Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: John, Vol. 1 (John I–VI)

I senD forth the volume now in the reader’s hands, with 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. ii. 5.)

The nature of the work now published, requires a few words of explanation. It isa continuation of the “Expository Thoughts on the Gospels,” of which four volumes, comprising the first three Gospels, have been already sent forth. Like the volumes on St. Matthew, St. Mark, iv - +> PREFACE.

and St. Luke, the basis of the work is a continuous series of short expositions, intended for family or private reading, 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 the “Expository Thoughts,” and is, I must honestly 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. Now, if ever, it is the duty of all advocates of clear, well-defined, sharply-cut theology, to supply proof that their views are thoroughly borne out by Scripture. I have endeavoured to do so in this Commentary. 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, will have utterly evaporated, its holy things having been already more and more prostituted to the spirit of this world. The Holy Spirit being thus withdrawn from the camp at large, the world will 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 prognostications, made 125 years ago, have proved, any

one who observes the state of religious feeling in England must know only too well!

The 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 “Hvangelical.” He will see that I have no sympathy whatever with either Romish or Neologian tendencies. He will see that I hold firmly the distinctive theological views of the Reformers and doctrinal Puritans, and that I totally 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 warping God’s Word in order to made it support party views. Throughout this Commentary I have endeavoured honestly and conscientiously to find out the real meaning of every sentence on which I have commented. I have evaded no difficulty, 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 7s the Word of God. I entirely disagree with those who maintain that the writers of the vi PREFACE,

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 the 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 everything else supernatural, must 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 make

* 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 the handiwork of God’s creative power as the cedar of Lebanon. Yet it would be foolish to say it was an equally important part of creation. The least verse in the Bible is just as truly “given by inspiration” as the greatest. But it does not follow that it is equally valuable.

Keep reading