Footnote: fta1 2 Corinthians 3:7-11. In Exodus 34:33, the A.V. suggests a false meaning, by inserting till , instead of when . Moses spoke to the people with unveiled face, but when he ceased speaking he put on a veil that they might not see the glory fading; they were not to know that the glory of the old covenant was transitory.

Footnote: ftb1 John 1:11. eijv ta< i]dia hjlqe can scarcely be expressed in English.

The French idiom is more apt: “Il est venu chez soi, et les siens ne l’ont point recu.” ftb2 Nu~n kri>siv ejsti< toi~ ko>smou tou>tou. John 12:31. ftb3 Romans 11 leaves no room to question whether Israel will in fact be blessed hereafter; but even their national blessings they will owe to grace. ftb4 Matthew 25:31; compare Revelation 3:21. ftb5 For the believer, the question of sin was settled at the cross; for the unbeliever, it is postponed to the day of judgment. “Who His own self bear our sins on His own body on the tree” ( 1 Peter 2:24). “The Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” ( 2 Peter 2:9).

The distinction between judgment and punishment is important. The criminal is judged before he leaves the courthouse for the prison, but his punishment has yet to come — it is a consequence of judgment, not a part of it. All unbelievers are precisely on a level as regards judgment. “He that believeth on Him is not judged [the word is krinw ], but he that believeth not is judged already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” ( John 3:18). Here the moral and the immoral, the religious and the profane, stand together, and share the same doom. But when judgment, in the sense of punishment, is in question, there can be no equality; every sentence shall be apportioned to the guilt of each by the righteous and omniscient Judge.

See Revelation 20:13; Matthew 12:36; Luke 12:47,48; Jude 15; and 2 Peter 2:9, already quoted. ftb6 “The Father Judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.” “I judge no man,” the Lord says again in another place. “If any man hear My words and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world but to save the world” ( John 5:22, 8:15, 12:47).

The day of grace must end before the day of judgment can begin. “The acceptable year of the Lord” must run its course before the advent of “the day of vengeance.” Compare Isaiah 61:1,2 with Luke 4:16-21, and notice the precise point at which the Lord “closed the book.” ftb7 Romans 5:21. I have thus sought to epitomize the argument of the passage, beginning at verse 12.

Footnote: ftc1 Religion, power, philosophy: Jerusalem, Rome, Athens: the Jew, the Roman, and the Greek. ftc2 Such is the meaning of the passage. The word used means first, “to retail,” and then, to resort to the malpractices common with the hucksters, to adulterate or corrupt. ftc3 “The design, then, of the following treatise will be to show...that the particular parts principally objected against in this whole dispensation, are analogous to what is experienced in the constitution and course of nature or providence; that the chief objections themselves, which are alleged against the former, are no other than what may be alleged with like justness against the latter; where they are found in fact to be inconclusive,” etc. — The Analogy (Introduction).

This is precisely the argument of 1 Corinthians 15:36-44. The apostles aim is not at all to prove the truth of the resurrection by his appeal to nature, but to answer thereby the “fool’s” objections against the truth: to show (I quote again from the same source) that in this matter “the system of religion, considered only as a system, and prior to the proof of it, is not a subject of ridicule unless that of nature be so too.” ftc4 Even as we preach the sin-offering or the passover, the joy and strength of our own hearts ought to be the burnt-offering. And thus, whatever may be the results of our testimony, it will always be itself a continual burnt-offering, “a sweet savor of Christ unto God” ( 2 Corinthians 2:15). And the burnt offering could never be accepted without the accompanying meat offering. The work of Christ, even in its highest aspect, must never be separated from the intrinsic perfectness and majesty of His person. It was the burnt offering with its meat offering that Israel daily sacrificed to God; and this aspect of the cross ought ever to be before us, and that for its own sake and not because of special need in us. ftc5 The law of the leper may teach us a lesson here. Two sparrows were sold for a farthing, and no more was needed for the leper’s cleansing. A farthing! if price was to be paid at all, could it possibly be less? It is impossible that the outcast sinner can have high or worthy thoughts of Christ, nor does God expect it from him. The acknowledgment of Him suffices, if only it be true , how poor and low so ever it may be. The bitten Israelite who looked upon the brazen serpent lived; “as many as touched Him were made perfectly whole.” It was only the leper’s farthing offering, but it was enough. And so also now: “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” “they that hear shall live.”

But after the sinner has been brought nigh to God, and found peace and pardon, and life, shall the poor estimate he formed of Christ and of His sacrifice, while yet an outcast, be still the limit of his gratitude, the measure of his worship? Shall the farthing gospel that met the banished sinner’s need, satisfy the heart of the citizen the saint, the child of God? The two sparrows restored the leper to the camp, but it then behooved him to bring all the great offerings of the law. Christ in all His fullness is God’s provision for His people, and nothing less than this should be the measure of the their hearts’ worship ( Leviticus 14.). ftc6 Some preachers seem to bring Christ to the sinner, but the true evangelist brings the sinner to Christ — in other words, Christ and not the sinner is the central object in his testimony.

Footnote: ftd1 1 Timothy 4:10. See the use of the same word in 1 Timothy 3:14; 5:5, 6:17. ftd2 So much so, that hearing is sometimes taken to include faith, as, e .g ., John 5:25, and Colossians 1:6. The gospel brought forth fruit in Colosse “from the day they heard it.” ftd3 The case of Cornelius affords a striking example of this. “A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, and prayed to God always,” it might well be asked, What did he lack? Yet to such a one the message came: “Send men to Joppa and call for Simon Peter, who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved” ( Acts 11:13,14) ftd4 See chapter 11. Post . ftd5 I .e .., it is no longer something in a book merely, outside himself, but it has become identified with the believer, and is part of his very being.

Compare Jeremiah 15:16, John 5:38, etc. ftd6 1 John 5:8-11, R. V. In the whole passage, beginning with verse 6, the terms “water” and “blood” are to be interpreted by the typology of Scripture. Christ came as the fulfillment not merely of “the water of purification” ( Numbers 19), but of “the blood of atonement” ( Leviticus 16). ftd7 See e .g ., 1 Corinthians 15:1-4; Acts 13:38,39. ftd8 Mark 7:18-23. The mind is also used elsewhere. See p. 60 post . ftd9 “Not, to be sure, in a speculative, but in a practical sense.” —BISHOP BUTLER. ftd10 John 6:45 and 8:43. Some men speak of the Sprit’s work in the soul, as though the sinner were an irresponsible vessel which God fills with faith; and yet these same men, when faith itself becomes their theme, seem to forget the Spirit’s work entirely, and enlarge on the subtle distinctions between head faith and heart faith, “faith in” and “faith on,” faith of saving truth, and faith in general, until faith itself looms great and mysterious upon the burdened sinner, shutting Christ out altogether. ftd11 John 2:23,24; and comp. John 7:31 with 8:30-47. ftd12 The Analogy , pt. 2 chapter 7 section 3. ftd13 “I have given unto them the words which Thou gavest Me; and they have received them” ( John 17:8). ftd14 Ephesians 2:8. “The gift of God” here is salvation by grace through faith . Not the faith itself. “This is precluded,” as Alford remarks, “by the manifestly parallel clauses ‘not of yourselves,’ and ‘not of works,’ the latter of which would be irrelevant as asserted of faith .” It is still more definitely precluded, he might have added, by the character of the passage. It is given to us to believe on Christ, just in the same sense in which it is given to some “also to suffer for His sake” ( Philippians 1:29). But the statement in Ephesians is doctrinal , and in that sense the assertion that faith is a gift, or indeed that it is a distinct entity at all, is sheer error. This matter is sometimes represented as though God gave faith to the sinner first, and then, on the sinner’s bringing Him the faith, went on and gave him salvation! Just as though a baker, refusing to supply empty handed applicants, should first dispense to each the price of a loaf, and then, in return for the money from his own till, serve out the bread! To answer fully such a vagary as this would be to rewrite the foregoing chapter. Suffice it, therefore, to point out that to read the text as though faith were the gift, is to destroy not only the meaning of verse 9, but the force of the whole passage.

Footnote: fte1 This is the more remarkable from the fact that the word occurs so often in the Revelation. Any one can verify my statement by the help of a concordance. The word is used 58 times in the New Testament. Of these, 25 are to be ascribed to Luke in his Gospel and the Acts, and to the Apocalypse. Paul uses it but 5 times.

Metame>lomai is used in Matthew 21:29,32; 27:3; 2 Corinthians 7:8; and Hebrews 7:21. In 2 Corinthians 7, both words are rendered “repent” in the Authorized Version. The revisers read the passage: “I do not regret it though I did regret...ye were made sorry to repentance...godly sorrow worketh repentance unto salvation a repentance which bringeth no regret.” fte2 It is but natural that the recoil from what I have termed “the Romanist view of repentance” should have carried men into extremes; and at this moment there is some danger of a reaction toward the old error of the Douay Bible, which confounds repentance with penitence . But the true antidote to the prevailing levity of the day is not a return to legality in preaching, but a more just appreciation of the solemnity of grace, and a worthier testimony to the greatness and majesty of the God with whom we have to do. fte3 Man’s natural condition is now abnormal . fte4 The common interpretation of John 3:5, which connects it with “Christian baptism,” not only fritters away the meaning of the passage, but involves a very glaring anachronism. It appears from the 12th verse that the doctrine related to the kingdom as known to Israel — it pertained to “earthly things.” And from verse 10 we learn that the Lord’s word ought to have been understood by a Jewish Rabbi; i .e . that it was truth contained in the Old Testament Scriptures. The well taught Scribe would at once have turned to Ezekiel’s prophecy, “I will sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be clean,...and I will put My spirit within you.” Or if he missed the reference at first, the words that will follow, “The wind bloweth where it listeth,” etc., might well afford the clue to the passage on which they are so plainly based: “Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live” ( Ezekiel 36:25-27, 37:9). The “clean water” alludes of course to the rite enjoined in Numbers 19. (See p. 127 post ).

Nicodemus claimed his place within the kingdom by virtue of his nationality, as Israel might have done had they been faithful. But in the carnal and apostate condition of the nation, this showed thorough ignorance not only of the things of God, but of the plain teaching of the Scriptures. No one could have any part in the kingdom without the cleansing typified by the water of purification, and the regeneration promised in Ezekiel’s prophecy. The reference in the Nicodemus sermon is to that rite and to that promise, and not, I need scarcely add, to a dogma which the Church in its apostasy based upon a false interpretation of this very passage. And if without this new birth from God, the Jew, even on his high platform of privilege and covenant, could not receive his promised blessings, how doubly true must be the word to us, “Ye must be born again.” fte5 I am speaking here of course, only of the Holy Ghost in connection with the gospel testimony. His sealing and indwelling the believer, and the fruits thereof; His baptism of all believers into the body of Christ, which is the Church of God, and the relationships and duties arising from that unity; and His presence in that Church on earth as Christ’s true and only Vicar — these are truths beyond the limits of my theme. fte6 “In maintaining the duty of praying before believing, you cannot surely be asserting that it is your duty to go to God in unbelief? You cannot mean to say that you ought to go to God believing that He is not willing to bless you, in order that, by so praying, you may persuade Him to make you believe that He is willing. Are you to persist in unbelief till in some miraculous way faith drops into you, and God compels you to believe? “Understanding prayer in the scriptural sense, I would tell every man to pray , just as I would tell every man to believe ; for prayer includes and presupposes faith. ‘Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ But then the apostle adds, ‘How shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed.’” (Dr. H. Bonar’s God ’s Way of Peace .)

The logic of Romans 10:13,14 is absolutely inexorable on this point. fte7 I know no definition of repentance equal to that of the Westminster Divines (Shorter Catechism , Q . 87). But when men begin by confounding conviction with contrition, and go on to insist upon a certain amount of it as a condition precedent to receiving blessing, it is sheer error. Moreover, it is wholly untrue that the convert must be subjectively conscious of the various elements of the change involved in repentance, or even doctrinally acquainted with them. The qualities of the new nature maybe latent for a time; and in the deepest repentance, all thought of self and sin may be lost in the overwhelming appreciation of present grace.

Footnote: ftf1 A cogent proof of both these statements is afforded by the fact, that the title of “elect,” like that of “first-born,” primarily applies to Christ Himself. ( 1 Peter 2:4-6; Luke 23:35.) ftf2 One passage may suffice — “We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth; whereunto He called you by our gospel.” ( Thessalonians 2:13, 14). ftf3 See in passing Psalms 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. ftf4 Not in fact, but in intention; in its scope and purpose it is swth>riov pa~sin ajnqrw>poiv . Titus 2:11. ftf5 True it is that what is clearly contrary to reason must be rejected; but so far from what is here contended for being against reason, it is perfectly consistent with a recognized system of metaphysics, than which, moreover, when separated from the jargon of a certain school, none is more philosophical. This then is the object of my appeal to Kant. I should deprecate the pedantry of introducing a discussion of the critical philosophy in such a connection, and I do not pretend that it affords the true solution of the seeming paradox of election and grace; I notice it merely to show how easily the difficulty may be solved . Surely the Christian may be content to accept the mystery, and to trust God for the solution of it. ftf6 Or if the Lord were pleased unconditionally to claim deliverance. (See Matthew 26:53) ftf7 Among the strange phenomena of practical Christian life, one of the saddest is that so often witnessed of Christian parents attributing to a divine decree the fact of their children growing up unconverted. “Having believing children” was one of the qualifications of a bishop, because it was a pledge and proof of the parents’ faithfulness to God. ( Titus 1:6.) The precept “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord,” implies a promise; and God’s implicit promises are sure and certain. ftf8 “My gospel,” Romans 16:25, and see also 1 Timothy 1:11. ftf9 Acts 13:48. Those who are zealous for the truth of election always lay emphasis upon these words; but they ignore the words which follow: they so spake that a great multitude believed” ( <441401> 14:1). This phrase ou[twv w[ste occurs again only in John 3:16. ftf10 Judicially I mean. Morally , sin must always separate from God.

Footnote: ftg1 As regards the distinctions hereinafter pointed out, the dedication offering of the covenant (Exodus 24.) was in the same category with the passover. ftg2 This point is fully treated of in chap. 9. post . ftg3 The stranger might eat the passover and share in the offerings, if brought within the covenant by circumcision. ( Exodus 12:48; Numbers 9:14, 15:26-29.) ftg4 There is one verse in the New Testament which may seem to be an exception to this ( John 1:29), but I will not stop to discuss it here. I am content to refer to Dean Alford’s exposition of the words: they were meant to indicate the Nazarene as being the Messiah of Isaiah 53. ftg5 The language of ancient Greece is far richer than our own in prepositions, and “instead of ” has its unequivocal correlative; but this word, though freely used by the LXX. (ajnti< : see ex . gr . Genesis 30:2, and 44:33), and found in the New Testament (ex . gr . Matthew 2:22), is never employed in such passages as Romans 5:6,7,8. The statement of Matthew 20:28, repeated in Mark 10:45, will not e considered an exception to this by any one who marks the form and purpose of the text. The word uJter no doubt may have the same force, just as “for ” in English. But in either case such a meaning is exceptional and forced; and in our own language we should in that case pronounce the word with emphasis, and print it in italics. A full and careful consideration of every passage where the word occurs will satisfy the student that it is never so used in the New Testament. The only text in which out translators have thus rendered it ( 2 Corinthians 5:20) is a signal proof of this. An ambassador speaks on behalf of , not in the stead of, the court which accredits him. I need not say that substitution is an extra-scriptural expression. ftg6 But it will be asked, are not the closing verses of 2 Corinthians addressed to the unconverted, and do not they teach substitution? To this question I give an emphatic negative. In common with all the rest of the Epistle, these verses wee written to “the Church of God at Corinth with all the saints in all Achaia.” In the last two verses of chapter 5, and the 1st verse of chapter 6, the apostle states the character and purpose of his ministry. But the “Received Text,” by interpolating “for ” at the beginning of verse 21, and separating it from what follows, destroys the connection of the passage; and the English Version, by introducing pronouns and altering the emphasis of the words, has utterly disguised its purpose. “On Christ’s behalf, then, we are ambassadors: as though God were exhorting by us, we beseech on Christ’s behalf, Be reconciled to God. Him who knew not sin He made to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. And [de< ] as fellow workers (with God) we also exhort that YOU receive not the grace of God to no purpose.” “Our entreaty to the world is, ‘Be reconciled’; to you who have received this grace our exhortation is, ‘Receive it not in vain.’ In our ministry to the world we are ambassadors; in our ministry to you we are His fellow workers.”

The 20th verse is in immediate connection with the 18th and 19th verses, and the last verse is introductory to the opening words of the 6th chapter, all being bracketed together as descriptive of the apostle’s ministry. And the prominent thought in the passage is not the identification of the sinner with it was “in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” It is not that He took this place instead of us (which, indeed, would have no meaning), and that we thereby stood free, but that He became what we were in order that we might become what He is. ftg7 Any who will, dismissing prejudice, compare the language of Scripture with words and phrases popular among us, will be surprised to find how much there is which is unwarranted, even in what God seems to sanction by His blessing. We must not forget, however, that grace marks all His dealings with us, and we ought therefore to be the more careful and earnest to test our words and thoughts about Christ by Holy Writ. To make apparent success the test of what is right is just as immoral in the things of God as in the affairs of men.

If any should oppose what is here urged by argument or inference, it would be an easy task to silence them with their own weapons. The imputation of sin and righteousness as taught in Scripture is reasonable in the highest sense; but the doctrine here objected to might easily be shown to be not only false but absurd. This, however, is not the place to enter on a discussion of such a character. ftg8 Romans 11:33.

The distinctions here noticed between the different aspects of the work of Christ are clearly marked in the ritual of the Great Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16.)

There were two methods by which the Israelite became identified with his sacrifice, viz., either by laying his hand upon the victim’s head before it was killed, as in the case of the ordinary sin-offerings (see pp. 89-90 ante ); or else by having the blood sprinkled upon him after the victim had been offered, as in the case of various special sacrifices. But in the ritual of the Day of Atonement there was no such identification with the goat “upon which the Lord’s lot fell.” The ceremonial was entirely to Godward. The blood was carried, not without, to where the people stood, but within, to the presence of God. And the efficacy of that blood to Godward was morally the foundation of the ceremonial respecting the scapegoat, which followed. Aaron, as the appointed representative of the people, laid his hands upon the head of the victim, and “confessed over it all the iniquities of the Children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat,” which, as the typical sin-bearer, was then led away” to a land not inhabited.” The efficacy to Godward of the atonement made through the blood of the first goat was absolute and complete, apart from aught that followed it; but its practical efficacy to the people depended on their becoming identified with the scapegoat.

And so it is with the antitype. The perfectness of the work of Christ in no way depends upon the benefits which accrue therefrom to the sinner. Whether men receive it or reject it, reconciliation is accomplished, peace is made. But when the sinner believes in Christ, he enters into peace, he “receives the reconciliation” ( Romans 5:1,11). Thus becoming identified with Christ, that identification reaches back to His death for sin on Calvary.

Substitution, then, is merely a theological statement of one aspect of this scriptural truth of the believer’s oneness with Christ, and if it be taught apart from that truth, it may degenerate into error. The gospel, instead of being a divine revelation, may become a mere problem in metaphysics. Instead of the heart being reached by the stupendous fact that “Christ died for the ungodly,” the intellect may seize upon the inference which obviously follows if a forced emphasis be put upon the “for .” (See Note, p. 95 ante .) That the danger is real, witness how many there are in our day who seem to receive the Gospel without any exercise of either heart or conscience.

Footnote: fth1 Romans 5:1. The Epistle of James speaks of justification by works.

Upon this see chapter 12. post. fth2 Romans 1:17, — “The righteousness of God” is ambiguous, for it may mean the divine attribute, as in chapter 3:25. And “righteousness of God,” though literally accurate, is too abrupt for our English idiom. I have ventured therefore to render it “righteousness which is of God,” as idiomatically more correct than the R.V. reading. I suppose it is equivalent to the d. ejk qeou~ , of Philippians 3:9. fth3 Such was precisely the charge brought against the gospel by those who judged it without giving up their standing under “the law and the prophets” (see Romans 3:8); that is under the past dispensation, for such is the meaning of the expression. See e.g. Matthew 6:12, and 22:40. To do as we would be done by, is human righteousness, and therefore the Lord says it is “the law and the prophets.” So again in the 22nd chapter. This was the special character of the dispensation. See also Luke 16:16, which means, not that the Old Testament Scriptures had become obsolete, but that the ministry of John the Baptist inaugurated a change of dispensation. fth4 This is the scope of the passage following, i.e., from verse 19 of chapter 1 to verse 20 of chapter 3. In 1:17 he states the thesis of the doctrinal portion of the Epistle, and returns to it in 3:21. fth5 To say that man is precisely what God made him is sheer blasphemy. “God made man upright.” But, it may be urged, God might have made man incapable of sin. That is, He might have created a being destitute of any independent will. Doubtless; but then such a creature must need to be of a far lower order than Adam and his race. But God might in fact have prevented Adam’s sin. That is, He might have created him capable of an independent will, but practically incapable of exercising it. The fact of man’s apostasy is a terrible but most signal testimony to the greatness and dignity of the place from which he fell, and it ill becomes him to answer back to his Maker, “Why hast Thou made me thus?” Moreover, God has been vindicated in this respect by the life of Christ on earth; for such a one as Adam was has perfectly obeyed Him, even in the midst of suffering and sin. Nor is God’s goodness at fault towards the fallen race. Man has chosen his own will, and turned from God in pursuit of it. Let him now return to God, and he will find not only pardon, but blessings far beyond those of which sin has robbed him. But if he refuses grace, either through persisting in his wicked courses, or through going about trying to justify himself, to “establish his own righteousness” ( Romans 10:3), what can there be for him but wrath? fth6 “When men began to multiply on the face of the earth, God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” ( Genesis 6:1-5). fth7 Sin is precisely the denial of this. Sin and lawlessness (ajnomi>a John 3:4) are convertible times. See p. 143 post . fth8 Romans 3:20, ejx e]rgwn no>mou . On this, see Bloomfield and the authorities cited by him, whom I have followed. Alford’s reason for departing from them (i .e . “that no such general idea of law seems to have ever been before the mind of the apostle”) is not only a flagrant instance of petitio principii , but certainly wrong. See e .g . Romans 7:8. “Without the law, sin is dead,” is a great and important principle.

But the statement that “without the law sin was dead,” is not only incorrect, but opposed to the apostle’s teaching in chapter 2:14, 15. “With the article, no>mov invariably denotes the Mosaic law, except when its meaning is limited by accompanying words. Without the article, in cases where the omission is not required by grammatical rule, the term appears to have a wider significance; sometimes referring to the Mosaic law as the type of law in general, and sometimes to law in the abstract, including every form of divine command or moral obligation.” (S. G. Green’s Handbook to the Grammar of the Greek Testament , § 234.) fth9 Romans 3:21; nuni< de< cwrimou . “But now (i .e . under the present dispensation), a method of justification appointed by God, without reference to (lit., apart from) obedience to law of any kind, is revealed.” —BLOOMFIELD. fth10 Eij gamou d. a]ra Cristoqanen . Galatians 2:21. fth11 Romans 3:25, R.V. Alford remarks, “Observe, pa>resiv is not forgiveness, but overlooking , which is the work of forbearance (see Acts 17:30); whereas forgiveness is the work of grace (see chapter 2:4); nor is tw~n progeg , ‘the sins of each man which precede his conversion,’ but those of the whole world before the death of Christ .

See the very similar words, Hebrews 9:15.” fth12 As regards the typical meaning of “blood” see chapter 15. post . fth13 These are distinguished by divines as negative and positive righteousness. The latter is closely allied to sanctification, but it must by no means be confounded with it, as is commonly done. fth14 The doctrinal importance attached so generally to the expression “robe of righteousness” in the 61st of Isaiah, is one of the many strange phenomena of theology. The expression used in the 59th chapter might naturally have been expected to claim far more notice, on account of its being adopted in the New Testament. ( Ephesians 6:14) fth15 The point of the parable of the Marriage Supper ( Matthew 22) is not that the man was unbidden, nor that he was personally unfit for the scene; but that, relying on his personal qualifications, he dispensed with the wedding garment. He had such an opinion of himself, that he thought he might attend court in his ordinary dress. It is the sinner, because of his personal righteousness, refusing “to submit to the righteousness of God.” fth16 Justification is in no sense a believer’s title to heaven, nor yet his fitness to be there. If British law justify an accused person, he walks forth free; but he does not gain thereby a right to live in Windsor Castle, nor any fitness for such a position. He may already possess the title and the moral qualities befitting it; but these are wholly independent of his acquittal, though upon it might depend his power to profit by them. The same grace which justifies a sinner is itself the source of every blessing the justified enjoys. fth17 Galatians 6:15. That is, it is no longer a question of human perfectness, whether according to the standard of the way of nature, or of the revelation of it made at Sinai; but of passing out from that entire position, and gaining a new standing ground in Christ. fth18 Titus 2:11-13. The Revised Version, from which the above is quoted, seems even more definitely than the Authorized Version to make swth>riov predicate after ejpefa>nh . The teaching of the passage, however, is not that God’s grace in fact brings salvation to all men, but that such is its character and intention. This is clear in the original, but it is not easily conveyed in English. The text might be rendered thus: “The grace of God, salvation-bringing to all men, hath appeared, disciplining us.” Etc. (See p. 80 ante .)

Footnote: fti1 Truth has many sides, but here I am dealing with but one. In one sense redemption is a result of covenant, and here sanctification precedes it; for the meaning of sanctification is a setting apart for God. But in another sense, redemption is the foundation of covenant, and sanctification follows as a consequence. Both these seem to be included in the opening words of 1 Peter: “Elect through sanctification of the Spirit unto sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” fti2 1 Corinthians 1:2. Not “called to be saints,” but constituted saints by the call of God. fti3 Compare Exodus 24:8,9, with Hebrews 1:3. fti4 Here the type fails us. Moses went up to the Mount as mediator of the covenant, and would then have been called to the priesthood, had not the offices become separated owing to his want of faith ( Exodus 4:14). Aaron, therefore, was made priest; but it was then, and not before, that he received the call. His formal consecration was still later.

See Leviticus 8:9 which is connected with Exodus 14, and gives us the fulfillment of that which took place on the Mount. And mark that it was Moses who officiated in regard of these offerings (comp. Exodus 29); and further, that he was associated with Aaron in the act which typified Christ’s coming forth hereafter as Royal Priest to bless His people ( Leviticus 9:23).

It is most important to see that the Lord’s priesthood dates from His enthronement in heaven. See Hebrews 2:17 (where the word is “that He might become ”); 5:5-10, 6:20,7:23, 24, 8:1-4. He could not be a priest while on earth ( Hebrews 8:4). See chapter 16 post . fti5 Hebrews 4:15. Our English Version is ambiguous here, and the words have been very generally perverted to mean that the Lord’s temptations were exactly similar to ours, the result alone being different. Were this so, He must have known the power of sin within — the source of so many of our trials. But the words are cwriav , apart from sin . “So that throughout these temptations, in their origin, in their process, in their result, — sin had nothing in Him:

He was free and separate from it” (Alford). fti6 Hebrews 4:12-16. 1 John teaches a kindred truth. Confession and advocacy are the correlatives of washing and priesthood. The one has to do with the Father’s house, the other with “the house of God,” i .e ., the sanctuary. Christ is “a Son over His own house”; He is a “Priest over the house of God.” We are the household of the Son; we have access to the house of God ( Hebrews 3:6, and 10:21). fti7 See chapter 16, post , and especially the last paragraph. fti8 2 Corinthians 7:1. I have said that Hebrews teaches us partly by contrast and partly by comparison; and in exemplification of that remark I may here give another key to that Epistle, and a clue by which to follow aright the teaching of the types. Everything pertaining to the old covenant, which existed in virtue of some unchanging principle, or of the condition and circumstances of the people, finds its exact correlative in the new covenant. But on the other hand, with respect to all in the old covenant that depended on the powerlessness of the ordinance, the inefficacy of the sacrifice, we learn from the absence of any antitype the perfectness of the new. They had a sanctuary, and so have we. But the veil that divided theirs is rent for us, and the holiest is open. Christ is the fulfillment of the great sacrifices I have enumerated; but if we turn to seek the antitype of their continually repeated sinofferings, we are reminded by their absence of the virtue of the blood shed on Calvary. They had a priest, as we have. But Aaron’s special work arose from the special need which now has been for ever satisfied. The priesthood of the Son therefore is of another order. To make intercession and reconciliation for sins, and to offer gifts and sacrifices, here are the functions which belong essentially to priesthood: it was the peculiarity of the Aaronic priesthood that the sacrifices they offered were for sins . Our great High Priest has no need to sacrifice for sins. He did this once for all ere ever His priesthood was proclaimed. But, like Melchisedec of old, He receives and offers up to God the gifts of the believer’s service and the sacrifice of his praise and worship, feeding him in return with the bread and wine of heaven, and crowning all with the blessing of His God ( Genesis 14:8-20). fti9 “Holy ones” or “saints,” for the words are identical in the Greek, oiJ a[gioi , is in Scripture the ordinary title of the saved. The name of “Christian” was probably coined by the people of Antioch who were noted for that propensity. (See Alford and Bloomfield on Acts 11:26) It is used only in Acts 26:28 (by Agrippa ), and in 1 Peter 4:16. As Christianity was not a lawful religion, a Christian was as chargeable under Roman law, as was a thief or an agitator (allotrioepiskopos .) fti10 It is a different form of word that is here used. (See chapter 14 post .) fti11 An Israelite became defiled either by sin, or by touching what was unclean. Blood was needed to purge him in the one case, but the water availed in the other. But the necessity for blood arose from the inefficacy of. the sacrifice. If the worshipper had been really purged, he would never have needed to come back to blood at all (see Hebrews 10:2); and in that case the “water of separation” might perhaps have taken the place of the sin and trespass offerings in cases within the fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters of Leviticus., It is not that sin. has become less heinous than it was under the law (see chap. 10 post ), but that the blood of Christ has in-fact accomplished purification. fti12 I know of no corresponding word in this connection. Ceremonial holiness would give the direction of the thought, but entirely fail of conveying its force. fti13 I use the popular expression without stopping to consider its accuracy , for it means a right thing. fti14 Ephesians 4:24. The words imply that these are qualities inherent in the new man in virtue of his very creation. It is not aJgiasmo>v , therefore, which is here used, but oJsio>thv . (See chapter 14 post .)

Footnote: ftj1 Romans 5:1, R.V. Alford here remarks: — “It is impossible to resist the strong MS. Authority for the reading e]cwJmen in this verse,” though he struggles hard against it, and pleads that, “every internal consideration tends to impugn it. If admitted, the sentence is oratory .”

I have no doubt that the sentence is oratory, and I gladly accept the corrected reading as being thoroughly in harmony with the doctrine and purpose of the passage. ftj2 Psalm 25:14. And compare Psalm 34:2 with Romans 5:11. “We joy (or boast) in God.” ftj3 Not “the atonement.” The word is katallagh< . It occurs again only in Romans 11:15, and 2 Corinthians 5:18,19. The kindred verb is used only here ( Romans 5:10), and in 1 Corinthians 7,11, and Corinthians 5:18, 19, 21; and ajpokatalla>ttw in Ephesians 2:16, and Colossians 1:20,21. The word in Hebrews 2:17 is different. (See chapter 16 post .) ftj4 Romans 5:10. This means either that when we were, in an active sense, enemies, we received God into our favor; or that when we were enemies in a passive sense, He received us into His favor. Can anyone doubt which is intended? And see especially Romans 11:15,28. ftj5 Romans 5:15,16,18. There are three words here used; ca>risma , dwrea> , and dw>rhma . The first, translated, “free gift,” signifies a benefit, or act of grace, or favor conferred. ftj6 hJ aJmarti>a ejstia . 1 John 3:4. ftj7 Colossians 1:23. ejn pa>sh| kti>sei . Compare Romans 8:19,22. ftj8 Colossians 1:15-20, v . 15, all creation, not every creature; u . 16, ejn aujtw~| , not merely that He was the agent in creation — that is expressed afterwards in dij aujtou~ , but that the universe is His creature. ta< pa>nta , “the universe.” “Thus only can we give the force of the Greek singular with the collective neuter plural” (Alford).

Compare Ephesians 1:21, and 1 Corinthians 15:24,27. Verse 17, ejn aujtw~| , as in v . 16: v . 19, compare chapter 2:9:v . 20, “the universe,” as in v . 16. ftj9 A valued and revered friend, to whose judgment these latter chapters have been submitted, suggests to me that Revelation 21 gives the complete fulfillment of the reconciliation spoken of in Colossians 1.

The thought is full of interest. It is certain that millennial blessedness and glory will be a direct result and proof of the preciousness of the cross of Christ to God; but it is no less certain that an eternity of glory and blessedness, still to follow will depend upon that cross as really and immediately. In our view, creation limits itself to our own race and sphere, but with God the universe is one great whole, of which the Adamic world is but a part. And as sin has disturbed the harmony of creation in this its widest sense, God’s answer and remedy are the cross of Christ and a new creation. It is not merely the kingdoms of this world that are given up to Christ, but the throne of the universe of God. And when “the end” shall come, and God shall again assume the scepter He will hold it in virtue of Calvary. If one could dare to speak thus of God, we might say that His moral right to make all things new depends on that blood. And the word is “I make ALL THINGS new.” The promise is not of a new earth only, but of new heavens too. And why “new heavens,” if sin and the cross concern only earth? “It is finished” was the cry that rose amid the agonies of Calvary: “Behold I make all things new” is the response from the glory. The “It is finished” of the cross, shall still vibrate until it is lost in the “It is done” of the throne. ( Revelation 21:5,6) ftj10 The Christian maintains that the punishment of the lost will be everlasting, not because he wishes it to be so, but because he believes it to be so. The objection that it cannot be everlasting is either a puerility or a denial of the supremacy of God. The objection that the words which express the duration of it do not, in ordinary or classical Greek, mean really “everlasting,” is a mere quibble. What other words in the language would serve to convey the idea at all, assuming it existed? The fact is that no language which is not based upon Christianity could possess such a word, for, apart from Christianity, no one ever conceived such a thought. Plato comes nearer it than any one else among the heathen; but Revelation alone pretends to speak of an eternity beyond “the end” ( 1 Corinthians 15:24). The only clue to the meaning of a word in the dead languages is the use of it; and if “everlasting life” means a life which shall have no limit to its duration, it is wanton to construe “everlasting punishment” on a different principle. I may add that every objection of any weight which has been urged against eternal punishment. applies as really, though not to the same extent, to punishment for a millennium or a century. And if the Christian be wrong, no one will suffer from his error; but if he is right, how terrible must be the discovery for those who trade upon the hope that he is wrong! In my Human Destiny I have dealt with this whole subject, discussing and refuting both the heresy of annihilation and that of universal restoration.

Footnote: ftk1 The fact is that the difference between p. eiv and p. tini , is purely a matter of etymology or of style; and in every case the force of the words depends entirely upon the context. John uses them convertibly.

See, for instance, John 8:30,31, where both are rightly translated “believed on Him,” i .e ., gave in their adhesion to His Messiahship. The 29th and 30th verses of chapter 6 afford another example. And again compare 1 John 3:23 (p. tw~| ojno>mati ) with 5:13 (p. ei Moreover, in John 5:24, Acts 16:34, 18:8, Romans 4:3, and elsewhere, the verb without the preposition denotes “saving faith” beyond all question; and in numerous passages p. eiv is used where as plainly there is no thought of either salvation or trust. I would include John 8:30, already quoted, in this category, as the context plainly demands; but such passages as 7:48, 11:48, are unequivocal instances of it. p. ejpi> does seem to include the idea of confidence or trust, but this is used but seldom, and never by John, though the word believe occurs in his writings well nigh as often as in all the rest of the New Testament. p. ejpi> occurs Luke 24:25; Acts 9:42, 11:17, 16:31, 22:19; Romans 4:5,24, 9:33, 10:11; 1 Peter 2:6.

Footnote: ftl1 See chap. vii. Ante . ftl2 The word dikai>wma occurs also in the 16th verse, where it means “a righteous sentence of acquittal.” In 1:32, the same word stands for “the righteous judgment” of God; and in 2:26, in the plural, for “the righteous requirements” of the law. The only other passage in Romans where it is used is 8:4. “The law of sin and death “ — the active principle of sin within — made it impossible for God’s law to obtain its demand from man. But the death of Christ redeemed them that were under the law; and “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” now frees them practically from “the law of sin and death.” It is an active principle of power within them, resulting in a walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh. And thus the law receives its dikai>wma , whereas it utterly failed of that, so long as the believer was under it.

Everywhere else in the Epistle, the word translated righteousness is dikaiosu>nh . Likai>wsiv occurs in 4:25, and 5:18. The gift was by one dikai>wma unto dikai>wsiv .

Footnote: ftm1 So Alford and other commentators take it. ftm2 Literally “having cleansed it.” But these aorists may be either coincident or consequent one on another. In either case definite acts and not gradual operations are implied. The word “washing” is loutro>n (used again in Titus 3:5), which is not the LXX. word for laver , but is used in Ecclesiasticus 34:25, for the vessel which held the water of purification ( Numbers 19:18; Ezekiel 36:25). The reference, of course, is not to baptism, but to the sin-offering of Numbers 19. ftm3 Both A.V. and R.V. ignore the te kai< of 1 Corinthians 1:30. It ought of course to be rendered “both” (as in v . 24). And equally right of course the last kai> has the force of “even,” for redemption includes both righteousness and sanctification.

Footnote: ftn1 Hebrews 9:14,22,23, where, as in 1 John 1:7, the word is kaqjari>zw . ftn2 “Washing with blood” is an expression wholly unknown to the law, and it conveys an idea which is quite at variance with its teaching. It has no scriptural warrant. For the correct reading of Revelation 1:5, as given in R.V., is “Unto Him that loveth us and loosed us from our sins by His own blood.” Psalm 51:7, must of course be explained by the law; and the student of Scripture will naturally turn to the 19th of Numbers, or to Leviticus 14:6-9, to seek its meaning. A like remark applies to other similar passages in the Old Testament. Overlooking this, Cowper derived his extraordinary idea of a fountain of blood from the 13th of Zechariah, construed in connection with the received reading of Revelation 1:5. The fact is that though cleansing with water was one of the most frequent and characteristic of the typical ordinances, it has been almost entirely forgotten in our creeds. “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for separation for uncleanness.” (Zechariah 13:, see marginal reading, and compare Numbers 19:9.) “In that day” — the epoch referred to in verses 9-14 of the preceding chapter — Israel shall be admitted to the full benefits of the great sinoffering typified in the 19th of Numbers. (See also Romans 11:25-29.)

The washing of garments in blood is likewise wholly unscriptural, save in poetical language — as, e.g., Genesis 49:11. The meaning of Revelation 7:14 is too often frittered away thus as though it were a merely poetical expression. But the figures used are typical, not poetical: “These are they that come out of the great tribulation [compare Matthew 24:21], and they washed their robes [compare Revelation 19:8], and made them white by [ejn ] the blood of the Lamb.” Their lives were purified practically from the defilements that surrounded them, and purged in a still deeper sense by the blood. In Revelation 22:14, also, the true reading is “Blessed are they that wash their robes.”

Footnote: fto1 At Professor Sanday’s Oxford Conference on this subject, the Revelation Mr. Puller of the “Cowley Fathers” was the Only member who seemed to grasp the elementary truth that the work of priesthood began after the sacrifice had been killed, and that the priesthood of Christ dates from His ascension. “On earth He would not be a priest at all” ( Hebrews 8:4, R.V.).

The R.V. of Hebrews 5:1 makes havoc of the truth. It tells us that every high priest is taken from among men, and is appointed to offer sacrifices for sins. The teaching of the verse is correctly given in A.V., that every high priest taken from among men (i .e ., every Aaronic priest) is appointed for that purpose. But our High Priest is the “Son of God” (4:14); and His priesthood is based upon the Sacrifice which has for ever put away sin, so that now “there is no more offering for sin” (10:18). fto2 ijla>skesqai . Every effort has been made to force a meaning on this word, in order to bring in a thought which is wholly opposed to the teaching of the passage. Luke 18:3 is the only other place where it occurs; but it answers in the Septuagint to the Hebrew to cover , remove from sight, and, as used of sin, to forgive. Why then suppose it to have a different meaning here? If what I have said be just, it will be seen how perfectly it expresses the idea intended. It is precisely the truth of 1 John 1:9, but in the Hebrews aspect of it. And note that confession is not to Christ as Priest. Nor does the priest absolve from sin. Here human priest-craft dares to deal with what pertains to God alone. fto3 Chapter 10. ante. The words for reconciliation in the Greek are different. fto4 Compare Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14 with John 1:9. fto5 And if we add the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and the peaceoffering (Leviticus 1,2,3), His work in its highest and Godward aspect, we have the whole in its sevenfold perfectness. fto6 This brings us to the 22 nd verse of Psalm 22, Christ leading the praises of His people ( Leviticus 16:4,23,24).

Footnote: ftp1 Archbishop Trench, Synonyms . ftp2 See Appendix, Note 3. ftp3 Compare Exodus 24:8,15 with Hebrews 1:3, and see note 2, p. 123 ante . ftp4 Hebrews 8:4, R. V. I will not here notice the quibble that on the cross our Lord was lifted up from the earth in order that He might be a priest in his death. (See chapter 16 ante .) ftp5 And this is precisely the thought implied in the dia> of the 12th verse and the ejn of the 25th. There is a great deal of theology in prepositions, and if the doctrine were what these teachers tell us, a. language so rich in prepositions as the Greek would give clear expression to it.