| ANALYSIS AND THEORY OF ST. JOHN’S GOSPEL— 1Jo 1:1 			IN the opening verses of this Epistle we have a sentence whose ample 
			and prolonged prelude has but one parallel in St. John’s writings. 
			It 
			is, as an old divine says, "prefaced and brought in with more 
			magnificent ceremony than any passage in Scripture." 			The very emotion and enthusiasm with which it is written, and the 
			sublimity of the exordium as a whole, tend to make the highest sense 
			also the most natural sense. Of what or of whom does St. John speak 
			in the phrase "concerning the Lord of Life," or "the Lord who is 
			the Life"? The neuter "that which" is used for the masculines "He 
			who"—according to St. John’s practice of employing the neuter 
			comprehensively when a collective whole is to be expressed. The 
			phrase "from the beginning," taken by itself, might no doubt be 
			employed to signify the beginning of Christianity, or of the 
			ministry 
			of Christ. But even viewing it as entirely isolated from its context 
			of language and circumstance, it has a greater claim to be looked 
			upon as from eternity or from the beginning of the creation. Other 
			considerations are decisive in favour of the last interpretation. 			(1) We have already adverted to the lofty and transcendental tone 
			of the whole passage, elevating as it does each clause by the 
			irresistible upward tendency of the whole sentence. "The climax and 
			resting place cannot stop short of the bosom of God." 			(2) But again, we must also bear in mind that the Epistle is 
			everywhere to be read with the Gospel before us, and the language of 
			the Epistle to be connected with that of the Gospel. The procemium 
			of 
			the Epistle is the subjective version of the objective historical 
			point of view which we find at the close of the preface to the 
			Gospel. "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us"; so St. John 
			begins his sentence in the Gospel with a statement of a historical 
			fact. But he proceeds, "and we delightedly beheld His glory"; that 
			is a statement of the personal impression attested by his own 
			consciousness and that of other witnesses. But let us note carefully 
			that in the Epistle, which is in subjective relation to the Gospel, 
			this process is exactly reversed. The Apostle begins with the 
			personal impression; pauses to affirm the reality of the many proofs 
			in the realm of fact of that 
			which produced this impression through the senses upon the 
			conceptions and emotions of those who were brought into contact with 
			the Saviour; and then returns to the subjective impression from 
			which 
			he had originally started. 			(3) Much of the language in this passage is inconsistent with our 
			understanding by the Word the first announcement of the Gospel 
			preaching. One might of course speak of hearing the commencement of 
			the Gospel message, but surely not of seeing and handling it. 			(4) It is a noteworthy fact that the Gospel and the Apocalypse 
			begin with the mention of the personal Word. This may well lead us 
			to 
			expect that Logos should be used in the same sense in the prooemium 
			of the great Epistle by the same author. 			We conclude then that when St. John here speaks of the Word of Life, 
			he refers to something higher again than the preaching of life, and 
			that he has in view both the manifestation of the life which has 
			taken place in our humanity, and Him who is personally at once the 
			Word and the Life. The procemium may be thus paraphrased. "That 
			which in all its collective influence was from the beginning as 
			understood by Moses, by Solomon, and Micah; which we have first and 
			above all heard in divinely human utterances, but which we have also 
			seen with these very eyes; which we gazed upon with the full and 
			entranced sight that delights in the object contemplated; and which 
			these hands handled reverentially at His bidding. I speak all this 
			concerning the Word who is also the Life." 			Tracts and sheets are often printed in our day with anthologies of 
			texts which are supposed to contain the very essence of the Gospel. 
			But the sweetest scents, it is said, are not distilled exclusively 
			from. flowers, for the flower is but an exhalation. The Seeds, the 
			leaf, the stem, the very bark should be macerated, because they 
			contain the odoriferous substance in minute sacs. So the purest 
			Christian doctrine is distilled, not only from a few exquisite 
			flower’s in a textual anthology, but from the whole substance, so to 
			speak, of the message. Now it will be observed that at the beginning 
			of the Epistle which accompanied the fourth Gospel, our attention is 
			directed not to a sentiment, but to a fact and to a Person. In the 
			collections of texts to which reference has been made, we should 
			probably never find two brief passages which may not unjustly be 
			considered to concentrate the essence of the scheme of salvation 
			more 
			nearly than any others. "The Word was made flesh." "Concerning the 
			Word of Life (and that Life was once manifested, and we have seen 
			and 
			consequently are witnesses and announce to you from Him who sent us 
			that Life, that eternal Life whose it is to have been in eternal 
			relation with the Father, and manifested to us); That which we have 
			seen and heard declare we from Him who sent us unto you, to the end 
			that you too may have fellowship with us." 			It would be disrespectful to the theologian of the New Testament to 
			pass by the great dogmatic term never, so far as we are told, 
			applied 
			by our Lord to Himself, but with which St. John begins each of his 
			three principal writings—The Word. 			Such mountains of erudition have been heaped over this term that it 
			has become difficult to discover the buried thought. The Apostle 
			adopted a word which was already in use in various quarters simply 
			because if, from the nature of the case necessarily inadequate, it 
			was yet more suitable than any other. He also as profound ancient 
			thinkers conceived, looked into the depths of the human mind, into 
			the first principles of that which is the chief distinction of man 
			from the lower creation—language. The human word, these thinkers 
			taught, is twofold; inner and outer—now as the manifestation to the 
			mind itself of unuttered thought, now as a part of language uttered 
			to others. The word as signifying unuttered thought, the mould in 
			which it exists in the mind, illustrates the eternal relation of the 
			Father to the Son. The word as signifying uttered thought 
			illustrates 
			the relation as conveyed to man by the Incarnation. "No man hath 
			seen God at any time; the only begotten God which is in the bosom of 
			the Father He interpreted Him." For the theologian of the Church 
			Jesus is thus the Word; because He had His being from the Father in 
			a 
			way which presents some analogy to the human word, which is 
			sometimes 
			the inner vesture, sometimes the outward utterance of 
			thought—sometimes the human thought in that language without which 
			man cannot think, sometimes the speech whereby the speaker 
			interprets 
			it to others. Christ is the Word Whom out of the fulness of His 
			thought and being the Father has eternally inspoken and outspoken 
			into personal existence. 			One too well knows that such teaching as this runs the risk of 
			appearing uselessly subtle and technical, but its practical value 
			will appear upon reflection. Because it gives us possession of the 
			point of view from which St. John himself surveys, and from which he 
			would have the Church contemplate, the history of the life of our 
			Lord. And indeed for that life the theology of the Word, i.e., of 
			the Incarnation, is simply necessary. 			For we must agree with M. Renan so far at least as this, that a 
			great 
			life, even as the world counts greatness, is an organic whole with 
			an 
			underlying vitalising idea; which must be construed as such, and 
			cannot be adequately rendered by a mere narration of facts. Without 
			this unifying principle the facts will be not only incoherent but 
			inconsistent. There must be a point of view from which we can 
			embrace 
			the life as one. The great test here, as in art, is the formation of 
			a living, consistent, unmutilated whole. 			Thus a general point of view (if we are to use modern language 
			easily 
			capable of being misunderstood we must say a theory) is wanted of 
			the 
			Person, the work, the character of Christ. The synoptical 
			Evangelists 
			had furnished the Church with the narrative of His earthly origin. 
			St. John in his Gospel and Epistle, under the guidance of the 
			Spirit, 
			endowed it with the theory of His Person. 			Other points of view have been adopted, from the heresies of the 
			early ages to the speculations of our own. All but St. John’s have 
			failed to coordinate the elements of the problem. The earlier 
			attempts essayed to read the history upon the assumption that He was 
			merely human or merely divine. They tried in their weary round to 
			unhumanise or undeify the God-Man, to degrade the perfect Deity, to 
			mutilate the perfect Humanity—to present to the adoration of mankind 
			a something neither entirely human nor entirely divine, but an 
			impossible mixture of the two. The truth on these momentous subjects 
			was fused under the fires of controversy. The last centuries have 
			produced theories less subtle and metaphysical, but bolder and more 
			blasphemous. Some have looked upon Him as a pretender or an 
			enthusiast. But the depth and sobriety of His teaching upon ground 
			where we are able to test it—the texture of circumstantial word and 
			work which will bear to be inspected under any microscope or cross 
			examined by any prosecutor—have almost shamed such blasphemy into 
			respectful silence. Others of later date admit with patronising 
			admiration that the martyr of Calvary is a saint of transcendent 
			excellence. But if He who called Himself Son of God was not much 
			more 
			than saint, He was something less. Indeed He would have been 
			something of three characters; saint, visionary, pretender—at 
			moments the Son of God in His elevated devotion, at other times 
			condescending to something of the practice of the charlatan, His 
			unparalleled presumption only excused by His unparalleled success. 			Now the point of view taken by St. John is the only one which is 
			possible or consistent—the only one which reconciles the humiliation 
			and the glory recorded in the Gospels, which harmonises the 
			otherwise 
			insoluble contradictions that beset His Person and His work. One 
			after another, to the question, "What think ye of Christ?" answers 
			are attempted, sometimes angry, sometimes sorrowful, always 
			confused. 
			The frank respectful bewilderment of the better Socinianism, the gay 
			brilliance of French romance, the heavy insolence of German 
			criticism, have woven their revolting or perplexed christologies. 
			The 
			Church still points with a confidence, which only deepens as the 
			ages 
			pass, to the enunciation of the theory of the Savlout’s Person by 
			St. 
			John.—in his Gospel, "The Word was made flesh"—in his Epistle, 
			"Concerning the Word of Life." |