances of the times are my justification.* We live in a day of abounding vagueness and indistinctness on doctrinal subjects in religion. ISTow, if ever, it is the duty of all advocates of clear, well-defined, sharply-cut theolog}^, to supply proof that their views are thoroughly borne out by Scripture. I have endeavoured to do so in this Commentar}^ I hold that the Gospel of St. John, rightly interpreted, is the best and simplest answer to those who profess to admire a vague and indistinct Christianity.
* The expectations of Bengel, the German commentator, appear likely to be fulfilled with curious accuracy in the present day. He said, in the
year A. D. 1740, — "Though Socinianism and Popery at present appear mutually aloof, they will in process of time form a mighty confluence, that will burst all bounds, and bring everything to a crisis. "We may expect it in the following way. The residue of heavenly influence on the professing Church, as a body, wUl have utterly evaporated, its holy things having been already more and more prostituted to the spirit of this world. The IToly Spirit being thus withdrawn from the camp at large, the world A\'ill deem its own victory and triumph secured. Now, therefore, a spirit of liberal Latitudinarianism will prevail everywhere, — a notion that every one may be right in his own way of thinking, and consequently that all is well with the Jew, the Turk, and the Pagan. Ideas of this kind will wonderfully prepare men for embracing the false prophet." {Life of Bengel, Walker's edition, page 322.) How painfully
correct these prog:nostications, made 125 jears ago, have proved, any one who observes the state of rehgious feeling in England must know only too well 1
Tlie theological stand-point which the writer of this Commentary occupies will be obvious to any intelligent reader. Such an one will see at a glance that I belong to that school in the Church of England which, rightly or wrongly, is called " Evangelical." He will see that I have no sympathy whatever with either Komish or Neologian tendencies. He will see that I bold firmly the distinctive theological views of the Eeformers and doctrinal Puritans, and that ^^tally disapprove the loose and broad theology of some modern schools of divines. — But while I say all this, I must be allowed to add, that in interpreting Scripture, I " call no man master or father." I abhor the idea of wresting and w^arping God's Word in order to made it support party views. Throughout this Commentary I have endeavoured honestlj^ and conscientiously to find out the real meaning of every sentence on which I have commented. I have evaded no difiiculty, and shrunk from no inference. I have simply followed Scripture wherever its words seemed to point, and accepted whatever they seemed to mean. I have never hesitated to express my disagreement from the views of other commentators if occasion required; but when I have done so I have tried to do it with courtesy and respect.
On one point of vast importance in the present day, the reader will see that I hold very decided opinions. That point is inspiration. I feel no hesitation in avowing, that I believe in the "plenary inspiration " of every word of the original text of Holy Scripture. I hold not only that the Bible contains the Word of God, but that every jot of it was written, or brought together, by Divine inspiration, and is the Word of God. I entirely disagree with those who maintain that the writers of the
Bible were partially inspired, or inspired to such a limited extent that discrepancies, inaccuracies, and contradictions to the facts of science and history, must be expected and do exist in their writings. I utterly repudiate such a theory. I consider that it practically destroys the whole value of God's Word, puts a sword in the hand of infidels and sceptics, and raises far more serious difficulties than it pretends to solve.
I grant freely that^Pe theory of " plenary verbal inspiration," involves some difficulties. I do not pretend to answer all the objections brought against it, or to defend all that has been written by its supporters.* I am content to remember that all inspiration is a miraculous operation of the Holy Ghost, and, like every operation of the Holy Ghost, must needs be mysterious. It is an operation of which not forty men in the world have been made the subjects, and the manner of which not one of the forty has described. It stands to reason that the whole question of inspiration, like everytliing else supernatural, m.ust necessarily contain much that is mysterious, and much that we cannot explain. — But the difficulties of the " plenary vebal " theory appear to me mere trifles, compared with those which surround the counter theory of "partial inspiration." Once admit the principle that the writers of the Bible could mal^e
* When I speak of "plenary verbal inspiration," I do not for a moment admit the absurd, theory that all parts of the Bible are equally important. I should never dream of saying that the catalogues in Chronicles are of as much value to the Church as the Gospel of St. John. But I do maintain that all parts of the Bible are equally " given by inspiration of God," and that all are to be regarded as " God's Word." If we do not see the Divine character of any particular part, it is because we have at present no eyes to see it. The humblest moss is as much Ihe handiwork of God's creative power as the cedar of Lebanon. Yet it would bo foolish to say it was an equally important part of creation. The least verse in the Bible is just as truly " given by inspiration " 9« the greatest. But it does not follow that it is equally valuable.
mistakes, and were not in all things guided by the Spirit, and I know not where I am. I see nothing certain nothing solid, nothing trustworthy in the foundations of my faith. A fog has descended on the Book of God, and enveloped every chapter in uncertainty! Who shall decide when the writers of Scripture made mistakes, and when they did not? How am I to know where inspiration ends, and where it begins? What I think inspired, another may^Bnk uninspired! The texts that I rest upon, may possibly have been put in by a slip of the pen! The words and phrases that I love to feed upon, may possibly be weak earthly expressions, in writing which the author was left to his own private uninspired mind! — The glory is departed from my Bible at this rate. A cold feeling of suspicion and doubt creeps over me as I read it. I am almost tempted to lay it down in flat despair. A partially inspired Bible is little better than no Bible a,t all. Give me the *' plenary verbal " theory, with all its difficulties, rather than this. I accept the difficulties of that theory, and humbly wait for their solution. But while I wait, I feel that I am standing on a rock.
I grant the existence of occasional difficulties, and apparent discrepa,ncies, in Scripture. They are traceable, in some cases, I believe, to the errors of early transcribers; and in others to, our ignorance of explanatory circumstances and minute links and details. To tell us that things cannot be explained, merely because we are not at present able to explain them,, is childish and absurd! "He that believeth shall not make haste." (Isa. xxviii. 16.) A true philosopher will never give up a sound theory, on account of a few difficulties. He will rather say^-^"- J can afford to wait. It wUl all he plain
• one day." For my own part, I believe that the vvhole
Bible, as it came originally from the hands of the inspired writers, was verbally perfect and without flaw. I believe that the inspired writers were infallibly guided by the Holy Ghost, both in their selection of matter and their choice of words. I believe that even now, when we cannot explain alleged difficulties in Holy Scripture, the wisest course is to blame the interpreter and not the text, to suspect our own ignc^fhce to be in fault, and not any defect in God's Word. The theological system of modern days, which delights in magnifying the so-called mistakes of the Bible, in explaining away its miraculous narratives, and in making as littie as possible of its Divine character and supernatural element, is a system that I cannot away with. It seems to me to take a rock from beneath our feet, and plant us on a quicksand. It robs us of bread, and does not give us in its place so much as a stone.
Nothing, to my mind, is so unutterably painful as the patronizing tone of compassion which the modern advo cates of " partial inspiration" adopt in speaking of the writers of the Bible. They write and talk as if St. Paul and St. John, and their companions, were nothing better than well-meaning pious men, who on some points were greatly mistaken, and far below our enlightened age! They speak with pity and contempt of that system of divinity which satisfied the master-builders and giants of the Church in by -gone days! They tell us complacently that a new theology is needed for our age, and that a " freer handling" of the Bible, with pens untrammelled by the fetters which cumbered former interpreters, will produce, and is producing, wonderful results! I thoroughly distrust these new theologians, however learned jind plausible they may be, and I expect the Church will receive no light from them. I see nothing solid in their arguments, and am utterly unmoved by them. I believe that the want of our age is not more "free" handlino- of the Bible, but more ''reverent" handling, more humility, more patient study, and more prayer. I repeat my own firm conviction, that no theory of inspiration involves so few difficulties as that of " plenary verbal inspiration." To that theory I entirely adhere, and on that theory my readers will find this Commentary is written.
In preparing this Commentary I have made it a point of duty to look through every work on St. John's Gospel which I could meet with. I append a list of books, partly because it may be interesting and useful to some readers, and partly because I wish to show that when I differ from the authors, I have not written in ignorance of their opinions.
The commentaries and expository works on St. John which I have looked through are the following: —
* The work I here refer to is the Commentary on the " Harmony of the Gospels," begun by Chemnitius, and continued by Lyserus and Gerhard.
f The work of Glassius to which I here refer, is his " Expositions of the Gospels and Epistles appointed for Sundays." It is a collection of Homilies.
V. Of German Writers^ from the beginning of th6 eighteenth century to the present day. Lampe, Bengel, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Stier, Besser.
Of course no man can spend years, as I have now done, in looking through this formidable mass of books, with out forming some decided opinions about the comparative merits of their respective authors. Some of these opinions I have no hesitation in putting down, as they may be of use to some of my younger brethren in the ministry.
(A.) The Fathers appear to me greatly overrated, as commentators and expositors. Cyril and Chrysostom are far the most valuable of them, in my judgment, on St. John.
(B.) The Continental Reformers and their successors appear to me greatly underrated and neglected. Brentins and Musculus, for instance, abound in excellent thoughts and suggestions, but seem quite ignored by most modern commentators.
(C.) The Eoman Catholic writers often contain much that is useful and little that is objectionable. Happy would it be for the Church of England if all her Clergy knew their Bibles as well as such men as Ferus and ToletusI
(D.) The few German writers that I have consulted appear to me to be far too highly esteemed, with the exception of Bengel and Lampe. Stier is always reverential, but tremendously diffuse. As to Olshausen, Tholuck, and Tittman, I have generally laid down their works with unmixed disappointment. What people can mean by telling us that we have much to learn from modern German writers on Scripture passes my comprehension! — I can only suppose, from my own acquaintance with them, that many say it without having read them, or without having read other expositors.
(E.) The Scotch and English commentators I shall pass over in silence, as most of them are well known. I must confess that I think we have little to show in this department of Theological literature. Of our old writers, Rollock, the Scotch divine, is incomparably the best. In fact, I do not know such a "buried treasure" as his Latin commentary on St. John.* — Of modern writers Burgon and Wordsworth strike me as two of the most valuable, though I differ widely from them on such points as the Church and the Sacraments. But I admire their reverential spirit. — Alford is almost always able and clear, but not always in my opinion a safe theological guide. — A thoroughly satisfactory critical
* Rollock was born a.d. 1555, and died a.d. 1598. He was principaj of the University of Edinburgli.
commentary on tlie Greek Testament, in tlie English language, is a great desideratum.
The vexed question of "various readings," I have deliberately left alone. It is not because I have no opinion on the subject. But the real extent to which all the various readings would affect the meaning of Scripture, if they were admitted, is so much exa,ggerated, that it does not seem to me worth while to mix up the question with such a work as that which I have undertaken. The Greek text which I have been content to use throughout is that of the third Edition of Stephens (1550), edited by Scholefield. I do not say for a moment that it is the best text. I only say I have used it.
The occasional short-comings of our authorized English translation I have not hesitated to notice. I have frequently pointed out expressions which in my judgment are not rendered so literally or accurately as they might have been. There is nothing perfect on earth. Our excellent translators undoubtedly fail occasionally to give the full sense of Greek words,, and are not always sufficiently careful about tenses and the article. But it is useless to expect perfection in any translation. Translators are not inspired, and are all liable to err. The " plenary verbal inspiration " which I firmly maintain, is that of the original text of Scripture, and not of any translation. — I have no sympathy however with those who wish to have a new authorized English version of the Bible. I concede the short-comings of the old version, but judging by the specimens of "]iew and improved " versions which I have seen, I doubt much -whether we should gain anything by attempting to mend it. Taking it for all in all, the authorized English version is an admirable translation. I am quite content to " let well alone."
I now conclude this preface with an earnest prayer, that it may please God to pardon the many deficiencies of this volume, and to use it for His own glory and the good of souls. It has cost me a large amount of time and thought and labour. But if the Holy Ghost shall make it useful to the Church of Christ, I shall feel abundantly repaid.
Ignorance of Scripture is the root of every error in religion, and the source of every heresy. To be allowed to remove a few grains of ignorance, and to throw a few rays of light on God's precious word, is, in my opinion, the greatest honour that can be put on a Christian.
P.S. I feel it due to many of my readers to offer some explanation of the long delay which has taken place since the publication of this work on St. John began. An interval of almost five years has elapsed between the publication of the first four chapters and of the fifth and sixth. This delay, I am afraid, has caused inconvenience and annoyance in many quarters. For this I am unfeignedly sorry.
But the delay has been unavoidable, and has arisen from circumstances entirely beyond my own control. Deaths, domestic anxieties, illness, and change from one residence to anotlier, have had much to do with it. Tho principal cause has been my removal to my present parish. The work was begun in a little quiet parish of 800 people. It has been resumed in a widely-scattered parish of 1400 people, requiring almost the whole of my attention.
Even now, in sending forth the first volume of the Expository Thoughts on St. John," I dare not promise anything certain as to the time when the work will be completed. I have the will to finish it, but I find it almost impossible to secure the necessary leisure. What absolute need there is of entire freedom from distraction and interruption in writing a Commentary, none know but those who have attempted it. What endless petty interruptions a clergyman must submit to in a poor rural parish of 1400 people, where there is no resident landlord, and no layman who has leisure, and where many things must necessarily hinge on the clergyman, no one can know unless he has filled the position.
If the great Head of the Church intends me to finish this work, I believe that He will make my way plain, and remove all obstacles. But my readers must kindly make allowances for my altered position. There are but twelve hours in the day. I cannot create time. It is not one of the primary duties of a parochial clergyman's ofl&ce to write Commentaries. If therefore the work does not go on so fast as they could wish, they must have the goodness to consider my position, and to believe that there is a cause.