The Pulpit Commentaries 1 John (Joseph S. Exell)

《The Pulpit Commentaries–1 John》(Joseph S. Exell)

Contents and the Editors

One of the largest and best-selling homiletical commentary sets of its kind. Directed by editors Joseph Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, The Pulpit Commentary drew from over 100 authors over a 30 year span to assemble this conservative and trustworthy homiletical commentary set. A favorite of pastors for nearly 100 years, The Pulpit Commentary offers you ideas and insight on "How to Preach It" throughout the entire Bible.

This in-depth commentary brings together three key elements for better preaching:

• Exposition-with thorough verse-by-verse commentary of every verse in the Bible.
• Homiletics-with the "framework" or the "big picture" of the text.
• Homilies-with four to six sermons sample sermons from various authors.

In addition, this set also adds detailed information on biblical customs as well as historical and geographical information, and translations of key Hebrew and Greek words to help you add spice to your sermon.

All in all, The Pulpit Commentary has over 22,000 pages and 95,000 entries from a total of 23 volumes. The go-to commentary for any preacher or teacher of God's Word.
About the Editors

Rev. Joseph S. Exell, M.A., served as the Editor of Clerical World, The Homiletical Quarterly and the Monthly Interpreter. Exell was also the editor for several large commentary sets like The Men of the Bible, The Pulpit Commentary, Preacher's Homiletic Library and The Biblical Illustrator.

Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones was born in London on January 14, 1836. He was educated at Corpus Christi, Cambridge where he received his B.A. in 1864. He was ordered deacon in 1865 and ordained as a priest is the following year. He was professor of English literature and lecturer in Hebrew at St. David's College, Lampeter, Wales from 1865-1870. He was rector of St. Mary-de-Crypt with All Saints and St. Owen, Gloucester from 1870-1877 and principal of Gloucester Theological College 1875-1877. He became vicar and rural dean of St. Pancras, London 1877-1886, and honorary canon since 1875. He was select preacher at Cambridge in 1883,1887,1901, and 1905, and at Oxford in 1892 and 1903. In 1906 he was elected professor of ancient history in the Royal Academy. In theology he is a moderate evangelical. He also edited The Pulpit Commentary (48 vols., London, 1880-97) in collaboration with Rev. J. S. Exell, to which he himself contributed the section on Luke, 2 vols., 1889, and edited and translated the Didache 1885. He passed away in 1917 after authoring numerous individual titles.

00 Introduction

Introduction.

1. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE EPISTLES.

ONE of the first questions which meets the student of these Epistles

Who wrote them? None of them bears any name, or any definite and indisputable indication of the writer. Nevertheless, the authorship is not really doubtful. The four writings, the Fourth Gospel and these three Epistles, are too closely linked together to be separated, and assigned, some to one author and some to another. And if they are all by one writer, that writer, beyond all reasonable doubt, is St. John the apostle. No other person has been suggested who fits into the very complex position with even tolerable exactness. If the Gospel were wanting, we might be in doubt as to who wrote the Epistles. If the First Epistle were wanting, we might be in doubt as to who wrote the two short Epistles. If the Second Epistle were wanting, we should certainly be in serious doubt as to who wrote the third. But as it is, there is no room for reasonable doubt; that is, a doubt that will stand the impartial investigation of all the evidence. Nearly every one admits that the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle cannot be severed; both external and internal evidence conclusively show that they are by the same hand. The same may be said of the Second and Third Epistles. And a patient examination of the evidence respecting the First and Second Epistles will lead most people to the conclusion that they also are by the same hand; and thus the two ends of the chain are united. The key of the position, therefore, is the Fourth Gospel. And with regard to that the reader is referred to the Introduction to St. John's Gospel in the 'Cambridge Greek Testament,' or in the 'Cambridge Bible for Schools,' or in the 'Pulpit Commentary.' By the side of which the following sober and eminently just statement of the problem will repay consideration: "The Gospel of St. John presents a unique phenomenon. It contains two distinct strata of thought, both quite unmistakable to the critical eye; and in each of these strata, again, there are local peculiarities which complicate the problem. When it comes to be closely investigated, the complexities of the problem are such that the whole of literature probably does not furnish a parallel. The hypothesis of authorship that shall satisfy them thus becomes in its turn equally complicated. It is necessary to find one who shall be at once Jew and Christian, intensely Jewish, and yet comprehensively Christian; brought up on the Old Testament, and yet with a strong tincture of Alexandrian philosophy; using a language in which the Hebrew structure and the Greek superstructure are equally conspicuous; one who had mixed personally in the events, and yet at the time of writing stood at a distance from them; an immediate disciple of Jesus, and yet possessed of so powerful an individuality as to impress the mark of himself upon his recollections; a nature capable of the most ardent and dinging affection, and yet an unsparing denouncer of hostile agencies of any kind which lay outside his own charmed circle. There is one historical figure which seems to fit like a key into all these intricate wards — the figure of St. John as it has been handed down to us by a well-authenticated tradition. I can conceive no second. If the St. John of history did not exist, he would have to be invented to account for his Gospel". In short, the problem with regard to the Epistles of St. John is very similar to that respecting the Pastoral Epistles. There are portions of the latter which are unquestionably Pauline; and these carry with them the authorship of those portions the Pauline origin of which might be questioned. Similarly, the apostolic origin of the Fourth Gospel carries with it the apostolic authorship of the First Epistle, and this that of the Second Epistle, and this again that of the third.

The First Epistle was known to St. Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, and is quoted as his by St. Irenaeus, the pupil of St. Polycarp. Papias, the contemporary of Polycarp, made use of it. It is repeatedly quoted as St. John's by Clement of Alexandria, and still more frequently by Tertullian, who seems to have been specially fond of the Epistle. So that the century immediately following St. John's death is well filled with witnesses. Origen and his pupil, Dionysius of Alexandria, St. Cyprian, and in short all the Fathers, Greek and Latin, accept the Epistle as St. John's. The Muratorian Fragment quotes the opening words of it, and it is contained in the Old Syriac Version. The evidence, therefore, both external and internal, fully justifies the classification of Eusebius, who places the First Epistle of St. John among the universally received ἐν ὁμολογουμεì^νοιςor catholic books of the New Testament.

The evidence for the Second Epistle, though less ample, is sufficient. That for the Third Epistle, if it stood alone, would seem insufficient for any certain conclusion. But both on external and internal grounds it is impossible to disconnect these twin Epistles and give them a different parentage. And therefore the Third Epistle is covered by the evidence for the second, as that again by the evidence for the first.

Irenaeus, a pupil of St. John's pupil, Polycarp, twice quotes the Second Epistle as St. John's. Clement of Alexandria speaks of it as St. John's, and apparently commented on both it and the Third Epistle (Eusebius, 'Hist. Eccl.,' VI. 14:1). Dionysius of Alexandria thinks that his not naming himself in these Epistles is in accordance with St. John's common practice. A passage in St. Cyprian's works seems to show that the Second Epistle was accepted as St. John's by the African Church in the third century. Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome all speak with caution about the two shorter Epistles. They know of their existence, but also know that some are inclined to attribute them to another author. Eusebius, however, seems himself to have believed that they were by the apostle. But they are absent from the Old Syriac Version, and appear to have been rejected as not apostolic by the theologians of Antioch.

Thus it is precisely the earliest witnesses who are favourable to the apostolic authorship; and at no time do the doubts as to their apostolicity appear to have been general. And if the evidence as a whole appears to be meager, we must remember these facts.

(1) These Epistles were probably written the very last of all the books in the New Testament. Many of the other books had acquired a considerable circulation before these were in existence.

(2) They are private letters, addressed, not to Churches, but to individuals, and therefore were likely to remain in obscurity for a considerable time. We may compare the public and official letters of a bishop now with his private letters. The one kind are published and generally circulated at once; the others, if published at all, not until long after his death.

(3) The comparative insignificance of these letters would lead to their remaining generally unknown for some time. They are very short, and not of very general interest.

(4) An immense amount of early Christian literature has perished, and with it, no doubt, much evidence respecting these Epistles.

But the somewhat meager external evidence is strengthened by the internal. Here the insignificant character of the Epistles is a strong point in their favour. Who would care to forge such slight productions? And would a forger have been content with calling himself 'the elder'? Would he not have said 'the apostle' or 'John the apostle'? And if they are the bona fide writings of some other person, whether another John or not, why has the author taken such minute pains, especially in the Second Epistle, to write like St. John? The style of his Gospel and First Epistle is imitated with the greatest care and skill throughout. The student has only to take a good reference Bible, and place the passages side by side in parallel columns, to see whether far the most satisfactory hypothesis is not that of the common tradition, that Gospel and Epistles all come from one and the same author, and that author the Apostle St. John.

2. THE OCCASION OF THE EPISTLES.

Like most of the Epistles in the New Testament, all these three letters are special and occasional. They are not written, as books commonly are at the present time, to elucidate some subject in which the writer is specially interested, without much reference to current events. They are produced for a special occasion, to meet an existing difficulty and danger. The First Epistle is written to grapple with the insidious seductions of antinomian Gnosticism, as they threatened the Church at large. The Second Epistle deals with the same danger as it affected a particular family. The third treats of a corresponding danger arising from lawlessness of another kind — high-handed rebellion against apostolic authority. Thus, while the First Epistle in certain aspects forms a contrast to the other two, in other aspects the first two Epistles form a contrast to the third. The First Epistle is catholic, or general, — it is addressed to the Church at large; the other two are not. The First Epistle is a companion to the Gospel, and lays the foundations of Christian conduct as a whole. The other two have no special relation to the Gospel and deal with only one or two points of conduct, viz. the duty of hospitality, and its limits; and the treatment of those who promote heresy and schism. But, on the other hand, the first two letters contrast with the third, in that they treat of a specious and subtle evil which was poisoning the Church from without; while the other treats of open and violent anarchy which was troubling the Church from within. Humanly speaking, we may say that, but for the pressure of Gnosticism upon the Church, the First and Second Epistles, and perhaps also the Gospel of St. John, would never have been written; and again that, but for the turbulence of Diotrephes, the Third Epistle would never have been written.

The turbulence of Diotrephes speaks for itself. It is amazing as being directed against a person like St. John, the last remaining representative of the apostolic body; but otherwise it is simply a typical instance of the self-willed and domineering ecclesiastic, of which the history of the Church can show so many examples. But the Gnosticism which called forth the first two Epistles requires a few words of explanation.

Gnosticism, although it often had much in common with Ebionitism and Judaism, was not, like these, the open enemy of Christianity. It professed to give its approval and patronage to the gospel. The gospel was very good as far as it went; but the Gnostics had "a more excellent way." They understood the gospel better than the apostles themselves. It was a mistake to suppose that the historical facts and moral precepts of the Scriptures were to be taken literally. It was a still greater mistake to suppose that the Scriptures contained all that was necessary for man's spiritual well-being. There was a higher knowledge, a more profound gnosis; and this the Gnostic could attain to and impart. Illumined by this, men would see that everything else was comparatively of unimportance. The philosopher whose mind was enlightened by this esoteric knowledge need not trouble himself much about his conduct. His soul was steeped in light. Good actions could not greatly increase his enlightenment; bad actions could not seriously detract from it. Indeed, there were many things commonly regarded as bad, which the true Gnostic would not shun, but seek, as a means of enlarging his experience.

It will be seen at once how such teaching cut at the root of all Christian truth and morality.

(1) Righteousness was made of no account in comparison with intellectual illumination.

(2) Scripture was made of no account in comparison with a knowledge which partly transmuted and partly superseded it.

(3) The work of Christ was made of no account; for there could be no need of an atonement if there was no real evil in sin.

Besides this Greek doctrine of the supremacy of intellect and the all-importance of intellectual enlightenment, most Gnostics also taught the Oriental doctrine that matter, with everything material, is evil. This principle also entailed a complete subversion of Christian doctrine and Christian ethics.

(1) If the material universe is utterly evil, it cannot have been created by the supremely good God, but by some evil, or at least some inferior, power.

(2) The supremely good God must be utterly removed from such a universe.

(3) The Incarnation is impossible; for the Deity could never consent to be united to a material body, innately and incorrigibly impure.

In morals opposite conclusions were drawn from this Gnostic premise of the inherently impure character of everything material.

(1) If the human body is utterly evil, it must be subdued and chastised to the utmost, that the enlightened spirit may be freed from the burden of so vile an instrument.

(2) If the human body is utterly evil, it is a matter of indifference what it does; and so worthless an instrument may be made to commit any act from which the spirit can derive additional knowledge.

Thus the "more excellent way" of these advanced thinkers "turned the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denied our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ" (Jude 1:4). Can we wonder at the stern, unyielding attitude which St. John adopted in confronting it? "Liars," "seducers," "false prophets," "deceivers," "antichrists," seem not too strong appellations to give to the promoters of teaching such as this. The apostle's reiterations of the impossibility of light without holiness and without love, of the impossibility of love without obedience, of the impossibility of combining birth from God with love of the world and its hats, or with hatred of one's brethren, — become doubly intelligible when we remember the specious doctrines at which these repeated assurances are aimed. Over and over again, first from this point of view and then from that, St. John solemnly asserts our need of the atoning work of Christ, the necessity of believing in it, and the obligation to act as those who have abjured all sin and are daily cleansing themselves from its pollution and power in the blood of Jesus. To deny or trifle with these great truths is to leave the family of God for the dominion of the evil one. Gnostics may boast of their knowledge; but believers in the Incarnation have their knowledge too. They know that they have passed over out of death into life (1 John 3:14). They know that they are children of God, and as such are freed from sin by his Son (1 John 5:18, 19). They know that the Son of God has come in the flesh, and has given them a mind wherewith to know, not the remote abstraction which the Gnostic calls God, but the loving Father in whom they can abide through his Son Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20). "St. John has been called the apostle of the absolute. Those who would concede to Christianity no higher dignity than that of relative and provisional truth, will fail to find any countenance for their doctrine in the New Testament. But nowhere will they encounter more earnest opposition to it than in the pages of the writer who is pre-eminently the apostle of charity. St. John preaches the Christian creed as the one absolute certainty" (Liddon, 'Bampton Lectures,' lecture 5).