The first epistle of St. John interpreted. *)
Laid out in lectures from August to October 1527.
Translated from the Latin by M. Johann Jakob Greif.
Preface.
1. This is an excellent epistle, as it can uplift the sorrowful hearts, and is written according to the ordinary spelling of John, thus portraying Christ to us beautifully and sweetly.
The opportunity to write this was given because at the same time heretics and sleepy people had gained the upper hand in Christianity; which always happens when the word of God has been brought back on track, since the devil strives without ceasing, and seeks in all ways and means to overthrow us, so that we should let go of the preached word and good works. In John's time, the Cerinthians stood up and denied the divinity of Christ, and there were lazy Christians who thought that it was enough to hear Christ's word, and that it was not necessary to leave the world and do good to one's neighbor.
Against both evils the apostle acts here and urges us to keep the word and to love one another.
(3) Thus we shall never cease to learn, or become so perfect, that the necessity of the divine word shall not remain; for the devil is always at work. So the use of the divine word, the encouragement of the same, the training in the same is always necessary. It is a living and powerful word, but we snore and are lazy. It is a word of life, but we are daily in death. And because we are never without sin and danger of death, we should never cease from the ruminations of the Word. And so this epistle is written in exhortation. In sum, the apostle wants to teach in this epistle faith against heretics and true love against the vicious.
*) As Mathesius (Luther's Life, St. Louis Edition, p. 100) reports, Luther read during the plague in 1527, when the university had been moved to Jena for the sake of the prevailing illness, "for the students who stayed with him, the first) Epistle of John, which," he says, "M. Georg Rörer subsequently gave me to copy. He erroneously reports "in the 28th year", because already around New Year's Day 1528 the university was moved from Jena back to Wittenberg. These readings have been preserved in records of listeners in two editions. One was published in Leipzig in 1708 under the title: D. Martini Lutheri commentarius in S. Joannis, evangelistae et apostoli, epistolam catholicam, a Jacobo Praeposito, theologiae Licentiato et ecclesiae Bremensis antistite, quondam exceptus et primum nunc editus ex bibliotheca Vitenbergensi cum aliquot D. Lutheri ad eundem epistolis et praefatione, edited by D. Johann Georg Neumann. The assumption, which the editor expresses on the title, that Jacob Probst copied the lectures (Walch adds: "vermuthlich gegen das Jahr 1524"), is, as Köstlin (Martin Luther, 3rd ed., vol. II, p. 648 aä p. 157) correctly remarks, "impossible"; for Probst stayed in Wittenberg only from about the second half of the year 1522 to May 1524. Already on May 11, 1524, he had an appointment as pastor to the second church in Bremen. (De Wette, vol. II, p. 511.) It should be noted in passing that he is not also called "Sprenger," as Walch calls him in the introduction to the 9th volume, p. 19; nor is he called "Spreng," which De Wette, vol. II, p. 207, offers in the text and note; but "from Apern," Iperensis (cf. De Wette, vol. II, p. 511), has been read into "Spreng." But the interpretation contains (Köstlin I. 6.) "multiple relations to the Peasants' War, Zwingli, Sacramentirer 2c." which point to a later time. "Therefore, they cannot have been copied by him, but only copied by him from another's postscript." Yes, Luther's own words in § 45 of the second chapter: "as we have heard enough in Ecclesiastes of Solomon," also give us a clue for the closer determination of the time. From these words it is clear that the lectures on Ecclesiastes Solomon were finished. However, Luther "finished them in November of 1526" (Köstlin, Martin Luther [3rd ed., vol. 2, p. 156). - The other redaction was published in 1797 by Bruns under the title: M. Imtüeri Lcüolia 6t 8orlnon.es in I. loü. epistolain etc. "Both rewriters (says Köstlin I. e.) have not kept to the letter, and indeed the one of Bruns' text has proceeded even more freely than the other." The former, better redaction has M. I. I. Greif translated it for the Leipzig edition (Vol. XI, p. 572), and Walch printed this translation. We reproduce the same.