Expository Thoughts On John – Preface - John Charles Ryle
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. 3.16). 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. 2.16; Exod. 3.5).
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 already been set 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 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 principle part of the work. To some it may appear far to 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! [Mr. Bill – And how much more another 125 years after Ryle penned this note!]
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 “Evangelical”. 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 wrestling and warping God’s Word in order to make 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 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 unbelievers and sceptics, and raises far more serious difficulties than it pretends to solve.
I believe that the want of the age is not more “free” handling 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 of 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:
I. Of Fathers. Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrystom, Augustine, Theophylact, Euthymius, and Catena Aurea,
II. Of Foreign Reformers and their successors, to the close of the seventeenth century. Melancthon, Zwingle, Calvin, Ecolampadius, Brentius, Bucer, Bullinger, Gualter, Pellican, Flacius Illyricus, Musculus, Beza, Aretius, Chemnitius,* Diodati, Calovius, De Dieu, Cocceius, Gomarus, Nifanius, Heinsius, Glassius,+ Critici
* The work I here refer to is the Commentary on the “Harmony of the Gospels,” begun by Chemnitius, and continued by Lyserus and Gerhard.
+ 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.
III. Of Roman Catholic Writers. Rupertus, Ferus, Arias Montanus, Toletus, Barradius, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, Jansenius, Quesnel.
IV. Of Scotch and English Writers. Rollock, Hutcheson, Poole’s Synopsis and Annotations, Cartwright, Trapp, Mayer, Leigh, Lightfoot, Baxter, Hammond, Hall, Henry, Burkitt, Whitby, Pearce, Gill, Scott, Blomfield, Doddridge, A. Clarke, Barnes, Burgon, Alford, Webster, Wordsworth, J. Brown, D. Brown, Ford. To this list I may also add Arrowsmith, on John 1; Dyke, on John 2-3; Hildersam, on John 4; Trench, on Miracles; and Schottgen’s Horæ Hebraicæ.
V. Of German Writers, from the beginning of the eighteenth century to the present day [1869]. Lampe, Bengel, Tittman, Tholuck, Olshausen, Siter, Besser, Hengstenberg.
I now conclude this preface with an earnest prayer, that it may please God to pardon the many deficiencies of this work on St. John’s Gospel, 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 fell 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.
J. C. Ryle, M.A.,
CHRIST CHURCH, OXFORD